Int J Flex Manuf Syst (2006) 17:261–276

DOI 10.1007/s10696-006-9028-7

Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing

systems paradigms

Hoda A. ElMaraghy


C Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Abstract Reconfigurable Manufacturing System (RMS) is a new manufacturing sys-

tems paradigm that aims at achieving cost-effective and rapid system changes, as
needed and when needed, by incorporating principles of modularity, integrability,
flexibility, scalability, convertibility, and diagnosability. RMS promises customized
flexibility on demand in a short time, while Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMSs)
provides generalized flexibility designed for the anticipated variations and built-in
a priori. The characteristics of the two paradigms are outlined and compared. The
concept of manufacturing system life cycle is presented. The main types of flexibility
in manufacturing systems are discussed and contrasted with the various reconfigu-
ration aspects including hard (physical) and soft (logical) reconfiguration. The types
of changeability and transformability of manufacturing systems, their components as
well as factories, are presented along with their enablers and compared with flexibility
and reconfigurability. The importance of having harmonized human-machine manu-
facturing systems is highlighted and the role of people in the various manufacturing
paradigms and how this varies in pursuit of productivity are illustrated. Finally, the
industrial and research challenges presented by these manufacturing paradigms are
discussed.

Keywords Changeability · Flexibility · Manufacturing systems · Reconfiguration

1. Introduction

Manufacturing systems have evolved from job shops, which feature general-purpose
machines, low volume, high variety, and significant human involvement, to high vol-
ume, low variety dedicated manufacturing lines driven by the economy of scale. In

H. A. ElMaraghy ()
Intelligent Manufacturing Systems (IMS) Centre, University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]
Springer
262 H. A. ElMaraghy

the eighties the concept of flexible manufacturing was introduced in response to the
need for mass customization and for greater responsiveness to changes in products,
production technology, and markets. Flexible manufacturing systems were also de-
veloped to address mid-volume, mid-variety production needs. Similarities between
parts in design and/or manufacture were used to achieve economy of scope. Flexible
manufacturing systems (FMSs) anticipated these variations and built-in flexibility a
priori; hence they are more robust but have high initial capital investment cost. The
flexibility attributes are sometimes underused. In the nineties, optimality, agility, waste
reduction, quality, and lean manufacturing were identified as key drivers and goals for
ensuring survival in a globally competitive market.
The reconfigurable manufacturing concept has emerged in the last few years in
an attempt to achieve changeable functionality and scalable capacity (Koren et al.,
1999; Fujii et al., 2000). It proposes a manufacturing system where machine compo-
nents, machines, cells, or material handling units can be added, removed, modified,
or interchanged as needed to respond quickly to changing requirements. Such a fully
reconfigurable system does not yet exist today but is the subject of major research
efforts around the world, with special emphasis on the hardware and machine control
aspects. Proponents of this approach believe that it has the potential to offer a cheaper
solution, in the long run, compared to FMSs, as it can increase the life and utility of a
manufacturing system. Hardware reconfiguration also requires major changes in the
software used to control individual machines, complete cells, and systems as well as
to plan and control the individual processes and production. All this adds to the ever-
growing complexity of products, processes, manufacturing systems, and enterprises
(Wiendahl and Scholtissek, 1994).
In this paper, the highlights of recent research into the notion of manufac-
turing system flexibility and its measurement and impact are reviewed. Various
types/classification of flexibilities are presented with a view to clarify their correspon-
dence with some aspects of manufacturing systems reconfiguration. The characteris-
tics and pre-requisites of a reconfigurable manufacturing system are overviewed. The
concept of a manufacturing system life cycle is introduced and linked with aspects of
manufacturing system flexibility and reconfigurability. The views of a panel of experts
from academia and industry on the comparisons between flexible and reconfigurable
manufacturing are presented.

2. Manufacturing systems flexibility

Flexibility attracted much attention from researchers to better understand and clarify
its concept. As a result, many definitions emerged in the literature. Early definitions
related to the flexibility of manufacturing systems are based on the notion of adapt-
ability to uncertainties (Mandelbaum, 1978; Slack, 1987). Flexibility can be viewed
as the capacity of a system to change and assume different positions or states in
response to changing requirements with little penalty in time, effort, cost, or perfor-
mance (Toni and Tonchia, 1998). The use of manufacturing flexibility as a strategic
objective, the relationship of flexibility with uncertainties, the use of taxonomies as a
vehicle for furthering understanding of the types of flexibility, and their measurement
as well as the assessment of the effectiveness of the proposed flexibility and robustness
Springer
Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing systems paradigms 263

measures were studied (Beach et al., 2000; D’Souza and Williams, 2000; Correa, 1994;
Shewchuk and Moodie, 1998; Buzacott and Kahyaoglu, 2000; Browne et al., 1984;
Sethi and Sethi, 1990).

2.1. Manufacturing flexibility classification

Review of the literature identifies at least 10 types of manufacturing systems flexibil-

ities (see Browne et al., 1984; and Sethi and Sethi, 1990). These are:
1. Machine flexibility: Various operations performed without set-up change,
2. Material handling flexibility: Number of used paths / total number of possible
paths between all machines,
3. Operation Flexibility: Number of different processing plans available for part
fabrication,
4. Process Flexibility: Set of part types that can be produced without major set-up
changes, i.e. part-mix flexibility,
5. Product Flexibility: Ease (time and cost) of introducing products into an existing
product mix. It contributes to agility,
6. Routing Flexibility: Number of feasible routes of all part types/Number of part
types,
7. Volume Flexibility: The ability to vary production volume profitably within pro-
duction capacity,
8. Expansion Flexibility: Ease (effort and cost) of augmenting capacity and/or capa-
bility, when needed, through physical changes to the system,
9. Control Program Flexibility: The ability of a system to run virtually uninterrupted
(e.g. during the second and third shifts) due to the availability of intelligent ma-
chines and system control software,
10. Production Flexibility: Number of all part types that can be produced without
adding major capital equipment.
This classification promotes better understanding of various types of flexibility al-
though some of them are inter-related. It should be noted that the expansion flexibility is
consistent with the current understanding of manufacturing systems reconfigurability.

3. Manufacturing systems life cycle

The significant reduction in product development time brought about by the use of
CAD tools was not paralleled in the design and development of manufacturing systems.
These systems must be designed to satisfy certain requirements and constraints that
vary over time. Recent improvements in productivity were attributed more to improve-
ments in the design and operation of manufacturing systems, as well as the design of
products, than to manufacturing processes or technology improvements. Some modern
design theories and methodologies, such as the design axioms (Suh, 1998; Cochran
et al., 2001, 2002) have been applied to the design of manufacturing systems.
In the context of manufacturing systems, one can envisage a life cycle (ElMaraghy,
2000, 2005), as outlined in Fig. 1, which includes the initial system design and syn-
thesis, modeling, analysis and simulation, realization and implementation, operation,
Springer
264 H. A. ElMaraghy

Requirements
Innovation
and DESIGN
and
Constraints
Synthesis

VIRTUAL
DIGITAL MOCK-UP
VIRTUAL Analysis

PHYSICAL PRODUCTION AND

MAINTENANCE

RECONFIGURE
REDESIGN
HARD/SOFT

New
Remove Add Requirements

Fig. 1 Manufacturing systems life cycle (ElMaraghy, 2000)

and re-design/reconfiguration phases. Both soft and hard reconfiguration and flexibil-
ity can extend the utility, usability, and life of manufacturing systems.

4. Manufacturing system reconfiguration

The changing manufacturing environment characterized by aggressive competition

on a global scale and rapid changes in process technology requires careful attention
to prolonging the life of manufacturing systems by making them easily up-gradable
and into which new technologies and new functions can be readily integrated. A re-
configurable manufacturing system (RMS) is a visionary challenge for manufacturing
enterprises and is considered as the next manufacturing paradigm (Agility Forum,
1997 and NRC (U.S.), 1998). They would use modular equipment as building blocks
to realize the required system functionality for the production of a part family. Instead
of providing a general flexibility through the use of equipment with built-in high func-
tionality, as in FMSs, RMSs provide customized flexibility through scalability and
reconfiguration as needed when needed to meet market requirements (Mehrabi et al.,
2000). Table 1 summarizes the three major types of manufacturing systems and their
definitions.
The system configurations of reconfigurable manufacturing systems can be simi-
lar to dedicated or flexible systems, or a combination of both. While RMS may lie
between DMS and FMS in terms of capacity and functionality, this is not its distin-
guishing feature. The key feature of RMS is that, unlike DMSs and FMSs, its capacity
and functionality are not fixed (Mehrabi et al., 2000). Reconfigurable manufacturing
systems aim at: (1) reducing lead time for launching new systems and reconfiguring ex-
isting systems, and (2) rapid manufacturing modification and quick integration of new
technologies and/or new functions into existing systems using basic process modules
(hardware and software) that would be rearranged quickly and reliably. Components
Springer
Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing systems paradigms 265

Table 1 Summary of three types of manufacturing systems

Systems Definitions and objectives

Dedicated A machining system designed for production of a specific part

manufacturing type at high volume.
lines (DMLs) Cost-effectiveness is the driver achieved through pre-planning
and optimization.
Flexible A Flexible Manufacturing System is an integrated system of
manufacturing machine modules and material handling equipment under
systems (FMSs) computer control for the automatic random processing of
palletized parts.
The objective is to cost-effectively manufacture several types of
parts, within pre-defined part families that can change over time,
with minimum changeover cost, on the same system at the
required volume and quality.
Reconfigurable A Reconfigurable Manufacturing System is designed for rapid
manufacturing change in structure in order to quickly adjust production capacity
systems (RMSs) and functionality, within a part family, in response to changes in
market requirements.
The objective is to provide exactly the functionality and capacity
that is needed, when it is needed.

may be machines and conveyors for entire production systems, mechanisms for in-
dividual machines, new sensors, and new controller algorithms. Open-architecture
control (reconfigurable software) and modular machines (reconfigurable hardware)
are key enabling technologies for RMS.
For a manufacturing system to be readily reconfigurable, the system must possess
certain key characteristics (Koren et al., 1999) including: i) Modularity of component
design, ii) Integrability for both ready integration and future introduction of new
technology, iii) Convertibility to allow quick changeover between products and quick
system adaptability for future products, iv) Diagnosability to identify quickly the
sources of quality and reliability problems, v) Customization to match designed system
capability and flexibility to applications, and vi) Scalability to incrementally change
capacity rapidly and economically. The new generation manufacturing systems will
need new and effective tools to adapt to possibly frequent changes, new product
introduction, and short runs without seriously impairing production (Agility Forum
1997 and NRC (U.S.) 1998).
The motivation for introducing reconfigurable manufacturing systems is based on
the belief that some economic benefits can be obtained by increasing reusability and
reducing the excess capacity and/or excess functionality present in other types of
manufacturing systems.

5. Flexibility and reconfigurability

The design, characteristics, and potential merits of RMSs and how they compare with
other manufacturing paradigms have been occupying researchers and practitioners at
this stage of manufacturing systems evolution. A panel of experts from industry and
Springer
266 H. A. ElMaraghy

Fig. 2 Manufacturing Variety

Paradigms—A hypothesis (Hu,
2005) F M S Customization
Mass
RMS
Customization

DMS Mass
Production
Volume

academia was assembled recently to discuss and debate these issues. They were asked
to address the similarities and differences between RMS and FMS, the definitions
of flexibility, reconfigurability, and changeability, and how to characterize a manu-
facturing system’s responsiveness. These opinions are summarized in the following
sections.

5.1. Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing system

An RMS is designed at the outset for a possible rapid change in structure, as well as
in hardware and software components, in order to quickly adjust production capacity
and functionality within a part family. An FMS is a system whose machines are able
to perform operations on a random sequence of parts of different types with little or
no time or other expenditure for changeover. In practice, FMSs consist of processing
stations and material handling systems that are entirely under computer control (CNC,
DNC). In summary, RMS is a manufacturing system with customized flexibility and
FMS is a manufacturing system with general flexibility (Hu, 2005). It was hypothesized
that RMS would be positioned between DMS and FMS as shown in Fig. 2.

5.2. RMS key characteristics

The key characteristics of RMS, including modularity, integrability, flexibility, scal-

ability, convertibility, and diagnosability, were emphasized as prerequisites to enable
reconfigurable manufacturing systems to work as intended and achieve the desired
reduction in time and cost (see Fig. 3). The concept of reconfigurable machine tools
(RMTs), which are designed with customized flexibility that enable combining the
advantages of high productivity of dedicated stations with the flexibility of CNCs was
presented and compared as summarized in Table 2. These are illustrated with an exam-
ple of a proposed design of a reconfigurable machine tool (RMT) with reconfigurable
spindle heads developed at the NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable
Manufacturing Systems at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (Kota and Koren, 1999;
Landers et al., 2001; Koren, 2005).

5.3. Flexibility is the future of reconfigurability

It can be noted that there are sufficient common grounds in philosophy and applica-
tion between the FMS and RMS paradigms to support the notion that they represent
Springer
Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing systems paradigms 267

Table 2 Characteristics of dedicated, flexible and reconfigurable manu-

facturing systems (Koren, 2005)

Dedicated RMS/RMT∗ FMS/CNC

System structure Fixed Adjustable Adjustable

Machine structure Fixed Adjustable Fixed
System focus Part Part Family Machine
Flexibility No Customized General
Scalability No Yes Yes
Simultaneous operating tools Yes Yes No
Cost Low Intermediate High

DML RMS
Mass B+C
Production
Capacity

RMS
A+B
FMS
Mass
RMS Customization
A
Product Product Product Multiple
A A+B B+C Products
Functionality

Fig. 3 Positioning of reconfigurable manufacturing systems regarding capacity and functionality (Koren
et al., 1999)

a continuum and to predict that: “the Future Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

will be More Flexible” (Stecke, 2005). Some manufacturing support functions and
intelligent software will be necessary to achieve effective reconfiguration, such as:
1) Software that can help select the best equipment (machine tools) based on their
capabilities, accuracies, and flexibilities and the best materials, tooling, coolant, fix-
tures/fixturing to be used to machine any particular component, 2) Future CAD/CAM
will recognize geometrical shapes in downloaded customer CAD files and automati-
cally generate CNC part programs that will include appropriate speeds, feed rates, tools
and fixtures selections, and process/operation sequencing, 3) Tooling, fixturing, gaug-
ing equipment, and supplies could be automatically retrieved from inventory stores in
an ASRS and introduced into the process at appropriate times, and 4) The process of
each ID coded part could be automatically tracked through the various manufacturing
stages, allowing manufacturing and cost analysis at every stage of production.
Manufactures should, therefore, stay current to make effective use of the latest
hardware and software manufacturing/reconfigurable tools that address their present
and projected needs and avoid overbuying.
Springer
268 H. A. ElMaraghy

5.4. Reconfiguration with available technology

The machine tool industry, represented by one of its successful players, voiced an
opinion that there is a compelling value proposition for reconfiguration, the only
qualification being cost and availability (Hyatt, 2005). It is clear that reconfigurable
machine tools (RMTs) are an essential enabler of RMSs. However, the current state-
of-the-art is such that broadly reconfigurable machine tools are not yet available as
the required technology is still in various states of development. It was suggested that
there are ways to achieve many of the potential benefits of reconfigurable manufac-
turing systems, and make the users of machine tools and manufacturing systems more
profitable while this new technology is under development. For example, it is possible
to replace non-reconfigurable machine tools (NRMTs) by machines of alternate con-
figurations provided that certain system features are implemented to facilitate their
deployment. Re-deployable NRMTs should be able to be removed and replaced in a
single shift, when major services are performed off-line. It would be easy to implement
such a “plug and play of machines” scenario for a specific machine envelope, where
all machine tools share common footprint and pitch, common foundation specification
(preferably a slab), common material handling interface, and common chip removal
interface. For example, it was suggested that such re-deployable facilities should have
a simple slab floor for all machines, 150 mm to 1500 mm cube machines, round or
prismatic, pump over of chips and coolant, and known pitch of machines (e.g., 1.2
meters for 150 mm cube machines, 1.5 meters for 350 mm cube machines, and 1.7
meters for 600 mm cube machines).
In summary, while RMTs represent an important building block in any RMS and
make it possible to achieve many of its benefits, they require many enabling tech-
nologies to become an affordable reality. In the meantime, using concepts such as
those discussed earlier, NRMTs that utilize existing technology can be intelligently
used to help reap a significant portion of the anticipated benefits of reconfigurable
manufacturing systems.

5.5. Changeability, reconfigurability and flexibility of manufacturing systems

The concept of having a flexible, reconfigurable and changeable factory infrastructure

to support the re-deployment of machines and reconfiguration of systems discussed
above resonated strongly with the notion of changeability, including that manifested
in plant physical structures and buildings. Changeability of manufacturing systems
has been a focus of discussion and analysis within the International Academy for
Production Engineering (CIRP) academic and industrial community for a number of
years (Wiendahl, 2003, 2005). It resulted in a classification of changeability and its
drivers and enablers as well as its relationship with flexibility and reconfiguration, as
shown in Figs. 4 and 5. It is important to assess the degree of changeability of current
and planned factories, given some prevailing major trends in industry including: (i)
the shift from a high number of variants towards mass customization, (ii) the ever
decreasing product life cycles (e.g., 18 months for mobile telephones), (iii) the in-
creased importance of delivery reliability over lead time and utilization, (iv) the widen-
ing gaps between the life cycles of products, technology, and equipment, and (v) the
Springer
Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing systems paradigms 269

Fig. 4 Types of manufacturing systems changeability (Wiendahl, 2003, 2005)

A B C Dimensioning and design

of the various requirements
Universality regarding product or technology,
e.g., variants flexibility

Unrestrained
Mobility mobility of objects,
e.g., machines on rolls

Technical, spatial and

personnel extensibility or
Scalability reduceability,
e.g., flexible labour time

Standardised, functional
Modularity units or elements,
e.g., Plug&produce-modules

Networkability regarding
material, information, media
Compatibility and energy, e.g., standardised
software interfaces

Fig. 5 Enablers of manufacturing systems transformability (Wiendahl, 2005)

change of location of a production system several times within the life cycle of a
product because of globalization.
Therefore, manufacturing systems not only should have the ability to be transformed
fast, due to new technologies and demands, but they are also expected to change their
facilities and even locations. In addition, they are expected to produce instantly high
quality while coping with these changes. Therefore, both the internal and/or external
change drivers play a role in determining the level(s) of the factory (machine, group,
area, structure, or site) to be changed. This change is not only limited to the technical
systems but it is also essential to extend it to the organization and employees to achieve
an adequate level of changeability. Hence, this transformation process becomes an
important business process that must be pre-planned and managed effectively.
Manufacturers would be wise to conduct an internal evaluation of their existing
transformation enablers (i.e., degrees of freedom) to assess the potential for change
Springer
270 H. A. ElMaraghy

within their systems and quantify their existing level/degree of changeability. Market
demands and external factors, on the other hand, determine the necessary change re-
quirements and the target degree of changeability. These internal and external views
should be continuously compared to achieve equilibrium between the market require-
ments and production performance and to devise plans and strategies to achieve the
desired and justifiable degree of changeability.

5.6. Logical/soft vs. physical/hard flexibility and reconfiguration

It is worthwhile to take a close look at the various types of manufacturing system

flexibility, which can be classified and viewed as physical (hard) and logical (soft)
manufacturing system re-configuration methods (ElMaraghy, 2000, 2005), as shown
in Fig. 6. These include flexibility of the machines, operations, processes, product
mixes, material handling, production control, routing, production planning, as well
as volume, capacity, and capability scalability (expansion/reduction). The scalability
flexibility achieved by augmenting capacity and capability through hardware mod-
ification, addition, and/or replacement is the only one to be considered a form of
“physical” or “hard” re-configuration according to the current definition of an RMS.
The rest represent “soft” or “logical” re-configuration capabilities (ElMaraghy 2005)
that can be and are employed with today’s technology, with or without physical re-
configuration, to achieve better flexibility and agility (see Fig. 6). For example, there is
no need to change the system layout configuration physically when flexible routing can
re-configure it logically. There are many scenarios for expanding production capacity
through utilization of over-time and additional shifts, outsourcing and sub-contracting
locally and globally, which offer a high degree of cost effective capacity scalabil-
ity, flexibility and soft reconfiguration that are particularly beneficial if a change in
demand is temporary, sudden, or minor.

MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS
RECONFIGURATION / FLEXIBILITY

PHYSICAL LOGICAL
(Hard) (Soft)

Layout Machines Rerouting Augmentation

(add / remove (Add/Remove) (People, Time,
modules) Subcontracting,…)

Rescheduling

Material Machine
Handling Elements Replanning Reprogramming
Devices (Substitute)

Fig. 6 Manufacturing systems reconfiguration (ElMaraghy, 2000, 2005)

Springer
Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing systems paradigms 271

The phased-in implementation of hardware capabilities and capacity through the

addition of mechanical degrees of freedom (e.g., fourth and fifth axes of motion in ma-
chine tools), machine heads and spindles, tools and tool drums/magazines/carousels,
and load/unload indexing tables are effective ways of effecting incremental change
in the system hardware as needed while still using available NRMTs. Multi-tasking
machine tools (Hedrick et al., 2004) are gaining popularity. They have multi-spindles
and are capable of performing many tasks, normally performed on several different
types of machines (e.g. lathes, mills, grinders). These machines come in minimal or
full-blown configurations, as well as many configurations in between, and may be
expanded incrementally according to needs. Their controllers are designed to operate
in any of these configurations. Woodworking routers are another example of existing
machine tools that are highly reconfigurable. A comparison of FMSs and RMSs at
various levels is shown in Table 3.

6. Discussion

Reconfigurable manufacturing is a new manufacturing systems paradigm that aims at

achieving cost-effective and rapid changes by designing the manufacturing system and
its machines for a part family and with specific features to facilitate reconfiguration.
Part families are also a pre-requisite for successful flexible manufacturing systems,
as they rely on the economy of scope achieved through capitalizing on similarity in
geometry and/or processing, sometimes through the application of group technology.
The enabling technologies for RMSs and some of its main building blocks such as
RMTs are under development. Dialogue regarding the standards required for modu-
larity, interchangeability, and easy integration should take place between technology
developers and suppliers of peripheral equipment. NRMTs should be studied in par-
allel to exploit their potential and immediate benefits through careful planning and
rationalization and to complement the Reconfigurable Machine Tools (RMTs) when
they become available and affordable. Other available incremental hardware augmen-
tation solutions and soft/logical reconfiguration options should also be exploited in
the meantime.
It has become essential to achieve changeable functionality and scalable capac-
ity over the life cycle of a manufacturing system. Physical or hard re-configuration
achieved through plug-in modules of machines and associated control systems, and
adding or removing entire machines or cells can be costly and is still under develop-
ment. Logical or soft re-configuration includes many aspects of flexibility that can be
achieved through good system design and software solutions. This approach is by na-
ture less costly and should always be exploited before resorting to other more complex
solutions. In all cases, a trade-off cost/benefit analysis should always be conducted to
select the most appropriate approach for the anticipated life cycle of a manufacturing
system.
The jury is still out regarding the cost argument and whether either RMSs or FMSs
are more cost effective over time, while considering the total life cycle of the whole
system. There is something to be said for not having to make the whole capital in-
vestment at the outset and phasing-in the equipment cost as needed (Amico et al.,
Springer
272 H. A. ElMaraghy

Table 3 Classification and comparison of FMSs and RMSs (ElMaraghy, 2005)

Flexible manufacturing systems (FMSs) Reconfigurable manufacturing systems (RMSs)

Scope
Functionality and capacity are Functionality and capacity are variable and
pre-designed. Flexibility and robustness configured as needed, when needed.
are inherent and built-in a priori.
Pre-Requisite
Part Families rely on similarity Part Family. The range of products may be
in geometry and processing. wider or narrower compared to FMSs.
Systems Features
Pre-planned alternate routing between Variable routing between stages
stations/machines (logical/soft (soft/logical reconfiguration) planned
reconfiguration). as needed.
Limited expandability of system hardware Capacity expansion/modules of identical
(physical/hard reconfiguration). machines (physical/hard reconfiguration)
Variable functionality built-in within Function expansion (physical/hard
the designed scope. reconfiguration).
Limited infrastructure Changeable infrastructure (physical/hard
expansion/reduction. reconfiguration)
Process plans alternatives pre-determined Process plans alternatives
(logical/soft reconfiguration). re-configurable/changeable as needed.
(logical/soft reconfiguration).
Machines Features
Versatile (CNC), variable number of Modularity, quick-change features and
axes, heads, tools and tooling. standard interfaces.
Multi-head, multi-spindle, Dedicated but changeable functions
multi-tasking machines. (axes, tools, etc.)
Controls Features
Pre-set and pre-optimized controls. Changeable, re-configurable controls and
open architecture.
Intelligence
Sensors feedback, adaptive control, Sensors feedback, adaptive control,
intelligent features, some intelligent features, future
unmanned operations. self-reconfiguration potential.
Life
Limited by parts family scope and demand. Expandable by reconfiguration and re-use.
Cost
System capital cost incurred at the outset. Incremental system capital cost as needed.
Minor increments and associated cost Additional repeated reconfiguration and
are added as needed. ramp-up costs over the whole life cycle.

2003). However, there are many cost contributors associated with reconfiguration in
addition to the hardware modules and their interfaces. The cost of planning and con-
trol software to support reconfiguration is a major item that has to be factored in as
well as the cost of ramp-up required every time a system, or its components are re-
configured. Some intangible costs related to the effect of reconfiguration on system
performance (e.g. Koren et al., 1998; Kim, 1999), product quality and learning curves
for the human operators in the system (e.g., Nada and ElMaraghy, 2006) as well as
the potential increased complexity of the system operation and control also cannot be
ignored (ElMaraghy et al., 2005).
Springer
Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing systems paradigms 273

Fig. 7 Role of humans and automation in the evolution of manufacturing systems (ElMaraghy, 2000, 2005)

People play an important role in the operation and success of manufacturing sys-
tems and hence the competitiveness of the industrial enterprise. Manufactures, in their
pursuit of productivity and profitability over the last decades, have recently come to
realize that ensuring a meaningful involvement of people in the decision-making and
operation of manufacturing systems is critical to their success and competitiveness.
Human operators are probably the most flexible component of a manufacturing system
(ElMaraghy, 2005). This presents new challenges in the design, operation, and control
of manufacturing systems that go beyond simply good ergonomics, safety, and usabil-
ity issues (Yamada et al., 2000; Yamada, 2000). They include: 1) harnessing human
flexibility and creativity, 2) modeling humans and their interactions with machines and
systems accurately, 3) optimum design of harmonized human/machine/manufacturing
systems, which allow effective and profitable co-existence and cooperation, and 4) de-
veloping methodologies for handling quality issues in hybrid human/machine systems.
The resurgence of harmonized human/machine manufacturing systems should be con-
sidered as an added element of system flexibility (as shown in Fig. 7), which illustrates
how the machine/human relationship in manufacturing systems has swung in pursuit
of productivity.

7. Challenges

The concept of reconfiguration has sparked interest in the academic and industrial
communities. It has encouraged active research into supportive areas that are proving
very beneficial to existing manufacturing systems, e.g., in the areas of process and
production planning, fixturing, modular interfaces, and the like.
Technology is available today to achieve a useful and affordable, albeit lim-
ited, physical and logical reconfiguration within manufacturing systems until new
technologies are developed and proven. However, many open questions remain and
Springer
274 H. A. ElMaraghy

several fundamental and practical challenges represent fertile areas of research (see for
example: Youssef and ElMaraghy, 2006; Son, 2000; Deif and ElMaraghy, 2006; Spicer
et al., 2002; Youssef and ElMaraghy, 2006a; Shabaka and ElMaraghy, 2005; Kuz-
gunkaya and ElMaraghy, 2006; Nada and ElMaraghy, 2006). These challenges in-
clude, but are not limited to: 1) measures for changeability, flexibility, adaptability,
responsiveness, reconfigurability and their relationships, 2) the hardware and soft-
ware enabling technologies, 3) reconfigurable logical support systems, such as lo-
gistics, production planning and control, process planning, tooling, and fixtures, 4)
balance of hard and soft capacity and functionality scalability options, 5) design of
machines, systems, and controls for flexibility, changeability, and reconfiguration and
integration with current systems and software, 6) models to determine adequate levels
of changeability, flexibility, and reconfigurability required for different applications,
7) appropriate capacity scalability (both expansion and reduction) policies, 8) life-
cycle economic justification models for these paradigms, 9) appropriate frequency of
change or reconfiguration, 10) rules for reconfiguration and changeability, 11) smooth
and optimal systems transition and changeover, 12) changeability and reconfiguration
dependent quality factors, including human-related issues, 13) complexity measure-
ment, reduction, and management techniques, 14) the use of group technology to
capitalize on commonality and standardization of parts, operation sequences, product
structure, platforms, engineering, and purchasing, and 15) defining a “total productiv-
ity” measure, which considers all elements and all trade-offs.
It is believed that as the old Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMSs) and new
Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems (RMSs) paradigms evolve, the boundaries
between them are likely to be blurred and the complimentary and continuity features
will become more evident. The question remains: is RMS a mature FMS or is FMS
the future of RMS.

Acknowledgements Sincere thanks are extended to the invited members of the “Paradigms of Manufac-
turing” Plenary Panel Session that took place during the 3rd Conference on Reconfigurable Manufacturing
held at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA 10–11 May 2005. Their considered views,
reported in section 5, have enriched the discussion of this important topic. They include: Professor S. Jack Hu
(Panel Moderator), Mechanical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, USA, Professor Yoram Koren, ERC/RMS Director, NSF Engineering Research Center (ERC)
for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems (RMS), College of Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Professor Kathryn Stecke, School of Business, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas,
USA, Mr. Gregory A. Hyatt, Vice-President, Engineering, Mori-Seiki Machine Tool Co., Japan, Professor
Hans-Peter Wiendahl, Institute for Manufacturing and Logistics (IFA) University of Hannover, Germany,
and Professor Hoda ElMaraghy, Canada Research Chair in Manufacturing Systems, Director, Intelligent
Manufacturing Systems (IMS) Centre, University of Windsor, Canada.
The financial support by the Canada Research Chairs (CRC) Program and the Natural Sciences and Engi-
neering Research Council of Canada is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Amico M, Asl F, Pasek Z, Perrone G (2003) Real options: an application to rms investment evaluation,
CIRP 2nd Conference on Reconfigurable Manufacturing, Ann Arbor MI, USA
Beach R, Muhlemann AP, Price DHR, Paterson A, Sharp JA (2000) A review of manufacturing flexibility.
Eur J Oper Res 122:41–57
Springer
Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing systems paradigms 275

Browne J, Dubois D, Rathmill K, Sethi SP, Stecke KE (1984) Classification of flexible manufacturing
systems. FMS Mag 2:114–117
Buzacott JA , Kahyaoglu Y (2000) Flexibility and robustness in manufacturing systems. Int J Manuf Technol
Manage 2:546–558
Cochran DS, Arinez FJ, Duda JW, Linck J (2001, 2002) A decomposition approach for manufacturing
system design. J Manuf Syst 20(6):371–389
Correa HL (1994) Linking flexibility, uncertainty and variability in manufacturing systems: Managing
un-planned change in the automotive industry, Avebury, Aldershot, Brookfield, USA
D’Souza DE, Williams FP (2000) Toward a taxonomy of manufacturing flexibility dimension. J Oper Res
Manage 18:577–593
Deif AM, ElMaraghy WH (2006) Investigating optimal capacity scalability scheduling in reconfigurable
manufacturing systems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol Paper Number 3320, (in press).
ElMaraghy HA (May 2005) Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing systems. Paradigms of
manufacturing—a panel discussion, 3rd Conference on Reconfigurable Manufacturing, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, USA.
ElMaraghy HA (2000) Flexible Manufacturing systems 91–512 class notes, industrial and manufacturing
systems engineering department, University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
ElMaraghy HA, Kuzgunkaya O, Urbanic J (2005) Manufacturing system configurations complexity. 55th
CIRP Ann 54(1):445–450
Fujii S, Morita H, Kakino Y, Ihara Y, Takata Y, Murakami D, Miki T, Tatsuta Y (2000) Highly productive
and reconfigurable manufacturing system. Proc Pacific Conf Manuf 2:970–980
Hedrick B, Urbanic RJ, ElMaraghy HA (May 2004) Multi-tasking machine tools and their impact on process
planning. CIRP 2004 International Design Conference, Cairo, Egypt
Hu SJ (May 2005) Paradigms of manufacturing—a panel discussion, 3rd Conference on Reconfigurable
Manufacturing, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Hyatt GA (May 2005) FMS vs. RMS. Paradigms of manufacturing–a panel discussion, 3rd Conference on
Reconfigurable Manufacturing, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Kim Y-S (1999) A system complexity approach for the integration of product development and production
system design, M.Sc. at MIT, USA
Koren Y (May 2005) What are the differences between FMS & RMS. Paradigms of manufacturing—a
panel discussion, 3r d Conference on Reconfigurable Manufacturing, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Koren Y, Heisel U, Jovane F, Moriwaki T, Pritschow G, Ulsoy G, Van Brussel H (1999) Reconfigurable
manufacturing systems. CIRP Ann 48(2):527–540
Koren Y, Hu J, (1998) Weber timpact of manufacturing system configuration on performance. CIRP Ann
1:689–698
Kota S, Koren Y (August 31, 1999) Reconfigurable machine tool. US Patent 5943750, issued
Kuzgunkaya O, ElMaraghy HA (July 2005) Entropy based metric for assessing complexity of manufacturing
systems configurations. Int J Flexible Manuf Syst Paper Number: FLEX214–05 (submitted.)
Landers R, Min BK, Koren Y (2001) Reconfigurable machine tools. CIRP Ann 49(1):269–274
Mandelbaum M (1978) Flexibility in decision making: an exploration and unification. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept.
of Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Canada
Mehrabi MG, Ulsoy AG, Koren Y (2000) Reconfigurable manufacturing systems: key to future manufac-
turing. J Intell Manuf 11:403–419
Nada O, ElMaraghy HA, ElMaraghy WH (16–19 July 2006) A quality based assessment of manufacturing
ystem design alternatives. 16th CIRP International Design Seminar, Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada,
Paper No. 10097
Next generation manufacturing–a framework for action. Agility Forum Report, NGM Project Office, Beth-
lehem, PA, 1997
(1998) Visionary manufacturing—challenges for 2020. NRC (U.S.) Report, National Academy Press
Sethi AK, Sethi SP (1990) Flexibility in manufacturing, a survey. Int J Flexible Manuf Syst 2:289–328
Shabaka A, ElMaraghy H (2005) Matching products processing requirements and machine structure ca-
pabilities in RMS. First International Conference on Changeable, Agile, Reconfigurable and Vir-
tual Production (CARV 2005), 22–23 September 2005, Technical University of Munich, Garching,
Germany
Shewchuk JP, Moodie CL (1998) Definition and classification of manufacturing flexibility types and mea-
sures. Int J Flexible Manuf Syst 10:325–349
Slack N (1987) The flexibility of manufacturing system. Int J Oper Prod Manage 7(4):35–457

Springer
276 H. A. ElMaraghy

Son SY (2000) Design principles and methodologies for reconfigurable machining systems. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Spicer JP (2002) A design methodology for scalable machining systems. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor
Stecke KE (2005) Flexibility is the future of reconfigurability. Paradigms of Manufacturing—A Panel
Discussion, 3rd Conference on Reconfigurable Manufacturing, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Suh NP (1998) Axiomatic design theory for systems. Res Eng Des 10:189–209
Toni DE, Tonchia S (1998) Manufacturing flexibility: a literature review. Int J Prod Res 36(6):587–1617
Wiendahl HP (May 2005) Some remarks on changeability, reconfigurability and flexibility of manufactur-
ing systems. Paradigms of Manufacturing—A Panel Discussion, 3rd Conference on Reconfigurable
Manufacturing, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Wiendahl H-P, Heger CL (August, 2003) Justifying changeability: a methodical approach to achieving cost
effectiveness. In: Proceedings of the CIRP 2nd International Conference on Reconfigurable Manufac-
turing, Michigan
Wiendahl HP, Scholtissek P (1994) Management and control of complexity in manufacturing. Ann CIRP
43(2):533–540
Yamada R (2000) An overview of IMS-HUTOP Project. Proc Pac Conf on Manuf 2:997–1003
Yamada S, Vink P (2000) Organizational aspects of human-machine coexisting systems. Proc Pac Conf
Manuf 2:981–988
Youssef AMA, ElMaraghy HA (2006) Assessment of manufacturing systems reconfiguration smoothness.
Int J Ad Manuf Technol (IJAMT), Paper No. 3641, (in press)
Youssef AMA, ElMaraghy HA (2006a) Modelling and optimization of multiple-aspect RMS configurations
using gas. Special Issue of International Journal of Production Research on Advances In Evolutionary
Computation for Design and Manufacturing Problem, Paper No. IJPR-EC-33 (in press)

Springer