4.6 Article

An Algorithm for Arranging Operators to Balance Assembly Lines and Reduce Operator Training Time

Journal

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
Volume 11, Issue 18, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app11188544

Keywords

assembly line balancing; group technology; cluster algorithm; bottleneck station; output rate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study uses an algorithm to balance assembly lines by matching operators to workstations to achieve targeted output rates. By determining the number of operators needed at each workstation and matching their training and skills to workstation requirements, training time is reduced. Additionally, the proposed algorithm can solve the problems of balancing assembly lines and worker absences.
Industry 4.0 is transforming how costs, including labor costs, are managed in manufacturing and remanufacturing systems. Managers must balance assembly lines and reduce the training time of workstation operators to achieve sustainable operations. This study's originality lies in its use of an algorithm to balance an assembly line by matching operators to workstations so that the line's workstations achieve the same targeted output rates. First, the maximum output rate of the assembly line is found, and then the number of operators needed at each workstation is determined. Training time is reduced by matching operators' training and skills to workstations' skill requirements. The study obtains a robust, cluster algorithm based on the concept of group technology, then forms operator skill cells and determines operator families. Four numerical examples are presented to demonstrate the algorithm's implementation. The proposed algorithm can solve the problem of arranging operators to balance assembly lines. Managers can also solve the problem of worker absences by assigning more than one operator with the required skillset to each workstation and rearranging them as needed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available