IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i16p12251-d1214772.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Analysis for Mapping Product-Oriented and Process-Oriented Zero-Defect Manufacturing (ZDM) in the Industry 4.0 Era

Author

Listed:
  • Foivos Psarommatis

    (Department of Informatics, SIRIUS, University of Oslo, Gaustadalléen 23B, N-0373 Oslo, Norway 2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL 32224-7634, USA)

  • Gökan May

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL 32224-7634, USA)

Abstract

Quality is a key aspect in the era of Industry 4.0. Zero-defect manufacturing (ZDM) as the latest quality assurance approach. It can be implemented in two different approaches: the product-oriented and the process-oriented ZDM. It is important to know how and when to consider adopting one approach over the other. To achieve that there is the need for analyzing the differences of the two ZDM approaches. However, the current literature lacks a detailed analysis and comparison of these two approaches to ZDM implementation. Earlier studies on the topic have adopted one of these approaches over the other without evaluating how it fits with specific cases. The literature of the last decade indicates a movement towards product-oriented approaches, but it has not shown proof why product oriented was used over process oriented. Guided by these gaps, this research work creates a model for quantifying the effects of the implementation of both the product-oriented and process-oriented ZDM approaches. The proposed model considers all the critical parameters that affect the problem and serves as an assisting tool to engineers during the design or re-configure manufacturing systems, for choosing the most efficient ZDM approach for their specific cases. The robustness of the model was analyzed using the design of experiments method. The results from both the designed experiments and an industrial use case illustrate that in most cases, product-oriented ZDM performs better than the process-oriented approach. Nevertheless, in our analysis, we also highlight strong interactions between some factors that make the selection between product-oriented and process-oriented ZDM difficult and complex.

Suggested Citation

  • Foivos Psarommatis & Gökan May, 2023. "A Systematic Analysis for Mapping Product-Oriented and Process-Oriented Zero-Defect Manufacturing (ZDM) in the Industry 4.0 Era," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-20, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:16:p:12251-:d:1214772
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/16/12251/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/16/12251/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Levitin, Gregory & Finkelstein, Maxim & Huang, Hong-Zhong, 2019. "Scheduling of imperfect inspections for reliability critical systems with shock-driven defects and delayed failures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 89-98.
    2. Cai Wen Zhang & Rong Pan & Thong Ngee Goh, 2021. "Reliability assessment of high-Quality new products with data scarcity," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(14), pages 4175-4187, July.
    3. Wen-Hsien Tsai & Tsen-Shu Tsaur & Yu-Wei Chou & Jau-Yang Liu & Jui-Ling Hsu & Chu-Lun Hsieh, 2015. "Integrating the activity-based costing system and life-cycle assessment into green decision-making," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(2), pages 451-465, January.
    4. Wouters, Marc & Stecher, Julia, 2017. "Development of real-time product cost measurement: A case study in a medium-sized manufacturing company," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(PA), pages 235-244.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Duran, Orlando & Afonso, Paulo Sérgio Lima Pereira, 2020. "An activity based costing decision model for life cycle economic assessment in spare parts logistic management," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    2. Akcay, Alp, 2022. "An alert-assisted inspection policy for a production process with imperfect condition signals," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(2), pages 510-525.
    3. Wen-Hsien Tsai & Shi-Yin Jhong, 2018. "Carbon Emissions Cost Analysis with Activity-Based Costing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-26, August.
    4. Wen-Hsien Tsai & Po-Yuan Chu & Hsiu-Li Lee, 2019. "Green Activity-Based Costing Production Planning and Scenario Analysis for the Aluminum-Alloy Wheel Industry under Industry 4.0," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, February.
    5. Grégory Wegmann, 2017. "A typology of cost accounting practices based on activity - based costing - a strategic cost management approach and a case study," Post-Print hal-01858953, HAL.
    6. Hadid, Wael & Hamdan, Mohammed, 2022. "Firm size and cost system sophistication: The role of firm age," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(2).
    7. Maria-Victòria Sánchez-Rebull & Angels Niñerola & Ana-Beatriz Hernández-Lara, 2023. "After 30 Years, What Has Happened to Activity-Based Costing? A Systematic Literature Review," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(2), pages 21582440231, June.
    8. Alberti, A.R. & Neto, W.A. Ferreira & Cavalcante, C.A.V. & Santos, A.C.J., 2022. "Modelling a flexible two-phase inspection-maintenance policy for safety-critical systems considering revised and non-revised inspections," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    9. Chadjiconstantinidis, Stathis & Eryilmaz, Serkan, 2023. "Reliability of a mixed δ-shock model with a random change point in shock magnitude distribution and an optimal replacement policy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    10. Huang, Cheng-Hao & Lin, Yi-Kuei, 2024. "Rescue and safety system development and performance evaluation by network reliability," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    11. Yue, Xiongping & Mu, Dong & Wang, Chao & Ren, Huanyu & Peng, Rui & Du, Jianbang, 2024. "Critical risks in global supply networks: A static structure and dynamic propagation perspective," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
    12. Cheng, Guoqing & Shen, Jiayi & Wang, Fang & Li, Ling & Yang, Nan, 2024. "Optimal mission abort policy for a multi-component system with failure interaction," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
    13. Cheng, Guoqing & Li, Ling & Shangguan, Chunxia & Yang, Nan & Jiang, Bo & Tao, Ningrong, 2023. "Optimal joint inspection and mission abort policy for a partially observable system," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    14. Wen-Hsien Tsai & Shu-Hui Lan & Cheng-Tsu Huang, 2019. "Activity-Based Standard Costing Product-Mix Decision in the Future Digital Era: Green Recycling Steel-Scrap Material for Steel Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-30, February.
    15. Cristiano Fragassa, 2024. "Analysis of Production and Failure Data in Automotive: From Raw Data to Predictive Modeling and Spare Parts," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-19, February.
    16. Mojtaba M. Shourkaei & Kelsey M. Taylor & Bruno Dyck, 2024. "Examining sustainable supply chain management via a social‐symbolic work lens: Lessons from Patagonia," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 1477-1496, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:16:p:12251-:d:1214772. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.