[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Linking total costs and benefits of ownership (TCBO) and process chain simulation for integrated assessment of manufacturing technologies and processes

  • Production Management
  • Published:
Production Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Current methods of technology assessment seldom include the manufacturing processes and organization around the investment target. As most interdependencies cannot be quantified, companies predominantly assess technology investments via methods which exclude monetary evaluation of technological aspects. Moreover, future costs and benefits of the manufacturing technologies are rarely considered systematically when making conventional investment decisions. This procedure does not necessarily lead to an optimal investment choice. In order to invest in low life-cycle costs technologies, the costs within the manufacturing processes and organization around the investment target, as well as all future costs and benefits, have to be carefully considered. The following paper introduces a new approach to analysing Total Costs and Benefits of Ownership (TCBO) using process chain simulation models. A representative manufacturing concept provides a practical insight how to use simulation in order to generate a database for technology assessment. Furthermore, the article discusses how future costs and benefits as well as the Net Present Value method, could be integrated within the TCBO-approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gerybadze A (1996) Technologische Vorhersagen. In: Kern W, Schröder H-H, Weber J (eds) Handwörterbuch der Produktionswirtschaft. Schäffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart

  2. Baldwin J, Scott J (1987) Market structure and technological change. Harwood Academic Publishers, London

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barro RJ, Sala-i-Martin X (1995) Economic growth. MIT Press, New York

  4. Segerstrom PS (1991) Innovation, imitation, and economic growth. J Polit Econ 99(4):807–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ford D, Ryan C (1981) Taking technology to market. Harv Bus Rev 2:117–126

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ansoff HI (1984) Implanting strategic management. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  7. Christensen CM (1999) Innovation and the general manager. Irwin/McGraw Hill, Boston, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cioffi DF (2005) A tool for managing projects: an analytic parameterization of the S-curve. Int J Project Manag 23:215–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Maidique MA, Patch P (1982) Corporate strategy and technological policy. In: Tushman ML, Moore WL (eds) Readings in the management of innovation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp 273–285

    Google Scholar 

  10. Tanaka M (1989) Cost planning and control systems in the design phase of a new product. In: Monden Y, Sakurai M (eds) Japanese management accounting. A world class approach to profit management. Productivity press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp 49–71

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lowe P (1995) The management of technology. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dickinson MW, Thornton AC, Graves S (2001) Technology portfolio management: optimizing interdependent project over multiple time periods. IEEE Trans Eng manag 58(4):518–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Yu OS (2006) Technology portfolio planning and management—practical concept and tools. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Westkämper E (2007) Strategic development of factories under the influence of emergent technologies. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 56(1):419–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Phaal R, Farrukh CJP, Probert DR (2004) Technology roadmapping—A planning framework for evolution and revolution. Technol Forecast Soc Change 71(1–2):5–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Farrukh C, Phaal R, Probert D (2003) Technology roadmapping: linking technology resources into business planning. Int J Technol Manag 26(1):2–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nyhuis P, Wulf S, Klemke T (2010) Integrative factory, technology, and product planning—systemizing the information transfer on the operational level. Prod Eng Res Dev 4:231–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Giebel M, Essmann H, Du Preez N, Jochen R (2009) Improved innovation through the integration of Quality Gates into the Enterprise and Product Lifecycle Roadmaps. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 1(3):100–205

    Google Scholar 

  19. Grienitz V (2004) Technologieszenarien: Eine Methodik zur Erstellung von Technologieszenarien für die strategische Technologieplanung, HNI-Verlagsschriftenreihe 151, Phd thesis, Universität Paderborn

  20. Zinser S (2000) Eine Vorgehensweise zur szenariobasierten Frühnavigation im strategischen Technologiemanagement, IPA-IAO-Forschung und-Praxis 323, Phd thesis, Universität Stuttgart

  21. Schäfer H (2005) Unternehmensinvestition–Grund-züge in Theorie und Management, 2. Auflage. Pysica-Verlag, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  22. Götze U (2006) Investitionsrechnung–Modelle und Analysen zur Beurteilung von Investitions-vorhaben, 5. Auflage. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ashford RW, Dyson RG, Hodges SD (1988) The capital-investment appraisal of new technology: problems, misconceptions and research directions. J Oper Res Soc 39(7):637–642

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dore MHI (1977) Dynamic investment planning. Croom Helm Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  25. Olmsted Teisberg E (1995) Methods of evaluating capital investments decisions under uncertainty. In: Trigeorgis L (ed) Real options in capital investments: models, strategies and applications. Praeger Publishers, Westport, pp 31–47

    Google Scholar 

  26. Levitt T (1965) Exploit the product life cycle. Harv Bus Rev November–December, pp 81–94

  27. Ellram LM (1993) A framework for total cost of ownership. Int J Logist Manag 4:49–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Weyrauch J (2002) Optimierung der Lebenszykluskosten im Anlagenbau, Phd thesis, Universität Magdeburg

  29. Janz D, Sihn W (2005) Product redesign using value-oriented life cycle costing. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 54(1):9–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Niemann J, Westkämper E (2005) Product life cycle management in the digital age. In: Leondes CT (ed) Intelligent knowledge-based systema, vol II. World Scientific Publishing, London, pp 677–707

  31. Denkena B, Henning H, Lorenzen L-E (2010) Genetics and intelligence: new approaches in production engineering. Prod Eng 4(1):65–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. VDI 2884 (2005) Purchase, operating and maintenance of product equipment using Life Cycle Costing (LCC). Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI), Düsseldorf

  33. VDMA-Einheitsblatt 66412-1 (2009) Manufacturing execution systems (MES) Kennzahlen, Beuth

  34. Mishan EJ, Quah E (2007) Cost benefit analysis. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  35. Volpert V (1989) Kapitalwert und Ertragssteuer—Bedeutung der Finanzierungsprämisse in der Investitionsrechnung, Dt. Universitätsverlag, Wiesbaden

  36. DIN EN 60300-3-3 (2005) Dependebility management—part 3.3: application guide—Life cycle costing, Berlin

  37. Däumler K-D (2007) Grundlagen der Investitions-und Wirtschaftlichkeitsrechnung. NWB Verlag, Herne

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research work was supported by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) within the Project "Integrated Assessing of Technologies and Manufacturing Processes” (DE 447/72-1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Production Engineering and Machine Tools, Leibniz Universität Hannover, An der Universität 2, 30823, Garbsen, Germany

    B. Denkena, J. Schürmeyer & M. Eikötter

Authors
  1. B. Denkena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Schürmeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Eikötter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Schürmeyer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Denkena, B., Schürmeyer, J. & Eikötter, M. Linking total costs and benefits of ownership (TCBO) and process chain simulation for integrated assessment of manufacturing technologies and processes. Prod. Eng. Res. Devel. 5, 557–564 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-011-0313-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-011-0313-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation