Classifications enhance knowledge and understanding by enabling the ordering, description prediction of different operations management practices.

1. MANUFACTURING CLASSIFICATION 37
Manufacturing classification:
Lessons from organizational systematics and biological
taxonomy
Ian McCarthy
Classifications enhance knowledge and understanding and will enable predictions to be made about
manufacturing system behaviour
Introduction The purpose of a manufacturing classification
It is the belief of some scientists and statisticians that the In an amusing classification of classifications, Good[2]
desire to classify objects and entities has resulted in a provided a list which suggested five purposes for
vast waste of valuable scientific time. The need to performing classification.
produce a scheme which will pigeon-hole an individual (1) for mental clarification and communication;
entity is natural to the human brain. Goodall[1], a noted
biologist, concluded that, “a preference for classification (2) for discovering new fields of research;
is developed in childhood and persists as a habitual form (3) for planning an organizational structure or
of thought in adulthood”. The problem is not the desire to machine;
classify, but the resultant multitude of schemes which (4) as a checklist;
are based on a detailed understanding of the phenomena
but an extremely limited understanding of taxonomy. (5) for fun.
Most authors of manufacturing classifications
The ability to develop a well-defined theoretical or emphasize (1) and (2), but in the context of
empirical classification is a basic step in conducting any manufacturing change and improvement, point (3) is the
form of scientific or systematic inquiry into the most valid. Generally, any change initiative will include
phenomena under investigation. In this article the two stages, the ability to comprehend the situation in
phenomena under examination are discrete hand (problem definition) and with this knowledge,
manufacturing systems and the purpose of the produce or identify an appropriate solution. These stages
investigation is to identify attributes which will not only can be performed using modelling and design
enable grouping, but will also help determine and predict methodologies.
the laws and relationships which govern the operational
behaviour of a manufacturing system. If a classification is linked to this change process, it is
postulated that groups of manufacturing systems can be
The structure of this article is as follows: formed based on similar technological and behavioural
q outline the need and usefulness of a attributes, and that there will exist an “ideal model” or
manufacturing classification; solution for the group. This group reference model will
then help reduce the time and costs associated with
q derive taxonomic theories and rules from developing solutions for individual companies within
biological taxonomy and organizational that group.
systematics;
q review existing manufacturing classifications to A second objective for producing a manufacturing
identify essential attributes; classification is based on the process of comparative
q list preliminary guidelines for the classification of study which enables the storage and retrieval of
manufacturing systems. information to facilitate the application of
generalizations point (4). This process enhances the
investigators’ knowledge and understanding of
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 6 No. 6, 1995, pp. 37-48 manufacturing systems and will enable predictions
© MCB University Press Limited, 0957-6061 about system behaviour.

2. 38 INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS 6,6
Classification science identified from the taxonomic process[4,5]). Therefore,
This section provides an insight into the theories and within a manufacturing context the taxonomy stage
methods of taxonomy and classification. This is defines the manufacturing system to be classified,
regarded as a necessity, as it would be improper to identifies those attributes on which the classification will
develop a classification for manufacturing systems be performed and selects an appropriate classification
without understanding and applying the science of technique, such as multivariate cluster analysis[6].
classification.
The classification stage is concerned with identifying a
sample of manufacturing companies, collecting attribute
data by means of interviews and visits, and forming and
Vocabulary
validating groups of companies using a technique such
Systematics is the label given to the “science of
as cluster analysis. The relationship between
diversity”[3]. Its application concerns the study of
classification, taxonomy and systematics is shown in
systems and the principles of classification and
Figure 1. A classification scheme contains only one
nomenclature. Systematics encompasses taxonomy and
category of taxa, whereas a classification system contains
classification (Figure 1), and is the logical starting point
two or more categories of taxa[7].
for understanding manufacturing systems for the
purpose of classification and modelling.
Taxa (taxon is the singular) exist in all classifications
and can be any group of entities which are sufficiently
Taxonomy is the theory and practice of delimiting and similar to each other, while being sufficiently different
classifying different kinds of entities[4,5]). The process from entities in other sets. For example, organizations
identifies differences and attributes on which to base a are considered complex entities with schools,
classification. Taxonomic differences within manufacturing companies and hospitals all being taxa
manufacturing systems include: operational (sets of similar entities).
characteristics, levels of technology and flow structures.
Thus, taxonomy is a process which determines the Theoretical taxonomy is one type of methodology used
classification scheme and the techniques used to for developing the classification. The theoretical type is
construct it. based on knowledge of the entity characteristics and this
is used to develop the classification. A shortcoming of
Classification is the development of a system or scheme this type as described by Carper and Snizek[8], is that the
in order for investigators to arrange entities into taxa, application data used in theoretically constructed
based on the differences and attributes which were taxonomies have been collected primarily in support of
the developed taxonomy. This means that when applying
the classification, the investigators may inadvertently
Figure 1. The concept of classification seek and collect data which support their taxonomy.
Systematics
Empirical taxonomy is the second type of methodology
Manufacturing differences based on systems theory which collects data on the entities (empirical evidence) on
Methodical approach
which to develop the taxonomy. Hence, the data
employed are used to actually construct the empirical
Taxonomy
taxonomy, instead of supporting the classification as is
Theoretical/empirical approach the case with theoretical taxonomy[8].
Numerical/non-numerical
Identify the manufacturing system boundaries
Identify the attributes of the manufacturing system
Biological taxonomy
The greatest application of taxonomy has been within
Classification the field of biological sciences (medicine, pharmacology,
Develop the system or scheme animal and plant sciences, zoology, etc.) to establish
based on taxonomic proposals names for organisms and a methodology for classifying
Collect data on manufacturing attributes them. Therefore, it would seem logical to review the
Apply classification and develop groups theory of classification within this discipline to establish
of manufacturing systems
lessons which could be useful for the development of
Taxa
manufacturing systems.
Groups of manufacturing systems
Relevant nomenclature Mayr[9] reviewed the techniques used by zoologists and
in summary, four theories of classification were
described:

3. MANUFACTURING CLASSIFICATION 39
(1) essentialism; reviewed were developed on the principles of cladistics,
(2) nominalism; but some do have an evolutionary nature, such as the
development of mass production from craft production.
(3) numerical taxonomy;
(4) cladistics
Organizational systematics
Business, management and organizational scientists
Essentialism have also been keen developers of classifications.
Biologists believe that organisms have a hidden reality Developments include a business strategy classification
which can be defined, and that this reality dictates the system[7], a voluntary association classification[14], a
organism’s observed properties. This hidden reality is canning firm and farmers union classification[15] and
considered so influential that it determines how a general organizational classifications[16-18]. Practitioners
product/object can be classified. Identifying this of organizational systematics were the first to realize the
essential attribute and basing a taxonomy on it is known potential benefits that biological taxonomy could offer in
as “essentialism”. The benefit of essentialism is that it terms of achieving a framework for classification
simplifies the taxonomic task because only a few development which would result in the identification of
attributes are considered. The main disadvantage is that scientifically useful groupings.
the entity or object must be a totally analysable entity in
which that essential attribute can be defined. As most Carper and Snizek[8] produced a critical review of past
objects are not totally analysable entities, biologists theoretical and empirical efforts with the aim of
discarded the theory of essentialism. However, the establishing a comprehensive framework. Chrisman et
importance of identifying and selecting essential al.[7] examined business strategy classification and with
attributes was recognized, as this increases the validity reference to biological taxonomy, listed objectives for
of a classification. classification and necessary attributes for a clas-
sification system and its taxa. McKelvey[19] argued the
importance of biological taxonomy and developed
Nominalism guidelines for conducting multivariate classificatory
This theory suggests that all entities, including studies.
manufacturing systems, are different in some way and
that only individual entities exist. Thus, it is impossible
to classify anything truly and that belief and desire to Considerations for a manufacturing
classify is an artefact of the human mind. With biologists
developing classifications for birds, trees, plants, etc. classification
they obviously felt that natural groups could be derived The following guidelines and principles are derived from
and thus ignored this theory. the fields of biological taxonomy and organizational
systematics. They have been translated into a
manufacturing context with reference to attributes
Numerical taxonomy which are associated with manufacturing systems.
In the 1960s, the need for a more objective and scientific
taxonomy led to the development of numerical taxonomy.
Developed by Sokal and Sneath[10], it is primarily an Essential attributes of the taxa (manufacturing system)
empirical method based on collecting data on the This section lists five attributes which govern the
phenomena under study and then applying mathematical appropriateness of the groups formed by classifications:
procedures such as cluster and discriminant analysis to (1) Mutually exclusive. This means that it must not be
form groupings. possible for any individual manufacturing system
to be assigned membership to more than one
taxon at any categorical level.
Cladistics (2) Internally homogenous. Manufacturing systems
This is defined by Fitch[11] as the process of defining within a taxon must be more similar to each other
evolutionary relationships between taxa using evidence than they are to members of other taxa if
from extant taxa. Originally formalized by Hennig[12], generalizations are to be valid.
this a natural development of Darwin’s[13] theory of
natural selection, which stated that the natural (3) Collectively exhaustive. At each categorical level of a
groupings of biological organisms were due to descent classification system, every known manufacturing
with modification from common ancestors. At present system must belong to an existing taxon.
this is the dominant taxonomic method. It should be (4) Stability. The taxa of a classification should not be
noted that none of the manufacturing classifications affected by empirical tests which use new or

4. 40 INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS 6,6
alternative attributes. Reassignment of the period. It should be capable of enabling systematic
manufacturing company should not be possible examination of both past and future manufacturing
unless attributes change within the company (i.e. systems.
a change in technology or a change from, make to
order, too, make to stock)
(5) Relevant naming. Mayr[5] suggested that the key Review of existing classifications
attributes in which the classification is based To help establish taxonomic guidelines and essential
should be using for naming taxa. Bock[20] stated attributes for a manufacturing classification,
that if the names are also based on common investigations have been made into system classification
academic and business language this would aid and manufacturing classification. This provides a
effective communication. thorough understanding of the phenomena and will
enable lessons to be learnt for application into a system
theory based classification.
Essential attributes of a manufacturing classification
This section governs the components, construction and
application of a classification. Classification of systems
There exist two base classifications of systems (Table I).
Key attributes Boulding[24] uses the criteria of complexity as the
In line with the theory of essentialism an effective principal parameter, while Lievegoed[25] uses the
manufacturing classification must be based on the key concepts of static, dynamism, openness and closedness.
characteristics. Existing schemes have used technology, As the levels progress from 1 to 9, there is an increase in
material flow, operational control, operational objectives, systems complexity. In terms of manufacturing systems
etc. there are comparisons between the Boulding and
Lievegoed classification criteria and the elements and
General classification attributes which constitute a manufacturing system. The
For the purpose of manufacturing systems design, a first three levels are made up of physical and mechanical
general classification is more important for systems and have direct relevance to manufacturing
understanding and predicting the laws, functions and systems types. The next three levels all deal with
behaviour which govern that system. Special purpose biological systems and the remaining three levels are of
classifications are limited in their application for broad human, social and transcendental importance.
functional studies.
Parsimonious classification
A parsimonious classification is one where the most
likely evolutionary explanation is the one requiring the
least number of evolutionary steps. Researchers will The “clockworks system” is
examine manufacturing systems and differentiate them
from dissimilar manufacturing systems with the fewest
associated with manufacturing
number of taxa. A parsimonious classification must not
infringe other attributes such as internal
system flows
homogeneity[21].
Hierarchical classification Comparing the Boulding classification to Lievegoed’s
This is the arrangement of manufacturing systems into with reference to a manufacturing system there are clear
an ascending series of taxa. Hierarchical classifications parallels. Boulding’s framework system can be
begin at the bottom with individuals and end up at the considered to be similar to the static element of
top with an all-embracing taxon. The different levels are Lievegoed’s typology and in terms of a manufacturing
known as taxonomic ranks and all taxa existing in a rank system relates to the static assemblage of elements such
are said to belong to the same taxonomic category[22]. A as machines. The “clockworks system” refers to the
hierarchical structure facilitates information retrieval, simple dynamics and motions of a dynamic system and
makes the classification easy to use and most is associated with manufacturing system flows such as
importantly is an aid the comparative research between material and information. The “cybernetic system”
manufacturing systems[23]. relates to the control and maintenance of a system which
interacts with the environment beyond its boundaries.
Timeless classification This is Lievegoed’s “dynamic open system” and is
Cladistics is based on evolution and therefore the associated with the decision control which exists in a
classification should not be specific to a certain time manufacturing system.

5. MANUFACTURING CLASSIFICATION 41
Table I. Boulding’s and Lievegoed’s classification of systems
System type
Level and level Description
Boulding
1 Frameworks Static
2 Clockworks The application of predetermined motions
3 Cybernetic system Self-regulating to maintain equilibrium
4 Open system Self-maintaining structure at cell level
5 Genetic societal system Self-maintaining structure at plant level
6 Animal system Mobility, teleological behaviour and self-awareness
7 Human system Self-awareness and the ability to utilize language and symbolism
8 Social system Consideration and content of messages, nature and dimensions of
value system, transcription of images into historical records,
symbolization of human motion
9 Transcendatal system Ultimate, absolute and inescapable unkowables exhibiting
systematic structure and relationship
Lievegoed
1 Static closed systems The relationship between selected factors does not change the
system. Factors outside the boundary have no influence on factors
within the boundary
2 Dynamic closed systems The time factor is included in this type of system and factors
within the system change a certain way
3 Static open systems These systems have an input and an output. The input enters the
system, reacts with the system and changes, and then exits the
system. The system does not change
4 Dynamic open systems The same as the previous system but the system undergoes change
while converting the input to the output. Every system that
includes is by definition a dynamic open system
5 Dynamic open systems in Same as the previous system but the environment is changing and
changing environments so is the input
(4) a detailed sub-classification of one of the above
Classification of manufacturing systems (batch, flowline);
Attempts to classify manufacturing systems have been (5) a combination of one of the above.
developed by production engineers and manufacturing These classification headings are supported by
systems engineers. A review has been performed on Constable and New[32] who stated that all
those classifications which are regarded as having manufacturing systems can be defined by three
substance and the taxa labels are used regularly in
characteristics: product structure, organizational
engineering and common language (i.e. mass
structure; (flowline, cells, functional layout, etc.); and the
production). The review (Table II) analysed the attributes
on which the taxonomy was developed. This comparison nature of customer orders (make to stock and make to
(not classification) grouped the existing methods under order).
five general headings, as shown below:
(1) operational characteristics (job, batch, mass, Operational characteristics
project, intermittent, continuous, etc.);
The basis to classify by similar operating characteristics
(2) operational objectives (make to stock, make to refers to the movement, logistics and control of the
order, etc.); physical resources required for production. This has
(3) operational flow structures (flowlines, group been comprehensively covered by Wild[26], who
technology, VAT analysis, etc.); classified industry in two broad categories; continuous

6. 42 INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS 6,6
Table II. A summary of existing manufacturing system classifications
Protagonist Taxonomic attributes Taxa Generic attributes
Wild[26] Quantity and variety of product, degree 4 Operational characteristics
of repetitiveness
Johnson and Montgomery[27] Relationship between resources and product flow 2 Operational characteristics
De Toni and Pannizzolo[28] Relationship between how the product is obtained 6 Operational characteristics
and how the production volume is obtained
Schmitt et al.[29] Operational characteristics Operational characteristics
Ingham[30]1 Observed sales and product range 8 Operational objectives
Wild[31] Operational objectives 4 Operational objectives
Constable and New[32] Nature of customer orders Operational objectives
Wild[33] Flowlines for mass production 6 Operational flow structures
Burbidge[34] Group technology 4 Operational flow structures
Burbidge[35] Material conversion 4 Operational flow structures
Frizelle[36] Material conversion 6 Operational flow structures
Aneke and Carrie[37] Flowline classification based on products, 10 Operational flow structures
sequences and flow
Barber and Hollier[38] Production control complexity 6 Detailed operational
characteristics
Woodward[39] Product complexity, operational objectives, 11 Combination
operational characteristics
Burbidge[35] Material conversion and flow, and operational Combination
characteristics
process and the manufacture of discrete parts. The based on operational characteristics, and stated that they
manufacture of discrete parts was further subdivided are not absolute because they are broad, have hybrids
into three broad and overlapping categories, job and exist on a linear continuum.
production, batch production, mass production Another
traditional method for classifying manufacturing A combination system was suggested based on a
systems based on operational characteristics is combination of operational characteristics, rather than a
suggested by Johnson and Montgomery[27] who combination of taxonomies. It is described as a general
specified three types, project, intermittent processes and production control system (PCS) which covers the
continuous processes. systems described and the hybrids between the systems.
The PCS is based on three categories; task divisibility,
The main revelation with this classification was the taxa production rate uniformity, and routing restrictions.
“project” which indicates a production effort where the These categories are represented on a three-dimensional
product remains stationary throughout the production continuum, called a PCS cube.
process and workers, equipment and material arrive at
the site to perform assembly. Civil construction work and
shipbuilding are the examples of project manufacturing. Operational objectives
De Toni and Panizzolo[28] performed a classification of Manufacturing companies and the production
productive categories in order to overcome the management system contained within them are created
ambiguities concerning manufacturing classification. for a purpose, with that purpose in mind, the system will
Six classifications were distinguished (individual, function and perform in a certain way. This is the basis
unique, intermittent, discontinuous, repetitive and for the next group of classification techniques, which
continuous), along with the respective categories of attempt to define the affect the market variable has on
productive plants (yards, laboratories, job shops and the operation of the manufacturing system and then
cells, etc.). Schmitt et al.[29] reviewed the classifications categorize each system accordingly.

7. MANUFACTURING CLASSIFICATION 43
Ingham[30] classified companies by their observed sales q sequence of operations divisible into: operations
and the product range on offer. Four types of of the same sequence, operations with variations
manufacturing company are suggested along with their in the sequence;
sub-categories. Wild[31] defined four basic types of q whether changeover is required from product to
manufacturing company according to the objective of product or operation to operation;
their operating structure:
q whether products are produced in batches or not;
(1) from stock, to stock, to customer;
q type of flow pattern.
(2) from source, to stock, to customer;
Burbidge[34] classified flowlines into three taxa, based on
(3) from stock, direct to customer; the principles of group technology and plant layout:
(4) from source, direct to customer. functional layout; group layout; and, line layout.
The third criteria of the Constable and New[32]
classification technique (nature of customer orders) Detailed classification of batch systems
supports this operational objective group. The technique Barber and Hollier[38] developed a method of classifying
defines two main categories “make to customer order” manufacturing systems according to their production
and “make for stock”. The first category is further sub- control complexity. This scheme resulted in six batch
divided into jobbing production, contract work, batch manufacturing types and is based on a list of criteria
production and call-off schedules. which covers various aspects of production control
complexity. The criteria list relates closely to the criteria
suggested by Constable and New[32]:
Operational flow structures q market/customer environment;
All manufacturing systems have an operational
q product complexity;
structure which links the elements of the system
(products, resources and materials) and dictates the q nature and complexity of manufacturing
characteristics of the material flow in terms of its operations;
conversion. This attribute differs from the heading q supplier environment;
operational characteristics, in that it considers only the
q company structure and manufacturing policies.
static/framework element of the manufacturing system
(i.e. the layout). This group falls into three broad
headings of classification:
Combination schemes
(1) flowlines; As part of a project to assess the impact of technology
(2) group technology; upon the organization, Woodward[39] produced a
(3) material conversion classification and VAT comprehensive classification based on a broad
analysis. combination of manufacturing attributes as shown
below.
Aneke and Carrie[37], and Burbidge[34] have produced a
comprehensive review of headings (1) and (2), while q product complexity;
Frizelle[35] adequately covers heading (3). q production system (a combination of operational
objectives and operational characteristics);
q production classification engineering (operational
Detailed classification
The fourth heading of classification exists due to the characteristics).
desire to produce a detailed and thorough classification This resulted in a classification where eleven production
technique and represents the greatest level of objectivity. systems were identified.
The following techniques have specialized in certain
areas or characteristics of a specific classification A further development of Burbidge’s[35], material
heading. conversion classification has led to a combination
technique, which includes flow type and organization
Detailed flowline classification type. The resulting classification is based on the
Aneke and Carrie[37] produced a comprehensive flowline following criteria:
classification, more exhaustive than both the mass (1) Material conversion classification:
production and group technology and flowline
q process;
classifications. The classification produced ten flowline
types and is based on the following criteria: q implosive;
q number of products; q square;
q number of operations required per product; q explosive.

8. 44 INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS 6,6
(2) Material flow types: as Barber and Hollier[38] and Aneke and Carrie[37],
q jobbing; primarily because of the narrower scope and the desire to
achieve a classification for one particular type of
q batch;
manufacturing taxon. The stability of the taxa produced
q one of a kind; by Johnson and Montgomery[27] is poor with the
q continuous; manufacturing types encroaching on Wild’s[26]. This
q general (where two or more flow types exist).
also occurs with the De Toni and Panizzolo’s[28]
classification which provides additional and overlapping
(3) Type of organization: alternatives. Reassignment of manufacturing types also
q process organization (process layout, not takes place among the classifications based on
process industry); operational objectives[30-32]. This is expected, due to the
q product organization (product layout): lack of a systematic and taxonomic approach and the
continuous line flow (i.e. process industries); large level of subjectivity concerned in analysing taxa.
q group technology.
Also the levels of complexity play a part, with
operational objectives and operational characteristics
having open and dynamic complexity. Classifications
based on layouts and structures (static complexity)
Comments on existing schemes
appear to satisfy the stability criteria of manufacturing
All of the manufacturing classifications discussed taxa.
present a detailed understanding of the entity, but no
classification makes reference to, or applies the science of
Finally, the naming of the manufacturing types is weak
classification. A limited exception is where Barber and
Hollier[38] and Aneke and Carrie[37] utilize numerical with no formal nomenclature or guidelines. Names are
clustering tools. Therefore, in terms of producing a created, based on the author’s perception of the entity
scientific classification, which will provide optimal and the attributes used to formulate the taxa. The
benefits in terms of explaining and understanding the manufacturing names tend to describe the attribute,
behaviour of manufacturing systems, these rather than demonstrate its evolution. For instance the
classifications have various levels of deficiency. Another taxon “mass” is a more appropriate name, than
drawback of the majority is the lack of objectivity. Some “Fordism”. Fordism reflects the inventor’s name, but
references are made to the desire to further provides no information concerning the practices and
understanding, but for what purpose or in what context, behaviour of this taxon.
there is no reference. An assessment of the
manufacturing classifications, against the taxa and Comments regarding the classification, rather than the
classification guidelines listed earlier is given. taxa produced, also have various levels of satisfaction.
Many different attributes are used, with some
When assessing the classifications against the classifications using only three attributes (production
guidelines listed for manufacturing taxa various levels of volume, degree of repetitiveness and variety of products
satisfaction are achieved. Most of the taxa produced are Wild[26] compared with the ten attributes used by
mutually exclusive and internally homogenous, due to
Barber and Hollier[38]. This suggests that attributes are
the thorough understanding of the entity by the authors.
chosen based on the author’s perception of the hidden
realities that govern manufacturing systems. “Essential”
attributes must be used rather than prima facie
behavioural attributes, which are not exhaustive or
Most of the taxa comprehensive. Frizzelle’s[36] descriptions of system
complexity are regarded as essential attributes. This is
produced are mutually confirmed by Hitomi[40] who provides four essential
attributes:
exclusive (1) Abstract. This is the collection and assemblage of
manufacturing resources.
This results in a clear focus on the attributes that are
(2) Structural. This is system relationship and related
responsible for distinguishing the manufacturing
systems. For example, make to stock and make to order to the interdependencies of the manufacturing
type companies, are definitely discerned from flow types resources. A collection of resources with no
or operational types. Taxa overlap occurs with the more relationships is a group rather then a system.
general classification such as Wild’s[26] job, batch and (3) Transformational. This relates to the objectivity
mass types. The ability for the taxa to be mutually of the manufacturing system in terms of
exhaustive is achieved in the more detailed schemes such converting inputs into outputs.

9. MANUFACTURING CLASSIFICATION 45
(4) Procedural. This is the operational and dynamic The resulting 14 classistic guidelines are:
aspect of manufacturing systems. The steps and (1) Focus on attributes central to manufacturing
controls required to achieve the transformational system complexity.
aspect.
(2) Manufacturing systems having the greatest
The number of classifications represented as a hierarchy overall similarity among their complexities will
are limited. A variety of representations are used from be grouped together.
the PCS cube produced by Schmitt et al.[29], to the (3) Arrange the higher categories so that the family
relationship tables produced by De Toni and tree of manufacturing systems reflects their
Panizzolo[28] and Ingham[30], through to simple lists by evolution from past to present.
Barber and Hollier[38] and Constable and New[32]. A
(4) Avoid too small or too large an aggregation of
true hierarchy representation is produced by Wild[26]
groupings at the higher levels, unless the
and his classification of mass production systems.
evidence clearly indicates an extreme.
(5) Grouping within a category level (e.g. family,
order, etc.) of the classification should be roughly
equivalent in overall similarity.
Guidelines for the classification of
manufacturing systems (6) Formal recognition of a group of manufacturing
systems should be accompanied by the
Essential attribute selection
description of its internal (operations) and
The attributes used in previous classifications are external (market) environments.
varied, broad, sometimes personal to the author and have
a large degree of overlap. If a manufacturing system is (7) For each recognized branching of a new
treated as an open and dynamic operational system all of manufacturing system away from an old one,
the attributes used have direct relevance to difference identify at least one dominant environmental
types of system complexity. Therefore, in terms of force that, when adapted to, would result in the
selecting essential attributes which satisfy taxonomic attributes of the new form.
guidelines, the following variants of complexity are (8) Begin with the lineage’s which are most apparent
recommended. and satisfy the objectives of the classification.
(9) Arrange the dendrogram (family tree) so that
Product complex ity. An indicator of the degree of similar manufacturing systems are adjacent to
manufacturing difficulty associated with the product each other.
(number of parts, number of connections, product variety (10) Give each manufacturing category a label,
and volumes, etc.). A primary influence on structural and leaving room for future elaboration.
dynamic complexity.
(11) Recognize that some forms of manufacturing
Open complexity. The complexity of the environment that systems have evolved faster than others. Thus,
the manufacturing system must interact with more levels will be needed to in these lines to
(customers, suppliers, legislation, etc.). Also, a primary account for the increased levels of specialization
and diversity.
influence on structural and dynamic complexity.
(12) Use an italicized, hyphenated binominal name,
Structural complexity. An internal complexity relating to with the genus name coming first and capitalized
the static/structural aspect of the manufacturing system. and the species name second.
It is associated with hierarchy, size, flow structures, etc. (13) All genus species labels will be in the singular
Dynamic complexity. Related to structural complexity, and all higher category labels will be italicized,
but deals with the activity and time aspects (operational) capitalized and given in the plural.
of the manufacturing system. Describes the interaction (14) Label a higher manufacturing class after a
between resources (material, machines, labour). dominant attribute differentiating that class from
others at the same category rank.
Classification development In accordance with taxonomic hierarchy a preliminary
The wide application of cladistics has resulted in the dendrogram (Figure 2) has been produced to represent
development of rules and principles. These rules concern manufacturing category levels. The dendrogram does
the operational principles of cladistics such as branching not suggest a correct or valid classification, but simply
and labelling. The rules are listed by Ross[41], and have provides an illustration of how biological taxonomy can
been translated into a manufacturing system context, be applied to manufacturing systems. The sub-tribe,
using system complexity as the core attribute. genus and species level are a development of Wild’s[26]

10. 46 INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS 6,6
Figure 2. Preliminary manufacturing dendrogram
Kingdom
Organization
Industrial Class
organization
Manufacturing Order
organization
Process Discrete Project
production production production Family
Mass production Batch production Job production Tribe
Quantity Genus
production Flow production
Large labour force Mechanization Flow process Discrete
flow line Species
Transfer line Assembly line Sub-species
classification. Each level is labelled and the terms used would be: Fabricator plurimi Ford. The citation includes
are those usually employed in zoology. The dendrogram “Ford” who is the “authority”, i.e. the first person to
provides a visual interpretation of the evolution of validly publish the name. Previous citations for this type
manufacturing systems with the vertical distance of manufacturing company were termed “Fordist
between levels representing time and the horizontal companies” and “Fordism production”. Ford first
distance between taxa representing the degree of proposed this term in his 1926 article for the
difference. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Ford[42].
The citation given to a taxa must act as a means of
reference and act as a vehicle for communication, it
should also indicate the rank of a taxon item (12) in the Summary
list of cladistic guidelines. The codes of nomenclature Previous research into developing manufacturing
used by biologists, botanists and zoologists, require that classifications has been based on a comprehensive
all scientific names be written in the Latin form. understanding of manufacturing companies, but with no
Nomenclature codes provide one form of regulation for reference to or application of the science of biological
names of taxa above the rank of genus and another form taxonomy. This would be appear to be a major
of regulation for names of taxa below the rank of genus. shortcoming, which reduces the usefulness, stability and
accuracy of the classifications. Lessons have been drawn
A preliminary example of a possible manufacturing from biological taxonomy in an attempt to stimulate
classification conforming to the codes of nomenclature further investigations into this established problem

11. MANUFACTURING CLASSIFICATION 47
based on the disciplines and rules regularly used by 10. Sokal, R. and Sneath, P., Numerical Taxonomy, the
biological scientists. Principles and Practices of Numerical Classification,
Freeman, San Francisco, CA, 1973.
Classifications are based on knowledge, and as 11. Fitch, W.M., Cladistic and Other Methods: Problems,
knowledge increases so will the validity of the Pitfalls and Potentials. Cladistics: Perspectives on the
classification. As an investigator’s knowledge evolves, so Reconstruction of Evolutionar y History, Columbia
will the entities under study. In fact, a common statement University Press, New York, NY, 1984, pp. 221-52.
within manufacturing is “the only constant is change”, 12. Hennig, W., “Grundzuge einer Theorie der
derived from the need for continuous improvement. This phylogenetischen Systematik”, Deutscher Zentraverlag,
leads to an inherent conflict between the need for a Berlin, 1950.
classification which has stability and accuracy, versus 13. Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, Murray, London, 1859.
the inevitable evolution and change that manufacturing
systems are subjected to. Nevertheless, classification is 14. Gordon, C.W and Babchuk, N., “A typology of voluntary
the only generally accepted system available for forming organizations”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 24,
1959, pp. 22-3.
groups.
15. Emery, F.E. and Trist, E.L., “The casual texture of
Finally, the ability to undertake such research could organizational environments”, Human Relations, Vol. 18,
result in a classification which is relatively accurate, 1965, pp. 21-32.
stable, timeless and general. This scheme would greatly 16. Thompson, J.D., Organizations in Action, McGraw-Hill,
enhance an investigator’s understanding of New York, NY, 1967.
manufacturing systems and would increase the value 17. Perrow, C., Organizational Analysis: A Sociological
and accuracy of any predictions. An example of the Review, Brooks-Cole, Belmont, CA, 1970.
benefits that an appropriate classification could offer is 18. Van Ripper, P.P,. “Organizations: basic issues and
that, if accurate groups of manufacturing systems were proposed typology”, in Bowers, R.V. (Ed.), Studies on
formed, an “ideal” model or solution for the group could Behaviour in Organizations, University of Georgia Press,
be developed. This reference model would reduce the Athens, GA, 1966.
time and costs needed to produce individual models or
19. McKelvey, B., “Organizational systematics: taxonomic
solutions for manufacturing systems within that group.
lessons from biology”, Management Science, Vol. 24
No. 13, September 1978.
References 20. Bock, W., “Philosophical foundations of classical
evolutionary classification”, Systematic Zoology, Vol. 22,
1. Goodall, D.W,. “Vegetational classification and 1973, pp. 375-92.
Vegetational continua”, Angew. Pflanz (Wien) Festsch.
21. Quicke, D.J.L., Principles and Techniques of
Aich, Vol. 1, 1954, pp. 168-82.
Contemporary Taxonomy, Chapman & Hall, London,
2. Good, I.J., “Categorisation of classification”, 1993.
Mathematics and Computer Science in Medicine and
22. Jeffrey, C., Biological Nomenclature, 3rd ed., Systematics’
Biology, HMSO, London, 1965, pp. 115-28
Association, Chapman & Hall, London, 1977
3. Simpson, G.G., Principles of Animal Taxonomy,
23. Ashlock, P., “An evolutionary’s systematists’ view of
Columbia University Press, New York, NY, 1961, p. 7.
classification”, Systematic Zoology, Vol. 28, 1979,
4. Mayr, E., The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity pp. 441-50.
Evolution and Inheritance, Harvard University Press,
24. Boulding, K.E., “General system thinking: the skeleton of
Cambridge, MA, 1982.
science”, Management Science, 1956, pp. 197-208.
5. McKelvey, B., Organizational Systematics: Taxonomy
25. Lievegoed, B.C., Managing the Developing Organization,
Evolution, Classification, University of California Press,
Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1991, Ch. 2.
Berkeley, CA, 1982.
26. Wild, R., The Techniques of Production Management,
6. Everitt, B., Cluster Analysis, Gower, Aldershot, 1986.
Holt, Reinhart and Winston, London, 1971.
7. Chrisman, J., Hofer, C. and Boulton, W., “Toward a 27. Johnson, L.A. and Montgomery, D.C., Operation
system for classifying business strategies”, Academy of Research in Production Planning, Schedul ing and
Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, 1988, pp. 413-28. Inventory Control, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY,
8. Carper, W.B. and Snizek, W.E., “The nature and types of 1974.
organizational taxonomies: an overview”, Academy of 28. De Toni, A. and Panizzolo, R., “Repetitive and
Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 1, 1980, pp. 66-75. intermittent manufacturing: comparison of
9. Mayr, E., Principles of Systematic Zoology, McGraw-Hill, characteristics”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems,
New York, NY, 1969. Vol. 3 No 4, 1992, pp. 23-37.

12. 48 INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS 6,6
29. Schmitt, T.G., Klastorin, T. and Shtub, A., “Production 36. Frizelle, G.D.M., “OPT in perspective”, Advanced
classification system: concepts, models and strategies”, Manufacturing Engineering, Vol. 1, January 1989.
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 23
37. Aneke, N.A.G. and Carrie, A.S., “A comprehensive
No. 3, 1985, pp. 563-78.
flowline classification scheme”, International Journal of
30. Ingham H, Balancing Sales and Production: Models of Production Research, Vol. 22 No 2, 1984, pp. 282-97.
Typical Business Policies, Management Publications,
1971, Chs 1-2. 38. Barber, K.D. and Hollier, R.H., “The use of numerical
analysis to classify companies according to production
31. Wild, R., Production and Operations Management, control complexity”, International Journal of Production
Cassel, London, 1989, Ch. 1.
Research, Vol. 24 No 1, 1986, pp. 203-22.
32. Constable, C.J. and New, C.C., Operations Management:
39. Woodward, J., Industrial Organization, Theory and
A Systems Approach through Text and Cases, John
Practice, Oxford University Press, 1980, pp. 22-49.
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1976.
33. Wild, R., Mass Production Management, the Design and 40. Hitomi, K., Manufacturing Systems Engineering (a
Operation of Production Flowline Systems, John Wiley & Unified Approach to Manufacturing Technology and
Sons, New York, NY, 1972. Production Management), Taylor & Francis, Chichester,
1979.
34. Burbidge, J.L., “Final report”, International Seminar on
Group Technology, Turin International Centre, Turin, 41. Ross, H., Biological Systematics, Addison-Wesley,
1970. Reading, MA, 1974.
35. Burbidge, J.L., The Principles Of Production Control, 4th 42. Ford, H., “Mass production”, Encyclopaedia Britannica,
Ed, MacDonald & Evans, Plymouth, 1962. 13th ed., suppl., Vol. 2, 1926, pp. 821-3.
Ian McCarthy is a member of the Manufacturing Systems and Management Unit (MSMU) at the University of Sheffield.