Natural Computing

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 417–430 | Cite as

Degeneracy and networked buffering: principles for supporting emergent evolvability in agile manufacturing systems



This article introduces new principles for improving upon the design and implementation of agile manufacturing and assembly systems. It focuses particularly on challenges that arise when dealing with novel conditions and the associated requirements of system evolvability, e.g. seamless reconfigurability to cope with changing production orders, robustness to failures and disturbances, and modifiable user-centric interfaces. Because novelty in manufacturing or the marketplace is only predictable to a limited degree, the flexible mechanisms that will permit a system to adequately respond to novelty cannot be entirely pre-specified. As a solution to this challenge, we propose how evolvability can become a pervasive property of the assembly system that, while constrained by the system’s historical development and domain-specific requirements, can emerge and re-emerge without foresight or planning. We first describe an important mechanism by which biological systems can cope with uncertainty through properties described as degeneracy and networked buffering. We discuss what degeneracy means, how it supports a system facing unexpected challenges, and we review evidence from simulations using evolutionary algorithms that support some of our conjectures in models with similarities to several assembly system contexts. Finally, we discuss potential design strategies for encouraging emergent changeability in assembly systems. We also discuss practical challenges to the realization of these concepts within a systems engineering context, especially issues related to system transparency, design costs, and efficiency. We discuss how some of these difficulties can be overcome while also elaborating on those factors that are likely to limit the applicability of these principles.


Networked buffering Degeneracy Agile manufacturing Assembly systems Robotics Multi-agent systems Complexity Evolvability 


  1. Al-Safi Y, Vyatkin V (2010) Ontology-based reconfiguration agent for intelligent mechatronic systems in flexible manufacturing. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 26(4):381–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashby W (1956) An introduction to cybernetics. Chapman & Hall, LondonMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Banzhaf W (1994) Genotype-phenotype-mapping and neutral variation-a case study in genetic programming. In: Parallel problem solving from nature III, vol 866. Springer, Berlin, pp 322–332Google Scholar
  4. Barata J (2005) Coalition based approach for shopfloor agility. Edições Orion, AmadoraGoogle Scholar
  5. Barata J, Camarinha-Matos L, Onori M (2005) A multiagent based control approach for evolvable assembly systems. In: 3rd IEEE international conference on industrial informatics (INDIN). Perth, Australia, pp 478–483Google Scholar
  6. Berry G, Boudol G (1998) The chemical abstract machine. Theoret Comput Sci 96(1):217–248MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brueckner S (2000) Return from the ant—synthetic ecosystems for manufacturing control. PhD thesis, Institute of Computer Science. Humboldt-University, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  8. Bussmann S, Schild K (2000) Self-organizing manufacturing control: an industrial application of agent technology. In: 4th IEEE international conference on multi-agent systems, Boston, MA, USA, pp 87–94Google Scholar
  9. Buzacott JA, Shanthikumar JG (1980) Models for understanding flexible manufacturing systems. AIIE Trans 12(4):339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Camarinha-Matos LM, Afsarmanesh H (2004) A multi-agent based infrastructure to support virtual communities in elderly care. Int J Netw Virtual Organ 2(3):246–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Choi T, Dooley K, Rungtusanatham M (2001) Supply networks and complex adaptive systems: control versus emergence. Oper Manag 19:351–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ciliberti S, Martin OC, Wagner A (2007) Innovation and robustness in complex regulatory gene networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(34):13591–13596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edelman G, Gally J (2001) Degeneracy and complexity in biological systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(24):13763–13768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ElMaraghy H (2006) Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing systems paradigms. Int J Flex Manuf Syst 17(4):261–276MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ElMaraghy H, AlGeddawy T, Azab A (2008) Modelling evolution in manufacturing: a biological analogy. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 57:467–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frei R (2010) Self-organisation in evolvable assembly systems. PhD thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  17. Frei R, Barata J (2010) Distributed systems—from natural to engineered: three phases of inspiration by nature. Int J Bio Inspired Comput 2(3/4):258–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frei R, Barata J, Di Marzo Serugendo G (2007) A complexity theory approach to evolvable production systems. In: Sapaty P, Filipe J (eds) International Workshop on Multi-Agent Robotic Systems (MARS), Angers, France. INSTICC Press, pp 44–53Google Scholar
  19. Frei R, Di Marzo Serugendo G (2011a) Advances in complexity engineering. Int J Bio Inspired Comput 3(4):199–212Google Scholar
  20. Frei R, Di Marzo Serugendo G (2011b) Concepts in complexity engineering. Int J Bio Inspired Comput 3(2):123–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frei R, Di Marzo Serugendo G (2011c) Self-organising assembly systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern C Appl Rev 41(6):885–897Google Scholar
  22. Frei R, Di Marzo Serugendo G, Barata J (2008) Designing self-organization for evolvable assembly systems. In: IEEE international conference on self-adaptive and self-organizing systems (SASO), Venice, Italy, pp 97–106Google Scholar
  23. Frei R, Di Marzo Serugendo G, Serbanuta T (2010) Ambient intelligence in self-organising assembly systems using the chemical reaction model. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 1(3):163–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gaugel T, Bengel M, Malthan D (2004) Building a mini-assembly system from a technology construction kit. Assem Autom 24(1):43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gowdy J, Rizzi A (1999) Programming in the architecture for agile assembly. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), vol 4, pp 3103–3108Google Scholar
  26. Hanisch C, Munz G (2008) Evolvability and the intangibles. Assem Autom 28(3):194–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hollis R, Rizzi A, Brown H, Quaid A, Butler Z (2003) Toward a second-generation minifactory for precision assembly. In: International advances robotics program workshop on microrobots, micromachines and microsystems, Moscow, RussiaGoogle Scholar
  28. Jin Y, Gruna R, Paenke I, Sendhoff B (2009) Evolutionary multi-objective optimization of robustness and innovation in redundant genetic representations. In: IEEE symposium on computational intelligence in multi-criteria decision making, Nashville, USA, pp 38–42Google Scholar
  29. Jin Y, Trommler J (2010) A fitness-independent evolvability measure for evolutionary developmental systems. In: IEEE symposium on computational intelligence in bioinformatics and computational biology (CIBCB), Montreal, Canada, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  30. Katz R (2007) Design principles for reconfigurable machines. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 34:430–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kauffmann S (1993) The origins of order: self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaula R (1998) A modular approach toward flexible manufacturing. Integr Manuf Syst 9(2):77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kephart J, Chess D (2003) The vision of autonomic computing. IEEE Comput 36(1):41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kirschner M, Gerhart J (1998) Evolvability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95(15):8420–8427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Knowles JD, Watson RA (2003) On the utility of redundant encodings in mutation-based evolutionary search. LNCS, pp 88–98Google Scholar
  36. Koestler A (1967) The ghost in the machine. Hutchinson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Koren Y, Heisel U, Jovane F, Moriwaki T, Pritchow G, Ulsoy A, Van Brussel H (1999) Reconfigurable manufacturing systems. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 48(2):6–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kume S, Rizzi A (2001) A high-performance network infrastructure and protocols for distributed automation. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), vol 3, Seoul, Korea, pp 3121–3126Google Scholar
  39. Kurakin A (2009) Scale-free flow of life: on the biology, economics, and physics of the cell. Theoret Biol Med Modell 6(6). doi: 10.1186/1742-4682-6-6
  40. Leitão P (2004) An agile and adaptive holonic architecture for manufacturing control. PhD thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of Bragança, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  41. Leitão P (2008) A bio-inspired solution for manufacturing control systems. In: IFIP international federation for information processing, vol 266, Springer, Boston, pp 303–314Google Scholar
  42. Leitao P, Restivo F (2008) Implementation of a holonic control system in a flexible manufacturing system. Trans Syst Man Cybern C Appl Rev 38(5):699–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marik, V, Vyatkin, V, Colombo, A (eds) (2007) Holonic and multi-agent systems for manufacturing. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  44. Mehrabi M, Ulsoy A, Koren Y (2000) Reconfigurable manufacturing systems: key to future manufacturing. J Intell Manuf 11:403–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Niemeyer C (2006) Pick and place in a minifactory environment. PhD thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zürich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  46. Onori M (2002) Evolvable assembly systems—a new paradigm? In: 33rd international symposium on robotics (ISR), pp 617–621, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  47. Onori M, Groendahl P (1998) MARK III, a new approach to high-variant, medium-volume flexible automatic assembly cells. Robotica, Special Issue 16(3):357–368Google Scholar
  48. Puviani M, Di Marzo Serugendo G, Frei R, Cabri G (2011) A method fragments approach to methodologies for engineering self-organising systems. ACM Trans Auton Adapt Syst (TAAS)Google Scholar
  49. Rizzi A, Gowdy J, Hollis R (1997) Agile assembly architecture: an agent based approach to modular precision assembly systems. In: International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). Albuquerque, New Mexico, pp 1511–1516Google Scholar
  50. Rothlauf F (2006) Representations for genetic and evolutionary algorithms. 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  51. Rothlauf F, Goldberg DE (2003) Redundant representations in evolutionary computation. Evol Comput 11(4):381–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Semere D, Onori M, Maffei A, Adamietz R (2008) Evolvable assembly systems: coping with variations through evolution. Assem Autom 28(2):126–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shen W, Hao Q, Yoon HJ, Norrie DH (2006) Applications of agent-based systems in intelligent manufacturing: an updated review. Adv Eng Inf 20:415–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ueda K (2006) Emergent synthesis approaches to biological manufacturing systems. In: 3rd International CIRP conference on digital enterprise technology (DET), Keynote paper, Setubal, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  55. Ulieru M, Unland R (2004) Emergent e-logistics infrastructure for timely emergency response management. In: Di Marzo Serugendo G, Karageorgos A, Rana O, Zambonelli F (eds) Engineering self-organizing systems: nature inspired approaches to software engineering, vol 2977 of LNAI, Springer, Berlin, pp 139–156Google Scholar
  56. Valckenaers H, Van Brussel P (2005) Holonic manufacturing execution systems. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 54(1):427–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vallée M, Kaindl H, Merdan M, Lepuschitz W, Arnautovic E, Vrba P (2009) An automation agent architecture with a reflective world model in manufacturing systems. In: IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics (SMC). IEEE Press, pp 305–310Google Scholar
  58. Vrba P (2003) MAST: manufacturing agent simulation tool. In: IEEE international conference on emerging technologies and factory automation (ETFA). Lisbon, Portugal, pp 282–287Google Scholar
  59. Whitacre J (2010a) Degeneracy: a link between evolvability, robustness and complexity in biological systems. Theoret Biol Med Modell 7(6)Google Scholar
  60. Whitacre JM (2010b) Evolution-inspired approaches for engineering emergent robustness in an uncertain dynamic world. In: Conference on artificial life XII. Odense, Denmark, pp 559–560Google Scholar
  61. Whitacre JM (2010c) Genetic and environment-induced innovation: complementary pathways to adaptive change that are facilitated by degeneracy in multi-agent systems. In: Conference on artificial life XII. Odense, Denmark, pp 431–432Google Scholar
  62. Whitacre J (2011) Genetic and environment-induced pathways to innovation: on the possibility of a universal relationship between robustness and adaptation in complex biological systems. Evol Ecol 25:(5):965–975Google Scholar
  63. Whitacre JM, Bender A (2009) Degenerate neutrality creates evolvable fitness landscapes. In: WorldComp-2009, Las Vegas, NevadaGoogle Scholar
  64. Whitacre J, Bender A (2010a) Degeneracy: a design principle for achieving robustness and evolvability. J Theoret Biol 263(1):143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Whitacre J, Bender A (2010b) Networked buffering: a basic mechanism for distributed robustness in complex adaptive systems. Theoret Biol Med Modell 7(20). doi: 10.1186/1742-4682-7-20
  66. Whitacre JM, Rohlfshagen P, Yao X, Bender A (2010) The role of degenerate robustness in the evolvability of multi-agent systems in dynamic environments. In: 11th International conference on parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN). Krakow, Poland, pp 284–293Google Scholar
  67. Whitacre JM, Rohlfshagen P, Bender A, Yao X (2011) Evolutionary mechanics: new engineering principles for the emergence of flexibility in a dynamic and uncertain world. Nat Comput. doi: 10.1007/s11047-011-9294-5
  68. Wuertz R (ed) (2008) Organic computing. Understanding complex systems. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  69. Yu T, Miller JF (2001) Neutrality and the evolvability of boolean function landscape. In: Proceedings of the 4th European conference on genetic programming. Springer, London, pp 204–217Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.South KensingtonImperial College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.University of BirminghamEdgbastonUK

Personalised recommendations