Combined Company Profiling

  • T. H. A. Burden
Part of the Advanced Manufacturing Series book series (ADVMANUF)


The successful implementation of advanced manufacturing technology can result in substantial improvements in productivity and competitive advantage. The key words are “successful implementation”; the use of computer-aided production management systems and CNC machine tools has been widely documented. Unfortunately many implementations have not performed anything like as well as expected. The question has to be asked: Why? An obvious answer is the fact that manufacturing companies can vary enormously in terms of product, management, manufacturing technology, labour and last but not least financial backing. One of the first steps along the path to discovering what makes a successful user of AMT is the development of a classification system. If one company can be assessed against another then the possibility of defining the characteristics or elements required for the successful implementation of AMT should be greatly enhanced.


Classification Index Group Profile Analysis File Material Requirement Planning Company Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lewis H, Towill DR, Burden THA, Cherrington JE. Determining company profiles for successful AMT startup. In: Proceedings, IXth ICPR Conference, Cincinnati, USA, August 1987; 1: 971–980Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burden THA, Cherrington JE. Successful implementation of AMT. In: Proceedings, Factory 2000 Conference, IERE, Cambridge, UK. July 1988, pp 351–357Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burden THA, Draisey I. Company classification as an aid to strategic planning. In: Proceedings, Factory 2001 Conference, IEEE, Cambridge, UK, July 1990, pp 160–164Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bright JR. Automation and management. Harvard Business School, 1958Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bullinger HJ, Warnecke HJ, Lentres HP. Towards the factory of the future. In: Proceedings, 8th International Conference on Production Research, Stuttgart, Germany, 1985Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barber KD, Hoflier RH. The use of numerical analysis to classify companies according to production complexity. Int J Prod Res 1986; 24: 203–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Monniot JP, Rhodes DJ, Towill DR, Waterlow JG. A study of computer aided production management in UK batch manufacturing. Int J Opns Prod Mgmt 1987; 7 (2): 26–57Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hill T. Manufacturing strategy. Macmillan Education, Basingstoke, 1985Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Primrose PL, Leonard RJ. The use of an expert system to evaluate investment in CAE. Proceedings, International Conference on Computer-Aided Production Engineering, Edinburgh, UK, April 1986, pp 67–72Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ward JH. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. American Statistics Association, 1963, pp 236–244Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coward DG. Attitudes of the management of small firms to investment in numerically controlled machine tools. MSc thesis, University of Salford, UK, 1977Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    SPSS (UK) Ltd. SPSS-X user manual. Mark House, The Green, 9–11 Queens Rd, Waltonon-Thames, Surrey KT12 5NA, UKGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. H. A. Burden

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations