Flexibility in the Design and Application of Component Coding and Classification Systems

  • D. M. Love


Implications of the need to design a coding system so as to ease the tailoring of an existing code, or the development of a new one, to match the characteristics of a company’s component range or type of application are discussed. In this context it is shown that a computerized system offers significant advantages over manual methods, provided that it is designed to help rather than hinder the tailoring process. This implies an ability to handle a variety of code formats without the need to modify the system software. In addition, the system should provide analysis and other facilities to support the user in this task directly. A computerized system should also provide general database facilities which, when integrated with the coding system, can be used to store and manipulate other data to supplement that carried in the code. The database must be sufficiently flexible to store a wide variety of information such as process details, costs, design specifications, etc. These ancillary data, whether generated locally or down-loaded from the company database, enhance greatly the scope of the analyses that the coding system can perform. These points are illustrated by a description of the computer-aided manufacturing coding system, which has been developed at Aston University, and by reference to examples of its application in industry.


Computerize System Code Structure Ancillary Data Code Format Cellular Manufacturing System 
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]
    Gallagher C C and Knight W A (1973) Group Technology Chapter 10, Butterworth, Chichester.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Love D M and George A R (1985) Designing a computerised component classification system to minimise implementation costs. Effective CADCAM 1985 Conf. Cambridge, July.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Opitz H (1970) A Classification System to Describe Workpieces Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Louwerenburg J and Schilperoort B A (1973) Application of the component classification system MICLASS, based on group technology.Production Improvement through Grouping and Cell Formation Conf. University of Aston, February.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Roberts R R (1983) MPhil Thesis, University of Aston in Birmingham.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Gombinski J (1969) Fundamental aspects of component classification. Annals of CIRP, 18, 367–375.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Love D M (1980) PhD Thesis, University of Aston in Birmingham.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Zimmerman D (1968) Design: the focal point of rationalisation. Engineer’s Digest, May/June.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Dornbush E H and Eiche F M (1969) Coding parts graphically. American Machinist, 25 August.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. M. Love
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Production EngineeringAston UniversityAston Triangle, BirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations