Monitoring of Collaborative Assembly Operations: An OEE Based Approach

  • Sauli Kivikunnas
  • Esa-Matti Sarjanoja
  • Jukka Koskinen
  • Tapio Heikkilä
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 338)


In this paper we present requirements and concept generation principles for performance monitoring of a collaborative assembly task. Life cycle aspects are considered and an Overall Equipment Efficiency (OEE) based monitoring scenario for a developed passive collaborative robot (COBOT) test system is presented. In this case main benefits of applying COBOT are expected to be: improved productivity, improved quality, reduced production cost and improved ergonomics. Since human and COBOT are working co-operatively human actions have also affects on process performance, i.e. OEE. However a human’s and machines or a COBOT’s efficiency are undistinguishable directly from OEE factors. It is possible to infer cause of lower efficiency from the variables from which OEE factors are calculated. One such variable is cycle time, which is used to define performance efficiency.


OEE car rear screen installation COBOT 


  1. 1.
    Hägele, M., Schaaf, W., Helms, E.: Robot Assistants at Manual Workplaces: Effective Co-operation and Safety Aspects. In: Proceeding of the 33rd International Symposium on Robotics 2002, Stockholm, Sweden (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernhardt, R., Surdilovic, D., Katschinski, V., Schreck, G., Schröer, K.: Next Generation of Flexible Assembly Systems. In: Innovation in Manufacturing Networks IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, vol. 266, pp. 279–288. Springer, Boston (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dal, B., Tugwell, P., Greatbanks, R.: Overall equipment effectiveness as a measure of operational improvement – A practical analysis. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 20, 1488–1502 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pomorski, T.: Managing Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) to Optimize Factory Performance. In: 1997 IEEE International Symposium on Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference Proceedings, pp. A33–A36. IEEE, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Högfeldt, D.: Plant Efficiency. A value stream mapping and overall equipment effectiveness study, Master’s thesis, Luleå University of Technology (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tangen, S.: An overview of frequently used performance measures. Work Study 52, 347–354 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heilala, J., Montonen, J., Helin, K.: Selecting the right system - assembly system comparison with total cost of ownership methodology. Assembly Automation 27, 44–54 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Akella, P., Peshkin, M., Colgate, E., Wannasuphoprasit, W., Nagesh, N., Wells, J., Holland, S., Pearson, T., Peacock, B.: Cobots for the automobile assembly line. In: Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation, pp. 728–733. IEEE, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ljungberg, O.: Measurement of overall equipment effectiveness as a basis for TPM activities. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 18, 495–507 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sauli Kivikunnas
    • 1
  • Esa-Matti Sarjanoja
    • 1
  • Jukka Koskinen
    • 1
  • Tapio Heikkilä
    • 1
  1. 1.VTT Technical Research Centre of FinlandNetworked IntelligenceOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations