476
B. Kianian and C. Andersson
As mentioned earlier (see Sect. 33.2) the selected cost analysis method (PPC
model) is comprehensive and designed to follow, in this case, P/S gear manufacturing process routes, and that can make the input data gathering a challenge. This
challenge has been previously recognized in other studies trying to assess machine
tool manufacturing process costs too (Schlosser et al. 2011). In our case, finding
a PM gear maker, which has a comprehensive overview and knowledge about the
whole P/S gear manufacturing process routes both technical and economical aspects,
and on top of that, willing to share this information was not possible.
Hence, drawings and data on both technical performance parameters and cost
parameters for each manufacturing step were gathered by a combination of methods
e.g. through both face-to-face and phone interviews of a powder metal producer, PM
production equipment providers, a PM part maker and a conventional gear producer.
The selected interviewees have different responsibilities e.g. production managers,
process engineers, sale/marketing managers and high management (e.g. CFO). In
total, 6 different companies and 11 people have been interviewed between the years
2016–2018. In addition, data has been collected also by visiting the companies’
production facilities and from detailed conversation during different large-scale PM
international congress and exhibitions (e.g. Euro PM) between the years 2017–2018.
Therefore, the data retrieval challenge mentioned earlier for P/S gear manufacturing
process routes has become an advantage to the authors since it motivated them to
investigate a broader value chain, resulted to access, and create knowledge for more
audiences.
Assumptions were made based on the findings from literatures (Kruzhanov and
Arnhold 2012; Zapf and Dalal 1983) when there was a lack of real usage data,
which was the case for the compaction and sintering processes of the PM gear in this
study. The average values were selected when processes had multiple data points
in the literatures. For the metal powder, gear rolling and grinding (incl. washing)
processes real usage data could be obtained from the manufactures. Heat treatment
(HT) process was outsourced for the production of this case study gear and its cost
were available.
33.4 Result
An excel cost calculation tool (a cost breakdown analysis structure) was built as
the main outcome of this case study. It is a modular tool to evaluate manufacturing
cost with the capability of defining and simulating different scenarios, and it can be
customized to follow and fit any company’s facilities layout. The principle for the
creation of the excel tool is to utilize the PPC model presented in Eqs. (33.1), (33.2)
and (33.3) (see Sect. 33.2) for each P/S processing route illustrated in Fig. 33.2 (see
Sect. 33.3). In the excel sheet, each processing route is represented by a sheet and then
cost drivers (e.g. tool, labor) for each processing route are individually calculated,
interconnected and summarized.
B. Kianian and C. Andersson
As mentioned earlier (see Sect. 33.2) the selected cost analysis method (PPC
model) is comprehensive and designed to follow, in this case, P/S gear manufacturing process routes, and that can make the input data gathering a challenge. This
challenge has been previously recognized in other studies trying to assess machine
tool manufacturing process costs too (Schlosser et al. 2011). In our case, finding
a PM gear maker, which has a comprehensive overview and knowledge about the
whole P/S gear manufacturing process routes both technical and economical aspects,
and on top of that, willing to share this information was not possible.
Hence, drawings and data on both technical performance parameters and cost
parameters for each manufacturing step were gathered by a combination of methods
e.g. through both face-to-face and phone interviews of a powder metal producer, PM
production equipment providers, a PM part maker and a conventional gear producer.
The selected interviewees have different responsibilities e.g. production managers,
process engineers, sale/marketing managers and high management (e.g. CFO). In
total, 6 different companies and 11 people have been interviewed between the years
2016–2018. In addition, data has been collected also by visiting the companies’
production facilities and from detailed conversation during different large-scale PM
international congress and exhibitions (e.g. Euro PM) between the years 2017–2018.
Therefore, the data retrieval challenge mentioned earlier for P/S gear manufacturing
process routes has become an advantage to the authors since it motivated them to
investigate a broader value chain, resulted to access, and create knowledge for more
audiences.
Assumptions were made based on the findings from literatures (Kruzhanov and
Arnhold 2012; Zapf and Dalal 1983) when there was a lack of real usage data,
which was the case for the compaction and sintering processes of the PM gear in this
study. The average values were selected when processes had multiple data points
in the literatures. For the metal powder, gear rolling and grinding (incl. washing)
processes real usage data could be obtained from the manufactures. Heat treatment
(HT) process was outsourced for the production of this case study gear and its cost
were available.
33.4 Result
An excel cost calculation tool (a cost breakdown analysis structure) was built as
the main outcome of this case study. It is a modular tool to evaluate manufacturing
cost with the capability of defining and simulating different scenarios, and it can be
customized to follow and fit any company’s facilities layout. The principle for the
creation of the excel tool is to utilize the PPC model presented in Eqs. (33.1), (33.2)
and (33.3) (see Sect. 33.2) for each P/S processing route illustrated in Fig. 33.2 (see
Sect. 33.3). In the excel sheet, each processing route is represented by a sheet and then
cost drivers (e.g. tool, labor) for each processing route are individually calculated,
interconnected and summarized.