I think the article does a good job introducing general
knowledge of manufacturing systems. I think the most interesting part is the diagram
that has flexibility as x axis and productivity as y axis.
I have been studied in both the University of Minnesota and
the University of Michigan, and both schools have good fabrication labs. During
these years of physical modeling, I feel that making decision of which tool or
which combination of tools to use is always hard. There is always another way
to produce the product that is more time consuming but less labor intensive or
vice versa. The diagram in the article shows exactly why. We as architecture
students are very likely to model something repetitively, which is a very
important characteristic of architecture. Meanwhile, we model for ourselves as
opposed to factories manufacture for their
large number of customers, so we model repetitively but not that
repetitively. In the diagram, rigid multi-machine system works best if
productivity is the goal, while CNC single machine system is more accurate and
precise. But neither of those are likely to be what we are frequently doing.
Then we have to make decisions based on precision required, time, money, labor,
etc.
Another thing come to my mind is that machines are replacing
human labors increasingly. But the best cars and the best watches are still
hand made. In theory, cars and watches are not high-tech products, so it makes
more sense if machines now do better jobs assemble cars and watches. I think
this is because human have experiences, a experienced worker know what the
sound of the engine should be, a experienced watch maker knows what is wrong by
just listening to the tick tack. a trained worker’s hands know if the bolt is
too tight or too loose. Watches and cars are special items as well. They are
old inventions, but not likely to be replaced by anything like CD players went
distinct. Watches and cars have cultural meanings, they represent taste, wealth, career, class, and
even more.
0 comments:
Post a Comment