# An interdisciplinary approach between human factor and industrial engineering to a better understanding of RMS: an industrial case

N. Smith-Guerin, L. Simon, C. Guérin, P. Rauffet, P. Berruet

► To cite this version:

N. Smith-Guerin, L. Simon, C. Guérin, P. Rauffet, P. Berruet. An interdisciplinary approach between human factor and industrial engineering to a better understanding of RMS: an industrial case. 11th IFAC Conference on Manufacturing Modelling, Management and Control, Jun 2025, Trondheim (Norvège), Norway. pp.2545-2550, 10.1016/j.ifacol.2025.09.428. hal-05142820

HAL Id: hal-05142820

https://hal.science/hal-05142820v1

Submitted on 3 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# An interdisciplinary approach between human factor and industrial engineering to a better understanding of RMS: an industrial case

N. Smith-Guerin*, L. Simon*, C. Guérin*, P. Rauffet*, P. Berruet*

*Université Bretagne Sud, Lorient, Lab-Sticc, FHOOX team 56100, France (e-mail: loick.simon@univ-ubs.fr)

**Abstract:** Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems (RMS) offer the possibility of modifying their organisation to adapt to fluctuating demand. However, companies with RMS are still rare in industry and their reconfiguration potential is underworked. In the context of RODIC project, financed by the French research agency (ANR), we propose to show how an interdisciplinary approach, combining human factors and industrial engineering, represents an added value for understanding RMSs, in the context of Industry 5.0. We are proposing an original 3-stage methodology which begins with a measurement of the company's RMS degree of maturity through the Koren's criteria; followed by an analysis of the tasks and the decisions made by the people in charge of the design of the reconfiguration of the system according to the Cognitive Work Analysis methodology; and finally, a comparison of the criteria and the carried-out activity. We applied this methodology to a company having an RMS. We can see that the company can be considered as RMS regarding its criteria and that the decisions made to reconfigure are directly linked to these criteria. These results provide a better understanding of what an RMS is and raise the question of a potential hierarchy of criteria. This study demonstrates the value of interdisciplinarity in studying this subject.

**Keywords:** CWA, Human Factor, Industry 5.0, Industrial case, Industrial Engineering, Interdisciplinarity, RMS

## 1. INTRODUCTION

Industry 5.0 puts people at the heart of its issues (Xu et al., 2021). The Reconfigurable Manufacturing System (RMS) is a relatively new concept with a very few cases found in industry (Maganha et al., 2018). There is therefore a lack of awareness of the potential of RMS in industrial companies. Despite the objectives of Industry 5.0, the integration of the human factor into the RMS framework has not been identified as a major challenge (Müller et al., 2023). However, the interdisciplinary approach (between techno-centric and human-centric) has already been recognised as being of interest (e.g. to help with design (Prat, 2017)) and could be a major asset. This article proposes an interdisciplinary approach between the fields of human factors (HF) and industrial engineering (IE) in the context of RMS (e.g., high variability of customer demand). We show in this article that this approach leads to a better understanding of these systems. The originality resides in the interdisciplinary methodology proposed. This one begins with an assessment of the RMS degree of maturity (IE part) followed by an understanding of how the reconfiguration of the production line is designed (HF part) and questioning the connection between the two (IE and HF part). This methodology has been applied and validated on an industrial case but can be generalized to any other industries.

This article will first present related works on RMS and human activity modelling (section 2), then the methodology proposed is detailed (section 3), applied on an industrial case (section 4) and then discussed (section 5) before a conclusion.

## 2. RELATED WORKS

### 2.1 What is a Reconfigurable Manufacturing System?

Koren (2005, p. 2) defines RMS as ‘designed at the outset for rapid change in its structure, as well as its hardware and software components, in order to quickly adjust its production capacity and functionality within a part family in response to sudden market changes or intrinsic system changes’. These changes can be about quantity, delay or customisation. It differs from Dedicated Manufacturing Lines (DML), which are specifically designed to manufacture large quantities of a single product, and from Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMS), which are designed to produce many different products in small quantities. For more details about the differentiation between RMS, DML and FMS, see (Koren, 2006). In order to consider a system as an RMS, Koren defined 6 RMS criteria (Koren et al., 2018):

* **Scalability:** The capability of modifying production capacity by adding or removing resources and/or changing system components

* **Convertibility:** The capability of transforming the functionality of existing systems and machines to fit new production requirements

* **Diagnosability:** The capability of real-time monitoring the product quality, and rapidly diagnosing the root causes of product defects

* **Customisation:** System or machine flexibility around a part family, obtaining thereby customised flexibility within the part family

* **Modularity:** The compartmentalisation of operational functions into units that can be manipulated between alternative production schemes
* *Integrability:* The capability of integrating modules rapidly and precisely by hardware and software interfaces

Several topics are addressed in studies on RMSs. These studies deal with the criteria defining an RMS (Maganha et al., 2018; Napoleone et al., 2019), the impact of technological choices in the design of a reconfiguration (Napoleone et al., 2019) or the optimisation of different reconfigurations (Haddou Benderbal et al., 2018; Koren et al., 2018; Wang & Koren, 2013). To our knowledge few studies have explored the assessment of the Koren's criteria (we call it there RMS degree of maturity) in industry. The rare studies have used large-scale questionnaires (Maganha et al., 2018) or interviews, observations and documents to analyse an industrial RMS case (Rösiö et al., 2019). Maganha et al. (2018) show that production systems respond to customisation thanks to their adaptability (convertibility + scalability). Modularity, on the other hand, is not yet very common among the respondent companies. Rösiö et al. (2019) show that the observed RMS company has maximum integrability and diagnosability, high modularity, good customisation, and more average scalability and convertibility. The workshop space is considered from several points of view: scalability, customisation. Verification of the sequence of manufacturing phases is considered as part of modularity. However, Rösiö et al. (2019) point out there is a lack considering the human system. As a result, the activity of reconfiguring production systems hardly exists in industry as it has been shown in (Andersen et al., 2017; Maganha et al., 2018). We define the reconfiguration design activity (RDA) as the process of modifying the production line by the people in charge (i.e., the tasks they perform and the decisions they make regarding which indicators and available levers they have).

Yet with the increase in demand variability this activity will become unavoidable in most companies. To support this activity, we need to understand how someone in charge of the reconfiguration carries out this activity. An in-depth study of this activity would make it possible to establish links between the criteria of an RMS and the nature of the RDA carried out. We propose to use the Cognitive Work Analysis (CWA) framework, and in particular its Work Domain Analysis (WDA), to help make these links.

## 2.2 Understanding the activity of reconfiguration within an RMS: The Work Domain Analysis

Work Domain Analysis (WDA) is the most deployed part set of analyses (i.e., CWA) (McIlroy & Stanton, 2015; Stanton et al., 2017). This set of analyses aim at understanding and describing a socio-technical system and the functions mobilised within it (Naikar et al., 2005; Rasmussen et al., 1990; Simon et al., 2021; Stanton et al., 2017). These analyses make it possible to understand so-called ‘intentional’ systems by focusing on cognitive functions, which are of interest for human factors, mustered by people while using a technical system. An intentional system is characterised by decision-making that is influenced by knowledge of the system values and data from the environment and internal limitations (Rasmussen et al., 1990). These analyses model the operators’ needs and are considered as a link between human factor and engineering (Naikar, 2017). It can be used to create ecological

human-machine interfaces (i.e., interfaces that make it possible to visualise the constraints weighing on the activity) (Burns & Hajdukiewicz, 2004) and also to design assistive or autonomous systems (Bisantz & Burns, 2008; Read et al., 2015). The specific feature of the WDA lies in its ability to describe the dynamics of a system based on its objectives (i.e., the reasons for its existence and what it enables) and its constraints (i.e., what limits the possibilities of decisions and actions). Constraints can be of different kinds (e.g. physical, organisational, cognitive) and define the human's decision-making latitude (i.e., choice of decision and action).

The result of the WDA is represented in the form of a hierarchy (Fig. 2). This hierarchy is constructed in five levels:

1. Functional objectives: Objectives (primary and secondary) of the work system as well as external constraints (laws, regulations, etc.).

2. Priority values and measures: Criteria and constraints that will be used to measure the work system progress towards its functional objectives.

3. Functions linked to the objective: General functions of the work system that are necessary to achieve the functional objectives by respecting the priority values and measures.

4. Object-related processes: Functional capabilities and limits of the physical objects in the work system. These processes reflect the use of physical objects.

5. Physical objects: Physical objects in the work system that enable the execution of object-related processes.

The WDA has rarely been applied in the manufacturing context and, to our knowledge, never in the RMS context (Read et al., 2015). The use of this analysis will help to understand the functions involved and the constraints weighing on the reconfiguration design activity (RDA) of an RMS. The WDA is a human factors (HF) method that must be carried out in conjunction with IE experts to formalise this RDA. This joint formalisation will make it possible to observe the Koren's RMS criteria in an industrial case.

## 2.3 Research Questions

We have shown that RDA (i.e. what tasks operators do to reconfigure the production line), is not much studied in the RMS literature. Moreover, WDA has been rarely applied in the manufacturing domain. Yet Industry 5.0 advocates the integration of people into industrial processes. This leads us to wonder:

- Q1: Are there any relationships between the Koren's RMS criteria?

- Q2: Are there any links between the Koren's RMS criteria and the RDA?

For the sake of simplicity, we will use the term “reconfiguration” to refer to the activity of reconfiguration.

# 3 METHODOLOGY

*RODIC project and industrial case.* The RODIC project is funded by the French research agency (ANR). The aim of this project is to create a software to assist people when reconfiguring a production line. As part of this project, we firstly characterised the company regarding Koren's criteria. Secondly, we observed the activity done by the person
responsible for reconfiguration. Thirdly, we tried to analyse
whether there were any links between the criteria and the way
the activity is realised. The company manufactures cardboard
packaging boxes for different types of products (perfumes,
spirits, playing games, etc.). The particularity of this company
is that it offers highly customisable containers (sizes, addition
of product supports, closure methods, etc.). Most of the tasks
are carried out manually, but some can also be done by
machine (e.g. gluing can be done by a gluing machine or
manually by an operator). To accommodate this high level of
customisation, the company has many workstations that are
easy to move (roller conveyors, etc.). On receipt of a customer
request, a salesperson studies the customer's requirements and
negotiates a costing with them. The salesperson defines a
specification process with a pre-dimensioning of the resources
to be allocated to and a production rate to be achieved. That
information is transmitted to the production manager (PM), an
engineer who is responsible for reconfiguring the production
line. Once the reconfiguration has been designed, it is
discussed with the production supervisor and then
implemented with workstations. Given the objective of the
RODIC project, in this study we focused on the RDA realised
by the PM. Our methodology consists of 3 parts carried out
jointly by the HF and IE teams.

Koren’s RMS criteria and degree of maturity. This characterisation was based on on-site observations and the PM's responses to the RMS positioning questionnaire (adapted and simplified from Maganha et al. (2018)). This questionnaire asks companies about their positioning about the six Koren’s RMS criteria (e.g., one of the items in the customisation criterion is ‘Are your products or product families customisable?’). Each item can be answered according to a scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. There is also an insert for adding further details. Concerning the integrability criterion, we are not interested in the ability to interconnect modules, as the company has manual workstations. What is important, however, is to take into account the physical space required to build the line (circulation areas, doors, support posts, etc.). Integrability is therefore seen as the ability to add modules quickly in this constrained space.

*Reconfiguration design activity.* To carry out this WDA we
followed the methodology proposed by Naikar et al. (2005).

(1) Aim of the analysis: to understand the RDA realised by the PM.

(2) Project constraints: to have access to companies that do reconfiguration with movable modules. In addition, we had a time constraint of 6 months, which limited the number of case studies.

(3) Limitations of the analysis: the analysis focused on the activity realised by the PM.

(4) Constraints of the field of work: the system is mainly intentional because it is constrained by social elements (labour laws, company rules, etc.).

(5) Identification of sources of information: we visited the
company, had access to their documents, and then conducted
a filmed interview with the PM during the reconfiguration of

a line. To gain access to the PM's mental activity, we asked for
a verbalisation while realising a reconfiguration (thinking
aloud), as it has been done to understand scheduling activity
(Guerin et al., 2012).

(6, 7 and 8) Construction of the hierarchy: use of the ‘CWA Tool’ software to carry out the hierarchy on the basis of the various sources of information mentioned above.

(9) Validation by activity: this hierarchy was presented and verified by the PM by comparing it with a RDA.

*Links between RMS criteria and reconfiguration design activity.* For this section, based on the RMS degree of maturity of the company and the activity analysis, we sought to verify the existence of links between certain criteria and certain stages in the reconfiguration of the production line. We consider that a link exists when an element of the hierarchy meets, fully or partially, the definition of a criterion.

4 RESULTS

Koren’s RMS criteria and degree of maturity. The company
has been characterised according to the six Koren’s RMS
criteria (Koren et al., 2018) as follows (Fig. 1).

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: RMS degree of maturity of the company</figcaption></figure>

The company is modular in the way that each workstation on
a production line can be removed/added/moved according to
customer requirements. However, the process specifications
and the sequence of tasks cannot be modified. This reduces the
percentage of modularity observed in the company. Moreover,
depending on the case, tasks can be carried out either by
human resources or by material resources (i.e., machines).
Then, the company has a high degree of integrability in the
way that each workstation can be moved quite anywhere on
the production line, as there is a power line with several
sockets above the workshop and a Wi-Fi network available.
The workstations are essentially manual, so there is no need
for an information chain between them. Customisation is
present because products within the same family can be
personalised. In fact, here, the lines are even built for this
customisation. Convertibility is verified because most of the
tasks to be carried out are manual, which means that
workstations can be adapted according to demand. Scalability
resides in the fact that workstations can be doubled, or more,
or that several resources (operator, etc.) can be assigned to a
single workstation to meet a target production rate.
Diagnosability is absent from this company workshop. As the
workstations are essentially manual, there are no means of measuring production deviations in real time.

*Reconfiguration design activity.* The analysis of the RDA is modelled in the hierarchy (Fig. 2). At level 1 ('Functional purpose') we can see that the functional purpose is to respond to a variation in customer demand (i.e., a request to produce a new type of box). To carry out the reconfiguration, the PM must also respect two functional constraints: the cost given by the salesperson and the constraints of the company (available space and resources).

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Hierarchy of the RDA (s = Scalability (green), cu = Customisation (blue), co = Convertibility (yellow), i = Integrability (purple), m = Modularity (grey))</figcaption></figure>

In level 2 ('Values & priority measure'), the PM has to respect a production rate, process specifications, and the number and type of resources (human and machines) to know whether he meets his customer's demand. These four measures enable him to be sure that he meets his functional objectives. Its process specifications and the number and type of resources (human and machine) allocated to the line allow to check if the costs are respected. The number and type of resources, as well as the placement of workstations, also enable him to ensure compliance with the company's capacity and conditions. It should be noted here that the production rate is estimated on the basis of previous knowledge and not a real-time production monitoring indicator.

Level 3 ('Purpose related function') provides access to the four tasks that make up the RDA. The first consists of finding and

understanding the constraints that must be met. The PM also chooses the workstations to be used on the line (e.g. conveyor belt, gluing machine, handling station, etc.). He then assigns a resource to it (e.g. one or two operators, a cobot, etc.). Here the notion of module is separated between choosing a workstation and assigning a resource. The PM then repeats these tasks, for each process specification phase, until the line is complete. Once the line has been completed, he checks that his line corresponds to the priority values and measures of level 2.

Level 4 ('Object-related process') highlights the cognitive tasks that support level 3 decisions. They consist in gathering and analysing pieces of information, which are collected on different media (material or human), themselves represented at level 5 ('Physical object'). The physical objects used by the PM are the costing and the prototype, provided by the salesperson. The costing gives details on the customer requests, contains the process specifications and proposes resources to be allocated (e.g. number of operators on the line, etc.). The prototype enables to identify the characteristics of the product (e.g. enclosure) to be manufactured. The PM also uses the characteristics of the machines and operators, as well as the architecture of the shop floor and can ask his colleagues (i.e., salesperson and production supervisor) for more information.

*Links between Koren's RMS criteria and reconfiguration design activity.* The 3rd part of our study lies in the comparison of the degree of maturity of the company and the RDA carried out. The colour code of the criteria from Figure 1 has been integrated into Figure 2. Modularity is present at level 3 of the hierarchy (i.e., at the decision-making steps of the reconfiguration). Convertibility, customisation and scalability are found at level 2 of the hierarchy (i.e., at the level of reconfiguration verification indicators). Convertibility enables to check that the types of resources chosen fulfil the expected functions. Customisation is used to check that the expected manufacturing process specifications are achievable. Scalability is found in the number of resources allocated to the line and the verification that the expected production rate is achieved. Integrability is found in both level 3 and level 2 of the hierarchy. Diagnosability does not appear at any point in the analysis of the RDA (Fig.1).

# 5 DISCUSSION

The whole of this work, as well as its writing, is part of an interdisciplinary dynamic which allows to avoid potential biases linked to each person's area of expertise. In this work we are seeking to find out whether there are any relationships between Koren's RMS criteria and whether there exist links between these criteria and the RDA. Our results show that a company's RMS degree of maturity is not uniform across all criteria. We model the RDA in a hierarchy and show that there are links between the Koren's RMS criteria and this activity. In the following, our two research questions are discussed.

*Q1: Are there any relationships between the Koren's RMS criteria?* From the point of view of the criteria and the RMS degree of maturity, the company observed is similar to the one
studied by Rösiö et al. (2019). We find modularity, integrability, customisation, scalability and convertibility criteria, which shows that it is indeed RMS. As observed in Rösiö et al (2019) and in our case study, this is due in particular to the high degree of maturity concerning modularity. However, the company observed by Rösiö et al. (2019) integrates many technological tools (automation, monitoring, control, etc.) whereas the company we observed is essentially supported by human skills (manual module, manual control, etc.). This gives rise to the question about the importance of the technological level needed to qualify a system as an RMS. Especially since diagnosability is not represented in our company but is very present in Rösiö et al. (2019). Implementing elements that enable diagnosability can be seen as an avenue for improvement to gain responsiveness and improve RMS maturity (Rösiö & Säfsten, 2013). This leads to the question about the need for this criterion, in the sense of Koren et al. (2018), to define a company as RMS (i.e., monitoring production quality in real time). All the more so since Maganha et al. (2018) define convertibility and scalability as sine qua none conditions for being RMS. It thus seems to us that there is a hierarchy of Koren's RMS criteria, with some appearing to be more important than others in defining a company as an RMS.

**Q2: Are there any link between Koren's RMS criteria and reconfiguration design activity?** Modularity is the cornerstone of RDA. The presence of this criterion seems necessary for carrying out the main tasks of the activity (level 3, Fig. 2). Moreover, this criterion is a lever (level 3) which considers the constraints (level 2) in order to achieve the objectives defined (level 1). This confirms that modularity enables customisation, convertibility and scalability to be achieved. This reinforces the importance of the modularity criterion in enabling an industrial company to be RMS. Scalability and convertibility seem to act on the same parameters (resources, whether human or machine), which suggests that they are closely linked. Maganha et al. (2018) and Napoleone et al. (2018) had already grouped these 2 characteristics together to ensure the adaptability of the production system.

In the company observed, integrability is represented in levels 2 and 3 of the hierarchy (Fig. 2). The activity consists of choosing a workstation, assigning a resource to it and checking that it fits into a physical space. While layout design is important for reconfiguration (Guan et al., 2012; Maganha et al., 2019), it cannot be done without taking into account the physical space available. For example, for Rösiö et al. (2019), the building was designed to absorb future volume changes and to ensure there was space available to add production lines. In this sense, the authors do not include it in integrability, but they do include it in customisation and scalability.

Given the absence of the diagnosability criterion in the degree of maturity, it does not appear in the hierarchy. This is consistent. This in no way prevents the company from carrying out a RDA in full compliance with the RMS definition.

Firstly, the link between Koren's RMS criteria and the WDA help to see what tasks are related to modularity or scalability

in the production system. Secondly, the work presented here will be helpful for developing appropriate software. It will help the design team to understand what information is needed and when to present it.

The activity we observed arose from a single context and by a PM. Arise the question of whether it would be the same in another industrial case or when the RDA is performed by someone else (an operator for example). This company also has overcapacity, giving it a great deal of leeway in its choice of modules, operators and location in the shop floor, without needing to take availability and planning into account. We make a similar point to Andersen et al. (2017) about the need to compare different RMS companies with different characteristics. This would generalise the prioritisation and fusion of Koren's RMS criteria. A comparison of this activity carried out in different companies would also allow us to complete, compare and identify its invariants to overcome the limitations identified here. The 3-step methodology we propose here (measuring the Koren's criteria, analysing the activity, and verifying if there are any links between the 2) can be used in any cases because it is not system-dependent.

## 6 CONCLUSION

The originality of this paper was to use an interdisciplinary work, to gain a better understanding of RMS characteristics (IE point of view) and their links with RDA through the WDA (HF point of view). This kind of analysis has never been done before in the RMS context.

We discussed Koren's (2018) criteria based on RDA modelling. This ergonomic approach is innovative on the subject and provides a fresh look at the definition of criteria, the links between them as well as their importance for the definition of an RMS.

The 3-step methodology proposed is original as it is developed using both HF and IE tools. Moreover, it can be used in any industrial cases. If so, it would be very helpful to understand and model what can be a RMS, why, and how the reconfiguration of the line can be done.

This work responds to the challenges of Industry 5.0. The leading assumption of Industry 5.0 is to put people at the heart of its processes. To achieve this, it is necessary to understand human activity and needs. We show that for the reconfiguration of an RMS system, the analysis of activity, via the WDA, represents an added value. This activity analysis helps experts and researchers in the field by providing additional information that can be used to create a common frame of reference (Guennoc et al., 2024). More generally, we defend the idea that there is a major interest in developing an interdisciplinary approach. Future research and design teams will be able to use the results of our activity analysis to help them create new tools to assist reconfiguration.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The RODIC project is funded by the French research agency (ANR), grant number ANR-21-CE10-0017. The authors would like to thank Romaric Thebault, and his company
Alliora, for his time and the explanation of his activity. The authors also want to thank the designer of the CWA tool (2007). HFI-DTC., Yeovil Somerset UK. The tool and examples are the collective work of Bessell, K., Farmilo, A. J., Hone, G. N., Jenkins, D. P., Salmon, P., Stanton, N. A., Walker, G. H and Whitworth, I., M.

REFERENCES

Andersen, A.-L., Brunoe, T. D., Nielsen, K., & Rösiö, C. (2017). Towards a generic design method for reconfigurable manufacturing systems: Analysis and synthesis of current design methods and evaluation of supportive tools. *Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 42*, 179–195.

Bisantz, A. M., & Burns, C. M. (2008). *Applications of Cognitive Work Analysis*. CRC Press.

Burns, C. M., & Hajdukiewicz, J. (2004). *Ecological Interface Design*. CRC Press.

Guan, X., Dai, X., Qiu, B., & Li, J. (2012). A revised electromagnetism-like mechanism for layout design of reconfigurable manufacturing system. *Computers & Industrial Engineering, 63*(1), 98–108.

Guennoc, F., Kamoise, N., Guerin, C., & Julien, N. (2024). Integrating ergonomics into the early stages of Digital Twin design: From the design of a Digital Twin for short-distance dairy producers to the definition of a generic and tool-based method. *Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2024*, 1–7.

Guerin, C., Hoc, J.-M., & Mebarki, N. (2012). The nature of expertise in industrial scheduling: Strategic and tactical processes, constraint and object management. *International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 42*(5), 457–468.

Haddou Benderbal, H., Dahane, M., & Benyoucef, L. (2018). Modularity assessment in reconfigurable manufacturing system (RMS) design: An Archived Multi-Objective Simulated Annealing-based approach. *The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 94*, 729–749.

Koren, Y. (2005). Reconfigurable manufacturing and beyond. *CIRP 3rd International Conference on Reconfigurable Manufacturing*.

Koren, Y. (2006). General RMS Characteristics. Comparison with Dedicated and Flexible Systems. In A. I. Dashchenko (Ed.), *Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems and Transformable Factories* (pp. 27–45). Springer.

Koren, Y., Gu, X., & Guo, W. (2018). Reconfigurable manufacturing systems: Principles, design, and future trends. *Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering, 13*, 121–136.

Maganha, I., Silva, C., & Ferreira, L. M. D. F. (2018). Understanding reconfigurability of manufacturing systems: An empirical analysis. *Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 48*, 120–130.

Maganha, I., Silva, C., & Ferreira, L. M. D. F. (2019). The layout design in reconfigurable manufacturing systems: A literature review. *The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 105*(1), 683–700.

McIlroy, R. C., & Stanton, N. (2015). Ecological Interface Design Two Decades On: Whatever Happened to the SRK Taxonomy? *IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 45*, 1–19.

Müller, T., Caesar, B., Weiß, M., Ferhat, S., Sahlab, N., Fay, A., Oger, R., Jazdi, N., & Weyrich, M. (2023). Reconfiguration management in manufacturing: A systematic literature review. *At - Automatisierungstechnik, 71*(5), 330–350.

Naikar, N. (2017). Cognitive work analysis: An influential legacy extending beyond human factors and engineering. *Applied Ergonomics, 59*, 528–540.

Naikar, N., Hopcroft, R., & Moylan, A. (2005). *Work Domain Analysis: Theoretical Concepts and Methodology*.

Napoleone, A., Andersen, A.-L., Pozzetti, A., & Macchi, M. (2019). Reconfigurable manufacturing: A classification of elements enabling convertibility and scalability. *IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems, 349–356*.

Napoleone, A., Pozzetti, A., & Macchi, M. (2018). Core Characteristics of Reconfigurability and their Influencing Elements. *IFAC-PapersOnLine, 51*(11), 116–121.

Prat, S. (2017). *Intégration de techniques de vérification par simulation dans un processus de conception automatisée de contrôle commande*. 223.

Rasmussen, J., Pejtersen, A. M., & Schmidt, K. (1990). *Taxonomy for cognitive work analysis*. Citeseer.

Read, G. J. M., Salmon, P. M., & Lenné, M. G. (2015). Cognitive work analysis and design: Current practice and future practitioner requirements. *Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 16*(2), 154–173.

Rösiö, C., Aslam, T., Srikanth, K. B., & Shetty, S. (2019). Towards an assessment criterion of reconfigurable manufacturing systems within the automotive industry. *Procedia Manufacturing, 28*, 76–82.

Rösiö, C., & Säfsten, K. (2013). Reconfigurable production system design – theoretical and practical challenges. *Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 7*, 998–1018.

Simon, L., Guérin, C., Rauffet, P., & Lassalle, J. (2021). Using cognitive work analysis to develop predictive maintenance tool for vessels. *31st European Safety and Reliability Conference*.

Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., Walker, G. H., & Jenkins, D. P. (2017). *Cognitive Work Analysis: Applications, Extensions and Future Directions*. CRC Press.

Wang, W., & Koren, Y. (2013). Design principles of scalable reconfigurable manufacturing systems. *IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 46*(9), 1411–1416.

Xu, X., Lu, Y., Vogel-Heuser, B., & Wang, L. (2021). Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0—Inception, conception and perception. *Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 61*, 530–535.