Forest Service 

Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station 

Research Paper NE-666 

Graphic Model of the Processes 

Involved in the Production of 

Casegood Furniture 

Kristen G. Hoff 

Subhash C. Sarin 

R. Bruce Anderson 

guidelines for 

process timea 

work oenter~chedub C 

uppiies if 

in feedback 

loop 

BOM C 
Abstract 

Imports from foreign furniture manufacturers are on the rise and American 

manufacturers must take advantage of recent technological advances to regain their 

lost market share. To facilitate implementation of technologies for improving 

productivity and quality, a graphic model of the wood furniture production process 

has been developed using the IDEF (!CAM- Integrated Computer Aided 

Manufacturing-minition) modeling process and is presented. IDEF modeling 

provides a graphic representation of the production process by presenting the 

information in easy-to-grasp chunks. A description of the modeling process explains 

how the model represents the data that flows through the plant, the activities in the 

plant, and their interaction. Analysis of the model may result in improved 

communication, recognition of specific points for implementing new technologies, 

evidence of bottlenecks and problem areas, simplified inventory control, or reduction 

of paperwork. 

The Authors 

KRISTEN G. HOFF is a research industrial engineer wlth the Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station's Forestry Sciences Laboratory at Princeton, West Virginia. She 

received a B.S. in mathematics and computer science from Concord College, 

Athens, West Virginia, in 1985 and an M.S. in industrial and systems engineering at 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, in 1991. She 

joined the Northeastern Station in 1987. 

SUBHASH C. SARlN is a Professor in the Department of Industrial and Systems 

Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, 

Virginia. He received a Ph.D. in operations research and industrial engineering from 

North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. Previously, he held a 

faculty position at Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. He worked with IBM 

during the summer of 1983 as advisor to the Manufacturing Systems andAobotics 

Development Department. 

R. BRUCE ANDERSON is an economist with the Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station's Forest Sciences Labratory at Princeton, West Virginia. He received a B.S. 

degree in forest science from The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 

Pennsylvania, in 1965 and an M.S. degree in wood science from the same 

institution in 1970. He received a Ph.D. in forest economics from Virginia 

Polytechnic lnstitute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, in 1988. He currently 

is working with the Northeastern Station's Advanced Hardwood Processing and 

Technical Resource Center at Princeton. I 

Manuscript received for publication 14 May 1992 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station 

5 Radnor Corporate Center 

100 Matsonford Road, Suite 200 

P.O. Box 6775 

Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087-4585 

August 1992 
Introduction 

Pls imports from foreign manufacturers increase, American 

wood furniture producers are searching for reasons for this 

loss of market share. Foreign competition in the furniture 

industry has increased significantly since 1972, and the 

greatest competition has been in the wood furniture 

category (U.S. Department of Commerce 1985). To regain 

market share, U.S. wood furniture manufacturers need to 

use new technologies. To better communicate and analyze 

manufacturing for applying the new technologies and 

irnproving productivity, a graphic model of the wood 

furniture production process has been developed. The 

model represents the functions of the wood furniture 

production system and the information and objects that 

interrelate with those functions. 

Reasons for Loss of Market Share 

The Myth of Labor Costs 

The most common perception among American manufacturers for the cause of this increased competition is 

reduced labor costs associated with many foreign countries, 

especially those in the Pacific Rim. While this may have 

been true in the past, it is no longer true today. For 

example, Taiwan, for many years, has enjoyed the 

advantage of lower wage rates than the U.S. However, 

today Taiwanese firms faced with labor shortages operate 

below capacity. The factory workers that are available are 

demanding higher wages and improved working conditions 

(Smith and West 1991). Since this trend occurs as countries become more industrialized, it is reasonable to expect 

wage rates to climb in other Pacific Rim countries, also. 

European manufacturers have no advantage in labor costs 

since wages in European countries are nearly the same as, 

or higher than, American wages. Aggregate figures for the 

16 European countries for which 1988 data is available 

(Fig. 1) show that in 1986 European countries paid an 

average hourly rate at 83 percent of the United States 

average, 101 percent in 1987, and 105 percent in 1988 

(I1.S. Department of Commerce 1989). 

The Reality of Quality 

One reason for the U.S. loss of market share is the 

resistance of American manufacturers to design products 

with customer expectations in mind. In a recent 

international quality study conducted by the American 

Quality Foundation and Ernst & Young, it was discovered 

that Japanese companies are three times as likely as 

American and Canadian businesses to incorporate customer 

expectations into the design of new products and services. 

Furthermore, German businesses are twice as likely as 

North American businesses to translate customer 

expectations into the design of new products and services 

(Bemowski 1991). 

1 I2O [ . USA LZ Europe -77 

(USA= 1 00) YEAR 

Figure 1. -Index of American and European hourly 

compensation costs (USA=100). 

Clearly, to improve the perceived quality of American 

products by meeting customer expectations is key to 

increasing the market share. New technologies must be 

applied to respond to customer expectations in a timely 

fashion, and employees need training in the application and 

implementation of the technologies. Models of 

manufacturing systems ensure that all employees not only 

understand the current system, from raw materials to 

finished product, but can effectively determine potential 

points for implementing new technologies. 

Strategy for Improvement 

By educating the workforce on the complete manufacturing 

process and the tools and techniques used to evaluate 

productivity and quality, America can regain its competitive 

status. The 1988 ASQCIGallup survey reported that 

employee education is one of the most important ways to 

improve quality in American business (Ryan 1989). A 

practice common to recent winners of the Malcolm 

Baldridge National Quality Award is the implementation of 

training courses in managing for quality, making improvements, and using the tools and techniques available (Juran 

1991). Before improvements in quality can be realized, 

managers must recognize the points where quality problems 

are likely to arise, where improvements are needed, and at 

which new techniques may be applied effectively. 

Once expertise on managing for quality is acquired, new 

tools and techniques must be applied to gain control of the 

manufacturing process. "Gaining total control of the process 

requires a system applied uniformly across the operation, 

from raw materials to finished product, so that 

communication barriers come down via a common language 

and common format." (Slater 1991). A graphic model can 

be used to explain the manufacturing process to individuals 

not familiar with the furniture industry, as well as to pinpoint 

areas where quality might be a problem before final 

assembly. 
Description of Model 

This paper presents the graphic model of a typical 

casegood furniture plant. The model (Appendix A) was 

developed using the IDEF (!CAM- lntegrated Computer 

Aided ~anufacturin~- niti ion)^ modeling process 

developed by the U.S. Air Force program for Integrated 

Computer Aided Manufacturing ([CAM) (Softech, Inc. 1981). 

The basic premise behind the process is that the human 

mind has the ability to accommodate any amount of 

complexity if it is presented in easy-to-grasp chunks that fit 

together to make the whole. To impose the restriction that 

only related information is shown on any single chart, the 

IDEF method limits a function to six or fewer subfunctions; 

thus a consistent level of detail for each function within a 

chart is maintained and decision points become apparent. 

In using the IDEF method, each box in the model 

represents a function. Figure 2 contains six boxes, each 

representing a major stage in the production of wood 

furniture. Each arrow entering a box from the left 

represents an input and each arrow exiting a box from the 

right represents an output of the function. As shown in 

Figure 2, the order preparation stage (prepare order box) 

produces the supplies (including lumber, hardware, 

fasteners, adhesives), due date, and work center schedule. 

However, to see all the intermittent steps, it is necessary to 

explode the box into several smaller boxes. This 

decomposition is shown in Figure 3. Each of these boxes, 

prepare cutting order and procure supplies, in turn, can be 

decomposed further, hence Figures 4 and 5. 

Arrows entering from the top represent constraints. For 

example, in Figure 2, the moisture content of the lumber is 

considered a constraint since moisture will affect how long 

it will take to prepare the lumber for processing. Arrows 

entering from the bottom represent mechanisms or devices 

needed to execute the function which that box represents. 

In Figure 6, the stickers placed in between the lumber to 

facilitate air flow are considered devices. 

In addition, the IDEF method associates a node index with 

the entire set of charts. The node index, an outline of the 

process, is generated by assigning a number to each box 

within a single chart. If a box is exploded into another 

chart, each box within this chart is numbered and that 

number is appended to that of the "parent" box. The 

process continues recursively until entirely catalogued. The 

node index provides a listing of all the functions and is 

formatted to show "parent" functions and their "offspring." 

For example, Figure 2 is the overview of the process and 

is assigned the number 1 A. Prepare order, a decomposition 

of the first function, is designated 1Al; prepare lumber, 

1A2; dimension pieces, 1A3, and so on. Figure 3 generates 

1 A1 I, prepare cutting order, and 1 A1 2, procure supplies. 

I~he use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this 

publication is for the information and convenience of the 

reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the US. Department of Agriculture 

or the Forest Service of any product or service to the 

exclusion of others that may be suitable. 

If no greater level of detail is required for a particular 

function, then it is not imperative to generate additional 

boxes even though other functions that follow may require 

further decomposition. The complete node index for the 

entire process is presented immediately following the model 

in Appendix B. 

The model describes the manufacturing processes of a 

dresser, bureau, or nightstand. It may be customized 

easily to show specific production lines for additional parts 

such as doors, or different procedures such as a gang-ripfirst cutup operation. 

Previous Applications 

The IDEF modeling process improves problem analysis, 

requirements definition, and functional specifications through 

the rigorous expression of complex ideas that had seemed 

too abstract and obscure to treat technically. The'process 

does not solve problems; it is a tool that allows people to 

express, understand, manipulate, and check problem areas. 

The U.S. Air Force provides the showpiece of this 

te"cnology in their CAM program. Thousands.of people 

from hundreds of organizations working on more than one 

hundred major projects used the methodology not only for 

the technical work of system definition and design, but for 

project management and integration as well. 

Additional applications of this tool include system design, 

package design, documentation organization, curriculum 

design for teaching, and project estimation and 

management. Some specific examples are separation of 

function and design in environment control systems; 

uncovering overlooked tasks in the structure of a software 

development project; and assessment of the impact of 

factory modernization on engineering, purchasing, quality 

assurance, and shipping. Furthermore, one large 

corporation applied the IDEF product specification and 

design diagrams to meeting control; participants addressed 

specific issues and made decisions with less effort and time 

than before using IDEF (Ross 1985). These examples 

demonstrate the breadth of problems addressed using the 

IDEF modeling procedure. 

Future Applications 

Within the wood furniture industry, the possible benefits of 

applying the IDEF modeling process are vast. As furniture 

manufacturers move to respond to customers more quickly 

and take advantage of new technologies, they must analyze 

their product and current production system to determine 

which technologies are applicable and feasible. The 

analysis must also uncover points where the new 

technologies may be integrated with the current system. By 

modeling the production process with IDEF, such an 

analysis would be greatly facilitated. 

Inventory control may be improved by diagram analysis to 

pinpoint areas where excess inventory is generated. 
SCHEDULE "I 

SCHEDULES 

MOISTURE 

COMPLETED 

MARKED OFF 

M/C' 

SPEEDS 

FOR PART 

LUMBER -DRIED TYPEOF 

BOARDS LUMBER 

DIMENSION 

PIECES 

PIECES 

M/C* 

SPEEDS 

FOR 

LUMBER 

f 

SHAPE 

ASSEMBLE ( 

PACK 

* Machine. 

~igure 2.- 1 A Overview. 
inventory I" hd 

I revision of work 

center schedule) 

work center schedule b 

order 

Figure 3.-Decomposition of prepare order. 

bill of materials m 

due date 

d ~wrk center schedule 

PREPME 

ORDER 

(for possible 

PROCURE 

SUpPLlES 

supplies rC 

due date 

receipt date of supplies ) 
guidelines for 

process times 

DETERMINE WHERE ESTABUSH due date 

receipt of PLACED 

supplies if 

in feedback 

loop Il 

IAll 

Figure 4.-Decomposition of prepare cutting order. 
on hand 

inventory 

bill of materials DEDUCTONHAND 

FROM BOM AND 

UPDATE ON HAND I workcenter schedul~ I , I ( 

vendor's productbn 

whedule and 

on hand inventory 

need-to-buy lit supplies 1 PgE ki doaired delivery data WNEN g DOR on-tlmedeliverydat{ 

work center schedule delayed deliiry dates 

C 

I due date 

b 

work center schedule + 

lA12 

Figure 5. -Decomposition of procure supplies. 
Similarly, production flow may be streamlined as 

bottlenecks become obvious. Diagramming of the entire 

production system reveals work-in-process accumulation. 

Once such problems are identified, steps can be taken to 

resolve the congestion, such as adding another machine or 

rerouting work to a different machine. 

Paperwork may be reduced and information flow improved. 

When all inputs to a function are identified, they may be 

checked, one by one, to see if that information is 

necessary to the function. If it is not necessary, that 

transaction can be eliminated and the information provided 

only when it is necessary. Conversely, by analyzing the 

IDEF model, it may become apparent that information 

required for a particular function may not be carried through 

formal communication channels. In this instance, a direct 

line of communication may be opened, thus eliminating the 

need for a production employee or expeditor to trace the 

information. 

Decision making should improve. The IDEF model allows 

Literature Cited 

Bemowski, Karen. 1991. The international quality study. 

Quality Progress. 24(11): 33-37. 

Juran, J.M. 1991. Strategies for world-class quality. 

Quality Progress. 24(3): 81-85. 

Ross, Douglas T. 1985. Applications and extensions of 

SADT. Computer. (4): 25-34. 

Ryan, John. 1989. Is U.S. quality competitiveness back? 

Quality Progress. 22(12): 37-39. 

Slater, Roger H. 1991. lntegrated process management: 

a quality model. Quality Progress. 24(3): 91-94. 

Smith, Paul; West, Cynthia. 1991. The Taiwan and Korean 

furniture industries. Import/Export Wood Purchasing 

managers to analyze a specific subsystem while 

considering its interrelations with the system as a whole. 

Previously overlooked factors that influence decision making 

are revealed. In addition, downstream factors may have 

more bearing on decisions than previously realized, forcing 

decisions to be made too soon. 

Setup time may be reduced once production employees 

become familiar with the entire manufacturing system. Also, 

when design engineers are acquainted with the complete 

process, design for manufacture can be implemented. An 

additional operation early in the production process may 

eliminate two or more operations later on. In addition, the 

change may be accomplished more easily earlier in the 

process. The IDEF model shows the most frequent 

changeover occurrences and which changeovers constrain 

the system. 

The IDEF model of the wood furniture production process 

may be analyzed to shed light on a wide range of 

problems, not just those listed here. Only after these 

problems are defined, can they be addressed. 

News. 17(4): 3, 24, 26, 28. 

Softech, Inc. 1981. lntegrated computer-aided 

manufacturing (ICAM) architecture, Part II, Vol. IV - 

Function modeling manual (IDEF-0) AFWAL-TR-81- 

4023. Vol. 4. Waltham, MA. Air Force Wright 

Aeronautical Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force 

Base, OH. 167 p. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

1989. Statistical abstract of the United States 1990. 

Report 771. Washington, D.C. Table 1465, p. 849. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade 

Administration. 1985. A competitive assessment of 

the U.S. wood and upholstered furniture industry. 

Washington, D.C. 50 p. 
Appendix A - IDEF Model 

dried lumber 

1 A2 

work center sct 

- 

- 

type of lumber used for this 

REVISED 

WORK -+ 

CENTER 

SCHEDULE 

desired 

moisture 

content 

completely dried boards 

CONTENT 

order (from production control) 

uideline information on ROW long to dry lumber 

not dry enough J 

boards 

+ rk center schedule 

stacks --LU dried boards 

WORK CENTER * SCHEDULE WITH 

DELAYS SHOWN I 

green lumber 

-7 

UNSTACK 

STACK BOARDS of boards - 

OF ONE KIND t DRY due date 

OF LUMBER BOAROS work center schedule 

lumber 

(boards) 

+stickers 

due date 

Figure 6.-Decomposition of prepare lumber. 
- t WORK CENTER 

p~~pm~ SUPPLIES 

ORDER DUE DATE 

WORK 

CENTER - 

SCHEDULE SPEEDS 

PREPARE FOR PART 

TYPE OF 

BOARDS LUMBER 

SCHEDULES 

, WIACTUAL 

WORK 

COMPLETED 

MARKED OFF 

DIMENSION 

PIECES LUMBER 

PIECES 

f 

SHAPE 

4 ASSEMBLE I 

* Machine. 

Figure 7. - 1 A Overview. 
order 1 bill of materials 

on hand 

inventory 

PROCURE 

Y 

SUPPLIES 

supplies - 

due date 

5- 

receipt date of supplies 

------

(for possible ' 

revision of work 

center schedule) 

work center schedule 

Figure 8. - 1 A1 Prepare order. 
DETERMINE WHERE 

ON SCHEDULE 

ORDER IS TO BE 

PLACED 

supplies if 

in feedback 

loop 

due date 

___) 

DETERMINE BILL 

OF MATERIALS 

(BOM) 

guidelines for 

process times 

due date 1 ESTABLISH 

---------) WORKCENTER 

- 

BOM -1 SCHEDULE 

due date + 

work center schedule 

e 

BOM e 

Figure 9.- 1 A1 1 Prepare cutting order. 
I on hand 

inventory 

bill of materials DEDUCT ON HAND 

FROM BOM AND 

UPDATE ON HAND h 

work center schedule INVENTORY 

RECORDS 

need-tebuy list CUT 

due date 

work center schedule 

PURCHASE I 

vendor's production 

schedule and 

on hand inventory 

I delayed delivery date. 

. purchase order PlACE 

ORDER 

desired deliverv date W/VENDOR 

due date 

P 

supplies rn 

on-time delivery dates 

1 work center schedule w 

i 

Figure 10. - 1 A1 2 Procure supplies. 
dried lumber 

desired 

moisture 

content 

type of lumber used for this 

order (from production control) 

FI uideline information on 

ow long to dry lumber 

stacks dried boards 

green lumber STACKBOARDS boards 

OF ONE KIND I = 'ILN DRY due date BOARDS - 

work center schedule 

due date 

work center schedule 

REVISED 

WORK ---+ 

CENTER 

SCHEDULE 

not dry enough i I- WORK CENTER 

SCHEDULE WITH I 

boards 1 DEIAYSSHOWN 

, ................................. 

i PREPARE 1 

j CUlTING i 

i ORDER I ................................. 

UNSTACK 

BOARDS 

lumber 

A (boards) 

Figure 1 1. - 1 A2 Prepare lumber. 
type of 

lumber 

desired 

GET STACK(S) 

OF BOARDS OF 

TYPE OF LUMBER 

SPECIFIED ON 

work center WORK CENTER 

SCHEDULE 

desired 

moisture 

content 

type of lumber 

guideline 

information on 

how long to 

dry lumber 

1 

Figure 12. - 1 A22 Kiln dry boards. 

work center ADJUST CONTROLS work center 

schedule 

b 
dried boards U I 

3 work center schedule BOARDG I 

saw 

speed 

current required 

lengths from 

, , , I ] { {cutting bill 

supplies - I 

pieces cut to length SEPARATE 

~~~SSCUT due date BOARDS 

BY 

Iwork center schedulA LENGTH t 1 

groups of pieces with same length 

due date 4 

supplies 

rough pieces of size 

due date PIECES 

work center schedule 

saw 

speed f supplies 

I I core pieces L 

work center schedule 

b 

- 

Figure 13. - 1 A3 Dimension pieces. 

RIP 

BOARDS 

pieces of a propriate length cut o width 

due date 

! @ 

, work center schedule 

GLUE 

BOARDS 

TOGETHER 
current required lengths 

P 

from cutting bill 

1 

planed boards dried boards 

b DETERMINE WHERE dried boards 

due date SCAN BOARD - due date CROSSCUTS SHOULD 

b FOR DEFECT work due date center schedule GO TO GET LARGEST 

t human eye or 

vision system 

PLACE IN 

WASTEBINS 

t operator or vision system's 

computer algorithm 

saw speeds for 

type of lumber 

due date 

____t 

I crosscut saw 

*work center schedule with actual 

work completed marked off. 

Figure 14. - 1 A32 Crosscut boards. 
cutting bill 

requirements 

pieces supplies 

cut to lendh 

work center 

C, 

schedule 

SET SAW BLADES 

FOR DESIRED 

WIDTHS 

pieces 

saw speed 

for part 

type lumber 

pieces cut to width - DFEED BOARDS , due date L 

7 

THROUGH 

RIP SAW work center schedule* 

D1 waste pieces and sawdust 

PLACE IN 

WASTE BINS 

* work center schedule with 

actual work done marked off. 

Figure 15.-1 A33 Rip boards. 
work center schedule workcenter schedule work center schedule 

SELECT PIECES SUCH glue pieces 

THAT THE TOTAL WIDTH 

APPLY 

COMES CLOSEST TO GLUE due date 

DESIRED WIDTH WITHOUT I 

GOING UNDER work center schedule work center schedule 

glue roller 

ball 

rough pieces of size 

PUT ANDCURE TOGETHER k: 

work center schedule 

glue wheel or 

hig h-frequency 

elecbonic bonding 

machine 

=igure 16.- 1 A35 Glue boards together. 
I required thickness 

of piece 

rough pieces of size RESURFACE TRIM PIECES TO 

due date UNIFORM LENGTH 

work center schedule 

core pieces 

APPLY VENEER OR work center schedule 

* 

VINYL COATING bFigure 17. - 1 A36 Trim pieces. 
UT OW 

BASIC 

SHAPES 

completed 

shaped pieces shaped pieces I 

SHAPE 

due date EDGES 

/ supplies I I due date 11 

work center work center 

schedule schedule I 111 

sanded pieces 

Bsupplies =- INSPECT 

1 accessible pieces RTA** 

I work center schedule* 

duedate PIECES inaccessible after assemb 

work center 

P 

flawed pieces 

repaired pieces 

REWORK 

FLAWED 

PIECES 

ly pieces 

-7 

STAIN PIECES 

WHICH WIU BE 

VISIBLE ONLY 

PART OF THE 

stained 

pieces 

RTA 

*work center schedule with actual 

work done marked off. 

** Ready to Assemble. 

Figure 18.- 1 A4 Shape pieces. - 
! tenacity 

of lumber 

core pieces shaped pieces 

supplies I supplies 

due date 

. . due date EXTERIOR 

SHAPE* 

due date 

3 work center schedule work center schedule 

sawdust 

- . . . -. - 

u 

I work center schedule I 

t machines* 

* machines for this 

operation would ~nclude 

routers, lathes, tenoners, 

planers, and shapers. 

( tenacity 

I of lumber 

** profiling mlc's, c shaped and carved basic pieces 

drills, carving mlc's, 

and boring mlc's. 

CARVE 

INTERIOR flawed pieces 4----- 

1 

sawdust PLACE 

IN 

WASTE 

!machines** 1 BINS 

Figure 19. -1 A41 Cut out basic shams 
supplies -A due date SETUP 

MACHINES 

saw speeds 

for type of 

lumber 

sha ed ieces 

R~R~:~~ completed pieces su lies 

due date M/C's TO I flawed pieces 

SHAPE EDGES I sawdust 

A 1 

machines* 

A 

PLACE IN 

WASTE BINS 

* machines may include moulders, 

dovetailers, mitering machines. 

Figure 20. - 1 A42 Shape edges. 
required 

thickness 

of piece 

7 completely mostly sanded pieces 

supplies b SET UP c- RUN PIECES supplies 

due date . SANDING due date THROUGH due date center scheduleb MACHINES wok center scheduE SANDERS work center schedule 

sawdust 

,__________________I_______________________I_______________________I_______________________I_______________________I_______________________ I 

1 REWORK \ rework 1 j FLAWED I 

11 TOUCHUP 

I w INTRICATE 

C WORK BY 

SANDING BY 

I HAND 

c sanded pieces 

PLACE IN 

WASTE BINS 

Figure 2 1 . - 1 A43 Sand pieces. 
schedule -T 

sanded pieces -------- flawed pieces 

human 

operator 

supplies c 

due date 

work center L 

ready-to-assemble (RTA) pieces 

marking 

pencil 

scheduleSCAN 

SURFACES 

supplies MARK 

due date 

c FLAWS 

work center 

Figure 22. - 1 A44 Inspect pieces. 

RTA which do not require bpre-assembly staining 

COUNT RTA RTA which require pre-assembly 

NUMBER 

PASSED 

~NSPECTION 

staining 

count of number passed * 

(work center schedule with 

actual work done marked off) 
. flawed pieces (minor) FILL IN filled pieces 

FWWS 

(major) 

PLACE IN 

WASTE 

paint 

brush 

SMOOTH 

OUT 

FILLING 

I iron 

repaired pieces 

Figure 23.- 1 A45 Rework flawed pieces. 
supplies 

pieces I 

ASSEMBLE frames 

due date FRAME I---- accuracy 

of saw 

operator 

+ 1 

PUT RMvES barewood furniture 

supplies 

b AND 

DRAWERS 

, TOGETHER 

work center schedule cpieces 

supplies ASSEMBLE 

due date DRAWERS 

work center schedule Ll 

I texture 

of wood 

count of finished goods (work center 

schedule with work done marked off) * 

finished goods * 

I I Iokaved bare furniture 1 1 INSPECT -1 gz r] AlTACH 

+ supplies supplies HARDWARE 

Figure 24. - 1 A5 Assemble parts. 
c outside frame 

accuracy I accuracy 

of saw of saw 

operator' supplies 

due 

work 

date 

center schedule 

7 

* 

pieces 

_I RUNNERS 1 frame _I PA&T ( frame , 

supplies 

ATTACH 

7- screws 

AnACH 

SIDES 

TOTOP 

ArnH 

Figure 25. - 1 A51 Assemble frame. 

4 

Astap~es ' staples 

supplies 

Ushape 

or dowel 

pins 

AlTACH 

SHELVES 

or 

screws 
I accuracy of 1 accuracy of 

work center schedule TOBACK 1 / BOllOM 1 

saw operator saw operator 

pieces 

bracket, 1 cjrtaiIingl t staples 

supplies supplies 

U shape ATTACH 

supplies b 

due date 

h 

A 

1 accuracy of 

- 

JOIN SIDES . 

saw operator 

supplies 

drawer box 

DRAWER 

FRONTS 

drawers 

C 

Figure 26.- 1 A52 Assemble drawers. 
accuracy of 

saw operator 

frames INSERT Ucasen r-l 

supplies 

drawers 

*- 

DRAWERS 

INTO 

FRAMES 

I screws 

AFFIX supplies STOPS 

Figure 27. - 1 A53 Put frames and drawers together. 

barewood furniture w 
-1 furniture VISUALLY 

SCAN 1 y 

flawed barewood furniture 

PIECES t 

Figure 28. - 1 A54 Inspect. 
SPECIAL 

texture 

of wood 

Supplies +/ FILL AND / 

treated I / stained furniture 

furniture 7 I L - 

texture 

of wood 

SEAL AND 

STAl N 

supplies b 

PERFORM 

HIGH 

GLOSS 

RUBDOWN 

stained furniture (glossy) 

- ---- 

Figure 29.-1A55 Stain and finish. 
I texture 

of wood 

I 

supplies A RUBOFF 

supplies 7 + w~~w 

treated furniture 

stained furniture (1 st coat) 

Figure 30. - 1 A552 Fill and stain. 

ON BAREWOOD stained furniture RUNS stained furniture 

- 
dull, stained furniture 

FURNITURE 

texture 

of wood 

v 

Figure 31 .- lA553 Seal and stain. 

RUBOFF 

P 

supplies 

stained furniture 

supplies 

stained furniture - 

APPLY 

FINISH 
type of 

furniture 

1 

hardware kit ASSIGN 

s"~~'ies 4 'IT 1- KIT TO 1 I I

HARDWARE - PIECE . furniture TO PIECE 

furniture I I w/kit -1 

supplies ATTACH 

HARDWARE 

furniture 

t supplies _I WIPE OFF supplies I count of finished goods INSPECT 1 4 FURNITURE finished furniture 

_ 1 1 finished goods 4 

Figure 32. - 1 A56 Attach hardware. 
THOROUGHLY furniture VISUALLY 

INSPECT 

PIECE 

okayed furniture INCREMENT 

+ COUNT OF 1 flawed furniture 

FINISHED 

1 GOODS BY 1 

count of finished aoods 

finished goods * 

PLACE IN 

BUFFER 

Figure 33.-1 A565 Inspect furniture. 
due date tr-7 

work center schedule 

finished good +I 2x4 I 

piece mostly 

I crowbar 

supplies 

wrapped 

piece 

tape 

FIT BOX 

~~OUND 

supplies ' 

piece loosely 

boxed 

TRUCK of furniture 

SEAL 

TOP OF 

BOX 

supplies 

_____C 

boxed piece 

Figure 34. - 1 A6 Pack and ship. 

TRANSPORT 

TO WAREHOUSE 

OR WAITING 
Appendix B - Node Index 

1A. Overview 

1 A1 . Prepare order 

1 A1 1. Prepare cutting order 

1Alll. Determine where on master schedule 

order is to be placed 

1 A1 12. Determine bill of materials 

1 A1 13. Establish workcenter schedules 

1 A1 2. Procure supplies 

1 A1 21. Deduct on hand inventory from bill of . materials and update on hand inventory 

records 

1A122. Cut purchase orders 

1 A1 23. Place order with vendor 

1A2. Prepare lumber 

1A21. Stack boards of one kind of lumber 

1A22. Kiln dry boards 

1A221. Get stack(s) of boards of type of lumber 

specified on work center schedule 

1A222. Move and put in kiln and adjust controls 

1 A23. Test moisture content 

1 A24. Unstack boards 

1 A3. Dimension pieces 

1 A3l. Plane boards 

1 A32. Crosscut boards 

1A321. Scan board for defect information 

1A322. Determine where crosscuts should go to 

get largest clear area of desired length 

1 A323. Crosscut boards 

1A324. Place in waste bins 

1A33. Separate boards by length 

1A34. Rip boards 

1A341. Set saw blades for desired widths 

1A342. Feed boards through rip saw 

1A343. Place in waste bins 

1A35. Glue boards together 

1 A35l. Load selector 

1A352. Scan pieces 

1A353. Select pieces such that the total width 

when glued together comes closest to 

desired width without being under desired 

width 

1A354. Apply glue 

1A355. Put boards together and cure 

1A36. Trim pieces 

1 A36l. Resurface pieces 

1A362. Trim pieces to uniform length 

1A363. Apply veneer or vinyl coating 

1 A4. Shape pieces 

1A41. Cut out basic shapes 

1A411. Set up machines 

1A412. Cut exterior shape 

1 A4l3. Cawe interior designs 

1 A41 4. Place (flawed pieces and sawdust) in 

waste bins 

1A42. Shape edges 

lA42l. Set up machines 

1A422. Run pieces through machines to shape 

edges 

1 A423. Place flawed pieces and sawdust in waste 

bins 

1A43. Sand pieces 

lA43l. Set up sanding machines 

1A432. Run pieces through sanders 

1A433, Touch up intricate work by sanding by 

hand 

1A434. Place sawdust in waste bins 

1 A44. Inspect pieces 

1 A441 . Scan surf aces 

1A442. Mark flaws 

1A443. Place in scrap lumber pile 

1A444. Count number passed inspection 

1A45. Rework flawed pieces 

1 A45l. Fill in flaws 

1A452. Smooth out filling 

1A46. Stain pieces which will be visible only part of 

the time 

1A5. Assemble parts 

1 A51. Assemble frame 

1 A51 1. Attach sides to top 

1 A51 2. Attach shelves 

1 A513. Attach runners 

lA514. Attach to pallet 

1 A52. Assemble drawers 

1 A521. Join sides to back 

1A522. Attach bottom 

1A523. Attach drawer fronts 

1A524. Attach slides (and blocks) 

1A53. Put frames and drawers together 

1A531. Insert drawers into frames 

1A532. Affix stops 

1 A54. lnspect 

1 A54l. Visually scan pieces 

1 A542. Mark flaws 

1A543. Pull off assembly line 

1A544. Put in buffer area 

1A55. Stain and finish 

1A551. Treat with special effects (highlight, fly 

speck) 

1A552. Fill and stain 

1A5521. Spray stain on bare wood 

1A5522. Rub off runs 

1A5523. Dry furniture 

1A553. Seal and stain (top coat) 

1 A553l. Apply finish (glaze) 

1A5532. Rub off runs 

1A5533. Dry furniture 

1A554. High gloss rubdown 

1 A56. Attach hardware 

1A561. Kit hardware 

1A562. Assign kit to piece 

1A563. Attach hardware to piece 

1A564. Wipe off furniture 

1~565. lnspect furniture 

1A5651. Thoroughly inspect piece visually 

1A5652. Increment count of finished goods 

by one 

1 A5653. Mark flaws 

lA5654. Pull off line 

1A5655. Place in buffer area 

1A6. Pack and ship 

1A61. Wrap in packing material 
1A62. Fit box around piece 

1A63. Seal top of box 

1 A64. Remove furniture from pallet 

1 A65. Seal bottom of box 

1A66. Transport to warehouse or waiting truck 

Sr U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1992--648-139/40,026 
Hoff, Kristen G.; Sarin, Subhash C.; Anderson, R. Bruce. 1992. Graphic 

model of the processes involved in the production of casegood 

furniture. Res. Pap. NE-666. Radnor, PA: US. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 39 p. 

Imports from foreign furniture manufacturers are on ,the rise, and American 

manufacturers must take advantage of recent technological advances to 

regain their lost market share. To facilitate the implementation of these 

technologies for improving productivity and quality, a graphic model of the 

wood furniture production process is presented using the IDEF modeling 

process. Description explains the data that flows and the activities that occur 

in the plant, and their interaction. By analyzing the model, communication may 

be improved, specific points for implementing new technologies may occur, 

bottlenecks and problem areas may become evident, inventory control may be 

simplified, and paperwork may be reduced. 

Keywords: Wood furniture production; quality improvement; productivity 

improvement; IDEF 
Headquarters of the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station is in Radnor, Pennsylvania. Field laboratories are maintained at: 

Amherst, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the University of Massachusetts 

Buriington, Vermont, in cooperation with the University of Vermont 

Delaware, Ohio 

Durham, New Hampshire, in cooperation with the University of New Hampshire 

Hamden, Connecticut, in cooperation with Yale University 

Morgantown, West Virginia, in cooperation with West Virginia University 

Orono, Maine, in cooperation with the University of Maine 

Parsons, West Virginia 

Princeton, West Virginia 

Syracuse, New York, in cooperation with the State University of New York, 

College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at Syracuse University 

University Park, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with The Pennsylvania State University 

Warren, Pennsylvania 

Persons of any race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or with any handicapping condition are welcome to use and enjoy all facilities, programs, and services of 

the USOA. Discrimination in any form is strictly against agency policy, and should be 

reported to the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250. 

'Caring for the Land and Serving People Through Research'