PII:

Computers ind. Engng Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 717727, 1998 # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain S0360-8352(98)00099-0 0360-8352/98 $ - see front matter

A RULE INDUCTION APPROACH FOR DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF KANBANS IN A JUST-IN-TIME PRODUCTION SYSTEM
INA S. MARKHAM*,1 RICHARD G. MATHIEU2{ and BARRY A. WRAY{2
1

Information and Decision Sciences Department, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807, U.S.A. 2 Department of Production and Decision Sciences, The University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, NC 28403-3297, U.S.A.

AbstractA procedure based on rule induction is presented which can be used to determine the number of kanbans while simultaneously determining the critical factors in a just-in-time (JIT) production system. In particular, the classication and regression tree (CART) technique developed by Brieman et al. [Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R. and Stone, C. J., Classication and Regression Trees. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 1984.] is used to automatically generate rules from dynamic shop oor data. An example application of the methodology is presented and the advantages of a rule induction approach are explained. The paper concludes with a discussion of future research directions. # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywordsjust-in-time, kanban, rule induction, decision tree, CART

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

There has been much written on the success of the Japanese just-in-time (JIT) with kanban manufacturing philosophy. Many companies around the world have adopted this approach in some or all of their operations. Much of the JIT research points out that success with JIT is not automatic; there are conditions that must be met both internal and external to the production function [24]. It is more critical than ever for rms to understand the relationships between the static and dynamic factors that are inuential in determining the success and improvement of their JIT operations. An important aspect of a JIT system is kanbans. Kanban, which literally means ``card'', is a way of labeling production lots to obtain improved control of in-progress inventory, raw materials and nished goods. Each step of the production process must deliver output to the next step so as to neither delay the start of the production at this step nor to create excess in-progress inventory. A kanban is a card used to achieve this just-in-time production. It is typically put in a rectangular envelope and circulated within the production facility. Two kinds of kanbans are mainly used, a production-ordering kanban and a withdrawal kanban. A production-ordering kanban species the kind and quantity of product which the preceding process must produce, while a withdrawal kanban species the kind and quantity of product which the subsequent process should withdraw from the preceding process. The production-ordering kanban is often called an in-process kanban or simply a production kanban [5]. Our research is concerned with determining the number of production-ordering kanbans within a work center, hereafter refereed to as simply kanbans. In our research, all container sizes are xed at 1. The kanban system is intended to keep tight control over inventory and to force hidden problems to the surface so that they can be identied and directly addressed. While kanban inventory control is just one part of an overall JIT manufacturing philosophy that includes
*Tel.: +1-540-568-3056; E-mail: markhais@jmu.edu {Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-910-962-4077; E-mail: mathieur@uncwil.edu. {Tel.: +1-910-962-3515; E-mail: wrayb@uncwil.edu 717

718

Ina S. Markham et al.

improving customer satisfaction, increasing product quality and reducing inventory, it is an essential part of the overall JIT system design. Recently, much research has focused on determining the preferred number of kanbans in justin-time production systems. In the words of Fukukawa and Hong [3]:
Since the number of kanbans inuences the product inventory levels, it is very important for managers to determine the number of kanbans used in the system's introductory phase. Moreover, the number of kanbans can signicantly inuence the load balance between processes and the amount of orders needed to obtain supplies from subcontractors.

Under ideal conditions (i.e. smooth and stable demand, low setup times on machines and well-trained and cross-trained workers) it has been found that the number of kanbans do not need adjustment. However, many rms implementing JIT have found that as production rates vary from period to period, the number of kanbans must be adjusted accordingly. In addition, in situations where production lead times and idle times are long, there can be excessive build up in-progress inventory. Thus, the number of kanbans can signicantly inuence the load balance between production processes and the amount of orders from suppliers. Rees et al. [6] have shown that kanbans can be dynamically adjusted in JIT shops in a sound and successful manner.

1.1. Review of the literature Several studies have examined the setting of kanbans in a deterministic environment where the variation in demand, processing time and vendor supply is constant for one period of time. A review of optimization models is provided by Price et al. [4]. Bitran and Chang [7] used a mathematical programming model to determine the number of kanbans to circulate in a deterministic, multi-stage, capacitated, assembly-tree-structure production system, but they did not explicitly examine which factors most inuence kanban setting. Philipoom et al. [8] used an integer programming solution technique using signal kanbans to determine lot sizes and production cycle times. Bard and Golany [9] developed a model using logic operators, non-linear terms and integer variables to determine the number of kanbans in a multiproduct, multistage manufacturing system. The Bitran and Chang model is adapted to an assembly job-shop situation by Price et al. (1994) [4]. The optimal number of kanbans can be found by sensitivity analysis of the model. Moeemi and Chang [10] proposed a heuristic method to specify the number of kanbans when production capacity at the various workstations is unlimited and demand must be completely satised in each period. Li and Co [11] use dynamic programming to determine the number of kanbans at each stage of the production process. This formulation assumes unlimited capacity without backorders. Fukukawa and Hong [3] used a mixed integer goal programming model to set the number of kanbans based on demand, in process inventory, inventory and labor costs, subcontractor's supply capacity and workload. Philipoom et al. [12] rewrote (i.e. algebraically rearranged) Toyota's equation for setting the number of kanbans given in Monden [5] to determine three factors important in a static JIT environment. However, these studies do not investigate the relationships between shop factors most signicant in recommending the number of kanbans to be used in a JIT environment and furthermore they consider all endogenous and exogenous factors to be deterministic. Dierent methods of adjusting the number of kanbans in a stochastic shop with dynamically varying conditions have also been presented in the literature. Huang et al. [2] looked at the eects on a multi-line, multi-stage production system of variable processing times, bottlenecks at dierent stages and variability in demand. They also studied the eect of having dierent numbers of kanbans circulating within the shop. Gupta and Gupta [13] simulated a JIT with kanban system to examine changes in various management policies dealing with the number of kanbans and container sizes; they concluded that it is extremely important to determine the correct number of kanbans in a JIT system. Deleersnyder et al. [14] used a discrete-time Markov model to conclude that incremental cost improvement can be achieved by iteratively lowering the number of kanbans and increasing machine reliability. Rees et al. [6] developed an eight-step procedure using estimated values of leadtime to dynamically adjust the number of kanbans in a JIT production system. But again that methodology did not suggest which factors are most critical in

A rule induction approach for determining kanbans in a JIT production system

719

kanban determination. The same is true for Groenevelt and Karmarkar's 1988 study [15] that adjusts kanbans by explicitly forecasting demand and its variability. It should also be noted that ``the mathematical complexity of many of the formulations means that the solution of large problems is not practical and could certainly not be implemented in anything approaching a real-time environment'' and this suggests that ``the ability to model a production run and anticipate such matters as machine loadings, work in progress and completion time could prove valuable to the production manager, particularly in situations where orders change frequently, where the order book is not known far in advance, or where production capacity available to the product or products being considered varies frequently'' [4]. Finally, ``the literature is still far away from helping practitioners how to set kanban levels in realistic, stochastic settings where demands often vary widely and historical data are often missing and incomplete'' [16]. 1.2. Purpose of research The purpose of this research is to demonstrate the applicability of rule induction to the solution of the kanban-setting problem. In particular, the classication and regression tree (CART) technique [1] is used to generate production rules based on decision trees. The methodology presented in this paper advances prior research by demonstrating a technique that can identify the importance of relationships between shop factors in determining the preferred number of production kanbans to implement at a specic workcenter in a dynamically varying JIT environment. Dynamic factors (over two production periods) both endogenous and exogenous to the production function are examined. A methodology is presented that will allow the shop oor manager to identify the relationships between shop factors that need to be monitored closely if the rm wishes to operate its shop at the least-cost production kanban level in the near future. The approach used in this research is to present a methodology for applying a rule induction technique based on CART and to apply this methodology to data generated from the simulation of one particular shop. Training data based on dierent levels of eight shop factors will be used to determine the decision rules for setting the number of kanbans and to identify those factors most critical for setting the number of kanbans. An example application of the methodology is presented and the advantages of a rule induction approach are explained. The paper concludes with a discussion of future research directions.

2. OVERVIEW OF RULE INDUCTION AND CART

Inductive reasoning derives its conclusions from a set of observed cases and, thus, is based on observations from experience rather than on predetermined rules or predicates. It starts with observed data and cases and ultimately generalizes from them to build new rules. These rules are ``a natural vehicle for what we take to be the most fundamental learning mechanism: prediction-based evaluation of the knowledge store'' [17]. Rule induction and regression are similar in that they both use a set of data consisting of a number of examples or cases, each of which consists of a number of observations. Both methods then use induction to determine the relationship between these observations which can be used for predicting one of the variables. The dierences between the two methods can be quite signicant. Linear regression assumes that the data is continuous from an interval scale of measurement (although logical relationships can be modeled using dummy variables). In addition, regression analysis assumes the same relationship exists between the independent and dependent variables throughout the measurement space and in order to determine signicance tests on the results, the variables are assumed to be normally distributed. On the other hand, rule induction techniques are classicatory, since the dependent variable is nominal. The independent variables may be nominal or interval and the relationships which are induced are logical rather than functional. The variables are not required to be independent, or follow any particular distribution. The data may also lack homogeneity, i.e. dierent relationships may exist between variables in dierent parts of the measurement space. See Ref. [18] for a complete comparison of rule induction to multiple regression analysis.

720

Ina S. Markham et al.

The development of algorithms for rule induction began with Hunt's Concept Learning System [19] and was followed by Quinlan's ID3 algorithm [20]. The induction algorithms of Hunt and Quinlan were restrictive in that they assumed the class distributions did not overlap in the measurement space and that the collection of examples were measured without error. In addition, these algorithms required that examples be composed only of attributes whose values ranged over a small unordered set of examples for which some attribute values are missing [21]. Given the problems associated with a ``noisy domain'', much of the rule induction literature has focused on ecient node splitting criteria and rules for stopping tree growth. During this time, the statistical community was developing, in parallel, procedures for classication based upon recursive partitioning algorithms. In 1984, Breiman et al. [1] developed a non-parametric statistical procedure, classication and regression trees (CART), to analyze categorical and continuous data using exhaustive searches and computer intensive testing to select an optimal decision tree. Crawford [21] states that in cases where data is ``noisy'', CART is ``a remarkably sophisticated tool for concept induction''. While the CART algorithm is regarded as being computationally complex, CART does not require that the analyst have a clear idea of the model to be estimated, of the variables that belong in the predictive equation, or of the functional form that should be specied. Thus the analyst that uses CART does not have to develop a mathematically complex model prior to analyzing the data. The lack of any assumptions about the underlying distribution or an optimality criterion has made the CART methodology viable in a wide variety of applications. For example, CART has been used in wildlife management [22], highway design [23], marketing [24], forestry [25], analytical chemistry [26], hospital administration [27] and technology management [28]. However, a thorough review of the literature indicates that CART has not been applied to problems in a manufacturing environment. Therefore, this paper is intended to apply the CART algorithm to a new problem domain.

3. METHODOLOGY

This section outlines a methodology for applying a rule induction approach that will generate production rules that allow the shop oor manager to identify the importance of relationships between shop oor factors in determining the preferred number of kanbans to implement in a dynamically varying JIT environment. A three-step methodology is presented that uses training data collected from the JIT shop and the CART technique to generate production rules. The three steps in the methodology are: (1) data collection, (2) formation of the decision tree and (3) interpretation of the decision tree. This methodology is ultimately intended to help practitioners set kanban levels in a realistic and stochastic setting with high demand variability. 3.1. Data collection The basic methodological approach utilized in this study is rst to generate data representing the impact of dierent kanban levels for varying conditions in a JIT shop. Data were generated via simulation using SLAM II [29]. Simulation's ability to produce data under conditions that might not be possible with actual shops makes it an attractive alternative. In this manner, data were generated under a wide range of conditions involving many complex relationships between the shop factors studied. In a real-world setting, a simulation model would not be required as long as a sucient amount of historical data is available to generate a decision tree. Management would need to analyze shop performance for each combination of shop factors and the actual number of kanbans used to determine shop performance. Any data resulting in poor performance would need to be eliminated from the training data, otherwise rules would be generated to produce similar poor shop performance. The simulation model was used to ``optimize'' over dierent levels of kanbans for various shop scenarios. The optimizing criteria was a cost function based on shortage (backorder) costs and inventory holding costs. A trial and error process was used to determine the weight of each cost until the optimal number of kanbans ranged from 1 to 8. This data contains many hidden relationships between exogenous and endogenous dynamic factors. Each factor was selected for

A rule induction approach for determining kanbans in a JIT production system

721

this study because of its known inuence on kanban levels or because the literature posited some eect. Eight dynamic individual factors were chosen for this study by reviewing the JIT literature and by analyzing a simulated, ``static'' (i.e. one-period) shop (see Ref. [16]). In particular, the studies reported by Philipoom et al. [15], Gupta and Gupta [13], Deleersnyder et al. [14] and Ragatz and Mabert [30] were inuential in our selection. Not all factors deemed relevant (e.g. shop conguration and product structure) were included because of the additional complexity they would have added to an already involved methodology. Such factors are left for examination in further research. 3.2. Formation of the decision tree The CART technique can be generalized as involving the partitioning of data into terminal nodes by a sequence of binary splits, starting at a parent node. The procedure searches through all values of all the independent variables to obtain the variable and the value that provides the best split into child nodes. So, if there are 20 independent variables and 1000 possible values for each of the variables, CART considers 20,000 possible splits. The best split is the one that minimizes the weighted variance pL S 2 tL PR S 2 tR where PL and PR are the proportions and S2(tL) and S2(tR) are the sample variances of the cases that go to the left and right nodes respectively. At the best split node, both the most important variable and the critical value of that variable are identied. Once a best split is found, CART repeats the search process for each child node, continuing recursively until further splitting is impossible or stopped for some reason. Splitting is not possible if only one case remains at a particular node or if all the cases at that node are identical copies of each other. Typically CART splitting is stopped at a node if the number of cases is lower than 10, but this may be set higher or lower to suit a particular analysis. A common technique among rst generation tree classiers was to continue splitting nodes until some goodnessof-split criterion failed to be met. When all branches from the root reached terminal nodes, the tree was considered complete. CART produces more robust results by generating what is called a maximal tree and then examining smaller trees obtained by pruning away branches of the maximal tree. The important point is that CART trees are always grown larger than they need to be and are then selectively pruned back. Details of pruning may be found in Breiman et al. [1]. 3.3. Interpretation of the decision tree The CART procedure initially considers the data as belonging to a single group. This group is partitioned into two relatively homogeneous subgroups as a result of ``yes/no'' type of questions involving a predictor variable. The two subgroups are then split using another predictor. The splitting process builds a tree structure that is useful for communicating the classication decision to others and for automatically classifying or predicting new cases. For example, suppose we are interested in classifying people as having a high risk for heart attack (H) or low risk for heart attack (L) based on age, weight and whether they exercise regularly. Figure 1 shows the simple classication tree that depicts this study. The sample space is divided such that if one is over 45, overweight and does not exercise regularly, one has a high risk for heart attack. The tree structure output of CART provides easily interpretable information about the main factors and interactions between factors that are critical in predicting heart attack. CART considered splitting on dierent ages as well as the dierent values for weight and the exercise variable before settling on age over 45 as the critical factor.

4. APPLICATION OF METHODOLOGY

An example application of the rule induction-based methodology for determining the number of kanbans in a JIT shop is presented as follows:

722

Ina S. Markham et al.

Fig. 1. Example of a classication tree.

4.1. Data collection We need to determine the number of kanbans to use for the next period of operation in the just-in-time shop, we will call this period t. In order to do this we are going to look at a forecast of shop factors for period t, as well as past shop factors during the preceding period of operation and the resulting ending conditions from the preceding period, we will call this period t 1. In order to analyze the relationship between exogenous and endogenous dynamic factors and their inuence on kanban levels eight shop factors were chosen. As previously stated, these factors were identied from a review of previous research. Eight dynamic factors were chosen to study over two periods of operation. The factors are listed in Table 1. The levels for the period t 1 factors would be the observed values for each factor during the previous period. The level of the period t factors would be a forecast for each factor in the next period of operation. For previously stated reasons it was necessary to generate shop data via a simulation model. The shop chosen is identical to the shop used by Wray et al. [31]. This shop is an extension of the shop used by Rakes et al. [16], which in turn was based on the model introduced by Huang et al. [2]. The shop utilized in this study consists of 6 workcenters with two nal products. The particular workcenter for which we wish to estimate the number of kanbans processes parts from ve dierent workcenters to produce two nal products. The processing at this workcenter
Table 1. Input factors investigated and their possible values Input factors Demand variability for period t 1 Processing variability for period t 1 Vendor supply variability for period t 1 Demand variability for period t Processing variability for period t Vendor supply variability for period t Number of kanbans from period t 1 Leadtime from period t 1 Possible values 0 or 1 0 or 1 0 or 1 0 or 1 0 or 1 0 or 1 1 to 10 18.2129.8

A rule induction approach for determining kanbans in a JIT production system

723

is deliberately complicated by including waiting for components from many workcenters and up-stream vendor deliveries to make the investigation more realistic. The nal workcenter in the production process was chosen because of the direct impact of demand variability for the dierent products. It should be reiterated here that we do not propose the construction of a simulation model to generate shop data. The simulation model used in this research was necessary to generate dynamic shop data that was otherwise unavailable. In a real world setting the data would come from the JIT shop under consideration. The amount of data available would be limited to historical information about shop factors, the number of kanbans used and the resultant performance. The actual shop data would require a screening process to determine if the number of kanbans used for a particular shop scenario resulted in good or poor shop performance. All historical data with poor shop performance would need to be eliminated from the training data to prevent rules resulting in poor shop performance. In a practical sense, the actual shop performance for all possible combinations of shop conditions and the number of kanbans used would be unknown. CART would be necessary to learn relationships in the data in order to estimate unknown points in the decision space. The simulation model was used to generate 560 data points which were randomly divided into two data sets of 280 points each. One of the data set was used to generate the decision tree, while the other data set was used to validate the decision tree. 4.2. Formation of decision tree The JIT shop data were analyzed using the CART module in SYSTAT. CART runs were performed on an IBM-PC (Pentium 75 MHz with 16 MB of RAM). Run times were between 5 and 10 min depending upon the value of the parameters specied for growing the maximal tree. The minimum variance tree generated is shown in Fig. 2. Of the eight independent variables used, only six were found to be critical in predicting the number of kanbans. It appears that demand and processing variability in period t 1 were not critical factors in determining the number of kanbans.

Fig. 2. Classication tree for JIT production environment.

724

Ina S. Markham et al.

4.3. Interpretation of the decision tree The rule induction approach resulted in the classication tree given in Fig. 2. The tree shows many interrelations between the factors studied. The rst factor to cause the tree to branch is the forecast of demand variability in the next period (DVT). This is not surprising since previous studies by Huang et al. [2], Philipoom et al. [8] and others have also reported the same nding. Two second level branches are caused by product leadtime from the previous period (LTT1) and the forecast of processing variability in the next period (PVT). LTT1 is considered important when DVT is high, otherwise, if DVT is low then PVT is important. An interesting result is that the third level branches are all dependent on the level of vendor supply variability. VVT occurs twice at this level and VVT1 occurs once. If DVT is high and LTT1>56, then VVT1 is important. If DVT is high and LTT1 56, then VVT is important. Also, if DVT is low and PVT is Low then VVT is important. One nal branch on level 3 is a terminal node where a classication is made. These classication branches are the basis for developing rules or heuristics for ecient operation of the JIT shop. This branch is responsible for the rst rule given in Table 2. Namely, if DVT is low and PVT is high then 2 kanbans are needed for the next period of operations. Each rule constructed in Table 2 can be traced in the same manner. An examination of each rule provides an insight into the critical relationships within the JIT shop. The rst insight is provided by rule number 3. Some prerequisites for eective implementation of JIT given by Monden [5] are smoothed production, layout of processes and standardization of jobs. If these and other conditions are met ideally only 1 kanban would be needed for one piece production at a workcenter (in actuality NO kanbans would be needed). In rule 3, the 3 factors that determine how the shop will operate in the next period of production (DVT, PVT and VVT) are all set at their lowest level of variability. This combination would produce shop conditions that most closely reect the ideal conditions needed for one piece production. Consequently, the classication of 1 kanban when DVT, PVT and VVT are all low is consistent with the general constructs of JIT. All other rules indicate how many kanbans need to be added when the most stable conditions are not met. A second insight into the critical relationships within the JIT shop is the importance of the forecast of demand variability in the next period. As previously mentioned, this is consistent with the ndings of other researchers in JIT. It can be seen that if DVT is low the average number of kanbans needed in the next period is 12 3 [(2 + 2 + 1)/3] and when DVT is high the averTable 2. Rules induced from the classication tree for the JIT production environment Rule # (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) If demand variability period t is low and process variability period t is high demand variability period t is low and process variability period t is low and vendor variability period t is high demand variability period t is low and process variability period t is low and vendor variability period t is low demand variability period t is high and leadtime period t 1 more than 56 and vendor variability period t 1 is high demand variability period t is high and leadtime period t 1 more than 74 and vendor variability period t 1 is low demand variability period t is high and leadtime period t 1 between 56 and 74 and vendor variability period t 1 is low and process variability period t is high demand variability period t is high and leadtime period t 1 between 56 and 74 and vendor variability period t 1 is low and process variability period t is low demand variability period t is high and leadtime period t 1 is 56 or less and vendor variability period t is low and number of kanbans period t 1 is more than 3 demand variability period t is high and leadtime period t 1 is 56 or less and vendor variability period t is low and number of kanbans period t 1 is 3 or less and process variability period t is high demand variability period t is high and leadtime period t 1 is 56 or less and vendor variability period t is low and number of kanbans period t 1 is 3 or less and process variability period t is low demand variability period t is high and leadtime period t 1 is 56 or less and vendor variability period t is high and number of kanbans period t 1 is more than 8 demand variability period t is high and leadtime period t 1 is 56 or less and vendor variability period t is high and number of kanbans period t 1 is 8 or less and process variability period t is high demand variability period t is high and leadtime period t 1 is 24 or less and vendor variability period t is high and number of kanbans period t 1 is 8 or less and process variability period t is low demand variability period t is high and leadtime period t 1 is between 24 and 56 and vendor variability period t is high and number of kanbans period t 1 is 8 or less and process variability period t is low Then 2 kanbans are needed 2 kanbans are needed 1 kanban is needed 2 kanbans are needed 2 kanbans are needed 7 kanbans are needed 3 kanbans are needed 3 kanbans are needed 4 kanbans are needed 5 kanbans are needed 4 kanbans are needed 4 kanbans are needed 3 kanbans are needed 4 kanbans are needed

A rule induction approach for determining kanbans in a JIT production system

Table 3. Summary information on CART prediction Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Totaal # Obs. 38 122 57 38 13 5 6 1 280 # Mis-classied 15 10 28 15 12 5 5 1 91 Mis-classication rate 0.395 0.082 0.491 0.395 0.923 1.00 0.833 1.00

725

age number of kanbans needed is 3.7 [(4 + 3 + 4 + 4 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 3 + 7 + 2 + 2)/11]. This shows the importance of accurately forecasting demand in the JIT shop. Rules 1 and 2 indicate what is needed when DVT is low but other forecasted factors are high. In the case of rule 1, when processing variability is high in the next period 2 kanbans are needed (given DVT is low). Similarly, rule 2 indicates that 2 kanbans are needed if both DVT and PVT are low but VVT is high. These rules indicate an additional kanban is needed when there is a forecast for high variability in either processing variability or vendor supply variability in the next period of operations given DVT is low. Rule 4 provides an insight into the relationship between the past period's production and a forecast for high demand variability in the next period. Only 2 kanbans are needed if the vendor variability in the previous period was high, the leadtimes in the previous period were long and DVT is high. A possible interpretation of this rule is that when the leadtime in the previous period was relatively long (>56) and the vendor supply variability in the previous period was high there is no need for more than 2 kanbans in the next period. This implies that the resultant conditions from the previous period's operations (for example work-in-process inventory) have an impact on the number of kanbans needed in the next period of operation. This information could lead to valuable discoveries of previously unknown relationships between dynamic shop factors. Each rule given in Table 2 would provide an additional insight into complicated relationships between factors in the shop. The ability to accurately predict the number of kanbans on a validation sample of 280 data points is summarized in Tables 3 and 4. CART was able to predict the least cost number of kanbans in 189 of 280 dierent shop scenarios that were not used to grow the decision tree. This is a 0.675 classication rate, or a mis-classication rate of 0.325. While this may appear to be a relatively high mis-classication rate, it should be noted in Table 4 that 89% of the CART predictions were at most 1 kanban from the least cost kanban. The ability to predict higher numbers of kanbans is relatively worse than the ability to predict lower numbers of kanbans. This nding is not surprising because of the relatively few data points at the higher levels of kanbans.
5. CONCLUSIONS

Clearly the decision tree generated by the CART technique provides a visually appealing diagram from which the practitioner can extrapolate ``rules of thumb'' for determining the number
Table 4. Frequency table for the CART prediction Number of kanbans from least cost kanban 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Absolute frequency 189 60 10 10 3 6 2 0 280 Cumulative absolute frequency 189 249 259 269 272 278 280 280

726

Ina S. Markham et al.

of kanbans. In the example application presented, a simple heuristic such as ``even if demand variability in the current period is high, if the leadtime in the previous period is short and vendor supply variability in the previous period is high, then only a few (2) kanbans are required'' (see Fig. 2) provides a manager with a practical methodology. Heuristics like these could be of great value to the shop oor manager. Articial intelligence approaches have been used to address the number of kanbans problem. However, a major issue in the articial intelligence community and in particular expert systems, has been in the area of knowledge acquisition. Extracting knowledge from relevant experts has proven to be costly, error prone and time consuming. As a result, techniques for building expert systems which automate the knowledge acquisition process have been developed. Thus the productivity of the interview method of knowledge acquisition is recognized to be low. This led to Feigenbaum [32] identifying knowledge acquisition as the ``bottleneck'' problem in building knowledge-based systems. The results of this research show that rule induction using CART is a viable solution to the knowledge acquisition bottleneck. Since kanban inventory control is an integral part of the JIT production system and the determination of the number of kanbans can have a signicant impact, further research of knowledge acquisition for this domain is warranted.
REFERENCES 1. Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R. and Stone, C. J., Classication and Regression Trees. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 1984. 2. Huang, P., Rees, L. and Taylor, B. A simulation analysis of the Japanese just-in-time technique (with Kanbans) for a multi-line, multi-stage production system. Decision Science, 14(3), 1983, 326344. 3. Fukukawa, T. and Hong, S. C. The determination of the optimal number of kanbans in a just-in-time production system. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 24(4), 1993, 551559. 4. Price, W., Gravel, M. and Nsakanda, A. L. A review of optimization models of Kanban-based production systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 75, 1994, 112. 5. Monden, Y., Toyota Production System. Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Norcross, GA, 1983. 6. Rees, L. P., Philipoom, P. R., Taylor, B. W. III and Huang, P. Y. Dynamically adjusting the number of kanbans in a just-in-time production system using estimated values of leadtime. IIE Transactions, 19(2), 1987, 199207. 7. Bitran, G. R. and Chang, L. A. A mathematical programming approach to a deterministic kanban system. Management Science, 33(4), 1987, 427442. 8. Philipoom, P., Taylor, B., Huang, P. and Rees, L. A mathematical programming approach for determining workcenter lotsizes in a just-in-time system with signal kanbans. International Journal of Production Research, 28(1), 1990, 1 15. 9. Bard, J. and Golany, B. Determining the number of kanbans in a multiproduct multistage production system. International Journal of Production Research, 29(5), 1991, 881895. 10. Moeemi, F. and Chang, Y.-L. An approximate solution to deterministic kanban systems. Decision Sciences, 21(3), 1990, 596607. 11. Li, A. and Co, H. A dynamic programming model for the kanban assignment problem in a multistage multiperiod production system. International Journal of Production Research, 29(1), 1991, 116. 12. Philipoom, P., Rees, L., Taylor, B. and Huang, P. An investigation of the factors inuencing the number of kanbans required in the implementation of the JIT technique with kanbans. International Journal of Production Research, 25(3), 1987, 457472. 13. Gupta, Y. and Gupta, M. A system dynamics model for a multi-stage multi-line dual-card JIT-kanban system. International Journal of Production Research, 27(2), 1989, 309352. 14. Deleersnyder, J., Hodgson, T., Muller, H. and O'Grady, P. Kanban controlled pull systems: an analytic approach. Management Science, 35(9), 1989, 10791091. 15. Groenevelt, H. and Karmarkar, U. A dynamic kanban system case study. Production and Inventory Management, 29(2), 1988, 4650. 16. Rakes, R. R., Rees, L. P., Siochi, F. C. and Wray, B. A. Estimating the number of kanbans using neural networks. Advances in Articial Intelligence in Economics, Finance, and Management, 1, 1994, 125139. 17. Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E. and Thagard, P. R., Induction: Process of Inference, Learning, and Discovery. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986. 18. Mingers, J. Rule induction with statistical data: a comparison with multiple regression. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 38(4), 1987, 347351. 19. Hunt, E., Marin, J. and Stone P., Experiments in Induction. Academic Press, New York, 1966. 20. Quinlan, J. R., Discovering rules by induction from large collections of examples. In Expert Systems in the Micro Electronic Age, ed. D. Michie. The Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1979. 21. Crawford, S. L. Extensions to the CART algorithm. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 31, 1989, 197 217. 22. Grubb, T. G. and King, R. M. Assessing human disturbance of breeding bald eagles with classication tree models. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 55(3), 1991, 500510. 23. Lau, M. Y. and May, A. D. Jr. Injury accident prediction models for signalized intersections. Transportation Research Record, 117, 1989, 5867.

A rule induction approach for determining kanbans in a JIT production system

727

24. Horowitz, J. K. and Carson, R. T. A classication tree for predicting consumer preferences for risk reduction. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(5), 1991, 14161421. 25. Baker, F. A., Verbyla, D. L. and Hodges, C. S. Jr. Classication and regression tree analysis for assessing the hazard of pine mortality caused by heterobasidion annosum. Plant Disease, 77(2), 1993, 136145. 26. Ball, J. W. and Jurs, P. C. Automated selection of regression models using neural networks for 13CNMR spectral predictions. Analytical Chemistry, 65, 1993, 505512. 27. Thomas, J. W. and Ashcraft, M. L. Measuring severity of illness: six severity systems and their ability to explain cost variations. Inquiry, 28, 1991, 3955. 28. Mathieu, R. G. and Huntley, C. H., The use of classication trees in technology planning. Proceedings of the SouthEast Section of The Institute of Management Sciences. October 1993. 29. Pritsker, A., Sigal, C. and Hammesfahr, R., SLAM II: Network Models for Decision Support. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1989. 30. Ragatz, G. and Mabert, V. A simulation analysis of due date assignment rules. Journal of Operations Management, 5(1), 1984, 2739. 31. Wray, B., Rakes, T. and Rees, L., Identifying critical factors in a dynamic JIT environment using neural networks. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 8, 1997, 8396. 32. Feigenbaum, E. A., Expert systems in the 1980s. In State of the Art Report on Machine Intelligence, ed. A. Bond. Pergamon-Infotech, Maidenhead, 1981. 33. Brown, D. E., Corruble, V. and Pittard, C. L. A comparison of decision tree classiers with backpropagation neural networks for multimodal classication problems. Pattern Recognition9, 1, 1993, 953961. 34. Zahedi, F., Intelligent Systems for Business: Expert Systems with Neural Networks. Wadsworth Publishing Co., Belmont, CA, 1993.