Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg

Master Thesis
Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release Strategies
in Plant Simulation

Deepak Narayanan

Examiner:
Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hermann Lödding
Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. Wolfgang Kersten

Supervisor:
Dipl.-Ing. M.Sc. Daniel Trzyna

Institute of Production Management and Technology

Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg

Hamburg, December 2, 2011

Acknowledgements

I am very thankful to Prof. Dr.-Ing. hab. Hermann Loedding and Prof. Dr. Dr. h.
c. Wolfgang Kersten, for accepting to supervise my Master Thesis. I am also thankful
to Dipl.-Ing. M.Sc. Daniel Trzyna and all other research assistants and students in
the Institute of Production Management and Technology, in helping me to successfully
complete the implementation of the objectives in Tecnomatix Siemens Plant Simulation.

II
Honorary Declaration

I hereby declare that I personally have completed the present scientific work. The ideas
obtained from other direct or indirect sources have been indicated clearly. This work has
neither been submitted to any other course or exam authority, nor has previously been
published.

Deepak Narayanan, Hamburg on December 2, 2011

III
Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Objective of the Thesis 3

3 Literature Review 4
3.1 Order Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1 Order Acceptance based on Capacity Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.2 Order Acceptance based on Lead Time Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.3 Order Acceptance based on Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2 Order Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.1 Time Phased Order Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.2.2 Input/Output Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2.3 Starvation Avoidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2.4 Constant Work-In-Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.5 Load Oriented Order Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4 Layout of Plant Simulation Model 31

4.1 Data Import & Analysis Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.2 Production Planning and Control Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.2.1 MRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2.2 Production Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.2.3 Other functions in PPC Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.3 Shop Floor Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

IV
 Contents

5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation 36

5.1 Implementation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.1.1 Simulation Start Up Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.1.2 Order Acceptance Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.1.3 Order Release Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.1.4 Additional Evaluation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.2 Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.2.1 Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.2.2 ProductionOrders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.2.3 FactorTable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.2.4 WIPLevel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.2.5 ProdOrderL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.2.6 StationsPlan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.2.7 LoadTable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.2.8 WIPCAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

6 Conclusion / Outlook 61

Bibliography 63

V
List of Figures

3.1 Role of Sales and Production Department in Order Acceptance - [Kate, 1994] 5
3.2 Capacity Schedule Gantt Chart[Wiendahl, 1995] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3 Load Profile [Wiendahl, 1995] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4 Different Order Acceptance Strategies based on Capacity Control . . . . . 10
3.5 Lead Time Syndrome [Nyhuis and Wiendahl, 2009] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.6 Scheduling of Order based on Lead Time - Backward Scheduling [Wiendahl,
1995] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.7 Factors influencing total delivery lead time [Kingsman et al., 1989] . . . . . 12
3.8 Procedure for Order acceptance with weighted tardiness [Slotnick and Mor-
ton, 2007] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.9 Procedure for Order acceptance based on Profit incurred [Nandi and
Rogers, 2004] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.10 Interconnectivity of loads of workstations in a shop floor [Bechte, 1988] . . 17
3.11 Order review and release in Shop Floor Scheduling [Bergamaschi et al., 1997] 18
3.12 Order Release based on Planned Start Date [Loedding, 2008] . . . . . . . . 20
3.13 CONWIP Production System [Hopp and Roof, 1998] . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.14 Productin Operating Curve [Nyhuis and Wiendahl, 2009] . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.15 Influence of Direct and Indirect load in WIP [Loedding, 2008] . . . . . . . 27
3.16 Influence of time limit and load limit in Load Oriented Order Release [Ny-
huis and Wiendahl, 2009] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.1 Flow of information in Netzwerk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.2 Data Import & Analysis Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3 Production Planning and Control Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

VI
 List of Figures

4.4 MRP function of PPC Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.5 Production Manager function of PPC Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.6 Shop floor Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.1 Instruction flow in MRP function of PPC Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5.2 Directional Flow of Simulation Start Up Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.3 Data Transfer in execution of method WIPCAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.4 Input Dialog Box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.5 Flowchart of the Scheduling Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.6 Flow of data during Lead Time Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.7 Options during implementation of Lead Time Scheduling with Factors . . . 46
5.8 Dialog box for ‘Factor for Every Machine’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.9 Dialog box for ‘Factor for Whole Shop Floor’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.10 General Order Release Strategy Information Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.11 Flowchart of CONWIP Release Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.12 Dialog box for Number of CONWIP cards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.13 Option on the Horizon Days setting in CONWIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.14 Dialog box for Number of Horizon Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.15 Flowchart of Load Oriented Order Release Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.16 Principle of Weighing Load Content of the Operations in an Order . . . . . 52
5.17 Dialog for No. of Tolerance Limit days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.18 Forecast Table in MRP Function of PPC Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.19 OperationsPlan Table in the MRP Function of PPC Module . . . . . . . . 56
5.20 ProductionOrders Table in the MRP function of the PPC Module . . . . . 57
5.21 Factortable in the MRP function of the PPC Module . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.22 WIPLevel Table in the MRP function of the PPC Module . . . . . . . . . 58
5.23 ProdOrderL Table in the Production Manager function of the PPC Module 58
5.24 StationsPlan Table in the workstations of the Shop floor module . . . . . . 59
5.25 Loadtable in the workstations of the Shop floor module . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.26 WIPCAL Table in the workstations of the Shop floor module . . . . . . . . 60

6.1 Increase in Implemented strategies from previous simulation model . . . . 61

VII
List of Tables

5.1 Set of Scheduling Method Strings for AuftragsAnnahmeUndFreigabe to call 41

5.2 Set of Order Release Strings for AuftragsAnnahmeUndFreigabe to call . . . 41

VIII
Abstract

Production Planning and Control strategy of a company plays an important role in the
efficient working of a company. The profit and reputation of the company among the cus-
tomers depend on the results the company achieve. Simulating the results which could be
directly or indirectly co-related to the workings of the organization would help in improv-
ing the performance of the organization. In this thesis, the order acceptance and order
release function of an organization has been implemented in existing model, modelled in
Tecnomatix Siemens Plant Simulation. The methods implemented are modular, such that
it could be transferred into any other Tecnomatix Plant Simulation model with all the
necessary data’s.
The Order acceptance strategies that are implemented includes Lead Time scheduling and
an extended version of Lead Time scheduling, where user defined factors are considered
for the shop floor or workstations in calculation of lead time for an order. The Order
release strategies that are implemented are Constant Work-in-Progress (CONWIP), Load
Oriented Order Release (LOOR), order release based on planned start date and imme-
diate order release. The simulation is user-interactive, providing chances for the user to
define the parameters like number of CONWIP cards to be used, number of horizon days
to be considered and the factors to be considered during the implementation of lead time
scheduling.

IX
1 Introduction

The success of a company would depend on the level of satisfaction that their customers
experience on a continuous basis. For this to be achieved, the company has to con-
tinuously work on their development. This involves the implementation of an effective
Production Planning and Control (PPC) system, which should be flexible to dynamic
changes caused by changes in environment, strategies, unintended problems, customer
needs etc. The environment around which the company has to plan their proceedings has
become more dynamic, with the influence of internationalization, customer interaction
and information technology becoming more predominant [Vollmann et al., 2005]. The
product life cycle of products across various industries has been decreasing on an average
of 5 years in the past four decades. This necessitates the need for continuous improvement
[Loedding, 2009]. With the demand for increase in number of variants, a PPC system
without defined consideration to capacity and time duration, would lead to unreliable
results. [Zaepfel and Missbauer, 1993].
The Production Planning and Control involves the planning of incoming orders during
the order entry stage and control over the shop floor on the production of accepted
orders. A typical framework of a PPC system consists of three stages of planning. A
long-range planning stage, involving the process of forecasting the demand and also
scheduling of the incoming orders in combination with already existing orders, to
calculate the possibility of accepting and completing the incoming orders [Wiendahl,
1995]. A medium-range planning stage, involves the preparation of the accepted orders
to be processed in the shop floor. This would involve the preparation of drawings for
the product, Bill of Materials (BOM), Master Production Scheduling (MPS), Materials
Requirement Planning (MRP) and Capacity Requirement Planning (CRP). In doing
so, the pool of orders to be processed is scheduled and listed in the job pool ready for

1
 1 Introduction

production [Loedding, 2009]. Finally, a short-range planning stage where the control
of orders that are already accepted and the orders that are waiting in the job pool to
be released to the shop floor. The performance of this stage would evaluate the cost
estimation and the scheduling procedures processed during the initial stages of an order.
In the shop floor control, a feedback system termed as Production Activity Control is
implemented to provide feedback on the running performance of the existing planning to
the initial stages of planning, by use of the working data available during order release,
purchase and shop floor scheduling [Vollmann et al., 2005]. The delivery time and delivery
reliability are the factors, through which a company can uniquely identify themselves
in the market among their competitors. The goal of the companies have always been
to maintain and improve their effective delivery capability and delivery reliability. This
could be achieved by an integrated planning process, which takes into account the various
stages of the material flow during its production [Nyhuis and Wiendahl, 2009].
The decision making process in the PPC system is a combination of complex situations.
An analytical effort in analysing aspects like selection of a subset of incoming orders
for acceptance and benefit calculation of the orders to the company, would lead to loss
of time and increasing the complexity within the decision making process. This is due
to the dynamic characteristic of the manufacturing system. But, with the improvement
in hardware and technology in today’s world, simulation has become more easier in
providing results for such complex situations [Nandi and Rogers, 2004]. According to
Grant [1988], “Historically, simulation techniques have been highly successful and used
extensively for the planning and analysis of current operations and proposed designs”. As
our objectives of implementing order acceptance and order release functions in a shop
floor is a dynamic activity, a simulation model has been designed in Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation software, to simulate and analyse various strategies.

2
2 Objective of the Thesis

The topic of the Master Thesis as mentioned in the front page, is “Implementation of
Order Acceptance and Order Release Strategies in Plant Simulation”. The main aim of
the Master Thesis is to implement new order acceptance and order release strategies in the
already existing simulation model build in Tecnomatix Siemens Plant Simulation software.
The existing model had only one order acceptance strategy (Capacity Scheduling) and no
specified order release strategy implemented.
By the end of this Master Thesis, the primary objectives are to provide the user with more
Order Acceptance strategies and Order Release Strategies to simulate in the simulation
model. Other secondary objectives were to make the processing of the simulation model
faster even with more strategies implemented and also to provide a more user friendly
platform, where the user would easily understand the options that is available in the
simulation model.
The thesis report is structured as follows : Chapter 3 provides the necessary literature
for the master thesis, chapter 4 explains the layout of the simulation model and chapter
5 explains the methodology on implementation of the order acceptance and order release
strategies in the simulation model.

3
3 Literature Review

3.1 Order Acceptance

The functioning of Order Acceptance is considered as a tactical decision making process,

where the determination of delivery date and cost of the order, influence the profit and
reputation of the company in the market [Ebben et al., 2005]. Selection on the orders
to accept depends on the company’s level of willingness to trade off between issues like
strategic planning on a market segment, limits on revenue, customers and resource uti-
lization. “Accepting orders without considering their possible costly impact on capacity
can mean the firm is paying for the privilege of accepting orders” [Slotnick and Morton,
2007]. An order from a customer comes with various characteristics like quantity, due-
date limitations, product type, etc. Production Planning and Scheduling mechanisms of
the organization are important factors in formulating an order acceptance strategy. These
functions should take into consideration the aforementioned characteristics and then check
for the availability of capacity in the shop floor, keeping in mind the capacity allocated
for already accepted orders [Wester et al., 1992].
Order acceptance in general, is considered to be a coordinated functioning of the pro-
duction and sales department of an organization. Informations about an order such as
revenue, time duration, scheduling, etc., that these departments receive and provide, along
with their operational execution would result in either the acceptance or rejection of an
order. The decision making process on whether to accept an order or reject an order
depends upon the level of informations that are available about the orders [Kate, 1994].
Though it is considered that a decision is made by both the departments in conjunction,
conventionally the decision making function on Order acceptance is carried out by the
sales department without enough consideration towards the planning and scheduling of

4
 3 Literature Review

the production department. The main goal of the sales department is to attain maximum
number of orders within a time frame and maintain a revenue standard in the order list.
The production department on the other hand, have their main aim in maintaining the
production performance with minimal production cost and maximum utilization of the
available capacity in the shop floor. These goals are conflicting and if both department
tends to work independently, it would lead to the overall performance of the company to
decrease [Ebben et al., 2005].

Market Inputs Technical Inputs

(e.g. Customer Orders) (e.g. Available Capacity)
Coordination

SALES PRODUCTION

Figure 3.1: Role of Sales and Production Department in Order Acceptance - [Kate, 1994]

Accepting more orders than their capability would lead to, either the company planning
on extra capacity procurement or over time in production to provide the orders within
the due date, or damage their reputation by delivering the order beyond the due date to
the customer and also in some cases paying the tardiness penalty. In either of the cases,
the planned net revenue expected from the order would decrease [Ebben et al., 2005].
Order acceptance strategies could be based on the principles of scheduling according to
capacity, scheduling according to lead time and an acceptance decision based on the rev-
enue an order would provide. The capacity based order acceptance strategies accepts
orders after checking the work load of the incoming orders with the available capacity
in the work shop after the capacity allocation for already accepted orders. Order accep-
tance strategies based on lead time calculates the total lead time of an order to check
the possibility of completing an order within the customer stipulated time period. The
decision making parameter for the order acceptance strategies based on revenue is the
net revenue an incoming order would contribute to the company. The factors of tardiness
penalty, cost incurred due to preference between urgent and regular orders are taken into
consideration during the formulation of the order acceptance strategy. In chapter 3.1.1,
Capacity based order acceptance strategies like Hierarchic approach [Wester et al., 1992],

5
 3 Literature Review

Aggregate Resource Loading [Ebben et al., 2005], Resource Loading per Resource [Ebben
et al., 2005] and Capacity Scheduling [Wiendahl, 1995] are explained. In chapter 3.1.2 lead
time based order acceptance strategies like Monolithic Approach [Wester et al., 1992] and
Lead Time Scheduling [Wiendahl, 1995] are explained. In chapter 3.1.3 revenue based
order acceptance strategies with principle of Weighted tardiness [Slotnick and Morton,
2007] and Net Revenue [Nandi and Rogers, 2004] are explained.

3.1.1 Order Acceptance based on Capacity Scheduling

Order Acceptance based on Capacity scheduling is based on the scheduling procedure,

wherein the incoming orders are scheduled based on the capacity availability in the shop
floor [Wiendahl, 1995]. The main focus of the order acceptance strategies based on capac-
ity is to maximise the utilization rate of the workstations in the shop floor. By checking
the capacity availability of all the workstations involved in an order before accepting an
order, the utilization rate of a workstation is maintained. It is maintained because of the
predetermined scheduled allocation of the capacity to the order. Therefore, the capacity
available for an incoming order is the capacity that is left after the deduction of capacities
that are under utilization in production and the capacity allocated for already accepted
orders which are in queue for production [Ebben et al., 2005].

11 12 13 14 Order No. 1

21 22 23 24 Order No. 2
31 32 33 34 Order No. 3
(Production Equipment

31
A 11
21
or Machine)
Load Center

12 32
B 22

1 2 3 4
Time Period

Figure 3.2: Capacity Schedule Gantt Chart[Wiendahl, 1995]

6
 3 Literature Review

An incoming order is checked of its work content contribution to the workstations involved
in its production. Each work content is then scheduled to their corresponding worksta-
tions. This procedure of allocating the work content of an order to their corresponding
workstations involved, is done for all the orders within a predefined time period. The
scheduling of the orders within the time frame in the corresponding workstations can be
depicted in a Capacity Schedule Gantt chart as shown in figure 3.2. In the example shown,
the work content of the three orders in the time frame is allocated to the workstations A
and B, based on the time of their arrival and processing time. With load on the y-axis and
time period on the x-axis, the load to the workstations are piled up during their arrival
to the workstation as shown.
After allocating all the incoming orders in the Capacity Schedule Gantt chart, a profile
connecting all the loads within a workstation is drawn. The profile thus obtained is called
a Load Profile of a workstation. A typical load profile of a workstation is depicted in
figure 3.3.

Overload Available Capacity

Load
Capacity
(in Hrs) Load Limit

Time Period - T

Figure 3.3: Load Profile [Wiendahl, 1995]

As shown in the example, a load profile runs flat until a new load is being inflicted on
the workstation by an incoming work content of an order. When the new incoming work
content is added to the already existing load, a upward step is formed in the profile due
to the increase in load. Similarly when an operation in the workstation is completed, the
load profile undergoes a downward step equivalent to the completed load. The resulting
load profile would be helpful in deciding upon the next stage of strategy in maintaining
the capacity utilization with the shop floor. By drawing a load limit line in the load
profile, the time duration for which the workstation is starving for utilization and the

7
 3 Literature Review

time duration where it is overloaded can be found. After obtaining the load profile of
the workstations after the inclusion of incoming order, a decision is made based on the
necessary like capacity adjustment (load levelling, capacity increase) and capacity align-
ment (subcontracting, alternate routing, alternate processing) that are to be carried out
[Wiendahl, 1995].
A similar order acceptance methodology termed as Hierarchic Approach is explained by
Wester et al. [1992]. The order acceptance decision is based on the work content already
existing in the system and the change induced by the work content of the incoming order.
The procedure is to check a predetermined calculated value of critical work content Wc
with the sum of operation times of already accepted orders and incoming orders. An
order is accepted only if the summation of operation time (Oj ) is less than the critical
work content level (Wc ) [Wester et al., 1992].
X
Oj < Wc (3.1)

Oj Operation Time of the order

Wc Critical Work Content Level

Another methodology - Aggregate resource loading (ARL) was mentioned by Ebben

et al. [2005], which compares the operation time of already accepted orders along with
the operation time of the incoming orders with the available capacity in the shop floor
between the release date and due date of the order. The difference from the methodology
proposed by Wester is that it takes the aggregate loading of the various machines involved
in the processing of an order as shown in equation 3.2.
Similar to the method proposed by Wester et al. [1992], this method also does not
differentiate the product types within the orders and does not correlate any details of
the incoming orders with the already accepted orders. The product type of any incoming
order would not affect the criteria for accepting the order. Though in practice, any
difference in product type in the shop floor would necessitate the need for additional
set-up time. This additional set-up time between manufacturing of different product
types is not considered during the decision making process of order acceptance. There is
an uncertainty on the input rate of an incoming order with different product type. Hence,

8
 3 Literature Review

to compensate for the uncertainty, a safety factor α is used. During the setting of the α
value, considerations are to be given to the service level and the maximum utilization
rate that is preferred. Normal values of α are greater than 95%. With every accepted
order the available capacity αCtm − Utm decreases by the corresponding processing time
of the accepted order. If the processing time of the incoming order is greater than the
available capacity at the time period t, the order is checked for possibility of acceptance
in the next time period t + 1 [Ebben et al., 2005].

nj
M X dj
M X
X X
pbjm ≤ (αCtm − Utm ) (3.2)
m=1 b=1 m=1 t=rj

pbjm estimated processing time of process b in order j at machine m

Ctm Available capacity at machine m at time t
Utm Reserved capacity at machine m at time t for already accepted orders
α Safety factor
M Number of machines in the shop floor
nj Number of processes in an Order
rj Release date of order j
dj Due date of order j

To lessen the uncertainty over the lack of precedence relation between the jobs, the
methodology Resource loading per resource(RLR) was proposed. The methodology in-
cludes the precedence relation between jobs by calculating an internal job release date
and internal due date (rbj and dbj ) of the jobs within each workstations. The internal
release date of an order b is the earliest possible date an order k can start i.e, the earliest
possible completion date of all the preceding orders. The internal due date is the latest an
order can get completed with sufficient time for successive orders to get completed within
their due dates. In doing so, the estimation on the capacity utilization and probable
completion of the jobs could be calculated. With consideration given to only individual
resource level, the value of α should be higher than the Aggregate resource loading [Ebben
et al., 2005].

9
 3 Literature Review

b−1 nj
X X
rbj = rj + pkjm ; dbj = dj − pkjm (3.3)
k=1 k=b+1

dbj
X
pbjm ≤ (αCtm − Utm ) (3.4)
t=rbj

pkjm estimated processing time of process k in order j at machine m

rbj Internal Order Release date
dbj Internal Order Due date

Aggregate Resource Resource Loading per

Capacity Scheduling Hierarchic Approach Loading (ARL) Resource (RLR)
by Wiendahl by Wester et al. by Ebben et al. by Ebben et al.

Capacity Control with Capacity Control with Capacity Control with Capacity Control with
Capacity Schedule Critical Work Load capacity availability capacity availability
Gantt Chart, Capacity Content Level WC check over all check over specific
Adjustment and machines , release and machines, internal
Capacity Alignment. due dates of all jobs release date and
internal due date.

Figure 3.4: Different Order Acceptance Strategies based on Capacity Control

3.1.2 Order Acceptance based on Lead Time Scheduling

The knowledge available on probable lead time of an order is important in planning the
probable delivery due date of an order. If lead time is considered to be a forecasting
problem and is continuously changed upon during the implementation of the production
process, then as explained by Mather and Plossl [1978] the production planning and
control system would lean towards the Lead Time Syndrome [Kingsman et al., 1989] as
shown in figure 3.5. The lead time syndrome is caused due to the unreliable scheduling
procedure followed in the shop floor. As the schedule reliability decreases, the throughput
time of the orders increases. To compensate for that, more orders would be released to the
shop floor and it may lead to a situation wherein the available capacity is not sufficient.
With lower capacity and longer queue in the shop floor, the throughput time invariably
increases. This shows that without a proper scheduling procedure, the steps taken against
the increase in throughput time would lead to a situation wherein the throughput time

10
 3 Literature Review

increases further [Nyhuis and Wiendahl, 2009]. This would only result in the continuous
change of throughput time of an order and hence losing the reputation from the customers
as a reliable manufacturer [Kingsman et al., 1989].

Increase in Low
variance of Schedule
throughput Reliability
time

Increase of
Longer planned
Queues in throughput
work time
stations

Increase of
Load on Early release
work of Orders
stations

Figure 3.5: Lead Time Syndrome [Nyhuis and Wiendahl, 2009]

Lead Time Scheduling involves the estimation of the lead time of each operations that
are to be processed for the completion of an order. The lead time of each operation is
calculated and then the possible start date of the order is backtracked from the customer
due date, in case of backward scheduling as in figure 3.6 or the order completion date is
estimated from the order entry date in case of forward scheduling. An order is accepted
if the calculated lead time of the order is within the planned lead time required by the
customer. If the calculated lead time exceeds the planned lead time provided by the
customer, the order is rejected [Wiendahl, 1995].
“The manufacturing lead time for an order, MLT, is the time between the arrival of the
materials required to make it and the completion of its processing” and “ the total delivery
lead time, DLT; for an order is the time between receipt of the customer enquiry and the
completion of the order” [Kingsman et al., 1993]. Calculating the total delivery lead time
involves the knowledge on the various factors that influences the total delivery lead time
as shown in figure 3.7. The total delivery time is a summation of the total manufacturing
lead time, the time allocated for the customer to accept the order and the time required
for the arrival of materials required for the order once the order is accepted. Queue time is

11
 3 Literature Review

Order No. 1
11 12 13
Part A
Order No. 3
31 32 Part C
Order No. 2
21 22 23 24 25
Part B
Time

Present Date Planned Lead Time Due Date

Figure 3.6: Scheduling of Order based on Lead Time - Backward Scheduling [Wiendahl, 1995]

the summation of processing and set-up time for the jobs that are waiting to be processed
in the workstations. Released backlog is the number of jobs that are released to the shop
floor for processing. The list of orders to be released next is in the Pool. Planned backlog
is the set of orders that are released and in the pool, for which the required materials are
available for production. Total backlog is the set of orders that are the planned backlog
and the orders that are confirmed and are in wait for the materials, and also the orders
which are yet to be confirmed by the customer [Kingsman et al., 1989].

Customer Job
Order Planning Release Dispatching
Total Backlog Rejected
Planned Backlog

Released Backlog

Pool
Quoted Confirmed Queue
(Unreleased
Jobs Jobs
Jobs)

Negotiation

Flow of Orders Operation Lead Time

Pool Delay Throughput Time

Total Manufacturing Lead Time

Material Lead
Quotation Time Time

Total Delivery Lead Time

Figure 3.7: Factors influencing total delivery lead time [Kingsman et al., 1989]

Wiendahl [1995] explains that the total lead time to be the summation of Operation lead
times of the processes in the order. Operation lead time being the summation of Order
time and Interoperation time. Order time is calculated by adding the set-up time of

12
 3 Literature Review

an operation with the product of the processing time of the operation and number of
quantity required. Interoperation time is the time that an order takes to move from one
work station to another work station. The factors that are conventionally considered to
be interoperation time are queuing time for operation to start and process, waiting time
of the product before processing (cooling,marking, etc.,), inspection time, transportation
time and transit time. With the above mentioned factors contributing in calculating the
lead time, the actual WIP level in the shop floor will quantify the lead time. The WIP in
the shop floor depicts the total work content existing in the production system and the
lead time of an order will be influenced by the amount of work content existing in the
production system.
Wester et al. [1992] also explained a similar approach of order acceptance (Monolithic
approach) where the probable completion date of an order is compared with the due date,
to calculate the lateness factor Lk (S) to make a decision on accepting orders (equation
3.5). A negative lateness factor would mean that the completion date of the order is before
the due date requested by the customer. The objective of the approach is to minimize
the maximum lateness in the orders. An order would be accepted, if its input does not
increase the existing lateness factor in the current schedule. Though it is desirable to
attain negative lateness, it to be noted that if maximum negative lateness is maintained,
then there would be possibility of clustering of orders with same product type as it involves
no separate set-up times.
Lk (S) = tk (S) − dk (3.5)

Lk (S) Lateness factor of the Order k under schedule S

tk (S) Completion time of the Order k under schedule S
dk Due date of the Order

3.1.3 Order Acceptance based on Revenue

An Order acceptance strategy would have its principle on various factors involved in the
processing of an order. Though the control parameters of those order acceptance strate-

13
 3 Literature Review

gies are different factors, their functioning finally is indirectly connected with the revenue
obtainable by the company for the orders it accept. Order acceptance strategies that
are based on the revenue management principle, have the net revenue of an order as a
control parameter to make a decision on whether to accept or reject an order [Slotnick
and Morton [2007], Nandi and Rogers [2004]].
Slotnick and Morton [2007] explains a methodology for order acceptance based on the
principle of estimating the net revenue of the set of incoming orders being influenced
by the tardiness penalty associated with each order. Each incoming order would have
a parameter - Customer tardiness weight (wi ), which is a discount factor that is to be
considered if the order would be completed beyond the due date of the customer. The
procedural flow during the implementation of the methodology is shown in figure 3.8. The
procedure starts with sequencing of the incoming orders.

Formation of
Sequencing of Optimal Calculation of net Optimal Set
Jobs using sequencing of jobs profit achievable for (Accepted Orders)
Heuristics. (WSPT) all incoming orders and Removable Set
of jobs

Figure 3.8: Procedure for Order acceptance with weighted tardiness [Slotnick and Morton, 2007]

Heuristics were performed during the sequencing of the orders, in order to obtain an
optimal sequencing for weighted lateness/flowtime (WSPT). The heuristics methods ex-
perimented by Slotnick and Morton [2007] during the sequencing of the orders were Beam
Search [Lowerre and Reddy, 1980], R&M heuristic [Morton and Rachamadagu, 1982] and
Montagne’s heuristic [Montagne, 1969]. The difference in the heuristic methods are in
their methods of evaluation in the required search tree. Once an optimal sequencing of
jobs (WSPT) is obtained, the net profit at any period of time for an incoming order is
calculated using the function written in equation 3.6. If at any point of time, it is noted
that by removing a certain job from the list, the net profit of the company is decreased,
then that particular order is accepted. It is accepted as its addition to the already existing
job list, would not reduce the net revenue achievable by the company. It is to be noted,
that there may be situations wherein an order is accepted in a time period where it did
not influence the net revenue, but during its processing it would exceed the due date of
the order. In that case, the company has to incur the tardiness cost inflicted by the delay.
Upon acceptance of an order, the order is placed on the Optimal set, which denotes the

14
 3 Literature Review

list of accepted orders. The rejected orders are listed in the Removable set.
n
X
max xi [Qi − wi (Ci − di )+ ] (3.6)
i=1

i Job Index
n Total number of Jobs
xi 0 or 1 (job accepted or not)
Qi Assigned revenue of the job i
wi Customer tardiness weight for job i
Ci Completion time of the job
di due date of job i

Similarly Nandi and Rogers [2004], explained a methodology for order acceptance. The
aim of the methodology is same as that of the methodology proposed by Slotnick and
Morton [2007], i.e., to accept orders that by its addition would provide a positive influence
on the net revenue that would be incurred by the company. The procedure proposed by
Nandi and Rogers [2004] (see figure 3.9), is to run two simulation runs of the production
model. One run with the consideration that the order is accepted and the other run with
the consideration of the order being rejected. An incoming order is assigned a revenue
proportion (Kincur ) which it is expected to provide upon processing in the company.
The maximum value of Kincur would be one and the least possible value would be zero.
Setting a value between these two is influenced by factors like demand level, demand level
variability, process time variability, number of urgent order and due date.

First Run: Order Calculate Net

Accepted Revenue (KO)

Assign revenue Check (KO / KWO) Accept /

expected from the with Kincur Reject Order
order (Kincur)
Second Run: Calculate Net
Order Rejected Revenue (KWO)

Figure 3.9: Procedure for Order acceptance based on Profit incurred [Nandi and Rogers, 2004]

The revenue calculation proposed is based on the cost factor (K) and total work content

15
 3 Literature Review

(TWK) of the order (equation 3.7). Upon calculating the revenue that would be achieved
in both the runs (KO and KW O ), a proportional ratio between the revenue incurred
by accepting the order and revenue incurred by rejecting the order is calculated. The
proportional value is compared with the predefined Kincur value of the order, to make a
decision on the acceptance of an order. An order is accepted if the proportional value
is greater than the Kincur value previously defined. It is to be noted that the calculated
revenue during the order acceptance process could be different from the actual revenue
attained by the order. As the revenue would be decremented by a tardiness cost (TC)
calculated as in equation 3.8, if the order is completed beyond its due date. The tardiness
cost of an order is a fraction of the revenue obtained, which is a product of revenue
achievable (Rev), tardiness cost factor (Kt) and the amount of tardiness (Tardiness), the
order attained during its completion. Nandi and Rogers [2004], in their proposed model
provided considerations to the urgency of the incoming orders by categorizing them into
urgent and regular orders. Upon categorization each order is provided with its own cost
factor (Ku or Kr) and tardiness cost factor (Ktu or Ktr), with the factors of urgent orders
being higher than regular orders.

Rev = K × T W K (3.7)

TC = Kt × Rev × T ardiness (3.8)

3.2 Order Release

An Order release strategy is necessary to regulate the start of manufacturing of the ac-
cepted orders in the shop floor. The release function helps in making a swift transition of
the production orders in the planning stage of the system to the execution of the orders
in the shop floor [Bergamaschi et al., 1997]. Without a structured order release strategy,
there may arise a situation of too many orders being released to the shop floor. With
constricted capacity and more orders in queue, this would lead to a situation where the
Work-In-Progress (WIP) of the shop floor and lead time increases without an increase in
throughput rate of the shop floor. Glassey and Resende [1988] defines lead time of an
order to be the time the order requires for manufacturing, i.e., summation of processing

16
 3 Literature Review

time of the order and the waiting time of the order. They then defines throughput rate
as the average number of orders that are produced and dispatched from the shop floor.
The interconnectivity of the loads within a shop floor and their load accumulation can
be depicted as in figure 3.10. The order release strategies provides the necessary help to
maintain a stabilized operational situation in the shop floor. In doing so, the capability
of finishing orders within the planned duration could be achieved [Philipoom and Fry,
1992].

Load-oriented manufacturing control 377

Planned Orders

t
Ii ENTRY >--_._._.
DATA
BASE
'---'---'-'-'-:1
ORDER STOCK i
i
I I
-RE-LE-A-SE~>- -- ._. -- '-'---'-'----1
i
i
i
I
I
NC MILLING I
MACHINE .
I
I
Downloaded By: [German National Licence 2007] At: 11:33 16 June 2011

I
I
I
I
I
i i
I I
I
I-EX-IT----.. ._. . _ ..Ji
JOB SHOP

Delivered Orders
Figure I. Funnel model of a job shop.
Figure 3.10: Interconnectivity of loads of workstations in a shop floor [Bechte, 1988]
Each work centre acts as a funnel in which the funnel outlet represents the
workcentre capacity, the contents of the funnel represents the current order queue and
channels the flow of orders to and from the workcentre. In order to be consistent with
A typical usual
framework
feedback on the the
systems positioning
completionsof the order
of orders release
processed stage in are
at a workcentre thedefined
shop floor is
as output and the completions of orders processed at the preceeding upstream
shown in figure 3.11. The incoming customer orders are scrutinized with the Master Pro-
work centres are defined as input.
Figure(MPS)
duction Schedule I also illustrates
and thetheMaterials
essential events in the flow of
Requirement orders through
Planning the whole
(MRP), to determine
system:
the possibility1. of achieving
Entry the definition)
(order norms set by the customer for the incoming orders. Upon
acceptance, all2. the orders (start
Release of manufacturing flow)
are stored in the ‘Pre-Shop Pool’ as a list of backlog orders. The
3. Input (arrival at a workcentre)
4. Output (departure
orders that are in the pre-shop poolfrom a workcentre)
would be analysed by the order release strategies, to
5. Exit (end of manufacturing flow)
These events depend on various decisions by the control and production personnel
requiring effective manufacturing control techniques. For this purpose load-oriented
17 for three planning levels:
manufacturing control has a planning system
I. Order entry and mid-term capacity planning.
 3 Literature Review

Master Production
Schedule (MPS)
Production
Planning
MRP Planning
Customers System

Job arrival Order Entry

Phase
Pre Shop Order Review
Pool Pre Shop Pool and Release
Management
Phase

Order release
Job release Phase

Shop Floor
Production
Control
Job departure

Figure 3.11: Order review and release in Shop Floor Scheduling [Bergamaschi et al., 1997]

decide upon which order is to be initiated for processing in the shop floor. Thereby, the
WIP and the work load balance between the workstations are maintained [Bergamaschi
et al., 1997].
An Order Release and Review system would be implemented in three stages as shown in
figure 3.11 explained by Bergamaschi et al. [1997]. In the Order entry phase, the order is
prepared and the necessary documentations pertaining to the orders are attached with it
and placed in the pre-shop pool. Other necessary requirements like tools, fixtures, CNC
programs, materials sourcing are done during this stage [Bergamaschi et al., 1997]. The
function of the Pre-Shop Pool Management phase, is to arrange the list of orders based
on certain priority rules. Some of the priority rules that are in practice are First Come
First Served (FCFS) [Baker, 1974], Earliest Due Date (EDD) [Ragatz and Mabert, 1988],
Earliest Release Date (ERD) (Bechte [1988], Portioli [1991], Perona and Portioli [1996]),
Critical Ratio (CR) [Bobrowski, 1989] and Capacity slack based rule [Philipoom et al.,
1993]. The Order Release Phase is the phase which determines the WIP and lead time of
the system. The Order control mechanisms are implemented at this phase to decide upon
the time period, an order is to be released. The pre-shop pool is checked for the number
of unreleased orders, then the order release criteria set by the order release strategy is

18
 3 Literature Review

checked with the situation at the shop floor. Upon satisfy the order release criteria, orders
will be released. Or else the orders would be considered for release in another time period
[Bergamaschi et al., 1997].
According to Bergamaschi et al. [1997] order release strategies could be categorized into
two methodologies based on their basic working principle. They are Time phased method-
ologies and Load limited methodologies. Time phased methodologies releases orders to
the shop floor based on a computed time period, calculated during the scheduling of the
orders. These release period computation are done during the arrival stage of the order,
where the scheduling and order acceptance decisions are made. The Load limited method-
ologies performs the order release function during a time period that is set according to
the situation in the shop floor. Parameters like Work-In-Progress (WIP), throughput rate
and lead time directly or indirectly depicts the situation of the shop floor. Load limited
methodologies sets one of these parameters as the control variable for the triggering mech-
anism to release orders to the shop floor. In a similar way Loedding [2008] categorizes
order release strategies into two category. One is the Periodically driven order release
strategies, that releases orders based on the criteria of attaining certain time periods.
The other category is the Event driven order release strategies, that releases orders based
on a trigger that is initiated due to some event happening in the production process.
Methodologies like Immediate Release (sofortige Auftragsfreigabe) and Release on Planned
Start Date (Auftragsfreigabe nach Termin) explained by Loedding [2008] in chapter 3.2.1,
could be categorized as Time phased order release methodologies. Chapter 3.2.2 explains
the methodology Input/Output Control proposed by Wight [1970]. The throughput rate
of the shop floor is used as the control variable in order releasing mechanism. Chapter
3.2.3 explains the methodology Starvation Avoidance proposed by Glassey and Resende
[1988]. The utilization rate of the bottleneck workstation in the shop floor is the con-
trol parameter in releasing further orders to the shop floor. Chapter 3.2.4 and 3.2.5
explains methodologies CONWIP [Spearman et al., 1990] and Load Oriented Order Re-
lease [Bechte, 1988] respectively. Both of the method uses the Work-In-Progress as the
control parameter for releasing order to the shop floor.

19
 3 Literature Review

3.2.1 Time Phased Order Release

Loedding [2008] explained two methodologies of order release mechanisms, that releases
the order based on a time period set by the strategy. The Immediate Release (sofortige
Auftragsfreigabe) releases orders once is comes to the job shop pool of the shop floor. So
the time required for an order to be released in this situation, is the time it has to wait
so that the order generation process is completed. This method of order release does not
discretize an urgent order from a regular order. Both urgent and regular orders are in same
priority to be processed in the shop floor. Because of this, chances of situations wherein
not so urgent orders are being produced and stocked in numbers but the important urgent
orders are still in queue for processing. It can lead to unsteady WIP levels, which can
lead to situations of unreliable lead time, unbalanced utilization of resources and long
throughput times.

Actual Start Planned

Date Start Date

Work in
Progress in
Shop Floor

Actual End Planned

Backlog
Date End Date

Figure 3.12: Order Release based on Planned Start Date [Loedding, 2008]

The Release on Planned Start Date (Auftragsfreigabe nach Termin) explained by Loedding
[2008] (see figure 3.12), releases order based on the planned start date set by the scheduling
methods during the initial processing of order in the Production Planning stages. The
scheduled orders sorted according to their start date will be available in the job shop pool.
When the planned start date of an order is reached, the orders are released to the shop
floor, irrespective of the load existing in the system. Because of this releasing mechanism,
there may be situations where the actual end date of an order would not be same as the
planned end date estimated by the scheduling methods. This is due to the reason that,

20
 3 Literature Review

the actual processing of an order in the shop floor is influenced by various random factors
(breakdown, failure, rework, labour absenteeism, etc,.) and the total WIP existing in the
shop floor. The backlog factor which correlates the actual end date and the planned end
date of the orders would be helpful in assessing the performance of the release method
and in turn would relate the reliability of the scheduling method.

3.2.2 Input/Output Control

The Input/Output Control method of order release proposed by Wight [1970] releases
orders to the shop floor on the principle of maintaining a steady rate of production in the
shop floor. As Wight said, “A low level of shop backlog can be maintained only if jobs are
released to the plant at a steady rate”. The production system at the end of fixed time
period checks the output rate of the shop floor and correlates the value with order entry
rate of the shop floor. If the order output rate to the system increases, the release method
would then increase the rate at which the orders are released. Similarly, if the output
rate to the system decreases the order release rate would also decrease [Swamidass, 2000].
The system maintains the releasing rate so as to attain a target throughput rate that is
predetermined [Roderick et al., 1992].

3.2.3 Starvation Avoidance

In a shop floor with different kinds of workstations with different functionality, there can
be one workstation termed the Bottleneck workstation, who’s decrease in performance
will quickly affect the overall performance of the shop floor. According to Vollmann
et al. [2005], workstations whose capacity is less than or equal to the required demand is
termed as Bottleneck workstations. Capacity loss of one hour in a bottleneck is an hour
of capacity utilization lost in the whole shop floor. If the output rate from the bottleneck
workstation varies, it would influence the total output of the shop floor. So, it is desired
to have a high utilization rate for the bottleneck workstation. The order release strategy
Starvation Avoidance proposed by Glassey and Resende [1988], has its main objective
as to maintain the high utilization rate of the bottleneck machine and low WIP levels
[Roderick et al., 1992]. The high utilization rate for the bottleneck workstation is obtained

21
 3 Literature Review

by maintaining a very low idle time for the bottleneck workstation. In doing so, any time
lost due to the lack of processing of the most critical and high productivity workstation
is avoided [Glassey and Resende, 1988]. To identify the bottleneck workstation in the
system, Glassey and Resende [1988] explain idle time of a workstation with reference to
the average flow rate, work load and workstation availability by equation 3.9
Wj
Ij = 1 − F × (3.9)
Nj .Aj

Ij Idle time of workstation j

F Average flow rate of new orders to shop floor [orders/hr]
Wj Total work load in workstation j per order [hr]
Nj Total number of workstation type j in shop floor
Aj Average workstation availability

The average workstation availability (Aj ) is explained in terms of the mean time to repair
(M T T Rj ) and mean time between failures (M T BFj ), as shown in equation 3.10
(M T BFj − M T T Rj )
Aj = (3.10)
M T BFj
The workstation with minimum expected idle time is the bottleneck workstation. It is
this workstation that must be kept busy. If the idle time of the bottleneck workstation
increases, the company would then lose permanently a time period of production. In
order to avoid idling of the bottleneck workstation, Glassey and Resende [1988] propose
a triggering mechanism that is influenced by the expected time of exhaustion of stock
(E(TE )) and time for replenishment stock (TR ) of the workstation. The expected time for
exhaustion of the workstation is calculated using the physical inventory level (I) of the
workstation and demand rate (d) of the workstation.
I
E(TE ) = (3.11)
d
A triggering mechanism, triggers the system to release new orders to the shop floor when-
ever a situation where the inventory level falls below the demand rate at that time to
replenish plus a safety stock (SS) (equation 3.12). On further correlation between equa-
tions, the releasing policy as shown in equation 3.13 is equated where α > 1. This releas-
ing policy is in direct correlation between the times of exhaustion and replenishment of

22
 3 Literature Review

inventory.
I < d × TR + SS (3.12)

E(TE ) < α × TR (3.13)

3.2.4 Constant Work-In-Progress

The Production Planning and Control system could be broadly classified either to a
Push based system or a Pull based system. The production in a push based system is
triggered by forecasting of demand [Huang et al., 1998]. In the pull based system, the
production is driven by the demand. The production strategy Kanban, initiated by the
Japanese manufacturers is one of the system, which effectively follows the pull system.
The objective of the Kanban systems is to maintain low levels of inventory and hence the
resources necessary for production would be available only at the point of demand. But
since the kanban system would work effectively only under a repetitive manufacturing
system and not in a general shop floor manufacturing system, the Material Requirements
Planning (MRP) systems were still followed [Spearman et al., 1990]. It was Spearman
et al. [1990] who proposed a production control system termed CONWIP which is an
alternative version of kanban, that would be suitable for various production environments.
CONWIP system is similar to the kanban system in using the cards/signals to trigger the

FGI

Card Count m

Material Flow

Card Flow

Figure 3.13: CONWIP Production System [Hopp and Roof, 1998]

initiation of an operation in the shop floor. Rather than the card being attached to trigger
an operation for specific part in the production line as in kanban system, in CONWIP
the card is attached to a container that transverses throughout the whole production line
as shown in figure 3.13. By doing so, a new order would be initiated in the production
line only if there is a free card in the system. The cards return to the first stage of

23
 3 Literature Review

the production line after the completion of the products. Decision on which order to
be initiated in the production line along with the free card depends on the backlog list
[Spearman et al., 1990]. The factors that influences the management of a CONWIP
system are the arrangement of orders in the backlog list, number of CONWIP cards in
the system and performance of the forecasting system. The backlog list takes care on the
rule of prioritization to decide which order to release and the number of cards decide upon
the level of Work-In-Process (WIP) that is to be maintained in the system [Herer and
Masin, 1997]. The set of orders that can be considered for release within a time period
could be maintained by having a determined anticipation horizon [Loedding, 2008].
Loedding [2008] explains a model based approach in obtaining the number of CONWIP
cards or in other terms, the number of orders to be in process in the shop floor at any
point of time. The principle of the approach is to find an optimal output position possible
through the characteristic Production Operating Curves (see figure 3.14).

Output rate
Operating Point
Throughput time Parameters

Range
Output rate [hrs/SCD]

Throughput Time
[SCD]

WIP [hrs]
[SCD] Shop Calendar Day

Figure 3.14: Productin Operating Curve [Nyhuis and Wiendahl, 2009]

An Operating Curve diagram is used to correlate influence of a single independent factor

involved in the process with other dependent factors involved in the process. In these
operating curves, all the objectives that are required from process would be depicted.
In production systems, the parameters Work-in-Progress (WIP), throughput time and
output rate are on close watch, so as to maintain a stable system. With the help of funnel
formula (equation 3.14), it is to be noted that the aforementioned three parameters are

24
 3 Literature Review

mutually interconnected with each other. As the three parameters are interdependent
to each other, any one of the parameter could be assumed to be independent factor and
others could be assumed to be dependent factors, to construct the required production
operating curve [Nyhuis and Wiendahl, 2009].

W IPM ean
T hroughputT imeM ean = (3.14)
OutputrateM ean

In the curve that is taken into consideration for the purpose of finding the required
parameters, WIP is considered to be the independent factor and plotted in x-axis and
other parameters like output rate and throughput time are plotted in the y-axis. Through
the curves, necessary calculations are done to estimate the production parameters like
lead time, through put time, output rate etc. The mean WIP level of the system is
estimated in time units. The number of CONWIP cards required in the system is then
calculated by equation 3.15. This number of CONWIP cards helps to maintain a required
WIP level in the system.

Bm Am .ZAUv
BAm = − (3.15)
ZAUm 100

BAm Average WIP level [Number of Orders]

Bm Average WIP level [hrs]
ZAUm Average Operation time [hrs]
ZAUv Variation Co-efficient of Operation Time
Am Average Utilization influenced by WIP [%]

Spearman et al. [1990] explained the maintenance of the WIP level in the system through
a trigger function A(t) that defines the production of the system. The trigger function
is initiated whenever it satisfies the condition in equation 3.16. This trigger function
increases or decreases the card count m, based on the necessary action required. Hopp and
Roof [1998] also explained an algorithm to increase and decrease the number of CONWIP
cards in the system by comparing targeted throughput time (µ), mean output rate (λ)
and standard deviation of the output rate (σ). Card count in the system is increased
1 1
when µ > λ
+ 3σ. And card count is decreased when µ < λ
+ 3σ. More simulation models

25
 3 Literature Review

are explained by Herer and Masin [1997] and Huang et al. [1998], in setting a CONWIP
system.
A(T ) < q − r (3.16)

A(T) Trigger Function

r Capacity shortage trigger
q Targeted production quota

3.2.5 Load Oriented Order Release

The production planning system that is conventionally in practice is the finite loading
of the working system. This provides short-term planning results, which is obtained by
repetitive load levelling and operation sequencing of the system on a daily basis. Still, the
results obtained are not always conclusive as it assumes each operations in the system to
be a critical one and does not give much considerations to the inevitable situations like
breakdown, shortage of manpower, etc [Bechte, 1988]. The Load oriented order release
proposed by Bechte [1988], on the contrary implements the principle of maintaining a
pre-determined WIP level and inventory in the system. It also considers the load inflicted
by the workstations upstream. This load is considered to be the indirect load and the
combination of the direct and indirect load of a order is analysed during the process
of order release. Figure 3.15 depicts the influence of the upstream operations on the
direct load of the workstation. The approach calculates an input load of the order to
each workstations from its direct and indirect load, by the method of Load Conversion
[Breithaupt et al., 2002]. It is the converted load of an order obtained from the Load
conversion method, that will be checked against the load existing in the shop floor.
The general philosophy and the flow of work load through a shop floor with load oriented
order release could be explained by the figure 3.10. The control system is divided into
two control areas - Order Stock and Job Shop. The Order stock contains the database of
planned orders and the Job shop depicts the actual work-in-progress in the shop floor. The
figure depicts and explains the influence of various parameters like workstation capacity,
queuing of orders before workstations, total order flow and release of orders between
workstations [Bechte, 1988].

26
 3 Literature Review

AS1 AS2 AS3

ABFA: 50% ABFA: 50% ABFA: 50%
AVG1 AVG2 AVG3

ZUE1 ZDF1 ZUE2 ZDF2 ZUE3 ZDF3

ZAU3

ZDL1 ZDL2 ZDL3 TBE

Indirect load in Direct load in
WIP WIP

Figure 3.15: Influence of Direct and Indirect load in WIP [Loedding, 2008]

ZDL Throughput Time ZDF Processing Time

ZAU Total Operation Time ZU E Waiting Time
AS Workstation ABF A Loading Percentage
AV G Work Process T BE End of Order

The controlling factors in the implementation of the load oriented order release are time
limit/horizon and load limit. The horizon is used to regulate the number the orders that
are to be considered for release to the shop floor. In doing so, unwanted early release of
orders could be prevented. The load limit is applied to each workstations, so as to maintain
an average flow of input, output and WIP within every workstation [Nyhuis and Wiendahl,
2009]. The influence of the factors in the release of the orders is depicted in figure 3.16.
Determining the values for time limit/horizon, load limit and the load conversion factor
is necessary in implementing the load oriented order release. There is no fixed rule in
setting the horizon. An optimal value could be obtained by trial and error. Short horizon
would lead to less number of orders being released. If the horizon is set high then there
are chances that orders are completed earlier and hence increasing the inventory level, or
creating a situation where it would not be possible to implement any new requirements
demanded by the customer or creating a conflict in the shop floor between the non-urgent
and already released urgent jobs [Loedding, 2008]. Wiendahl [1995] and Loedding [2008],
have explained methodologies to implement the Load Oriented Order Release into the

27
 3 Literature Review

Production Orders

Customer Stock Own Requirements

Known Orders

Adjusting wheel: date limit

(Parameter : anticipation
horizon

Adjusting wheel : capacity Urgent Orders Adjusting wheel: load limit

(parameter: demand (Parameter : loading
fluctuation) percentage

WIP level

Released Orders

Production

Figure 3.16: Influence of time limit and load limit in Load Oriented Order Release [Nyhuis and
Wiendahl, 2009]

system.
According to Wiendahl [1995], Load Limit (LL) is the summation of scheduled planned
output(OUT) and planned mean inventory(Im ) during a planned period. In order to avoid
the situation of repeated calculation of load limit at every change in schedule, a Loading
Percentage (LPG) in terms of the scheduled planned output (equation 3.18), which on
further correlations could be equated in terms of scheduled weighted lead time (TLM)
and total schedule period (P), is used for each workstation (equation 3.19).

LL = OU T + Im (3.17)
LL
× 100%
LP G = (3.18)
OU T
T LM
LP G = (1 + ) × 100% (3.19)
P
Wiendahl [1995] explains the method of loading the workstations based on the probability
of the order reaching a particular workstation in the next time period. The incoming load
to the workstation is converted into weighted load by use of the workstation’s specific
load conversion factor (CFp ). In a system the conversion factor to be considered for the
pth workstation of the order is given by the equation 3.20.
100 100 100 100
CFp = × × × ... × (3.20)
LP G1 LP G2 LP G3 LP Gp−1
The converted load (Lp ) for the workstation is then calculated as equation 3.21.

28
 3 Literature Review

Lp = CFp × W C (3.21)

where WC is the work content of the order.

Loedding [2008] explains a methodology in limiting the load in the system by setting the
WIP limit for each workstations. To calculate the WIP limit, the direct load connected to
the workstation and the indirect load in the upstream workstations are taken into consid-
eration. The Throughput time and the Operation time of the Order in the corresponding
workstation are used in the calculation of the direct load, the workstation experiences
from the order at the particular time. The Throughput time of all the upstream opera-
tions corresponding to the order, would contribute a depreciated load (Indirect Load) to
the load of the workstation in consideration. The level of depreciation corresponds to the
position of the workstation from the workstation in consideration and the loading per-
centage of that particular workstation. A ratio between the total WIP corresponding to
the workstation (Direct and Indirect) and the direct WIP of the workstation is calculated
by equation 3.22.
AnzAuf j−1 j−1
( ABF Ak
P P P
(ZAUi,j .( (ZDLi,n . 100
)) + ZDLi,j ))
BFges i=1 n=1 k=n
= AnzAU
(3.22)
BFdir PF
(ZAUi,j .ZDLi,j )
i=1

BFges Cumulative WIP area [hrs.SCD]

BFdir Direct WIP area [hrs.SCD]
ABF Ak Loading Percentage
ZAUi,j Operation time of order i in workstation j [hrs]
ZDLi,n Throughput time of order i in workstation n [%]
j Index number for workstations
AnzAuf Total number of orders

The calculated ratio from equation 3.22 in correlation with the planned mean WIP of the
workstation, provides the WIP limit of the workstation by equation 3.23.

29
 3 Literature Review

Bges,m,P lan
BG = Bm,plan . (3.23)
Bm,P lan

BG WIP Limit [hrs]

Bges,m,P lan Average Planned Total WIP [hrs]
Bm,P lan Average Planned WIP [hrs]

30
4 Layout of Plant Simulation Model

The implementation of the Order Acceptance and Order Release strategies is done on
an already existing simulation model designed in Tecnomatix Siemens Plant Simulation
9.0. It has three main modules which aids in the simulation process. The Data Import
and Analysis module (A), the Production Planning and Control module (B) and the Shop
floor module (C). All the three modules together form the simulation model and is called
the Netzwerk. The information and material flow between the modules in the Netzwerk is
shown in figure 4.1. For the ease of understanding, the following nomenclature is used in

A B

Information Flow
Material Flow
C

Figure 4.1: Flow of information in Netzwerk

the explanation of the simulation model. The Simulation Model is made up of Modules.
The modules are made up of functions. The functions are made methods, tables, variables
and other objects in the simulation model.

31
 4 Layout of Plant Simulation Model

4.1 Data Import & Analysis Module

The Data Import and Analysis module, as the name suggests, imports the required data
from data resources and at the end of the simulation process, does analysis on the obtained
simulation results. The method start in the Datenimport function of the module, initiates
the process of obtaining the data for the simulation model from an excel sheet. A method
in the simulation model is a set of instructions programmed according to the syntax of the
programming language - SIMTALK. The excel sheet with its multiple worksheets contains
all the required data such as order numbers, order type, order entry date, customer end
date, order routing, etc., and the Datenimport function of the module, imports those data
correspondingly to the objects in Production Planning and Control module. The Analyse
function of the module collects the simulation results and does calculations to provide the
total backlog in the shop floor (RS), average backlog in the shop floor (RSm ), standard
deviation of the backlog in the shop floor (RSs ) and the schedule reliability (TT) of the
simulated production strategy.

Figure 4.2: Data Import & Analysis Module

4.2 Production Planning and Control Module

The Production Planning and Control module aids in executing the planning of all the
operations involved in the production of an order. There are various functions like MRP,
Production Manager, Warehouse Manager, Transport Manager and Purchase Manager
(see figure 4.3) in the PPC module, to regulate the functionality of the module. In ac-
tual production management terminology MRP is abbreviated as Materials Requirement
Planning. But in this simulation model MRP is abbreviated to Manufacturing Resource
Planning as in MRP II. So, from here on whenever it is mentioned MRP, it denotes the
Manufacturing Resource Planning of the simulation model.

32
 4 Layout of Plant Simulation Model

Figure 4.3: Production Planning and Control Module

4.2.1 MRP

The functionality of the MRP function in the PPC module is to plan and control the
production process. This is achieved by the various tables and functions that are modelled
in the function as shown in figure 4.4. The table masterdata gets its input values from the
Datenimport function and the tables forecast, factortable and wiplevel get some of their
input values also from the Datenimport function. Other values for the mentioned tables
and table productionorders are filled during the process of the simulation. The MRP
function of the PPC module consists of various methods that are executed during the
implementation of different strategies. Figure 4.4 shows the three group of methods that
are executed during the simulation run. The Simulation start up methods are executed
every time the simulation model is started. There are various Order acceptance groups in
the simulation model. Depending upon the selection made by the user, particular order
acceptance group of methods are executed. There are four methods in the Order Release
group and any one of them would be executed during a simulation run. It is also selected
by the user at the start of the simulation. The functionality of the tables and methods
will be further explained in Chapter 5.

Simulation Start Up Order Acceptance Order Release

Methods Methods Methods

Figure 4.4: MRP function of PPC Module

33
 4 Layout of Plant Simulation Model

4.2.2 Production Manager

The Production Manager function of the PPC module initiates all the necessary actions
required for creating a part of an order in the shop floor. The sequence of methods that
are called upon and executed in the Production Manager function is shown in figure 4.5.
The methods startOrder, enterOrder and createPart instructs the simulation model to
create the part and the method nextDestination decides upon where the part of the order
would next proceed and correspondingly calls transmitPart or delete_part. If a part of
an order is incomplete and needs further processing in other workstations, the method
transmitPart is executed to find the next workstation the order has to be forwarded. If
an order is completed, the method delete_part is executed and the count of total orders
completed is noted down in th global variable deletedParts. As the master thesis evolves
around the implementation of the order acceptance and order release strategies which
would be dealt in the MRP function of the PPC module, further description on the
functioning of production manager function is not explained in this thesis report.

Figure 4.5: Production Manager function of PPC Module

34
 4 Layout of Plant Simulation Model

4.2.3 Other functions in PPC Module

There are a further three functions in the PPC module. They are TransportManager,
WarehouseManager and PurchaseManager. The WarehouseManager functioning is to
collect the completed parts from the ProductionManager. The finished parts will in the
form of an entity in the ProductionManager, the WarehouseManager converts the parts
into objects with the method entityType2warehouse. The TransportManager instructs the
simulation model with the movement details of the processed and completed parts. The
PurchaseManager maintains a check on the available resources in the simulation model.
As the Master Thesis objective does not involve the functioning of the aforementioned
functions, more details on the functions is not provided in this report.

4.3 Shop Floor Module

The shop floor module holds all the workstations of the simulation model as shown in
figure 4.1. These workstations creates parts of an order as entity and completes an order.
Figure 4.6, shows some of the methods and tables that are used by the workstations
in creating the parts. The tables stationsplan, loadtable and Wipcal are used in the
implementation of the objectives of the thesis work. Their structure and functionality
within the simulation model will be explained in Chapter 5.

Figure 4.6: Shop floor Module

35
5 Implementation of Order
Acceptance and Order Release in
Plant Simulation

Implementing the order acceptance and order release strategies in Plant Simulation is
done with the aid of series of tables and methods. The tables that are used in the
execution of the strategies are explained in chapter 5.2. Chapter 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.1.3
explains the methods that are executed in the implementation of the strategies. The
mentioned tables are spread around the PPC and Shop floor module and all the methods
mentioned for the implementation of the strategies are placed in the MRP function of
the PPC Module. Figure 5.1 explains the general flow of action that takes places in the
MRP function of the PPC module during the execution of the order acceptance and order
release strategy. The methods that are in the general flow group (red arrow) are executed
every time a simulation run is executed. These are the methods that prepares and sets the
working parameters for the simulation run. The methods that are in the scheduling flow
(violet arrow) executes the scheduling and order acceptance procedure of the simulation.
Shown in the figure is just one scheduling group, but in the simulation model there are five
scheduling and order acceptance group. Each scheduling group consists of three scheduling
procedures (Forwards, Backwards and Mixed). One of the scheduling procedure would
be executed during the simulation run. The user has to select a specific order acceptance
and specific scheduling strategy to be implemented. Similarly the user has to select one
of the four available release strategy to be implemented. Upon selection the simulation
executes that particular release method after scheduling the list of incoming orders in a
time period (blue arrow).

36
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

General Flow
Direction
One of the Three
Scheduling Strategy
One of the Four
Release Strategy

Figure 5.1: Instruction flow in MRP function of PPC Module

5.1 Implementation Methods

The simulation model executes the strategies based on the details available in the tables.
The structuring and functionality of the tables used during the implementation of the
strategies are explained in section 5.2. The values in the table on its own, would not be
able to run the simulation. It is the set of instructions provided by the methods below,
that guides those values towards a chosen path, so as to run the simulation. Complete
codes of all the methods mentioned are available separately.

5.1.1 Simulation Start Up Methods

The listed methods below, are a series of methods that would be executed during the start
up of the simulation every time. Figure 5.2, shows the directional flow sequence of the
methods. It is the output values and the functional execution initiated by these methods,
that aid in the initiation of the whole simulation process.

Reset

The Reset method is initiated when the reset button in the menu bar of the simulation
model is clicked. The method is used to clear out all the data that are being created by

37
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

Figure 5.2: Directional Flow of Simulation Start Up Methods

the simulation process. In doing so, the simulation model is brought back to the initial
stage where it contains only the required input data for the simulation. Hence, the end
result of the method would be to change various global variables to its initial state, delete
the simulated data in the tables and set the starting time period of the simulation from
obtaining the order entry date of the first order in the forecast table.

Init

The Init method is initiated when the start button in the menu bar of simulation model
is clicked. The functions that are executed by the init method are calling the methods
WIPCAL and Operationtime, and opening the AuftragsAnnahmeUndFreigabe dialog box.
It also sets the eventcontroller, which is the clock of the simulation process, for start of
the simulation.

WIPCAL

The WIPCAL method is executed to calculate the maximum WIP level of each worksta-
tion based on the principle explained around the equations 3.22 and 3.23. The method
executes the flow of information as shown in figure 5.3, for all the orders that are in the
forecast table. The method starts collecting informations from the forecast table, on all
the workstations that is required for the completion of an order . The operation time
(ZAU) and the throughput time (ZDL) for the particular workstation under considera-
tion would be noted down in the WIPCAL table of the corresponding workstation by

38
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

Input Values Calculation in each Storing the final

from Operations workstation’s result in the
Plan Table WIPCAL table WIPLevel table

Figure 5.3: Data Transfer in execution of method WIPCAL

the method. The product of these two values are computed and the cumulative value
of this product over all the orders pertaining with the workstation corresponds to the
denominator of the equation 3.22. The throughput times of the other operations in the
order are weighted, according to its routing position and the factor corresponding to that
position in the factortable. The sum of the weighted throughput time of all the other op-
erations is then multiplied with the operation time of the operation under consideration.
The cumulative sum of all the product values provide the numerator of the equation 3.22.
Upon calculating the required values of the numerator and denominator of all the work-
stations, the inventory stock ratio is calculated for each workstation and is noted down in
the WIPLevel table. Finally, the maximum WIP level of each workstation is computed
by multiplying the inventory stock ratio with the mean WIP level of the workstation as
explained in equation 3.23. This value is noted down in the WIPLevel table and would
be used during the implementation of the Load Oriented Order Release strategy.

Operationtime

The method Operationtime is executed to calculate the total operation time of each order
and the average operation time of each workstation. To calculate the total operation time
of an order, the processing time and setup time of each process and the quantity of the
order is obtained from the operationsplan and forecast table. Product of the processing
time with the number of quantity required in the order plus the setup time, provides the
total operation time. The average operation time of each workstation is obtained by using
the values computed during the execution of the WIPCAL method. The WIPCAL table
contains the operation time of the orders pertaining to the workstations. By summing
all the operations time in the table and dividing it by the number of entries in the table,
the average operation time of the workstation is calculated. The calculated value is noted
down in the WIPLevel table. These values would be used during the implementation of

39
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

the Lead Time Scheduling with factors.

AuftragsAnnahmeUndFreigabe - Callback

The init method opens the AuftragsAnnahmeUndFreigabe dialog box. It is through this
dialog box, the user can select from a series of options as shown in figure 5.4, the strategies
that are to implemented.

Figure 5.4: Input Dialog Box

The list of order acceptance strategies that the user could chose are Capacity based
scheduling (Kapazitats Planung), Lead time scheduling (Reichweitenorientierte Planung),
accepting all the incoming orders (alle Annahme), Order acceptance based on historical
data (Annahme Historisch) and Lead time scheduling with factors (Durchlaufzeitorien-
tierte Planung). If the user decides to select Lead time scheduling with factors as the
mode of order acceptance, then care should be taken on whether the factors is to be
considered for every machine (Faktor fuer jede Maschine) or the factors is to considered
for the whole shop floor (Einheitlicher faktor ). The user could also choose apart from

40
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

the order acceptance strategy, the scheduling method that is to be implemented. The op-
tions being Forward scheduling (Vorwaertsterminierung), Backwards Scheduling (Rueck-
waertsterminierung) or a Mixed scheduling (RueckwaertsVorwaertsterminierung). The
principles of the different scheduling methods are explained in chapter 5.1.2. The order
release strategies that could be implemented by the user are Constant Work-In-Progress
(CONWIP), Load Oriented Order Release (BOA), First Come First Served (Sofortige-
Freigabe) and order release based on planned start date (Startdatum). The user during
the implementation of the Conwip strategy could select either to have a horizon limit
over the number of days, the strategy could look into for releasing orders in advance, by
opting MitHorizon. The user can also select the option KeineHoirzon, which would then
does not restrict the release method on the number of orders it can consider.
Upon selecting the appropriate Order Acceptance, Scheduling and Order Release strat-
egy to be implemented, the callback method of the AuftragsannahmeUndFreigabe would
send the appropriate strings which would then initiate the methods corresponding to the
selections made. Table 5.1 and 5.2, shows the set of strings the callback method could
send upon appropriate selection in the AuftragsannahmeUndFreigabe dialog box.

Order Acceptance Strategy Forward Scheduling Backward Scheduling Mixed Scheduling

Capacity based scheduling (Kapazitats Annahme Annahme1 Annahme2
Planung)
Lead Time Scheduling (Reichweitenori- AnnahmeLV AnnahmeLR AnnahmeLM
entierte Planung)
Lead Time Scheduling with Factors AnnahmeLV1 AnnahmeLR1 AnnahmeLM1
(Durchlaufzeitorientierte Planung)
alle Annahme AlleAnnahme AlleAnnahme1 AlleAnnahme2
Annahme Historisch Annahme1Hist

Table 5.1: Set of Scheduling Method Strings for AuftragsAnnahmeUndFreigabe to call

Order Release Strategy Conwip BOA Startdatum Sofortige freigabe

String Conwip BOA Startdatum Sofortigefreigabe

Table 5.2: Set of Order Release Strings for AuftragsAnnahmeUndFreigabe to call

41
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

5.1.2 Order Acceptance Methods

In the simulation model, two order acceptance strategies are implemented in addition to
the already existing Capacity based scheduling (Kapazitats Planung). The two strate-
gies that are implemented are Lead Time Scheduling (Reichweitenorientierte Planung)
and an extended version of the Lead Time Scheduling, where the process is dealt with
factors (Durchlaufzeitorientierte Planung). All the strategies that are implemented are
scheduled in three scheduling methods - Forward Scheduling, Back Scheduling and Mixed
Scheduling.

Scheduling Strategy

The three methods of scheduling strategies that are implemented and their general flow
of operation is shown in figure 5.5.

Start

Selection of
Scheduling
Method

C
Forward Backward Mixed
Scheduling Scheduling Scheduling

Input : Order Entry Input : Customer Input : Customer

Date End Date End Date

Calculate : Order Calculate: Order Calculate: Order

End Date Start Date Start Date

Check Check Check

No against: against: against: No
Customer Order Order
No
End Date Entry Date Entry Date
Yes
Yes
Reject Order Yes
Accept Order C
C Connector
End

Figure 5.5: Flowchart of the Scheduling Methods

As the figure explains, upon selecting the method of scheduling strategy that is to be
implemented, the corresponding methods with respect to the order acceptance strategy

42
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

would be executed. That process is taken care by the AuftragsAnnahmeUndFreigabe

callback method, explained in chapter 5.1.1. The forward scheduling method sets its
known parameter to be the Order Entry Date mentioned in the forecast table. With that
as the input, the method calculates the probable end date of the order based on either
one of the order acceptance strategy mentioned in chapter 3.1.1 and 3.1.2. The planned
end date of the order is then checked with the requested customer end date mentioned
in the forecast table. If the planned end date is within the time duration requested by
the customer, the order is accepted and further actions on the order is processed. The
backward scheduling method also works on a similar approach, but instead of setting
the order entry date as the known parameter, the backward scheduling method sets the
customer end date as the known parameter. With the customer end date as the known
parameter, it backtracks to the probable date the order should start for processing, so that
the order would be completed on the customer end date. The backtracking calculation
depends on the order acceptance strategy that is selected. The decision on whether to
accept on order is made by comparing the planned start date with the order entry date.
If the planned start date is after the order entry date, the order is accepted.
During the implementation of the Mixed Scheduling method, the backward scheduling
strategy is first implemented. If the order does not meet the criteria based on backward
scheduling and is rejected, the order is then scheduled with the principles of the forward
scheduling. The order is then checked whether it meets the criteria set by the forward
scheduling. If it is satisfied, the order is accepted. If not, it is rejected as by following
either of the scheduling strategies, the order could not be completed within the customer
time durations.

Lead Time Scheduling

The Lead Time Scheduling implemented in the simulation model is based on the principle
explained in chapter 3.1.2. The flow of information, once any one of the Lead Time
scheduling methods mentioned in table 5.1.1 is initiated, is shown in figure 5.6.
The method starts the process of implementing the schedule by setting an active order and
a known parameter (Order Entry date or Customer End date) of the active order based
on the scheduling method selected. All the required details pertaining to the active order

43
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

Calculation of Total Checking

Input Values from Order
Lead Time (including with Order
Forecast and Acceptance /
already accepted Entry and
Operations Plan Order Rejection
orders from Stations Customer
Table Decision
Plan table) End dates

Accepted orders
noted down in
Stations Plan and
ProductionOrders
Table

Figure 5.6: Flow of data during Lead Time Scheduling

can be obtained from the forecast and operationsplan table. The entire process revolves
around finding the Total lead time of each process involved in the order. With the details
about the setup time, processing time and number of quantities required obtained from
the two tables, the order time and the operation lead time of processes in an order is
calculated as in equation 5.1 and 5.2. The number of available hours in that particular
shop calender day is obtained from the Konto table of the specific workstation.

OrderT ime = SetupT ime + (P rocessingT ime × N o.of Quantity) (5.1)

OrderT ime
OperationLeadT ime = (5.2)
ShopCalenderDay
The Total lead time of each process in the order is then calculated by adding the queue
time for an order with the Operation Lead Time. Though there are lot of factors that
contribute to the queueing time of an order in practice, in this implementation process,
queue time is considered to be the time an order has to wait in the workstation till all
the orders that are released before it, is completed. Hence, queue time is the summation
of the operation lead time of all the orders released to the workstation but yet to be
completed, before the release of the active order. The total lead time of a process in an
order n is calculated by equation 5.3.
i=n−1
X
T otalLeadT imeprocess,n = (OperationLeadT ime)process,n + (OperationLeadT ime)process,i
i=1
(5.3)
Then, the required time parameter (Planned start date or Planned end date) is calculated
for an order by sequentially adding the Total lead times of the processes in an order. This
planned duration of operation of an order for completion is checked with the time duration

44
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

mentioned in the forecast table by the customer. If the scheduling method satisfies the
time duration limit set by the customer, the order is accepted for process. After an
order being accepted, the details pertaining to the accepted orders that is available in the
forecast table, along with the calculated planned dates of an order is written down in the
ProductionOrders and StationsPlan table. The orders listed in the Stationsplan table and
ProductionOrders table are then sorted according to the planned start date, so that if a
new incoming order has a planned start date earlier than the previously accepted orders,
the incoming order would be preferred for release, earlier than the previous orders.
At the end of the method, all the details pertaining to the end result of an incoming order
that is processed in the scheduling method is noted down. If the order is accepted, the
global variable AnzahlAngenommerAuftraege is increased by one. If the order is rejected,
then the global variable AnzahlAbgelehnterAuftraege is increased by one. The acceptance
ratio (AnnahmeQuote) at that point of time is calculated by equation 5.4. The scheduling
method (forwards or backwards) used for either the acceptance or rejection of an order is
written down in the forecast table. The forecast table is then checked for any new entry
of an order. If there is a new entry, the order entry date is fed to the simulation process
so as to continue the simulation. If there is no new entry, the trigger variable that is to
be set to initiate the ending of the simulation is defined. After completing, scheduling of
all the incoming orders at that time period, the methods to execute the Order Release
Strategy is called.

AnzahlAngenommerAuf traege
AnnahmeQuote =
AnzahlAngenommerAuf traege + AnzahlAbgelehnterAuf traege
(5.4)

Lead Time Scheduling with factors

Lead Time Scheduling with factors, method of scheduling is similar to the Lead Time
Scheduling explained in chapter 5.1.2. The only difference between the methods is that,
in Lead Time Scheduling with factors, the user can opt from either of the two options
as shown in figure 5.7. This option would be available when the AuftragsAnnahmeUnd-
Freigabe dialog box opens. The method revolves around the principle of assuming the
lead time of each workstation to be a factor multiple of the average operation time of

45
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

the workstation. The average operation time of each workstation is calculated and noted
down in the WIPLevel table by the Operationtime method explained in chapter 5.1.1. The

Figure 5.7: Options during implementation of Lead Time Scheduling with Factors

Total lead time of the order is calculated by summing up sequentially the lead time of all
the processes involved in the process, which is similar to previously explained Lead Time
Scheduling. The difference between the two is in the principle behind the calculation of
the lead time of each process. In the case of, user selecting the option Faktor fuer jede
Maschine, the user can set a factor for every workstation that is in the system. A dialog
box as in figure 5.8, opens to prompt the user with a factor for every workstation that is
mentioned in the WIPLevel table. As the user provides the factor for each workstation,

Figure 5.8: Dialog box for ‘Factor for Every Machine’

it is stored in the factor column of the WIPLevel table. The lead time of a process to be
processed in a workstation i is then by computing the equation 5.5.

T otalLeadT imeprocessi = F actori × AverageOperationT imei (5.5)

The Total lead time of an order is then calculated to find the appropriate time duration
required for the completion of the order. The time duration is then compared with the
time duration the customer has requested the order to be completed. If it is possible to
satisfy the customer criteria, the order is accepted or else it is rejected.
If the user selects the option Einheitlicher faktor, a dialog box as in figure 5.9 pops out
asking the user for a factor. This factor would be noted down for all the workstations
that is present in the WIPLevel table. The lead time of a process in workstation i, is

46
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

Figure 5.9: Dialog box for ‘Factor for Whole Shop Floor’

then calculated by equation 5.6, by taking just one single factor as a multiple for all the
average operation time of the workstations.

T otalLeadT imeprocessi = F actor × AverageOperationT imei (5.6)

The method finally notes down the scheduling method implemented, calculates Annah-
meQuote and sets the next time interval for the simulation, similar to the Lead Time
Scheduling.

5.1.3 Order Release Methods

In the simulation model, four types of order release strategies are implemented. They
are CONWIP, Load Oriented Order Release, releasing orders based on planned start date
and releasing orders immediately upon its acceptance. During the implementation of all
the release strategies, the information flow that takes place within the simulation model
is depicted in figure 5.10.

Obtain list of Transfer the Order details to

Orders in the Check for release True ProdOrderL table and set
ProductionOrders based on the Release ProductionManager.Working=
table Strategy Criteria True

False

Do Not Release
Order

Figure 5.10: General Order Release Strategy Information Flow

All the accepted orders that are listed in the ProductionOrders table are eligible to be

47
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

considered for release. All the orders have to satisfy the criteria set by the release strategy,
in order to get released. On satisfying the criteria, the details regarding the order is
released to the ProdOrderL table in the Production Manager function of the PPC module.
The global variable working of the Production Manager function is also set to TRUE
status. The processes of transferring the details to ProdOrderL table and setting the
global variable working to true, is required to start the production of parts for an order in
the shop floor. The orders that does not satisfy the criteria set by the release strategy at
that period of time, is left behind in the ProductionOrders table and would be considered
for release during the next time period.

Constant Work-In-Progress

Start

Set No. of
CONWIP cards
and No. of
Horizon Days

Check
Yes Increase Card
Completion
Count
of Orders

No

Check Check
unreleased No Orders in No
late orders Regular List
for release for release

Yes Yes

Check for Reject order for

No
Free CONWIP release
Card
Yes
Release Order &
End
Decrease Card
Count

Figure 5.11: Flowchart of CONWIP Release Strategy

The simulation model executes the Constant Work-In-Progress (CONWIP) mode of or-
der release whenever the method Conwip is called. CONWIP works on the principle of
maintaining the WIP level of the shop floor by controlling the number of cards that is
present in the shop floor at any given point of time. Each order is connected with one
CONWIP card and it would accompany the order throughout the shop floor, until it is

48
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

completed. Upon completion the CONWIP card becomes free and waits at the start of
the shop floor for the next order. An order can be released to the shop floor only if there
is a free CONWIP card to accompany the order. Implementation of the CONWIP model
in the simulation model is pictorially represented by a flowchart, as shown in figure 5.11.
As explained in chapter 3.2.4, the details about the number of CONWIP card and the
number of horizon days to be considered, are important in implementing the strategy.
During the execution of the method for the very first time, the simulation prompts the
user for the number of CONWIP cards that is to be used in the system, via a dialog box
as shown in figure 5.12. Once the user provides the simulation model with the number of
CONWIP cards, the number is assigned to the global variable FREECARDS defined in
the MRP function of the PPC module. This is the control variable that would be checked
upon for release of orders.

Figure 5.12: Dialog box for Number of CONWIP cards

In setting the number of Horizon Days to be considered during the release of orders by
CONWIP, the user could have two options to select from, as shown in figure 5.13. By
selecting KeineHorizon, in the AuftragsAnnahmeUndFreigabe dialog box, the user can set
practically the number of horizon days to be infinite. But due to simulation programming
restrictions, in the simulation model, the horizon period is set by the equation 5.7. By
doing so, the simulation model would consider all the orders that are available in the
ProductionOrders table at any period of time.

HorizonDate = CurrentDate + 24000Days (5.7)

If the user selects the option MitHorizon in the AuftragsAnnahmeUndFreigabe dialog

box, then a dialog box as shown in figure 5.14, would open and prompt the user to input

49
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

Figure 5.13: Option on the Horizon Days setting in CONWIP

the number of horizon days to be considered in the implementation of the strategy. The
number given by the user would be assigned to the global variable HORIZON of the MRP
function in the PPC module. This number would be used by the method to calculate the
horizon date to be considered at any given point of time in the simulation by equation
5.8.
HorizonDate = CurrentDate + (HORIZON × SCD) (5.8)

Figure 5.14: Dialog box for Number of Horizon Days

After receiving the required data from the user, the method then starts to check the orders
in the ProductionOrders table for releasing the orders to the shop floor. It goes through
the list of orders in the ProductionOrders table and selects the orders that are within the
Horizon Date criteria, for consideration to be released. Upon selecting the list of orders
to be considered, the method then checks for the availability of a free CONWIP card. If
there is a free CONWIP card, i.e., value of the global variable FREECARDS is greater
than zero, then the order would be released. While releasing each order, the method does
the following important actions. It first transfers all the details pertaining to the order,
to the ProdOrderL table of the Production Manager function. It then sets the Working
variable of Production Manager to be True, so that the production manager can start
giving instructions to the shop floor for production. More importantly the method then
decreases the number of CONWIP cards that is available in the system, after releasing

50
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

the current order. This decrement is important in maintaining the WIP in the system.
At any given point of time if there is no availability of a free CONWIP card, the method
stops releasing orders to the shop floor and waits until an already released order would
be completed and hence release a CONWIP card free.
After the execution of the method for the very first time, the method on successive
executions checks the completion of the orders that were released. If the orders are
completed, then the amount of CONWIP card available in the simulation is increased by
increasing the global variable FREECARDS according to the number of orders that are
completed. It then checks the possibility of releasing orders that were previously rejected
due to non-availability of CONWIP cards. After releasing the rejected orders , the method
would consider the orders that are further down in the ProductionOrders table. In doing
so, the orders that should have started earlier but not released are given prioritization
over existing list of orders to be released.

Load Oriented Order Release

Start

Set No. of
Horizon Days

Check Check
possibility of Possibility of
No No
releasing releasing
rejected Orders in
orders Regular List
Yes Yes

Weightage given
to Operation time
based on routing

Cumm. O.T
checked with Reject order for
No
Maximum WIP release
level of each
workstation
Yes Check for No
Release Order Completion of
Operations

Cumm. O.T – Cumulative Yes

Operation time Update Cumm.
Weighted End
Operation Time

Figure 5.15: Flowchart of Load Oriented Order Release Strategy

The simulation model executes the Load Oriented Order Release (LOOR) mode of order
release whenever the method BOA is called. The LOOR strategy, similar to CONWIP

51
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

is based on the principle of maintaining a WIP level in the shop floor. Instead of using
cards to maintain the WIP in the system, LOOR maintains the WIP in the system by
setting maximum WIP limits in terms of time units, for every workstation in the system.
An order would only be released into the shop floor, if all the workstations involved
in the processing of the order is maintained under the maximum WIP limit set for the
workstations, after inclusion of the weighted load content of the order to the already
existing load in the workstations. The flow of instructions followed by the method in
implementing the LOOR strategy is pictorially represent in the flowchart shown in figure
5.15.
The method on its first instance, similar to the CONWIP method prompts the user with
a dialog box as shown in figure 5.14, for the number of horizon days to be considered by
the method for releasing orders. Upon receiving the input, the horizon date till which
the method should considered the orders involved is calculated by the equation 5.8. The
horizon date provides a list of orders from the ProductionOrders table to be considered
for release. The method then for each order in the list, does the following processes
before an order is released to the shop floor. The method starts to apply weightage to
each operation involved in the order, based on the routing position of the operation in
the order, obtained from the OperationsPlan table. The weighing factor, the method
should consider for each routing position is obtained from the Factortable in the MRP
function. The general principle of weighing the operations in an order, is explained in
figure 5.16.

Operations Operation Weighing Weighted Operations Operation Weighing Weighted

Time – min Factor Load -min Time – min Factor Load -min
Operation 1 10 100% 10 Operation 1 10 0% 0

Operation 2 10 85% 8.5 Operation 2 10 100% 10

Operation 3 10 75% 7.5 Operation 3 10 85% 8.5

Operations Operation Weighing Weighted

Time – min Factor Load -min
Operation 1 10 0% 0

Operation 2 10 0% 0
Operation 3 10 100% 10

Figure 5.16: Principle of Weighing Load Content of the Operations in an Order

The order considered in the example consists of three operations, and it is shown in the
figure, the weightage of the operation time of each process on the total work load of the

52
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

workstation order, as each operation is completed. Initially, the first operation of the
order loads the corresponding workstation with 100% of its load and the second and third
operations, load their workstations with 85% and 75% of their load respectively. When
the first operation is completed in the system, it is now the second operation that loads
its workstation by 100% of its load and the load exerted by the third operation on its
workstation increases to 85% of its load. Finally when only the third and final operation
is left for process in the order, the third operation loads its workstation with 100% of
its load. An order can only be released when the weighted load of all the operations in
the order, when added to the already existing load in their workstation, is below the
maximum load limit set for the workstation.
Every time the LOOR method is executed, the method initially performs two processes.
First, it checks the completion of the operations involved in the already released orders.
This is done so as to change the weights of the operation load, with some of its operation
being completed. By updating the weighted load in the workstation, the existing
cumulative load of the workstations is also updated. So, the weighted load of an incoming
order would then be checked with the recent change of load in the system. Secondly, it
checks for the possibility of releasing the unreleased orders that are behind the horizon
time period. These are orders that are rejected during its horizon time period, because
of the load limit being exceeded in some of its workstation. The method again loads
the workstations with the weighted load of the rejected orders to check whether it is
below the load limit now. If the load of all the workstation is less than the load limit
allowed, the rejected orders will be released. In the simulation model, the load limit
for each workstation is calculated by the method WIPCAL explained in chapter 5.1.1
and stored in the WIPLevel table. The weighing of the operations in an order is done
in the simulation, using the details available in the tables forecast, operationsplan,
factortable and the loadtable corresponding to each workstation. The data such as
processing time, setup time and quantity required are obtained from the forecast and
operationsplan table to calculate the operation time of each operation in the order. The
calculated operation time is then weighted using the weighing percentage stored in the
factortable. The selection on the weighting percentage depends on the routing position of
the process in the operationsplan table. This weighted operation time of each operation

53
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

involved in the order is then added to the loadtable of corresponding workstation. In

the loadtable, the cumulative load existing in the workstation because of the inclusion
of the incoming order is calculated. It is this cumulative load of each workstation that
is checked with the load limit set in the WIPLevel table by the WIPCAL method.
Only if the cumulative load obtained from the loadtable of each workstation is less than
the load limit set for that corresponding workstation in the WIPLevel table, an order
would be released. The method then performs all the necessary instructions like send-
ing order details to ProdOrderL table of Production Manager and setting the Working
variable of Production Manager to be TRUE, in order to start the production of the order.

Start Date

The simulation model releases order based on the planned start date whenever the method
startdatum is called. The principle behind the release strategy, is to release the orders
when the planned start date of the orders arrive. Hence, during the execution of the
strategy, the method checks only one criteria. The criteria is to check the planned start
date of the existing orders in the ProductionOrders table of the MRP function with the
current simulation date. If both are the same, the order would be released. The planned
start date of the order is calculated by the scheduling method implemented. Once an
order is to be released the method performs the necessary instructions of sending the order
details to ProdOrderL table of Production Manager and setting the Working variable of
Production Manager to be TRUE, in order to start the production of the order. With
depending just on the planned start date of an order for releasing an order, this method of
releasing orders would evaluate the performance of the scheduling method implemented.

Immediate Release

The simulation model releases order based on Immediate Release, whenever the method
SofortigeFreigabe is called. As the name suggests, there is no criteria an order has to
satisfy in order to be released to the shop floor. The orders are released as soon as it
is accepted and noted down in the ProductionOrders table. Once it is noted down in

54
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

the ProductionOrders table, it is immediately released. The details of the orders are then
transferred to the ProdOrderL table and the Working variable of the Production Manager
is set to TRUE status.

5.1.4 Additional Evaluation Method

Due-date Performance Evaluation

The simulation model after completing all the released orders, calls the method Duedate-
perf. This method is executed just before the end of the simulation. The main function
of the method is to calculate the performance of the completed orders, with respect to
the due date preferred by the customer. A dialog box as shown in figure 5.17, prompts
the user to set the number of days to be considered as a tolerance limit for an order to
be completed from its actual due date.

Figure 5.17: Dialog for No. of Tolerance Limit days

Once the user provides the simulation model with the tolerance limit, the method cal-
culates for every order in the ProdOrderL table of the Production Manager, a Tolerance
Date. The Tolerance date is the summation of the actual end date of the order and the
number of tolerance days mentioned by the user. The method then checks the Toler-
ance date of every order with the Customer end date. Every time the Tolerance date
is within the customer end date, the method increases the count of the global variable
Ondatejobs. If the Tolerance date is after the customer end date, then it increases the
count of the global variable Tardyjobs. After checking all the orders in the ProdOrderL
table, the method by using equation 5.9 calculates the percentage of jobs that has been
completed within the customer end date. The calculated value is stored in the global

55
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

variable OndatedeliveryPercentage.
Ondatejobs
OndatedeliveryP ercentage = (5.9)
Ondatejobs + T ardyjobs

5.2 Tables

The data available in the tables mentioned below is used for the implementation of the
strategies. In the following section, the basic structures of the tables and the functionality
of the data it holds is explained.

5.2.1 Forecast

The Forecast table contains the data pertaining to the incoming orders of the simulation
model. As shown in figure 5.18, the table consists of 13 columns of data. The information
that could be obtained from the table, range from the order number, order type, order
entry date (Auftragseingang), customer end date (Kundenwunschtermin), planned start
date, planned end date, quantity, etc. The details on the routing of an order is stored in
the form of a table called Operationsplan (Fig. 5.19), which is inbuilt within the forecast
table. The Forecast table provides the details on which Operationsplan table is to be
interlinked with the specific order, by showing the specific number of the Operationsplan
table in column 9.

Figure 5.18: Forecast Table in MRP Function of PPC Module

Figure 5.19: OperationsPlan Table in the MRP Function of PPC Module

56
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

5.2.2 ProductionOrders

The ProductionOrders table in the MRP function of the PPC module is used to store
the details pertaining to the accepted orders. The incoming orders after being processed
through the scheduling methods, are checked for feasibility and upon passing the criteria
of the scheduling methods, the details are passed on to the ProductionOrders table from
the Forecast table. All the details pertaining to the scheduling of the accepted orders are
stored in corresponding 12 columns of the table as shown in figure 5.20. It is from this
table, the orders are checked for possibility of release and are released on a specific time
period based on the release strategy used.

Figure 5.20: ProductionOrders Table in the MRP function of the PPC Module

5.2.3 FactorTable

The Factortable contains the values of the Loading Percentage (LPG) for the process loads
of the orders based on their routing position. The values in the table would be considered
during the implementation of Load Oriented Order Release strategy. The factortable
consists of one column as shown in figure 5.21. These values are provided to the table
before the start of the simulation.

Figure 5.21: Factortable in the MRP function of the PPC Module

57
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

5.2.4 WIPLevel

The WIPlevel table as shown in figure 5.22, consists of 7 columns that provide the details
about the maximum WIP level that are set for each workstations. The details on the
different workstations in the system and their corresponding Mean WIP are to be fed to
the table before the start of the simulation. The columns provide details on the inventory
ratio and maximum WIP level of the workstations based on the principle explained in
chapter 3.2.5. The Mean ZAU (average operation time) and the factor columns of the table
are used during the implementation of the Lead Time based order acceptance strategy
explained in chapter 3.1.2.

Figure 5.22: WIPLevel Table in the MRP function of the PPC Module

5.2.5 ProdOrderL

The ProdOrderL table in the Production Manager function of the PPC module, contains
all the details on the orders that are released to the shop floor for production after sat-
isfying the criteria of the release strategy that is being implemented. Some of the data
like order no, order type, order name, planned start date, planned end date, quantity as
shown in figure 5.23, are obtained from the ProductionOrders table. The other columns
that are not filled by data from ProductionOrders table, obtain their values during the
simulation process by the execution of various methods pertaining to release strategies
and production.

Figure 5.23: ProdOrderL Table in the Production Manager function of the PPC Module

58
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

5.2.6 StationsPlan

Each workstation in the system has a StationsPlan table as shown in figure 5.24, con-
taining the instructions on the scheduling of the operations within an order that is to be
processed by the particular workstation. The data about the scheduled planned dates for
the workstations are obtained during the execution of the scheduling methods for order
acceptance. The table provides details on the planned start and end date of an order, and
also on the actual start and end date of an order. The time duration for the production
of a part for an order would depend on the arrangement of the list of orders in the table.

Figure 5.24: StationsPlan Table in the workstations of the Shop floor module

5.2.7 LoadTable

Similar to the StationsPlan table, each workstation has their own Loadtable. The contents
within the Loadtable are used for implementing Load Oriented Order Release. There are
4 columns within a load table and it provides details on the order number (OrderNo),
weighted load of the order in the workstation (Load), cumulative weighted load on the
workstation over all the released orders (Cummulative Load)and a boolean checking func-
tion (Completed) to check the update of weighted loads.

Figure 5.25: Loadtable in the workstations of the Shop floor module

59
 5 Implementation of Order Acceptance and Order Release in Plant Simulation

5.2.8 WIPCAL

The WIPCAL table also as the loadtable and stationsplan table, is in every workstation.
The WIPCAL table as shown in figure 5.26, consists of 13 columns containing all the
necessary data that is required to compute the ratio calculation as mentioned in equation
3.22. The values of the operation time (ZAU) and the throughput time (ZDL) of an order
corresponding to that particular workstation is obtained from the OperationsPlan table
of the order. The values in the other columns are filled up by the calculations executed
by the method WIPCAL.

Figure 5.26: WIPCAL Table in the workstations of the Shop floor module

60
6 Conclusion / Outlook

By implementing various new strategies in the simulation model, the objective of providing
the user with the option of simulating more than one Order acceptance and Order release
strategy is achieved. The number of new options that the user has been provided, as
compared to the previous simulation model is shown in figure 6.1. Other objective of
providing a user friendly platform for the user is achieved by providing a much detailed
start up dialog box via the AuftragsAnnahmeUndFreigabe dialog box (see figure 5.4), as
compared to a less detailed start up options of the previous simulation model.
Previous Simulation Current Simulation
Model Model
Order Order Release Order Acceptance Strategies Order Release Strategies
Acceptance Strategies
Strategies Capacity Scheduling With Horizon
Order Release on Lead Time Scheduling Conwip Without
Capacity Planned Start
Scheduling Horizon
Date Factor for
each machine Load Oriented Order Release
Lead Time
Scheduling Order Release on Planned Start
Factor for
with Factors Date
whole shop
floor First Come First Served

Figure 6.1: Increase in Implemented strategies from previous simulation model

There are further scopes of improvement that could be implemented in the simulation
model. Possibilities over the calculation of the mean WIP level for each workstation in the
simulation model can be ventured. At present the mean WIP levels for the workstations
has be to given as input during the start up of the simulation. The Conwip order release
strategy could be made more dynamic by implementing a release strategy which decides
the number of conwip cards required for the particular list of order. Another feature that
could be added is the function of checking and changing the maximum number of conwip
cards required in the system during the process of simulation, based on the WIP in the
system. In the Load oriented order release, the weighing of the operation time is based

61
 6 Conclusion / Outlook

weighing percentage given to the routing position of the operation in the order. Another
option of weighting the operation time can be based on the weighing percentage provided
to each workstation in the production system.

62
Bibliography

Baker, K. (1974). Introduction to sequencing and scheduling. Wiley - Newyork.

Bechte, W. (1988). Theory and practice of load-oriented manufacturing control. Interna-

tional Jounrnal of Production Research, 26(3):375–395.

Bergamaschi, D., Cigolini, R., Perona, M., and Portioli, A. (1997). Order review and
release strategies in a job shop environment: A review and a classification. International
Jounrnal of Production Research, 2(35):399–420.

Bobrowski, P. (1989). Implementing a loading heuristic in a discrete release job shop.

International Jounrnal of Production Research, 27:1935–1948.

Breithaupt, J. W., Land, M., and Nyhuis, P. (2002). The workload control concept:
theory and practical extensions of load oriented order release. Production Planning and
Control, 13(7):625–638.

Ebben, M., Hans, E., and Weghuis, F. (2005). Workload based order acceptance in job
shop environments. OR Spectrum, 27(1):107–122.

Glassey, C. and Resende, M. G. (1988). Closed-loop job release control for vlsi circuit
manufacturing. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, 1(1):36–46.

Grant, F. (1988). Simulation in designing and scheduling manufacturing systems. Design

and analysis of intergrated manufacturing systems.

Herer, Y. and Masin, M. (1997). Mathematical programming formulation of conwip

based production lines; and releationships to mrp. International Jounrnal of Production
Research, 35(4):1067–1076.

63
 Bibliography

Hopp, W. and Roof, M. (1998). Setting wip levels with statistical throughout control (stc)
in conwip production lines. International Jounrnal of Production Research, 36(4):867–
882.

Huang, M., Wang, D., and Ip, W. (1998). Simulation study of conwip for a cold rolling
plant. International Journal of Production Economics, 54:257–266.

Kate, H. A. (1994). Towards a better understanding of order acceptance. International

Journal of Production Economics, 37:139–152.

Kingsman, B., Tatsiopoulos, I., and Hendry, L. (1989). A structural methodology for
managing manufacturing lead times in make-to-order companies. European Journal of
Operational Research, 40:196–209.

Kingsman, B., Worden, L., Hendry, L., Mercer, A., and Wilson, E. (1993). Integrating
marketing and production planning in make-to-order companies. International Journal
of Production Economics, 30-31:53–66.

Loedding, H. (2008). Verfahren der Fertigungssteuerung : Grundlagen, Beschreibung,

Konfiguration. Springer-Verlag, 2 edition.

Loedding, H. (2009). Lecture notes: Production process and organization. Technical

report, Institute of Production Management and Technology, Technische Universitaet
Hamburg Harburg.

Lowerre, B. and Reddy, D. (1980). The harpy speech understanding system. Trends in
Speech Recognition.

Mather, H. and Plossl, G. (1978). Priority fixation versus throughout planning. Production
and Inventroy Management.

Montagne, J. E. (1969). Sequencing with time delay costs. Industrial Engineering Research
Bulletin, 5.

Morton, T. and Rachamadagu, R. (1982). Myopic heuristics for the single machine
weighted tardiness problem. Graduate school of Industrial Administration, Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburg, 30:82–83.

64
 Bibliography

Nandi, A. and Rogers, P. (2004). Using simulation to make order acceptance / rejection
decisions. The Society for Modelling and Simulation International, 80(3):131–142.

Nyhuis, P. and Wiendahl, H. P. (2009). Fundamentals of Production Logistics. Springer.

Perona, M. and Portioli, A. (1996). An enhanced loading model for the probabilistic
work load control under workload unbalancement. Production Planning and Control,
7(1):68–78.

Philipoom, P. and Fry, T. (1992). Capacity-based order review/release strategies to

improve manufacturing performance. International Jounrnal of Production Research,
30(11):2559–2572.

Philipoom, P., Malhotra, M., and Jensen, J. (1993). An evaluation of capacity sensitive
order review and release procedures in job shops. Decision Sciences, 24:1109–1133.

Portioli, A. (1991). Proposal and evaluation of new load-oriented algorithms for short-term
production planning in a job shop environment (in Italian). PhD thesis, Politecnico di
Milano, Italy.

Ragatz, G. and Mabert, V. (1988). An evaluation of order release mechanisms in a job

shop environment. Decision Sciences, 19:167–189.

Roderick, L. M., Phillips, D. T., and Hogg, G. L. (1992). A comparison of order re-
lease strategies in production control systems. International Jounrnal of Production
Research, 30(3):611–626.

Slotnick, S. A. and Morton, T. E. (2007). Order acceptance with weighted tardiness.

Computers & Operations Research, 24:3029–3042.

Spearman, M. L., Woodruff, D. L., and Hopp, W. J. (1990). Conwip: a pull alternative
to kanban. International Journal of Production Research, 28(5):879–894.

Swamidass, P. (2000). Encyclopedia of Production and Manufacturing Management. Kul-

wer Academic Publishers.

Vollmann, T. E., Berry, W. L., Whybark, D., and Jacobs, F. (2005). Manufacturing
Planning and Control Systems for Supply Chain Management. Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

65
 Bibliography

Wester, F., Wijngaard, J., and Zijm, W. (1992). Order acceptance sstrategies in a
production-to-order environment with setup times and due-date. International Journal
of Production Research, 6(30):1313–1326.

Wiendahl, H.-P. (1995). Load-Oriented Manufacturing Control. Springer.

Wight, O. (1970). Input/output control: a real handle on lead times. Production and
Inventory Management, 11:9–31.

Zaepfel, G. and Missbauer, H. (1993). Production planning and control (ppc) systems
including load-oriented order release - problems and research perspectives. International
Jounrnal of Production Economics, 30-31:107–122.

66