Search

Kanban systems are simple yet effective means of controlling production. Production control is decentralised or exercised locally on the shop floor, i.e. a downstream station signals to an upstream station that an item is needed. If items are always the same and known, then demands can be satisfied instantaneously from stock; but if items differ and are unknown, demands must first be propagated backwards from station to station before being satisfied. The former is defined as an inventory control problem and the latter as an order control problem. Handling the order control problem via kanban involves a decentralised card acquisition process (during which information is propagated from station to station) that is separated from the actual production process. COBACABANA (control of balance by card-based navigation), an alternative card-based solution, shares kanban's control structure but centralises the card acquisition process. Evaluating the two systems therefore provides a unique opportunity to compare decentralised and centralised control. Using simulation, we demonstrate that it is specifically the centralised card acquisition process that allows COBACABANA to balance the workload across resources and thus to outperform kanban in an order control problem. This has major implications for research and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Constant Work-in-Process (ConWIP) is a card-based control system that was developed for simple flow shops – a lack of load-balancing capabilities hinders its application to more complex shops. In contrast, load balancing is an integral part of Workload Control, a production planning and control concept developed for high-variety environments. One means of load balancing evident in the Workload Control literature is through the use of a capacity slack-based backlog-sequencing rule. This study therefore investigates the potential of the backlog-sequencing decision to improve load balancing in the context of ConWIP, thereby making it suitable for more complex, high-variety environments. Using simulation, we demonstrate that: (i) the choice of backlog-sequencing rule significantly impacts throughput times and tardiness-related performance measures; and (ii) capacity slack-based sequencing rules achieve significant performance improvements over ‘classical’ ConWIP backlog-sequencing rules. These results significantly extend the applicability of ConWIP. Results from the Workload Control literature however do not directly translate across to ConWIP. The simplified release procedure of ConWIP makes backlog-sequencing based on planned release dates dysfunctional. This negatively impacts the performance of modified capacity slack-based sequencing rules that were recently shown to be the best choice for Workload Control. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Recent research has highlighted the potential impact of pool sequencing on order release performance but it suffered from two shortcomings. First, arguably the best release solution for workload control in practice combines periodic with continuous release. Although the two types of releases serve different functions, recent work assumed the same sequencing rule should be used for both. Here, the use of different sequencing rules for periodic and continuous releases is evaluated. Using a job-shop simulation, we demonstrate that the rule applied during continuous releases has only a negligible impact on performance. Therefore, jobs can be pulled intermediately from the pool by workers using a more straightforward sequencing rule than the one applied for periodic release. Second, it was assumed that all jobs in the pool are sequenced and then a subset is selected for release. But for some load-oriented sequencing rules, the priority value used for sequencing jobs should be updated after each job selection from the pool. Our simulation results show that although this may improve load balancing at release, it does not in fact improve overall shop performance. Therefore, the greedy heuristic of first sequencing and then selecting jobs can be maintained, which allows the release decision-making process to retain its simplicity. The work has important implications for the use of sequencing rules in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Order release is a key component of the Workload Control concept. Jobs do not enter the shop floor directly – they are retained in a pre-shop pool and released in time to meet due dates while keeping work-in-process within limits or norms. There are two important groups of release methods: continuous methods, for which the workload falling to a specified level can trigger a release at any moment in time; and, periodic release methods, for which releases take place at fixed intervals. Continuous release methods in general have been shown to outperform periodic release methods. Yet, there is incongruence in the results presented in the literature on the relative performance of the various continuous release methods. We use a job shop simulation model to examine the performance of continuous release methods from the literature and find that the contradictory results are explained by the different rules applied to sequence jobs in the pool – a factor neglected in previous work. Finally, a new breed of continuous release methods has recently emerged, but these have not been compared with prior approaches. Therefore, we also examine these methods and show that they significantly improve overall performance, although this is to the detriment of jobs with large processing times. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Bottleneck shiftiness is an important managerial problem that negatively affects shop floor manageability. It has therefore received much research attention. Yet research has focused on how protective capacity can be used to influence bottleneck shiftiness rather than on assessing its operational impact. The latter is complex to evaluate since changing the degree of bottleneck shiftiness influences utilization, which makes the results of different experimental settings non-comparable. To overcome this problem, we take a different approach. Bottleneck shiftiness is decomposed by investigating its underlying phenomenon: the impact of the bottleneck position. Using simulation, we demonstrate that tighter control can be exercised, and better performance achieved, the further upstream the bottleneck is positioned. It is consequently important to be aware of the direction of the bottleneck shift. If the bottleneck shifts upstream, performance is likely to improve rather than deteriorate as is implicitly assumed in the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]