Lot synchronization in make-to-order shops with order release control: an assessment by simulation

被引:5
|
作者
Fernandes, Nuno O. [1 ,2 ]
Thurer, Matthias [3 ]
Stevenson, Mark [4 ]
Carmo-Silva, Silvio [2 ]
机构
[1] Inst Politecn Castelo Branco, Castelo Branco, Portugal
[2] Univ Minho, Ctr ALGORITMI, Braga, Portugal
[3] Jinan Univ, Sch Intelligent Syst Sci & Engn, Zhuhai Campus, Zhuhai, Peoples R China
[4] Univ Lancaster, Management Sch, Dept Management Sci, Lancaster, England
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Lot splitting; lot release policy; lot transfer policy; ConWIP; make-to-order; STOCHASTIC FLOW-SHOP; WORKLOAD CONTROL; JOB SHOPS; MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS; CONWIP; PERFORMANCE; ALGORITHM; DECISION; SEARCH; KANBAN;
D O I
10.1080/00207543.2019.1685701
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
Lot splitting is an important strategy for avoiding the starvation of workstations, for accelerating the progress of jobs, and ultimately for improving overall due date performance. While lot splitting has received much attention in the extant literature, the use of alternative lot transfer policies that determine how the flow of lots through the production system is synchronised has been largely neglected. This study uses simulation to assess the performance of different lot synchronisation policies at release and different lot transfer policies on the shop floor in a ConWIP (Constant Work-In-Process) controlled job shop. The results suggest that different approaches should be applied at the release and shop floor levels. While lots should be synchronised in some form at order release, their progress on the shop floor should not be synchronised. Instead, lot coordination should be executed by dispatching in accordance with repetitive lots logic. The results further highlight that if lot progress is synchronised in systems that limit the workload, then lot release should also be synchronised. Otherwise, blocking may occur if lot progress on the shop floor depends on the release of lots, which in turn depends on lot progress. These findings have important implications for research and practice.
引用
收藏
页码:6724 / 6738
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Dominance Conditions for Optimal Order-Lot Matching in the Make-To-Order Production System
    Kim, Jae-Gon
    Bang, June-Young
    Jun, Hong-Bae
    Shin, Jong-Ho
    PROCESSES, 2020, 8 (02)
  • [22] Material Flow Control in High-Variety Make-to-Order Shops: Combining COBACABANA and POLCA
    Thurer, Matthias
    Fernandes, Nuno O.
    Stevenson, Mark
    PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT, 2020, 29 (09) : 2138 - 2152
  • [23] Behavior of an order release mechanism in a make-to-order manufacturing system with selected order acceptance
    Nandi, A
    Rogers, P
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2003 WINTER SIMULATION CONFERENCE, VOLS 1 AND 2, 2003, : 1251 - 1259
  • [24] Lot splitting under load-limiting order release in high-variety shops: An assessment by simulation
    Thurer, Matthias
    Fernandes, Nuno O.
    Carmo-Silva, Silvio
    Stevenson, Mark
    JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS, 2018, 48 : 63 - 72
  • [25] COMPARISON OF MAKE-TO-ORDER JOB SHOPS WITH DIFFERENT MACHINE LAYOUTS AND PRODUCTION CONTROL-SYSTEMS
    YANG, KK
    JACOBS, FR
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH, 1992, 30 (06) : 1269 - 1283
  • [26] Risk analysis and assessment for make-to-order manufacturing
    谭翰墨
    裴仁清
    Journal of Shanghai University, 2006, (06) : 535 - 540
  • [27] Supporting make-to-order
    Ward, Andrew
    Manufacturing Computer Solutions, 2000, 6 (03): : 42 - 43
  • [28] Stochastic lot sizing for maximisation of shareholder wealth in make-to-order manufacturing
    Choi, S. H.
    Wang, X. J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH, 2015, 53 (04) : 1180 - 1197
  • [29] Flexible lot sizing in hybrid make-to-order/make-to-stock production planning
    Beemsterboer, Bart
    Land, Martin
    Teunter, Ruud
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2017, 260 (03) : 1014 - 1023
  • [30] Note on:: Concurrent pricing and lot sizing for make-to-order contract production
    Cardenas-Barron, Leopoldo Eduardo
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS, 2006, 103 (01) : 449 - 450