Assemble-to-order systems: A review

Abstract

DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:

Asymptotically Optimal Inventory Control for Assemble-to-Order Systems with Identical Lead Times

“…which can also be viewed as a stage-1 FCBM with characterization numbers (2,3). It includes four diagonal blocks and has the last three columns as the coupling matrix E.…”

“…There has been a large body of studies on managing multi-product ATO systems. One may find a thorough review of the related literature in [30], and a more recent one in [3]. Many previous studies focus on particular types of policies, such as base stock replenishment policies, FIFO or No-Hold-Back allocation policies (see [18], [19], [14] for some samples), and for periodic-review systems, allocation policies that always satisfy demands from previous periods first (e.g., [1], [2], [13], [35]).…”

Optimal control policies for an inventory system with commitment lead time

“…Another extension is to consider a system where each customer places an order for a product which needs to be assembled from multiple components with different replenishment lead times. Then, the firm needs to find the optimal replenishment policy for each component and also the optimal commitment lead time (Ahmadi, 2019;Ahmadi, Atan, de Kok, & Adan, 2019;Atan, Ahmadi, Stegehuis, de Kok, & Adan, 2017). More general assembly structures can also be analyzed.…”

The pursuit of responsiveness in high variety manufacturing environments : Towards building the Dynamic Response Capabilities

“…Furthermore, by delaying the final assembly of the end products until the arrival of customer demand, the companies can benefit from pooling component inventories to offer multiple end products (Atan et al 2017). Under DTO/MTS strategy the standard products are made according to forecast before any committed orders come in, thus product customization is not possible as the products are already produced and stored in inventory.…”

“…Similarly, Eynan and Fouque (2005) note that the use of common components reduces variability leading to better control and utilization of inventory. One of the major benefit of component commonality is that companies can offer high end product variety by pooling component inventories and reduce the cost of offering multiple end products (Atan et al 2017). Other benefits of component commonality include easier engineering design process, fewer setups on the shop floor, fewer changeovers, and shorter manufacturing lead times (Blecker and Abdelkafi 2006d).…”