Process flow industry—scheduling and control using theory of constraints

Schragenheim, Eli; Cox, James F.; Ronen, Boaz

doi:10.1080/00207549408957047

Cited by 22 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous authors have discussed the applicability of these principles for the design of planning and control systems (e.g. Lundrigan 1986, Vollmann 1986, Lambrecht and Decaluwe 1988, Ashcroft 1989, Bond 1993, Gardiner et al 1993, Lawrence and Buss 1994, Schragenheim et al 1994, Simons and Simpson 1997, Riezebos 2001. In general, they conclude that the principles are useful but do not always provide sufficient guidance in the design of planning and control systems, especially in respect of multiple capacity constraint resources (CCRs).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving a practical DBR buffering approach using Workload Control

Riezebos

Korte²,

Land

2003

International Journal of Production Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper deals with improving the lead-time performance of a small packaging manufacturer in the Netherlands that had already implemented several facets of Theory of Constraints (TOC) in 1997. Since then, delivery reliability and profits have increased and lead-times reduced substantially. In an attempt to achieve further lead-time improvements in 2001, the firm recently encountered some limitations of its partial TOC implementation. In this paper we focus on the modifications of its order acceptance and buffer management system that were necessary in order to obtain the desired lead-time reduction. We describe how Workload Control principles were introduced to improve the buffering approach and planning procedures the firm had been using since 1997. It shows that Workload Control provides effective tools that can be used in combination with the Drum-Buffer-Rope mechanism in order to balance the flow of work to the production floor.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving a practical DBR buffering approach using Workload Control

Riezebos

Korte²,

Land

2003

International Journal of Production Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast to MRP (which uses product structure), PFS uses process structure to find a feasible schedule where capacity, due date, lot sizing and sequence dependency can be accounted for. However infrequent schedule violations are an assumption of PFS (Schragenheim et al 1994) and as such it may not be suitable in higher product variety, contingent capacity process environments. Hubbard et al (1992) incorporate the group technology (GT) philosophy into process scheduling.…”

Section: Production Control Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is interesting to note discussion regarding the lack of process industry lean/pull literature and case implementation in the 1990s (Billesbach 1994; Table 2 Literature summary of pull production characteristics Pull production characteristic Literature discrete manufacture overview Literature process manufacture issues WIP limit Systematically limits releases to limit the total work in the system (Hopp 2008) ensuring system is not overwhelmed • WIP is often bounded by equipment so blocking occurs naturally (Hopp and Spearman 2004) Targeted at reducing cycle time (Little's Law) and both reducing and stabilising lead time (Hopp 2008) and inventory • In a process environment finished product inventory can build as a result of poor flow (King 2009, p. 25) and so like discrete WIP it may also be bounded (Liberopoulos and Dallery 2002) Setup/batch size reduction A consequence of pull-based production is small lot sizes which results in many setups, in turn disrupting flow (Thun et al 2010) • Small batch sizes impact capacity resulting in longer lead times when batch sizes are large, but saturation when batches get so small that setups create a constraint (Kim and Tang 1997;Schragenheim et al 1994;Hopp and Spearman 2004) Changeovers are a source of variation (Bicheno and Holweg 2009) and if the degree of variation is large, scheduling becomes more difficult and both lead time (Lyons et al 2013) and setup waste and maximising asset productivity (King 2009) Cell layout in particular is associated with improving capacity, flow and productivity in the discrete industries (where people = capacity) through waste reduction, line balancing, single piece flow, inventory and movement reduction, visibility and labour flexibility/ productivity (Bicheno and Holweg 2009;Liker 2004) • In the process industries much of this doesn't apply as equipment dictates capacity and is often fixed and inflexible (King 2009) …”

Section: Flow and Pullmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The relationships between setups, process yield and differences in run productivity cause issues with estimating process industry capacity and plan feasibility. Bottlenecks can move (King 2009) and schedules initially found to be reasonable can become invalid (Fransoo 1992) because the impact of product mix and sequence are not considered (Dennis and Meredith 2000b), rendering the critical piece of processing equipment a constraint by the number of setups (Schragenheim et al 1994).…”

Section: Planning and Production Control In The Process Industriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Completely Taktless! What Is Pull in the Context of the Process Industries?

Stevenson

Found

2015

Measuring Operations Performance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The widespread implementation of lean in discrete manufacturing has changed the face of those businesses with mechanisms such as setup reduction, bounded WIP, takt time, level scheduling and other elements of pull production aimed at reducing variation to create flow with minimal inventory, improving lead time, cost and service. While in the process industries, much is written regarding traditional approaches to planning and production control (PPC), the lean paradigm and pull production remain largely unadopted. This paper explores the nature of process industries and inadequacy of existing taxonomies to understand the underlying complexity, which significantly impacts planning and production control. Definitions and principles of pull are considered alongside existing process sector PPC and the fundamentals of demand, capacity and variation, to demonstrate that a contingent approach, which considers the environment is required. A manufacturing case study is used to confirm the underlying complexity and explain how the inherent variation and resulting trade-offs impact the applicability of discrete pull mechanisms with potential process manufacturing pull definition and mechanisms concluded. Furthermore, a pull system implementation in the case company operation is examined and simulated concluding the fundamental importance of sequence to flow and pull in process manufacturing and its impact on capacity, utilisation, waste and service.

show abstract

“…respectively, they suggest cyclic planning, processor/material dominated scheduling and forward/backward flow scheduling. The forward/backward flow scheduling is usually based on the position of the constraint; Schragenheim, Cox, and ronen (1994) develop this further by suggesting using the ToC to schedule PIs, since ToC connects production constraints to the market demand and decreases inventory levels.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A modularised typology for flow design based on decoupling points – a holistic view on process industries and discrete manufacturing industries

Wikner

Noroozi

2016

Production Planning & Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

types of sites, available transportation modes, locations of customers and suppliers, etc. These 'physical' aspects are important, but, as highlighted by Wikner (2014), the fundamental flow logic of transformation provides additional information about key decision categories, for specific decision criteria, on how to design a supply chain from a flow perspective, based on the preconditions of supply and demand. A typical flow-based decision category is 'flow driver' associated with the decision criterion 'driver' , which could be related to speculation on future customer orders or commitment to actual customer orders. Using this approach, consideration of the physical properties (related to physical transactions) and the legal aspects (related to financial transactions) of the supply chain are subordinated in the analysis to primary focus on the fundamental flow logic. The term 'flow logic' refers to the value-adding transformation being performed in the studied system and, in particular, the generic properties of the flow making it applicable to not only different flow patterns, such as different layouts, but also to different industries. In more traditional approaches to supply chain modelling, a set of different flows is usually identified, such as physical, information and financial flows. These aspects are also represented here but are related to system perspectives (legal, physical and logical), with different aspects highlighted depending on the perspective, of which each represents a level of abstraction that emphasises particular properties. First, the physical perspective highlights physical properties of the system and the key aspects of information flow. Second, the legal perspective emphasises the financial flow. In this sense, the legal perspective is a financial reflection of the physical flows and relevant information flows. Finally, the logical A modularised typology for flow design based on decoupling points -a holistic view on process industries and discrete manufacturing industriesJoakim Wikner 1 and Sayeh Noroozi 1 department of management and engineering, linköping university, linköping, Sweden ABSTRACT Management of production activities covers a wide range of decisions. In this paper, a modularised approach is suggested that, through configuration, generates a case-specific flow design. The approach is based on identification of decision categories that are generic and fundamental in the flow design, covering both discrete manufacturing industries and process industries. Each decision category identifies a unique property of the flow which changes at a particular point: this is termed a 'decoupling point' . A threedimensional modularised typology is developed by combining three different decision categories. Cases from the steel industry and the tooling industry are used to illustrate how the typology can be applied.The modularised approach provides a typology for the application of both qualitative and quantitative methods for flow management, including planning, control and performance ...

show abstract

Process flow industry—scheduling and control using theory of constraints

Cited by 22 publications

References 0 publications

Improving a practical DBR buffering approach using Workload Control

Improving a practical DBR buffering approach using Workload Control

Completely Taktless! What Is Pull in the Context of the Process Industries?

A modularised typology for flow design based on decoupling points – a holistic view on process industries and discrete manufacturing industries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About