Towards a model for evaluating the investment of reconfigurable and platform-based manufacturing concepts considering footprint adaptability

Enabling adaptability and resilience of a global production network: A model to evaluate capital and operational expenses of reconfigurable production systems

“…The models with a network scope are all dedicated to one of the phenotypes proposed by Meyer et al [8]. Individually, they support a local for local network [42][43][44], a chain network [45,46], a web-structure network [47], and a reversed hub and spoke network [11]. However, neither support a mixed phenotype.…”

“…al. [47]. The scope covers factories with systems that can be reconfigured to produce, store, and transport components to regions with demand.…”

“…Three models have been identified as having a system scope [33][34][35][36], two models have a factory scope [37][38][39][40][41], whereas the remaining four models have a network scope [11,[42][43][44][45][46][47]. The models with a network scope are all dedicated to one of the phenotypes proposed by Meyer et al [8].…”

“…One model solely applies simulation [34] and one model applies a combination of simulation and optimization in its second iteration [38] whereas the remaining seven models apply optimization. Three models use MIP as the engine of optimization [37,38,[42][43][44][45][46], whereas four models use LP [11,33,35,36,[39][40][41] and one model uses IP [47].…”

“…Three models delimit uncertainty [11,33,47], whereas the remaining six include the consideration, although two of these only consider it in some iterations [39,42]. These six cover uncertainty by means of scenario application, either for parameters of the design which is related to the system evaluand, or for parameters of the context which is related to the evaluation environment.…”