Kanban

Title
Author(s)
Assembly sequencing and Kanban assignment algorithms for

just-in-time production systems
Ng, Wing-cheong.;
Citation
Issued Date
URL
Rights
1992
http://hdl.handle.net/10722/34943
The author retains all proprietary rights, (such as patent rights)

and the right to use in future works.
A S S E M B L Y SEQUENCING A N D K A N B A N A S S I G N M E N T ALGORITHMS
FOR J U S T H N _ T I M E P R O D U C T I O N S Y S T E M S
A T h e s i s P r e s e n t e d f o r t h e Degree o f
Doctor o f Philosophy
at
U n i v e r s i t y o f Hong Kong
NfG WING-CHEONG
B.Sc.(Eng.)(Hons.), M.Sc.(Eng.)
Department o f I n d u s t r i a l and M a n u f a c t u r i n g Systems E n g i n e e r i n g

U n i v e r s i t y o f Hong Kong
1992
DECLARATION
hereby d e c l a r e
"Assembly
Sequencing
that
the
and
Ph.D.
Kanban
t h e s i s which i s e n t i t l e d
Assignment
J u s t - i n - t i m e P r o d u c t i o n Systems" r e p r e s e n t s
Algorithms
for
my own w o r k and h a s
n o t been p r e v i o u s l y submitted t o t h i s o r o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s i n
application
for
admission
to
degree,
diploma
or
other
qualification.
NG WING-CHEONG
J u n e , 1992
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The a u t h o r w i s h e s t o e x p r e s s h i s s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n t o h i s
s u p e r v i s o r , D r . K . L . Mak, under whose d i r e c t i o n t h i s r e s e a r c h was
conducted, f o r h i s i n v a l u a b l e a d v i c e , capable guidance, c o n t i n u a l
encouragement and many f r u i t f u l d i s c u s s i o n s d u r i n g t h e r e s e a r c h .
The a u t h o r a l s o w i s h e s t o thank h i s w i f e , C a t h e r i n e , f o r h e r
c o n t i n u o u s encouragement t h r o u g h o u t t h e r e s e a r c h .
Abstract
of
Assignment
thesis
entitled
Algorithms
for
"Assembly
Sequencing
Just-in-time
and
Production
Kanban
Systems"
submitted by Ng Wing Cheong f o r the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f Hong Kong i n June 1992.
Just-in-time
(JIT) production i s
a d i s c i p l i n e d approach f o r
i m p r o v i n g p r o d u c t i v i t y and e l i m i n a t i n g w a s t e s .
The p u r p o s e o f
t h i s research i s t o formulate c o n t r o l p o l i c i e s f o r J I T production.

Two m a i n a s p e c t s a r e s t u d i e d ,
namely t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f
the
f i n a l a s s e m b l y sequence and t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g manpower p l a n , and

of
the
number
of
Kanbans
which
should
be
assigned
to
each
production stage.
A mixed-model a s s e m b l y l i n e w i t h s m a l l - l o t p r o d u c t i o n I s one o f
t h e d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s o f t h e J I T p r o d u c t i o n system.
I n order
t o produce o n l y t h e necessary p r o d u c t s i n t h e necessary q u a n t i t y

a t the necessary time,
prerequisite of
such
s m o o t h i n g o f p r o d u c t i o n i s a n Important
a
system.
In this
research,
efficient
h e u r i s t i c s a r e i n i t i a l l y d e v e l o p e d f o r t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f assembly
sequences t o e n s u r e a c o n s t a n t u s a g e r a t e f o r e a c h component when
t h e p r o d u c t s have s i m i l a r p a r t r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d d i f f e r e n t p a r t
requirements r e s p e c t i v e l y .
In particular,
when p r o d u c t s have
s i m i l a r p a r t r e q u i r e m e n t s , a s i m p l e b r a n c h a n d bound a l g o r i t h m i s
developed
to
formulate
the
optimal
assembly
sequence.
The
h e u r i s t i c s a r e t h e n m o d i f i e d f o r s i m i l a r c a s e s when t h e o b j e c t i v e
of
the analysis also
includes l e v e l l i n g the workload o f
assembly s t a g e o f t h e system.
are
conducted t o
evaluate
each
E x t e n s i v e computational experiments
the
performance o f
the h e u r i s t i c s .
R e s u l t s obtained i n a l l cases i n d i c a t e t h a t the h e u r i s t i c s are

i n d e e d e x c e l l e n t means f o r d e t e r m i n i n g e f f e c t i v e a s s e m b l y sequence
i n a J I T p r o d u c t i o n environment.
C o n s i d e r a t i o n i s a l s o g i v e n t o s o l v i n g t h e manpower p l a n n i n g
p r o b l e m w h i c h a r i s e s f r o m a d o p t i n g a g i v e n assembly s e q u e n c e .
An
i n t e g e r programming model i s d e v e l o p e d f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h e o p t i m a l
number o f
a s s e m b l y w o r k e r s i n e a c h assembly s t a t i o n and
o p t i m a l amount o f o v e r t i m e r e q u i r e d .
the
The o b j e c t i v e i s t o m i n i m i z e
t h e sum o f t h e w o r k f o r c e a d j u s t m e n t c o s t and o v e r t i m e c o s t .
p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e model a r e examined i n d e t a i l .
The
Based on these
p r o p e r t i e s , a n e f f i c i e n t a l g o r i t h m i s developed f o r s o l v i n g the
i n t e g e r program o p t i m a l l y .
The t h e o r e t i c a l r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d a r e
e l u c i d a t e d b y u s i n g a n u m e r i c a l example.
A new method I s a l s o d e v e l o p e d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h t o o p t i m i z e t h e
number o f Kanbans w h i c h s h o u l d be I s s u e d t o a p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e i n
a
capacitated
multi-stage
assembly
system.
Computational
experiments a r e used t o i l l u s t r a t e the performance o f t h e

method.
new
The r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d show t h a t t h e new method i s i n d e e d
s u p e r i o r t o t h e methods c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e i n
terms o f b o t h t h e
accuracy.
In
amount o f c o m p u t a t i o n a l e f f o r t r e q u i r e d and
addition,
r e s t r i c t i v e assumptions
inventory l e v e l .
the
method
on c o n t a i n e r
does
usage
not
number
require
any
and i n i t i a l
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Declaration
Acknow1edgement s
i i
L i s t of Figures
v i
L i s t o f Tables
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
vii
n t r o d u c t i o n t o M u l t i - s t a g e P r o d u c t i o n Systems
.1
Introduction
.2
T o y o t a P r o d u c t i o n System
J u s t - i n - t i m e P r o d u c t i o n Systems
10
Kanban s y s t e m s
20
P r o b l e m S t a t e m e n t and O b j e c t i v e s
33
Outline o f the Thesis
36
Summary o f T h e s i s C o n t r i b u t i o n s
38
L i t e r a t u r e Review
2.1
Introduction
42
2.2
C o n v e n t i o n a l M u l t i - s t a g e P r o d u c t i o n Systems
44
2.3
J u s t - i n - t i m e P r o d u c t i o n Systems
48
2.4
Mixed-model Assembly L i n e s
52
2.5
Kanban Systems
55
2.6
Summary
70
Assembly Sequencing Problem

3.1
Introduction
i i i
73
3.2
Usage-goal Problem
76
3.2.1
P r o d u c t i o n Systems w i t h S i m i l a r P a r t
Requirements
77
3 . 2 . 1 . 1 M a t h e m a t i c a l Model
77
3 . 2 . 1 . 2 P r o p e r t i e s o f the Optimal S o l u t i o n
3 . 2 . 1 . 3 Lower B o u n d i n g P r o c e d u r e
81
3 . 2 . 1 . 4 Upper B o u n d i n g P r o c e d u r e
99
3 . 2 . 1 . 5 Performance E v a l u a t i o n
113
3 . 2 . 1 . 6 Sequence S c h e d u l e f o r L a r g e S c a l e Problems
3.2.2
P r o d u c t i o n Systems w i t h D i f f e r e n t P a r t
Requirements
117
119
3 . 2 . 2 . 1 M a t h e m a t i c a l Model
119
3 . 2 . 2 . 2 System A n a l y s i s
122
3 . 2 . 2 . 3 S o l u t i o n Method
126
3 . 2 . 2 . 4 N u m e r i c a l Example
132
137
3 . 2 . 2 . 6 Toyotas Goal-chasing Method
141
3.3
Joint-goal Problem
151
3.3.1
Production Systems with Similar Part

Requirements
151
3.3.1.1 Solution Method
153
3.3.1.2 Performance Evaluation
155
3.3.2
3.4
Chapter 4
89
Production Systems with Different Part

Requirements
161
Summary
162
Assembly Manpower Planning Problem

4.1
Introduction
164
4.2
Mathematical Model
166
4.3
System Analysis
174
iv
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
4.4
Solution Algorithm
181
4.5
N u m e r i c a l Example
196
4.6
Summary
198
Kanban Assignment P r o b l e m
5.1
Introduction
200
5.2
Mathematical Model
203
5.3
System A n a l y s i s
211
5.4
S o l u t i o n Method
260
5.5
N u m e r i c a l Example
270
5.6
Performance E v a l u a t i o n
274
5.7
Summary
C o n c l u s i o n s and Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r R e s e a r c h
281
283
Appendix A
293
Appendix B
301
References
341
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1
Flows o f
i t e m s and Kanbans between two p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e s
22
Figure 1.2
Flows o f
i t e m s and Kanbans i n a p r o d u c t i o n s y s t e m
28
Figure 4.1
O p e r a t o r movement d i a g r a m a t s t a t i o n j
167
Figure 5.1
Assembly s y s t e m A
275
Figure 5.2
Assembly s y s t e m B
275
Figure 5.3
Assembly system C
276
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1.1
Smoothed q u a n t i t y o f e a c h p r o d u c t t o be p r o d u c e d e a c h d a y 15
Table 3.1
C o m p u t a t i o n a l r e s u l t s o f t h e b r a n c h and bound a l g o r i t h m
Table 3 . 2
S e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s o f t h e computing t i m e f o r t h e b r a n c h
and bound a l g o r i t h m
Table 3 . 3
C o m p u t a t i o n a l r e s u l t s o f H e u r i s t i c 3A
Table 3 . 4
C o m p u t a t i o n a l r e s u l t s o f H e u r i s t i c 3B f o r t h e
three-product case
138
s i x - p r o d u c t case
139
nine-product case
139
Table 3 . 5
Table 3.6
115
116
118
Table 3.7
C o m p u t a t i o n a l r e s u l t s o f H e u r i s t i c 3C
149
Table 3.8
S e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s o f t h e computing t i m e f o r
H e u r i s t i c 3C
150
Table 3.9
C o m p u t a t i o n a l r e s u l t s o f H e u r i s t i c 3D f o r s m a l l s c a l e
f o u r - p r o d u c t problems
157
Table 3.10
C o m p u t a t i o n a l r e s u l t s o f H e u r i s t i c 3D f o r s m a l l s c a l e
s i x - p r o d u c t problems
158
Table 3.11
C o m p u t a t i o n a l r e s u l t s o f H e u r i s t i c 3D u s i n g w e i g h t i n g s
sampled f r o m t h e U [ 0 . 1 , 0 . 5 ]
159
Table 3.12
C o m p u t a t i o n a l r e s u l t s o f H e u r i s t i c 3D u s i n g w e i g h t i n g s
sampled f r o m t h e U [ 0 . 1 , 1 . 1 ]
160
Table 5.1
Computational r e s u l t s f o r m u l t i - c o n t a i n e r s - f o r - o n e c o n t a i n e r mode o f p r o d u c t i o n
277
Table 5 . 2
Computational r e s u l t s f o r o n e - c o n t a i n e r - f o r - m u l t i p l e c o n t a i n e r s mode o f p r o d u c t i o n
278
Table 5 . 3
C o m p u t a t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r f i f t e e n - s t a g e problems
279
Table 5 . 4
Computational requirements f o r f i v e - s t a g e problems
279
v i i
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO MULTSTAGE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
1.1 Introduction
M u l t i - s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n systems a r e i n essence t h e most commonly

used systems i n m a n u f a c t u r i n g .
characterized as
A m u l t i - s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n system i s
f o l l o w s direct
raw
materials
and
parts
are
procured from outside suppliers these materials and parts are

modified and combined in several stages of production, utilizing
multiple
limited
resources
like
transformed into end products.
labour
or
machine
hours
and
Some or all items (raw materials,
intermediate products in various stages and end products) can be

stocked before further processing or delivery.
Two complementary processes, production planning and production

control,
are
of
the
greatest
importance
in
the
process
of
transforming raw materials and parts into end products to meet the
requirements on time.
determination,
Production planning is concerned with 'the
acquisition
and
arrangement
of
all
facilities
necessary for future production while production control deals

with the
implementation of a predetermined production plan or
policy and the control of all aspects of production according to

such a plan
planning
and
or policy
control
are
(Buffa and
linked
Taubert
1972).
Production
because decisions made during
planning often determine the nature of control.
The experiences
during the c o n t r o l process, i n turn, influence f u t u r e planning.
The n a t u r e o f t h e p l a n n i n g and c o n t r o l p r o c e s s e s a r e c l o s e l y
related
to
the
Traditionally,
type
of
production
distinction
is
made
system
being
between
intermittent,
r e p e t i t i v e and c o n t i n u o u s p r o c e s s s y s t e m s .
used.
I n t e r m i t t e n t systems
i n v o l v e the manufacture i n batches o f t e n generated by o r d e r s f o r

custom-made p r o d u c t s w h i c h
production stations.
may f o l l o w d i f f e r e n t p a t h s
through
Examples o f p r o d u c t s manufactured i n a n
i n t e r m i t t e n t s y s t e m w o u l d be machine t o o l s , i n d u s t r i a l equipment,
component
parts
for
many
assembled
consumer
products,
etc.
P r o d u c t i o n d e c i s i o n s a r e mainly concerned w i t h the determination

o f b a t c h s i z e and t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f t h e d e t a i l e d p r o d u c t i o n
schedule.
R e p e t i t i v e systems i n v o l v e the manufacturing o f t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y

r e l a t e d p r o d u c t s i n l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s t h r o u g h a s e t o f sequence o f
operations
or
stages.
Examples
of
items
manufactured
in
r e p e t i t i v e systems i n c l u d e h i g h demand assembled p r o d u c t s s u c h a s

a u t o m o b i l e s , e l e c t r o n i c a p p l i a n c e s , hardware i t e m s , e t c .
A c o n t i n u o u s p r o c e s s system i n v o l v e s t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f b u l k
c o m m o d i t i e s t h r o u g h a s e r i e s o f d i r e c t l y c o n n e c t e d p r o c e s s e s and
operations
such as
those i n o i l r e f i n e r i e s ,
p l a n t s and f o o d p r o c e s s i n g .
This type o f
chemical process
system embodies t h e
u l t i m a t e v i s i o n o f s t o c k l e s s p r o d u c t i o n systems t o s u c h a n e x t e n t
t h a t d i s c r e t e p r o d u c t s w i l l f l o w l i k e water through the system.
The k e y t o t h e c o n v e r s i o n o f a n i n t e r m i t t e n t s y s t e m i n t o one w h i c h
i s analogous t o a continuous p r o c e s s system i s i n d e s i g n i n g t h e
m a n u f a c t u r i n g f a c i l i t i e s s u c h t h a t s m a l l l o t s c a n be e f f i c i e n t l y
p r o d u c e d i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e a smooth p r o d u c t i o n f l o w .
This w i l l
r e q u i r e t h e r e d u c t i o n o f s e t - u p t i m e , q u a l i t y improvements,
and
t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f e x c e s s i v e raw m a t e r i a l s and w o r k - i n - p r o c e s s
i n v e n t o r i e s i n a n i n t e r m i t t e n t system.
M u l t i - s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s e s c a n be c l a s s i f i e d i n t o
categories:
push and p u l l .
I n a p u s h system,
two
a forecast o f
demand, w h i c h i n c l u d e s a l l o w a n c e s f o r l e a d - t i m e s , i s d e t e r m i n e d
f o r each production stage.
B a s e d on t h e f o r e c a s t , t h e q u a n t i t y o f
m a t e r i a l s needed a t e a c h p r o d u c t i o n s t a t i o n i s p r o j e c t e d .
the
proper material,
material i s
'pushed'
quantity
to
the
and t i m i n g a r e
Once
determined,
shop f l o o r f o r p r o c e s s i n g .
the
The
production process i s then c o n t r o l l e d through the b u i l d - u p o r

d r a w i n g down o f i n v e n t o r y l e v e l s a t e a c h s t a g e i n t h e s y s t e m .
In
p u s h s y s t e m s , m a t e r i a l r e q u i r e m e n t s may b e i n f l a t e d t o i n c l u d e
safety
stock
which
protects
against
stock-outs
during
u n p r e d i c t a b l e d e l a y s i n s u p p l y a n d / o r u n d e r e s t i m a t i o n i n demand
during the lead-time.
R e q u i r e m e n t s may a l s o b e i n c r e a s e d i f t h e
a c t u a l q u a n t i t y needed i s t o o s m a l l t o b e p r o d u c e d e c o n o m i c a l l y .
On t h e o t h e r hand, i n a p u l l s y s t e m , t h e r e q u i r e d p a r t s i n a
p a r t i c u l a r p r o d u c t i o n stage w i t h i n a m u l t i - s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n system
a r e w i t h d r a w n f r o m t h e s t a g e s where t h e s e p a r t s a r e produced such
withdrawals authorize
these
stages
to
start
the production of
p a r t s f o r r e p l e n i s h i n g t o the exact q u a n t i t i e s withdrawn.
More
p r e c i s e l y , a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f e a c h d a y , t h e amount o f m a t e r i a l
needed f o r
schedule.
the
final
product
i s
determined
from
the
daily
T h i s information i s provided o n l y t o the operator a t
t h e f i n a l s t a g e o f a m u l t i - s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n system.
The o p e r a t o r
a t t h e f i n a l s t a g e w i t h d r a w s t h e m a t e r i a l needed f o r m a n u f a c t u r i n g
f r o m t h e p r e c e d i n g s t a g e and, a t t h e same timeorders the same
withdrawal quantity of replenishment to the preceding stage, which
triggers
the
Eventually,
production
the
replenishment
entire
orders
of
the
replenishment
production
to
work
in
system
a
is
in
this
signalled
chain-like
fashion
issuing lengthy production orders to each stage.
stage.
by
the
without
A pull system
can be envisaged as pipelines connecting the production stations

where the stocks are produced with the production stations where
they are used.
The system synchronizes the material movements
between production stations.
In a very simple manner, the removal
of the stock for use becomes the signal to start production at the
beginning of a pipeline.
Most
conventional
push type.
multi-stage production systems are of
the
Controlling a push system requires the determination
of a master production schedule which specifies how many units of

each product are to be delivered and when purchase orders for raw
materials and components from outside suppliers, and production
orders for parts are to be released.
The information provided on
the master production schedule is then used for more detailed shop
floor
decisions
such
as
lot
sizing,
scheduling
and
resource
a l l o c a t i o n s so t h a t t h e master p r o d u c t i o n s c h e d u l e c a n b e
met
economically.
More s p e c i f i c a l l y , under c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o d u c t i o n c o n t r o l , t h e
m a s t e r p r o d u c t i o n s c h e d u l e p r o v i d e s a l i s t i n g o f p r o d u c t s t o be
produced,
when t h e p r o d u c t s a r e t o
be d e l i v e r e d and i n what
quantities, i n consistent with the production capacity o f

p l a n t i n o r d e r t o s a t i s f y t h e demand f o r e c a s t .
the
Based o n t h e
m a s t e r p r o d u c t i o n s c h e d u l e , t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l p a r t s and
s u b a s s e m b l i e s o f e a c h p r o d u c t i s p l a n n e d s o t h a t t h e p a r t s and
s u b a s s e m b l i e s a r e a v a i l a b l e when needed.
The p r o c e s s i s n o r m a l l y
c a l l e d m a t e r i a l r e q u i r e m e n t s p l a n n i n g (MRP) w h i c h h a s been w i d e l y
used t o c o n t r o l m u l t i - s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n systems.
a
set
of
logically
related
procedures
An MRP s y s t e m i s
designed
to
manage
i n v e n t o r i e s o f a l l i t e m s i n a p r o d u c t i o n system.
Based on t h e outcome o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s , t h e
n e x t s t e p i s the p r o d u c t i o n s c h e d u l i n g i n v o l v i n g t h e assignment o f
s t a r t d a t e s and due d a t e s f o r v a r i o u s components t o be p r o c e s s e d
through the
shop f l o o r .
s c h e d u l i n g j o b complex.
Several issues
make t h i s p a r t i c u l a r
The f i r s t i s s u e i s o n t h e number o f
i n d i v i d u a l p a r t s and o r d e r s t o be s c h e d u l e d a s i t may r u n i n t o
thousands.
S e c o n d l y , e a c h p a r t h a s i t s own p r o c e s s r o u t i n g t o be
followed.
T h i r d l y , t h e number o f machines o n t h e shop f l o o r i s
l i m i t e d , and t h e machines p e r f o r m d i f f e r e n t o p e r a t i o n s and t h e y

h a v e d i f f e r e n t f e a t u r e s and c a p a c i t i e s .
In effect,
compete w i t h one a n o t h e r f o r p r o c e s s i n g o n t h e m a c h i n e s .
the orders
I n c o n v e n t i o n a l m u l t i - s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n systems, even w i t h t h e
b e s t p l a n s and s c h e d u l e s , d i f f i c u l t i e s i n p r o d u c t i o n c a n a r i s e f o r
a
number o f r e a s o n s : p a r t s
may have n o t y e t a r r i v e d f r o m t h e
p r e c e d i n g s t a g e ; a machine may have b r o k e n down; p r o p e r t o o l i n g

may n o t
be a v a i l a b l e ;
detected; etc.
be
q u a l i t y c o n t r o l problems
may have
been
T h e r e f o r e , t h e a c t u a l p r o g r e s s o f p r o d u c t i o n must
compared w i t h
the
production
schedule
in
order
to
take
c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n s f o r o r d e r s w h i c h have f a l l e n b e h i n d s c h e d u l e .
S i n c e a l a r g e number o f p r o d u c t i o n p r o b l e m s e x i s t i n p u s h s y s t e m s ,
i n v e n t o r y h a s been u s e d t o r e d u c e t h e impact o f s u c h p r o b l e m s .
From
the
Japanese
perspective,
push
systems
have
several
s e r i o u s drawbacks r e l a t e d t o t h e J a p a n e s e b e l i e f t h a t * i n v e n t o r y
i s the root o f a l l e v i l s ' .
i n v e n t o r y has
problems.
T r a d i t i o n a l l y , i n a p u s h system,
been j u s t i f i e d a s
means
to
solve production
I n v e n t o r y i s k e p t t o compensate f o r p r o b l e m s s u c h a s
l o n g c y c l e t i m e s , l a r g e s e t - u p t i m e s , q u a l i t y p r o b l e m s , improper
scheduling,
inadequate i n f o r m a t i o n systems,
attitudes.
However, p e o p l e on t h e p r o d u c t i o n l i n e have been so
used t o inventory t h a t
under the
name o f
and o l d h a b i t s and
many p r o d u c t i o n p r o b l e m s a r e c o n c e a l e d
inventory instead o f being tackled.
Thus,
i n v e n t o r y i s more o f a c o v e r - u p o f p r o d u c t i o n p r o b l e m s t h a n o f a
s o l u t i o n t o the problems.
Moreover, i n
a p u s h system,
when
p r o d u c t demand changes d r a s t i c a l l y , t h e i n a b i l i t y o f t h e s y s t e m t o
review i t s production plan f o r
i n v e n t o r y o r e v e n dead s t o c k .
each process
causes e x c e s s i v e
I n a d d i t i o n , a p r o d u c t i o n p l a n must
have e x c e s s i v e s a f e t y s t o c k as i t i s v i r t u a l l y i m p o s s i b l e t o
scrutinize a l l
the s i t u a t i o n s r e l a t e d t o production r a t e
and
S i n c e a d e t a i l e d o p t i m a l p r o d u c t i o n p l a n i s too
cumbersome t o be d e t e r m i n e d , l o t s i z e d e t e r m i n a t i o n and t i m i n g o f
p r o c e s s c o u l d n o t e a s i l y be improved.
P u l l systems a r e d e s i g n e d t o o b v i a t e t h e s e drawbacks.
The
o b j e c t i v e s o f s u c h p u l l systems a r e ( K i m u r a and T e r a d a 1981): t o

minimize the f l u c t u a t i o n o f the work-in-process inventory i n order
t o simplify inventory control,
amplified
fluctuations
of
t o prevent
demand
or
the transmission o f
production
volume
of
s u c c e e d i n g p r o c e s s t o t h e p r e c e d i n g one and t o r a i s e t h e l e v e l o f
shop c o n t r o l
through d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n .
The T o y o t a P r o d u c t i o n
System i s a p u l l system designed t o a c h i e v e these o b j e c t i v e s .
12 Toyota Production System
The Toyota Production System was developed and promoted by the

Toyota Motor Corporation in Japan, and
many Japanese companies.
management assembled
Over
is now being adopted by
the past thirty years, Toyota's
ideas from many sources and
combined
them
with their own thinking and the distinguishable Japanese features

to
create
the
system.
The origin of
some
of
these
ideas
is
unknown, but Mr. Taiichi Ohno, former vice-president of Toyota

Motor Corporation, is generally honoured as being the father of it
(Hall 1983 and Monden 1986).
Therefore, the system has also been
termed as the Ohno system (Ashburn 1977).
S i n c e about 1979,
Japanese m a n u f a c t u r i n g management h a s been
t h e magnet f o r t h e W e s t e r n i n d u s t r y .
Much o f t h e a t t e n t i o n i s
f o c u s e d on p r o d u c t i o n and i n v e n t o r y c o n t r o l .
American p l a n t s have
i n a u g u r a t e d v a r i o u s programs t o t r y t o c a t c h up w i t h t h e J a p a n e s e .
F o r example, s t a r t i n g i n 1979, Westinghouse E l e c t r i c C o r p o r a t i o n
h a s d i s p a t c h e d f o r two y e a r s some f i v e hundred o f i t s employees,
including f i f t y to
Japanese
sixty
industries.
union
The
leaders,
American
to v i s i t
Production
and
and
study
Inventory
C o n t r o l S o c i e t y h a s e s t a b l i s h e d a R e p e t i t i v e M a n u f a c t u r i n g Group
( w i t h members f r o m f i f t y companies) w h i c h h a s s p o n s o r e d s t u d i e s o f
Japanese
manufacturing
management
in
number
of
industries
(Japanese s u b s i d i a r y p l a n t s i n t h e U . S . a s w e l l a s companies i n
J a p a n ) and h a s d r a f t e d a monograph t h a t e x t e n s i v e l y examines t h e
T o y o t a P r o d u c t i o n System.
S i n c e t h e n , r e s e a r c h and e d u c a t i o n on
J a p a n e s e m a n u f a c t u r i n g t e c h n i q u e s have begun i n e a r n e s t , and many

A m e r i c a n i n d u s t r i e s have been a t t e m p t i n g t o i n t e g r a t e t h e Japanese
p r o d u c t i o n systems i n t o t h e i r o p e r a t i o n .
A number o f Japanese
s u b s i d i a r i e s i n t h e U . S . have been r e c o n f i g u r i n g t h e i r p l a n t s i n
the process o f adopting o r i n o p e r a t i o n w i t h the Toyota Production
System.
I t i s now t r u e t o s a y t h a t t h e T o y o t a P r o d u c t i o n System
i s no l o n g e r a n e x c l u s i v e l y Japanese p r o d u c t i o n s y s t e m b u t
one
w h i c h p e o p l e t h r o u g h o u t t h e w o r l d c a n t a k e advantage o f .
The main p u r p o s e o f t h e T o y o t a P r o d u c t i o n System i s t o r e d u c e

c o s t s surrounding production processes.
The system a l s o h e l p s t o
i n c r e a s e t h e t u r n o v e r r a t i o o f c a p i t a l and improves t h e t o t a l
p r o d u c t i v i t y o f a company a s a w h o l e .
I t h a s been r e p o r t e d t h a t
T o y o t a h a s a n i n v e n t o r y t u r n o v e r (annual s a l e s / a v e r a g e i n v e n t o r y
v a l u e ) o f 50 t o 100 t i m e s w h i l e t h e i n v e n t o r y t u r n o v e r o f major
U . S . companies i s o n l y 10 t o 20 t i m e s ( S u g i m o r i e t a l .
R i c e and Yoshikawa 1982).
1977 and
I n s p i t e o f the repeated o i l c r i s e s
w h i c h g r a v e l y d e p r e s s e d t h e w o r l d economy,
t h e Japanese economy
was a b l e t o weather s u c h s t o r m s w i t h o u t s u f f e r i n g s e r i o u s damage.

Even d u r i n g the p e r i o d s o f
slow
economic
growth,
the
Toyota
P r o d u c t i o n System c o u l d s t i l l make a p r o f i t b y r e d u c i n g c o s t s i n a
u n i q u e manner - t h a t i s b y e l i m i n a t i n g e x c e s s i v e i n v e n t o r y and
workforce.
I t w o u l d p r o b a b l y n o t be o v e r s t a t i n g t h e c a s e t o s a y
t h a t t h i s i s a n o t h e r r e v o l u t i o n a r y p r o d u c t i o n management system,
f o l l o w i n g t h e T a y l o r s y s t e m ( s c i e n t i f i c management) and t h e F o r d
s y s t e m (mass a s s e m b l y l i n e p r o d u c t i o n ) (Monden 1983).
The T o y o t a P r o d u c t i o n System i s a r e a s o n a b l e method o f making

p r o d u c t s s i n c e i t completely e l i m i n a t e s unnecessary elements by
a s s u m i n g t h a t a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t h e minimum amount o f equipment,
m a t e r i a l s , p a r t s and w o r k e r s w h i c h a r e a b s o l u t e l y e s s e n t i a l t o
production are merely s u r p l u s that o n l y r a i s e the c o s t .
The b a s i c
i d e a o f t h e T o y o t a P r o d u c t i o n System i s t o p r o d u c e t h e r e q u i r e d
i t e m s a t t h e t i m e s needed and i n t h e q u a n t i t i e s s p e c i f i e d .
Just-in-time
production
system,
subsystem
P r o d u c t i o n System, i s u s e d t o r e a l i z e t h i s i d e a .
of
the
The
Toyota
1- 3 Just-in-time (JIT) Production Systems
The main p u r p o s e o f t h e J I T p r o d u c t i o n system i s t o c u t down

costs
surrounding
production
processes
through
complete
e l i m i n a t i o n o f unnecessary elements.
The b a s i c i d e a i n s u c h a
production
necessary
system i s
to
necessary q u a n t i t i e s a t
produce
the
the necessary
times.
items i n
Under
the
the
JIT
p h i l o s o p h y , t h e t i m e d u r a t i o n between t h e e n t r y o f t h e p u r c h a s e d
i t e m and t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e end i t e m s h o u l d be m i n i m i z e d .
To
achieve
to
this,
fabricate
raw
parts,
materials
parts
are
purchased
fabricated
just-in-time
just-in-time
to
compose
s u b a s s e m b l i e s , and s u b a s s e m b l i e s composed j u s t - i n - t i m e t o produce

final
products.
It i s
therefore
hand-to-mouth ,
o p e r a t i o n w i t h piece-to-piece processing.
mode
of
With the realization
of the JIT concept, unnecessary intermediate and finished product

inventories would be eliminated.
Even though the production of
one unit of part just in time to go into the next process is an

ideal situation which no Japanese firm has completely attained,
this ideal is an important goal for many Japanese companies.
strive
aggressively
to get
as
close
as
possible
to
They
stockless
production.
The reported benefits of employing JIT production systems are

significant
(Schonberger 1982).
The JIT approach is especially
attractive because cutting lot sizes triggers a chain of benefits

including productivity, quality and plant improvements.
Among the
JIT productivity enhancements achieved by Japanese manufacturers
10
are l e s s cycle inventory,
less safety stock,
l e s s scrap,
less
d i r e c t l a b o u r w a s t e d on rework, f e w e r i n d i r e c t c o s t f o r i n t e r e s t
o n i d l e i n v e n t o r i e s , l e s s space needed t o s t o r e i n v e n t o r i e s , l e s s
equipment t o h a n d l e i n v e n t o r y , l e s s i n v e n t o r y a c c o u n t i n g , and l e s s
physical inventory control.
A l l o f t h e above enhancements r e d u c e
t h e o p e r a t i n g c o s t o f a p r o d u c t i o n system.
A t t h e same t i m e , t h e
o u t p u t o f t h e p r o d u c t i o n s y s t e m w i l l be improved, s i n c e s o u r c e s o f
d e l a y s and s c r a p a r e removed.
The o t h e r
supplementary b e n e f i t s o f
JIT are faster
r e s p o n s e , b e t t e r f o r e c a s t i n g and l e s s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
market
Less i d l e
i n v e n t o r y i n t h e s y s t e m s c u t s o v e r a l l l e a d - t i m e f r o m raw m a t e r i a l s
p u r c h a s i n g t o s h i p p i n g o f end p r o d u c t s .
thereby promise q u i c k e r d e l i v e r i e s ,
M a r k e t i n g department c a n
c a n more q u i c k l y e f f e c t
change i n t h e p r o d u c t m i x o r p r o d u c t i o n q u a n t i t y ,
and c a n more
e a s i l y f o r e c a s t demand s i n c e t h e f o r e c a s t h o r i z o n i s n o t a s f a r
i n t o the future.
A s J I T p r o d u c t i o n s y s t e m s t e n d t o be o p e r a t e d by-
w o r k e r s and foremen,
t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e budget
processing, accounting,
(eg.,
f o r data
inspection, material control, production
p l a n n i n g ) may be l e a n .
Because o f t h e t i g h t i n v e n t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s , t h e J I T p r o d u c t i o n
system w i l l not
frequently.
work i f
There i s a n i n e s c a p a b l e p r e s s u r e f o r b o t h e x p o s i n g
and s o l v i n g p r o b l e m s .
to
non-conforming p r o d u c t s a r e produced
T h i s p r e s s u r e i s l o o k e d upon a s o p p o r t u n i t y
make improvements.
problems a r e e l i m i n a t e d ,
A s soon a s t h e cause o f
t h e s e exposed
more i n v e n t o r y c a n b e p u l l e d f r o m t h e
11
system, w h i c h f o r c e s o t h e r problems t o s u r f a c e .
Since i t i s very d i f f i c u l t t o r e a l i z e JIT production i n a l l

production
processes
using
conventional
push
systems,
necessary t o look a t the production f l o w conversely.
i t
is
I n order to
achieve J I T production, the worker o f a c e r t a i n process withdraws

the necessary items i n the necessary q u a n t i t i e s a t the necessary
t i m e s and t h u s i n i t i a t i n g t h e p r e c e d i n g p r o c e s s t o produce t h e
exact
quantities
to
replace
those
that
have
been w i t h d r a w n .
Hence, t h e p u l l a p p r o a c h i s w e l l s u i t e d t o J I T mode o f p r o d u c t i o n .
I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e p u l l approach, a s u c c e s s f u l
operation
of
JIT
production
production prerequisites.
system
requires
number
of
Among t h e s e p r e r e q u i s i t e s , smoothing o f
p r o d u c t i o n i s t h e most i m p o r t a n t one.
To p r o d u c e o r d e l i v e r f i n i s h e d p r o d u c t s j u s t - i n - t i m e t o b e s o l d
means
supplying
quantities.
reacting
the
This
promptly
salable
situation
to
demand
products
is
only
in
characterized
changes.
As
the
as
salable
production
result,
excess
i n v e n t o r i e s c a n be e l i m i n a t e d ,
I n t h e J I T p r o d u c t i o n system, t h e
means f o r a d a p t i n g p r o d u c t i o n
t o v a r i a b l e demand i s c a l l e d t h e
smoothing o f p r o d u c t i o n .
In
the
JIT
production
system,
c e r t a i n process,
say
P,
withdraws the necessary p a r t s from the preceding process i n the

necessary q u a n t i t i e s a t
the
necessary
12
times.
Under
such
p r o d u c t i o n o p e r a t i o n , i f the process P withdraws m a t e r i a l i n a

f l u c t u a t i n g manner i n r e g a r d t o
time
and q u a n t i t y ,
then
the
p r e c e d i n g p r o c e s s e i t h e r h a s t o m a i n t a i n a peak c a p a c i t y o r h a s t o
keep a s e a s o n a l - l i k e s t o c k .
involve
maintenance
large
To m a i n t a i n a peak c a p a c i t y means t o
investment
expenses.
preceding process i s
To
in
machinery,
keep
fundamentally
followed
seasonal-like
by
large
stock i n
incompatible w i t h
the
the
JIT
concept.
I n order t o reduce the withdrawal f l u c t u a t i o n ,
a production
l i n e i s no l o n g e r committed t o m a n u f a c t u r i n g a s i n g l e t y p e o f
product i n large l o t s i z e s .
I n s t e a d , a s i n g l e l i n e must produce a
v a r i e t y o f p r o d u c t s e a c h day i n s m a l l l o t s i z e s i n r e s p o n s e t o
v a r i e g a t e d customer
up-to-date
and
demand.
inventory
As
due
a result,
to
production i s kept
over-production
or
early
production i s minimized.
I n t h e J I T p r o d u c t i o n system,
t h e r e a r e two p h a s e s i n t h e
p r o c e s s o f p r o d u c t i o n smoothing (Monden 1 9 8 3 ) .
The f i r s t phase i s
on the monthly a d a p t a t i o n o f p r o d u c t i o n t o t a c k l e t h e problem o f

m o n t h l y demand changes d u r i n g a y e a r whereas t h e s e c o n d p h a s e i s
o n t h e d a i l y a d a p t a t i o n o f p r o d u c t i o n t o c o u n t e r a c t d a i l y demand
changes d u r i n g a month.
Monthly a d a p t a t i o n i s achieved b y monthly
p r o d u c t i o n p l a n n i n g through which a master production schedule,

specifying
the
average
daily
production
assemblies, i s prepared.
13
quantity
of
final
I n t h e monthly p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s , the d a i l y p r o d u c t i o n schedule

i s d e t e r m i n e d b a s e d on t h e d e t a i l e d m o n t h l y p r o d u c t i o n s c h e d u l e
and t h e c o n c e p t o f smoothing o f p r o d u c t i o n .
I n the J I T production
system, smoothing o f d a i l y p r o d u c t i o n must c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g

two a s p e c t s : t o t a l p r o d u c t i o n o f a p r o d u c t p e r day and q u a n t i t y o f
each v a r i e t y o f product p e r day.
F o r example, i f t h e m o n t h l y
s c h e d u l e f o r a p a r t i c u l a r p r o d u c t i o n l i n e i s 10,000 u n i t s ,
the
a v e r a g e d d a i l y p r o d u c t i o n i s 500 u n i t s f o r a month o f 20 o p e r a t i n g
days.
Hence,
production i s
production quantity,
i.e.
the
smoothed i n
terms o f
averaged t o t a l
the d a i l y
quantity
to
be
produced per day.
A t t h e same t i m e , t h e p r o d u c t i o n l i n e h a s t o be smoothed i n
t e r m s o f t h e v a r i o u s p r o d u c t s t o be p r o d u c e d .
S i n c e t h e assembly
l i n e u s u a l l y a s s e m b l e s more t h a n one t y p e o f p r o d u c t , t h e d a i l y
production quantity o f
these products
must a l s o
be
averaged.
Suppose t h e r e a r e f o u r m a j o r t y p e s o f p r o d u c t s I n t h e p r o d u c t i o n
l i n e and t h e number o f o p e r a t i n g d a y s i n a month i s 20, and t h e r e
a r e two e i g h t - h o u r s h i f t s i n e a c h w o r k i n g d a y , t h e n t h e a v e r a g e
d a i l y p r o d u c t i o n q u a n t i t y o f e a c h t y p e c a n be c a l c u l a t e d a s shown
i n t h e t a b l e below.
14
Table 1.1 Smoothed q u a n t i t y o f each product t o be produced each day

Daily
average
output
(unit)
Monthly
demands
(unit)
Types
Total
4000
200
3000
150
2000
100
1000
50
10000
500
Cycle
time
(min.:
U n i t s produced
per 19.2 min
19.
A f t e r f i n d i n g t h e average d a i l y p r o d u c t i o n q u a n t i t y o f
t y p e o f p r o d u c t , t h e c y c l e t i m e f o r e a c h p r o d u c t i s computed.
each
The
c y c l e t i m e i s t h e t i m e n e e d e d t o p r o d u c e one u n i t o f a s p e c i f i c
type o f product.
Once a p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s r e c e i v e s i t s m o n t h l y s c h e d u l e f o r t h e
a v e r a g e d d a i l y p r o d u c t i o n , i t must a d a p t i t s o p e r a t i o n s t o t h e new
information
(Monden
1983).
When
demand
increases,
temporary
workers w i l l b e h i r e d and consequently e a c h worker w i l l handle

l e s s machines.
On a n a s s e m b l y l i n e , f o r e x a m p l e , i f a w o r k e r h a s
h a n d l e d t h e j o b w i t h a one m i n u t e c y c l e t i m e , t h e same j o b c a n be
f i n i s h e d i n a 30 s e c o n d s c y c l e t i m e w i t h t h e h e l p o f a d d i t i o n a l
temporary workers.
opposite
decrease.
steps t o
On t h e
the
above
other
hand, i f
can be
demand d e c r e a s e s ,
taken t o
adapt
to
this
I n p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s e s , e a c h w o r k e r w i l l h a n d l e more
machines because
temporary workers w i l l be dismissed.
On a n
a s s e m b l y l i n e , w o r k e r s w i l l h a v e a l o n g e r c y c l e t i m e t o do t h e i r
15
j o b a s demand d e c r e a s e s .
I t i s b e l i e v e d t h a t l e t t i n g workers
c a r r y out other non-production a c t i v i t i e s ,
such a s p r a c t i s i n g
setup a c t i o n s , i s b e t t e r than producing unnecessary s t o c k .
Based on t h e m o n t h l y p r o d u c t i o n s c h e d u l e d e t e r m i n e d i n t h e
f i r s t phase o f p r o d u c t i o n smoothing,
e a c h day i s d e t e r m i n e d .
t h e sequence s c h e d u l e f o r
T h i s sequence s c h e d u l e s p e c i f i e s t h e
sequence o f l a u n c h i n g v a r i o u s p r o d u c t s i n t o t h e f i n a l p r o d u c t i o n
s t a g e o f a mixed-model assembly l i n e .
The sequence i s t i m e d so
t h a t one p r o d u c t I s c o m p l e t e d when t h e c y c l e t i m e e x p i r e s .
Since
t h e J I T p r o d u c t i o n system i s o f
the p u l l
type,
the
p r o d u c t i o n o f a mixed-model a s s e m b l y l i n e t r i g g e r s t h e p r o d u c t i o n
o f a l l the preceding processes.
Hence, o n l y t h e f i n a l assembly
l i n e needs t o be i n f o r m e d o f t h e sequence s c h e d u l e i n e a c h day

whereas a l l t h e p r e c e d i n g p r o c e s s e s a r e g i v e n o n l y r o u g h monthly
estimates o f
month.
the required q u a n t i t i e s i n the beginning o f
each
From s u c h m o n t h l y p r e d e t e r m i n e d f i g u r e s , t h e s u p e r v i s o r o f
e a c h p r o c e s s c a n a r r a n g e t h e n e c e s s a r y w o r k f o r c e f o r t h e month i n
question.
T h i s i s t h e most d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e o f t h e s y s t e m .
t h e c o n t r a r y , i n a p u s h system,
s u c h a s MRP,
On
every production
p r o c e s s must be g i v e n i t s p a r t i c u l a r p r o d u c t i o n s c h e d u l e .
I n a p u l l system, the w i t h d r a w a l f l u c t u a t i o n o f a p r o c e s s i s
a m p l i f i e d and t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e p r e c e d i n g p r o c e s s e s .
It
can
e a s i l y be c o n c e i v e d t h a t t h e w i t h d r a w a l f l u c t u a t i o n f r o m t h e f i n a l
a s s e m b l y l i n e w i l l have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t o n t h e f l u c t u a t i o n o f
16
production l e v e l s i n the preceding processes.
I n order t o reduce
the amplification o f t h i s f l u c t u a t i o n i n a l l production l i n e s ,

i n c l u d i n g t h o s e i n e x t e r n a l s u b c o n t r a c t e d companies an effort
must be made to minimize the fluctuation of production level
the
final
assembly
line.
Since
the
assembly
sequence
in
of
mixed-model assembly line is specified by a sequence schedule, the

fluctuation of production level of the
properly
designing
sequence
schedule
the
sequence
is vital
production process.
to
line can be reduced by
schedule.
levelling
Therefore,
the workload
good
In
each
Hence, the assembly sequencing problem, which
determines the sequence schedule, is an important one to be solved

when controlling a mixed-model assembly line.
In the sequencing example shown in Table 1.1, the production

sequence in nineteen minute and twelve seconds for product types
A, B, C and D would be: AAAA, BBB, CC and D.
complicated: D-A-B-A-OA-B-A-C-B etc.
sequence
in
which
various
products
Or it could be more
As a matter of fact,
are
introduced
the
into
mixed-model assembly line depends on the goal which the system

designer wishes to achieve.
According to Monden (1983), there are
basically two possible goals:

(a) loading goal - levelling
the
load
(total
assembly
time) on
each station on the line; and

(b) usage goal
k e e p i n g a constant usage r a t e f o r e v e r y p a r t o r
sub-assembly on the l i n e .
I t i s w o r t h w h i l e t o n o t e t h a t a p r o d u c t may have a n o p e r a t i o n .
17
time longer than the predetermined c y c l e time.
T h i s i s due t o t h e
f a c t t h a t l i n e b a l a n c i n g o n a m i x e d - m o d e l a s s e m b l y l i n e i s made
under the c o n d i t i o n t h a t the o p e r a t i o n time o f each s t a t i o n , which
i s weighted b y each q u a n t i t y o f mixed models, s h o u l d n o t exceed
the
cycle
time.
This
condition i s
stated mathematically as
follows
Y
^ Q
where
TI
Q,
=planned production quantity of the product i (i=l.n

T
=operation time of product i on the station
- C y C i e time = total operation time per day
EQ,
As a result, if products with relatively long operation times

are successively launched into a mixed-model assembly line,
the
products on the line may experience a delay in assembly and line

stoppage may happen.
each
assembly
station
Therefore, maintaining a levelled load on

is
necessary
in
order
to
reduce
the
frequency of line stoppage.
On the other hand, in order to achieve production smoothing in

a
pull
system,
work-in-process
minimized.
fluctuation
of
production
inventories
at
preceding
To achieve these objectives,
18
levels
as
processes
well
as
must
be
the quantity used per
unit
of
time,
i.e.
consumption
rate,
for
each
part
i n
m i x e d - m o d e l a s s e m b l y l i n e must b e k e p t a s c o n s t a n t a s p o s s i b l e .
I n g e n e r a l the usage goal is considered to be more important than
the loading goal
(Monden 1983).
Hence, in most cases, only the
usage goal is considered when determining the sequence schedule.
Even
if
sequence
the
schedule,
schedule.
called
only
usage
it
is
goal
still
is
considered
difficult
to
in
finding
find
the
the
optimal
Toyota determines such a schedule by using a heuristic
the
applicable
goal-chasing
to
production
products and parts.

rule used
for
method.
This
system
which
method
has
can
two
only
be
levels end
Because of the myopic nature of the heuristic
the determination
of
the
sequence schedule,
the
performance of the method tends to worsen when the number of parts

in the production system is large.
A better method is needed to
solve the assembly sequencing problem.
In
mixed-model
assembly
line,
increasing
the
number
of
workers in a station reduces the assembly time required in that

station
and
using
overtime
lengthens
the
duration
successive launchings of products into the assembly line.

the sequence schedule found by solving
between
Since
the assembly sequencing
problem may vary from day to day, the workload of each assembly
station may fluctuate in a corresponding manner.
the fluctuation of
start
the daily workload
of each working day,
In response to
of each station, at
it may be necessary
to adjust
the
the
manpower in each station and/or use overtime so that the line can
19
r u n s m o o t h l y a c c o r d i n g t o a g i v e n sequence s c h e d u l e .
1.4 Kanban Systems
The Kanban s y s t e m i s a m u l t i - s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n s c h e d u l i n g and

i n v e n t o r y c o n t r o l system used t o m a t e r i a l i z e the p h i l o s o p h y o f J I T
production.
Under t h e J I T p h i l o s o p h y , t h e t i m e e l a p s e d between
e n t r y o f p u r c h a s e d i t e m s and c o m p l e t i o n o f end p r o d u c t s s h o u l d be
minimized.
I n o t h e r words, i t e m s s h o u l d f l o w t h r o u g h t h e e n t i r e
production l i n e
intermediate
without
stage.
No
being
stopped o r
inventory o f
accumulated i n
any k i n d i s
any
viewed a s
a b s o l u t e n e c e s s i t y under t h e c o n c e p t o f J I T p r o d u c t i o n .
Traditionally,
i n v e n t o r y h a s been u s e d a s
v a r i o u s p r o d u c t i o n problems.
used t o
reduce
a means t o s o l v e
F o r example, c y c l e s t o c k h a s been
set-up frequency
(hence
the associated set-up
c o s t ) s e a s o n a l s t o c k h a s been u s e d t o meet f l u c t u a t i n g demand

w i t h a l i m i t e d p r o d u c t i o n c a p a c i t y pipeline stock has been used
to
decouple
production
processes
due
to
the
existence
of
production and delivery lead-times and safety stock has been used
to absorb uncertainties such as shifts in demand, delays in supply
and machine breakdowns.
However, supporters of JIT production
believe that ' inventory is the root of all evils' because people
have been so used to inventory that many production problems are
hidden
under
inventory
is
the
more
name
of
of
a
inventory.
cover-up
20
of
From
this
excessive
viewpoint,
production,
unbalanced
processes,
redundant
capacities,
insufficient
p r e v e n t i v e maintenance and o t h e r p r o d u c t i o n problems, t h a n o f
s o l u t i o n t o these problems.
The Kanban s y s t e m c a n b e u s e d t o r e d u c e i n v e n t o r y l e v e l a n d
f o r c e hidden problems t o s u r f a c e so t h a t these problems can be
t a c k l e d d i r e c t l y , t o t h e end t h a t t h e i n v e n t o r y l e v e l would p a r e
down t o t h e b a r e minimum r e q u i r e d t o k e e p m a n u f a c t u r i n g f l o w i n g
smoothly.
I n o r d e r t o r e a l i z e how t h e s e g o a l s c a n be a c h i e v e d
t h r o u g h t h e u s e o f t h e Kanban system the operating procedures of

this system must be understood.
Kanban, in Japanese language, refers to card, tag, ticket or

signboard.
in
It serves as a production, delivery, or purchase order
the Kanban system.
There are
two basic
types
of Kanbans:
production Kanbans and withdrawal Kanbans.
Production Kanbans,
also
and
known
circulate
as
in-process
between
Kanbans
process
(or
(Kimura
production
Terada
station)
1981),
and
its
immediately succeeding inventory point, while withdrawal Kanbans,

also
known
immediately
as
inter-process
succeeding
immediately preceding
Kanbans,
inventory
point
inventory point
circulate
of
of
between
process
and
the next process.
the
the
A
withdrawal Kanban details the quantity and the type of item which
the subsequent process should withdraw, while a production Kanban
shows
the
quantity
and
the
type
process must produce.
21
of
item
which
the
preceding
Figure 1.1 Flows of items and Kanbans between two production stages
flow o f production
Kanbans
f l o w o f withdrawal
Kanbans
22
Indeed, t h e mechanism o f a Kanban s y s t e m c a n b e i l l u s t r a t e d b y

c o n s i d e r i n g f l o w s o f Kanbans
and i t e m s between two s u c c e s s i v e
production stages described i n Figure 1.1.

n is
an
intermediate
stage i n
I n t h i s f i g u r e , stage
production
system.
It is
c o m p r i s e d o f a p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s P n an inbound inventory point

I n storing part inventory for process P n and an outbound inventory
point 0 n storing finished inventory of process P n .
Process P11"1
follows process P n with two inventory points, 0 n and I n - 1 , located

The items produced by P n are first stored in 0 n and
between them.
then delivered
I n 1.
to
The
items
stored
I11"1
in
are
withdrawn by P n - 1 .
The Kanbans circulating between P n and 0
into
of
the
category
between 0 n and I n
Under
production Kanbans
kinds
containers.
those
be
fall
circulating
fall into the category of withdrawal Kanbans.
the Kanban system,
different
and
to
of
items
items are
are
held
held
in
in
containers
different
kinds
and
of
For each kind of item, the associated containers are
of the same capacity and hence hold the same quantity of the item
when full.
a
In Figure 1.1, production process P n produces to fill
container.
attached
to
Once a container is full, a production Kanban is

it.
The
production Kanban
following pieces of information

(1) item name,
(2) item number,
(3) description of item,
(4) container type,
(5) container capacity
23
carries
at
least
the
(6) kanban i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number.

(7) p r e c e d i n g p r o c e s s , and
(8) s u c c e e d i n g p r o c e s s .
The f u l l c o n t a i n e r o f f i n i s h e d i n v e n t o r y o f p r o c e s s P n , w i t h a
p r o d u c t i o n Kanban a t t a c h e d t o i t , i s s t o r e d i n 0 n ( t h e outbound
inventory point o f P n ) .
When a c o n t a i n e r i n 0 n i s r e q u e s t e d b y
I n _ 1 ( t h e inbound i n v e n t o r y p o i n t o f P 11 "" 1 ), t h e p r o d u c t i o n Kanban

o r i g i n a l l y a t t a c h e d t o t h e c o n t a i n e r i n 0 n i s d e t a c h e d and k e p t
aside.
At
t h e end o f
each time p e r i o d
(usually o f
one- o r
t w o - h o u r d u r a t i o n ) , a l l t h e p r o d u c t i o n Kanbans d e t a c h e d i n 0 n
d u r i n g t h e t i m e p e r i o d a r e c o l l e c t e d and s e n t back t o P n .
p r o d u c t i o n Kanbans
are
placed i n
the
p r o d u c t i o n Kanban p o s t
a c c o r d i n g t o t h e sequence o f b e i n g d e t a c h e d ,
Kanbans
serve
as
production
orders
These
for
Pn.
and t h e d e t a c h e d
Generally,
Pn
p r o c e s s e s t h o s e p r o d u c t i o n o r d e r s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e sequence i n t h e
p r o d u c t i o n Kanban p o s t .
P
Once P n p r o d u c e s a f u l l c o n t a i n e r ( i . e . ,
f i l l s a p r o d u c t i o n o r d e r ) , t h e p r o d u c t i o n Kanban w h i c h o r d e r e d
t h i s f u l l c o n t a i n e r i s a t t a c h e d t o t h e c o n t a i n e r and t h e c o n t a i n e r
i s stored i n 0 n .
E v e r y f u l l c o n t a i n e r produced b y P
and s t o r e d
i n 0 n must have a p r o d u c t i o n Kanban a t t a c h e d t o i t ;
any s u c h
c o n t a i n e r w i t h o u t a p r o d u c t i o n Kanban a t t a c h e d t o i t i s r e g a r d e d ,
i n
the
Kanban
system,
identified easily.
as
illegitimate
inventory
and
can
be
I n summary, t h e p r o d u c t i o n c y c l e o f s t a g e n i s
t r i g g e r e d b y w i t h d r a w a l o f i t s s u c c e e d i n g p r o c e s s P n1 .
cannot
p r o d u c e u n t i l i t r e c e i v e s a p r o d u c t i o n Kanban f r o m 0 n and 0 n
cannot send P n a production Kanban until the production Kanban is
24
d e t a c h e d f r o m a f u l l c o n t a i n e r w h i c h i s w i t h d r a w n b y I11"1.
There a r e t h r e e i m p o r t a n t o b s e r v a t i o n s o f t h e o p e r a t i o n u s i n g
p r o d u c t i o n Kanbans.
F i r s t , t h e t o t a l number o f p r o d u c t i o n Kanbans
c i r c u l a t i n g between
each p r o d u c t i o n process
inventory
unchanged
point
is
over
time,
and i t s
unless
outbound
management
i n t e r f e r e s t o d r a i n p r o d u c t i o n Kanbans from, o r t o i n j e c t more

p r o d u c t i o n Kanbans t o t h e s e p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s e s .
Second,
the
maximum i n v e n t o r y , i n terms o f t h e number o f f u l l c o n t a i n e r s ,

w h i c h c a n be a c c u m u l a t e d a t a n outbound i n v e n t o r y p o i n t i s e q u a l
t o t h e t o t a l number o f p r o d u c t i o n Kanbans c i r c u l a t i n g between t h e
outbound i n v e n t o r y p o i n t and i t s p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s .
by
controlling
the
number
of
production
Kanbans
Therefore,
circulating
between t h e outbound i n v e n t o r y p o i n t and i t s p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s ,

management
c a n be a s s u r e d t h a t
the
inventory b u i l d - u p i n the
outbound i n v e n t o r y p o i n t cannot e x c e e d a c e r t a i n l i m i t .
Third,
t h e movement o f p r o d u c t i o n Kanbans between a p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s

and i t s
outbound i n v e n t o r y p o i n t i s
solely
triggered by
the
i n v e n t o r y w i t h d r a w a l o f i t s s u c c e e d i n g inbound i n v e n t o r y p o i n t .
Hence, a p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s p r o d u c e s o n l y what h a s been w i t h d r a w n
b y i t s succeeding process.
The o p e r a t i o n o f w i t h d r a w a l Kanbans i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f
p r o d u c t i o n Kanbans and c a n be i l l u s t r a t e d u s i n g F i g u r e 1 . 1 a g a i n .
Every f u l l container d e l i v e r e d from 0 n t o
must have a w i t h d r a w a l Kanban a t t a c h e d t o i t ; a n y s u c h c o n t a i n e r
w i t h o u t a w i t h d r a w a l Kanban a t t a c h e d t o i t i s a g a i n r e g a r d e d , i n
25
t h e Kanban system, a s i l l e g i t i m a t e i n v e n t o r y and c a n be i d e n t i f i e d

easily.
The i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n
a w i t h d r a w a l Kanban i s
s i m i l a r t o t h a t c o n t a i n e d i n a p r o d u c t i o n Kanban.
P
n 1
When p r o c e s s
starts to produce, the items stored in its inbound inventory
point,
n1
I
,
container
is
stored
consumed.
in
In_1
Kanban originally attached
When
is
the
consumed
first
by
P11"1,
to the container
and p u t i n t h e w i t h d r a w a l Kanban p o s t .
piece
in
of
the
full
withdrawal
In1 i s d e t a c h e d
A t t h e end o f e a c h t i m e
p e r i o d , a l l t h e w i t h d r a w a l Kanbans d e t a c h e d i n I11""1 d u r i n g t h e
t i m e p e r i o d a r e c o l l e c t e d and s e n t
to 0n.
These w i t h d r a w a l
Kanbans t h e n s e r v e a s d e l i v e r y o r d e r s f o r 0 n , and 0 n g e n e r a l l y
p r o c e s s e s t h o s e o r d e r s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e sequence i n t h e w i t h d r a w a l
Kanban p o s t .
In 0n,
a w i t h d r a w a l Kanban i s a t t a c h e d t o a f u l l
c o n t a i n e r whose c o n t e n t matches t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h e
w i t h d r a w a l Kanban and t h e p r o d u c t i o n Kanban o r i g i n a l l y a t t a c h e d t o
t h e c o n t a i n e r i s d e t a c h e d and p u t i n t h e p r o d u c t i o n Kanban p o s t .
W h i l e t h e d e t a c h e d p r o d u c t i o n Kanban i n 0 n i s s u b s e q u e n t l y s e n t
back t o P
as a production order,
the f u l l container w i t h the
w i t h d r a w a l Kanban a t t a c h e d t o i t i s d e l i v e r e d f o r w a r d t o I
S i m i l a r t o t h e o p e r a t i o n u s i n g p r o d u c t i o n Kanbans, t h e t o t a l
number o f w i t h d r a w a l Kanbans c i r c u l a t i n g between t h e
outbound
i n v e n t o r y p o i n t o f a p r o c e s s and t h e i n b o u n d i n v e n t o r y p o i n t o f
i t s s u c c e e d i n g p r o c e s s i s unchanged o v e r t i m e u n l e s s management
interferes.
Management c a n be a s s u r e d t h a t t h e maximum i n v e n t o r y
b u i l d - u p i n e a c h inbound i n v e n t o r y p o i n t i s e q u a l t o t h a t i m p l i e d
b y a l l t h e w i t h d r a w a l Kanbans c i r c u l a t i n g between t h e
26
inbound
i n v e n t o r y p o i n t and i t s p r e c e d i n g outbound i n v e n t o r y p o i n t p l u s
t h o s e p i e c e s , i f any, r e m a i n i n g i n a p a r t i a l l y f i l l e d c o n t a i n e r i n
t h e inbound i n v e n t o r y p o i n t , whose w i t h d r a w a l Kanban h a s a l r e a d y
been detached.
The movement o f w i t h d r a w a l Kanbans between a n
inbound i n v e n t o r y p o i n t and i t s p r e c e d i n g outbound i n v e n t o r y p o i n t

i s s o l e l y t r i g g e r e d by the inventory withdrawal o f i t s succeeding
production process.
Hence, a n outbound i n v e n t o r y p o i n t d e l i v e r s
o n l y what h a s been w i t h d r a w n b y i t s s u c c e e d i n g p r o c e s s , w i t h t h e
understanding t h a t there
may e x i s t
some p i e c e s i n a p a r t i a l l y
f i l l e d c o n t a i n e r i n t h e inbound
i n v e n t o r y p o i n t , whose o r i g i n a l
withdrawal
another f u l l
Kanban
has
ordered
container i n
the
outbound i n v e n t o r y p o i n t .
As i l l u s t r a t e d above, t h e p r o d u c t i o n s c h e d u l e o f t h e s u c c e e d i n g
process i s
transmitted
through withdrawal
to
its
immediately
Kanbans c i r c u l a t i n g
preceding
process
between e v e r y p a i r
of
c o n s e c u t i v e outbound and inbound i n v e n t o r y p o i n t s and p r o d u c t i o n

Kanbans
circulating
between e v e r y p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s
outbound i n v e n t o r y p o i n t .
final
process
are
and i t s
Hence, t h e p r o d u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e
connected l i k e
chain
to
the
preceding
processes o r t o the outside suppliers.
Under
the
Kanban
system,
management
can
production schedule o n l y t o the f i n a l process.
give
detailed
An example o f
f l o w s o f Kanbans and i t e m s i n a p r o d u c t i o n s y s t e m i s i l l u s t r a t e d
i n Figure 1.2.
27
Figure 1.2
Flows of items and Kanbans i n a production system
inventory point o f
outside supplier
inventory point o f
outside supplier
inventory pointof
outside supplier
f i n a l process
The w i t h d r a w a l Kanban s e n t f r o m a companys inventory point to

an outside supplier acts as a purchase order to the supplier.
supplier
fills
specified by
the
order
by
delivering
the withdrawal Kanban,
to
full
the
container,
companys
point with the withdrawal Kanban attached to it.
When the first
in the company's inventory point
consumed,
Kanban
withdrawal
originally
as
inventory
piece of a full container

the
The
attached
to
is
the
container is detached and later sent back to the outside supplier

as a purchase order.
It is worthwhile to note that no Kanban is
required to circulate between a production process and its inbound

inventory points.
The reason is that a process, withdrawing no
Items from its inbound inventory points unless the items are used
as inputs right away, and holding all the items produced by itself
in its outbound inventory point, does not accumulate inventory in
itself.
Since a detached Kanban, depending on its typecan act as a

production or delivery order, management need not issue any other
document to trigger production or delivery.
In the Kanban system,
the production processes and inventory points as a whole operate

autonomously.
The
state
of
autonomy
remains until
management
interferes.
In operating the Kanban system, the number of Kanbans issued to

each production stage has to be determined and this number is kept
unchanged throughout the planning horizon.
The number of Kanbans
issued to a production stage imposes a limit on the maximum amount
29
o f i n v e n t o r y t h a t c a n p o s s i b l y be a c c u m u l a t e d a t t h a t s t a g e and
r e f l e c t s the operating e f f i c i e n c y a t t h a t stage.
Thus, t h e Kanban
assignment problem, i . e . t h e problem o f d e t e r m i n i n g t h e number o f

Kanbans t o be i s s u e d t o e a c h p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e i n o r d e r t o c o n t r o l
t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between p r o d u c t i o n and i n v e n t o r y l e v e l s , i s one o f
t h e major o p e r a t i o n a l c o n t r o l problems o f Kanban systems.
Monden
(1983) p r o v i d e d a n e x p r e s s i o n w h i c h T o y o t a u s e s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e
number o f Kanbans r e q u i r e d i n a p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e .
The number o f
Kanbans r e q u i r e d i s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e e x p e c t e d d a i l y demand, t h e
procurement l e a d - t i m e , t h e s a f e t y s t o c k l e v e l and t h e c o n t a i n e r
capacity.
model.
I t i s essentially
single-stage s t a t i c
inventory
When t h e v a r i a t i o n i n demand i s c o n s i d e r a b l y l a r g e ,
e x p r e s s i o n can o n l y g i v e
rough a p p r o x i m a t i o n t o
the
the a c t u a l
number o f Kanbans needed a t e a c h p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e .
There a r e t h r e e m a i n advantages o f t h e Kanban system.

i t i s a s i m p l e and e f f e c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n system.
Firstly,
Kanbans c a n
serve a s p r o d u c t i o n orders, d e l i v e r y orders o r purchase orders.

Management have no need t o i s s u e o t h e r documents t o t r i g g e r t h e s e
o r d e r s and c o n s e q u e n t l y c l e r i c a l work i s g r e a t l y r e d u c e d .
It
c o s t s much more t o i n s t a l l a c o m p u t e r i z e d i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m t h a n
t o u s e t h e s e r e - u s a b l e Kanbans.
M o r e o v e r , t h e most u p d a t e d and
r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n o n p r o d u c t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s c a n be t r a n s m i t t e d
t o a process from i t s immediately succeeding process through the
u s e o f Kanbans.
The second advantage o f t h e Kanban s y s t e m i s t h a t i t i s
30
s i m p l e and e f f e c t i v e p r o d u c t i o n s c h e d u l i n g and i n v e n t o r y c o n t r o l
system.
its
I n t h e Kanban system, when a p r o c e s s w i t h d r a w s i t e m s f r o m
immediately
preceding
process,
i t
subsequently
triggers
p r o d u c t i o n o r d e r f o r i t s immediate p r e d e c e s s o r t o r e p l e n i s h t h e
items j u s t withdrawn.
T h i s s i m p l e p r o d u c t i o n o r d e r i n g mechanism
d o e s n o t r e q u i r e d e t a i l e d predetermined production plan for any

process.
This mechanism is effective because the production of a
process responds directly to the demand imposed by its immediately

succeeding
process.
process
will
automatically
production whenever its immediate successor does.

nature
of production ordering mechanism,
classified as a pull system

nature
of
the Kanban
change
Because of the
the Kanban
system
(Kimura and Terada 1981).
system
prevents
accumulating
system
inventory.
it,
is
also
simple
and
effective
in
is
The pull
unnecessary
inventory when pre-determined schedules have to be changed.

Kanban
its
The
controlling
As every full container must have a Kanban attached to
the number
of Kanbans
in
circulation determines how
inventory could possibly be built up.
much
By simply controlling the
number of Kanbans issued, management can effectively control the

inventory level.
The third, and also the most important, advantage of the Kanban
system is that it helps to identify and eliminate hidden problems.
By reducing the number of Kanbans in the system, inventory level
is reduced.
When the inventory level is lowered, certain hidden
production problems such as long set-up times, long lead times,

frequent machine breakdowns and fluctuating production schedules
31
are forced to surface.
These
problems
have
always
existed;
however, t h e y a r e h i d d e n b y h i g h i n v e n t o r y l e v e l and hence t h e

p r o d u c t i o n l i n e h a s seldom been d i s r u p t e d b y t h e s e p r o b l e m s .
Now
w i t h a l o w e r i n g o f i n v e n t o r y l e v e l t o one w h i c h cannot h i d e t h e s e
p r o b l e m s , c e r t a i n p r o d u c t i o n p r o b l e m s w i l l s t a r t t o s u r f a c e and
cause t h e l i n e t o s t o p f r e q u e n t l y .
such
these
surfacing
F a c i n g w i t h t h e appearance o f
production
problems,
workers,
foremen,
e n g i n e e r s and managers w i l l t r y t o s o l v e t h e s e problems.

s o l v i n g these p r o d u c t i o n problems,
After
t h e p r o d u c t i o n l i n e becomes
smooth a g a i n and management c a n w i t h d r a w more Kanbans f r o m t h e

system
to
induce
problem-solving.
one,
the
another
round
of
problem-surfacing
and
A s t h e p r o d u c t i o n p r o b l e m s a r e e l i m i n a t e d one b y
inventory
level,
which has
been j u s t i f i e d by
these
p r o d u c t i o n problems, i s reducing c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y .
To c o n c l u d e t h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n o n t h e Kanban system, i t i s w o r t h
n o t i n g t h a t t h e u s e o f t h e Kanban s y s t e m i n m i n i m i z i n g i n v e n t o r y
i s a n o n g o i n g p r o c e s s w h i c h r e q u i r e s c o n s t a n t and c o n s i d e r a b l e
company w i d e i n v o l v e m e n t , e s p e c i a l l y t h a t f r o m t h e shop f l o o r .
Successful operation of
the
system r e q u i r e s c a r e f u l
handling a l l the times.
32
and d e f t
1.5 Problem statement and objectives
The
main purpose o f
this
research i s
concerned w i t h
the
a n a l y s i s o f p r o d u c t i o n systems f o r companies w h i c h a r e a i m i n g a t
achieving JIT
production,
production.
Two
related to
JIT
namely t h e Kanban system and mixed-model assembly
l i n e s , are studied a n a l y t i c a l l y .
assembly
main aspects
line,
the
problem
I n c o n t r o l l i n g a mixed-model
of
determining
the
sequence
of
i n t r o d u c i n g v a r i o u s p r o d u c t s i n t o t h e l i n e h a s t o be s o l v e d .
The assembly s e q u e n c i n g p r o b l e m o f a mixed-model assembly l i n e

h a s been s t u d i e d b y v a r i o u s r e s e a r c h e r s .
(1979)
proposed
model t o f i n d t h e
Okamura and Yamashina

sequence
minimized the r i s k o f stopping the conveyor.
schedule which
M i l t e n b u r g (1989)
d e v e l o p e d h e u r i s t i c s t o f i n d t h e sequence s c h e d u l e f o r p r o d u c t i o n
systems w i t h s i m i l a r p a r t requirements.
m o d i f i e d by M i l t e n b u r g
and
Sinnamon
d i f f e r e n t p a r t requirements.
These h e u r i s t i c s were
(1989)
Later,
for
systems w i t h
Miltenburg e t a l .
(1990)
d e v e l o p e d a p r o c e d u r e b a s e d o n dynamic programming t o s o l v e s m a l l
scale
assembly
sequencing
problems
that
considered
both
the
l o a d i n g g o a l and t h e usage g o a l when p r o d u c t s have s i m i l a r p a r t

requirements.
proposed.
For
l a r g e s c a l e problems,
two h e u r i s t i c s
were
The p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e s e h e u r i s t i c s ( M i l t e n b u r g 1989,
M i l t e n b u r g and Sinnamon 1989 and M i l t e n b u r g e t a l . 1990) t e n d s t o

w o r s e n w i t h i n c r e a s i n g number o f p r o d u c t s o r p a r t s in. a p r o d u c t i o n
system.
As d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 1 . 3 ,
t h e assembly s e q u e n c i n g
p r o b l e m i s a n i m p o r t a n t p r o b l e m t o b e s o l v e d when c o n t r o l l i n g a
33
mixed-model assembly l i n e , so a n e f f i c i e n t a l g o r i t h m i s needed t o

s o l v e t h e problem.
In
the
literature,
research
done
on
the
control
mixed-model assembly l i n e h a s been c e n t r e d o n f i n d i n g

sequence s c h e d u l e .
of
a
good
The assembly manpower p l a n n i n g p r o b l e m ,
s u b - p r o b l e m o f t h e assembly s e q u e n c i n g problem, has s o f a r n o t

been
treated.
This
manpower
planning
problem
involves
the
d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e o p t i m a l number o f w o r k e r s r e q u i r e d i n each
a s s e m b l y s t a t i o n and t h e o p t i m a l amount o f o v e r t i m e used i n o r d e r
t o meet t h e w o r k l o a d r e q u i r e m e n t o f a g i v e n sequence s c h e d u l e .
m a t h e m a t i c a l model i s needed t o s t u d y t h i s p r o b l e m .
I n o p e r a t i n g t h e Kanban system, t h e Kanban assignment problem,

i . e . t h e p r o b l e m o f d e t e r m i n i n g t h e number o f Kanbans t o be i s s u e d
t o each p r o d u c t i o n stage i n order t o c o n t r o l the i n t e r a c t i o n
between p r o d u c t i o n a n d i n v e n t o r y l e v e l s , h a s t o be s o l v e d .
Monden
(1983) p r o v i d e d a n e x p r e s s i o n w h i c h T o y o t a h a s b e e n u s i n g t o
determine the
number o f
Kanbans.
Since i t i s essentially
s i n g l e - s t a g e s t a t i c i n v e n t o r y model, t h e e x p r e s s i o n c a n o n l y g i v e
a r o u g h a p p r o x i m a t i o n a s t o t h e a c t u a l number o f Kanbans needed a t
each production stage.
b a s i c equations f o r
K i m u r a and T e r a d a (1981) p r o v i d e d s e v e r a l
a single
item multi-stage
Kanban system.
L a t e r , B i t r a n and Chang (1987) e x t e n d e d K i m u r a and Terada* s (1981)

serial
model t o
accommodate
assembly s t r u c t u r e s .
B i t r a n and
C h a n g ' s model i s t h e outcome o f C h a n g ' s d o c t o r a l r e s e a r c h c a r r i e d

out
at
MIT.
In
their
paper,
34
non-linear
mixed
integer
programming
Kanbans,
Kimura
model
was
using the
and
formulated
to
optimize
constraints similar to
Terada
(1981).
The
the
number
equations
non-linear
of
found i n
mixed
integer
programming model was t h e n t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o a number o f e q u i v a l e n t

l i n e a r i n t e g e r programming m o d e l s .
B i t r a n and Chang* s model i s
one o f t h e most r e a l i s t i c models r e p o r t e d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e and a

number o f r e s e a r c h e r s h a v e s t u d i e d t h i s model a n a l y t i c a l l y ( e g . L i
a n d Co 1991Bard
and Go 1 any
1991).
Unfortunately, even with
integer relaxation and under the simplest scenario, the resulting

linear program is still very difficult
the
linear
(1987) can
programming heuristic
solve
the
Kanban
to be solved.
Moreover,
proposed by Bitran
assignment
problem
and
only
Chang
when
the
container usage number (the number of full containers of an item

required
for
producing
one
full
container
of
its
immediate
successor) and the initial inventory level of each item satisfy

certain restrictive conditions.
An efficient algorithm is needed
to solve the Kanban assignment problem as represented by Bitran

and Chang's model without making any restrictive assumption on
container usage numbers and initial inventory levels.
The
scope
of
this
research
study
includes
the
following
aspects:
(1) To
review
selected
articles
dealing
with
multi-stage
production systems, particularly the JIT production system as

background and foundation to this study.
(2) To
develop
sequencing
efficient
problem
for
algorithms
production
35
to
solve
systems
the
with
assembly
different
characteristics
objectives.
of
part
requirements
under
different
The o b j e c t i v e s c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e s t u d y i n c l u d e
v a r i o u s c o m b i n a t i o n s o f t h e l o a d i n g g o a l and t h e usage g o a l ,
and
the
characteristics
of
part
requirements
considered
i n c l u d e p r o d u c t s w i t h s i m i l a r p a r t r e q u i r e m e n t s and p r o d u c t s
w i t h d i f f e r e n t p a r t requirements.
(3) To d e v e l o p a m a t h e m a t i c a l model f o r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e
optimal
strategy
of
adjusting
the
final
assembly
line
w o r k f o r c e and u s i n g o v e r t i m e i n o r d e r t o meet t h e w o r k l o a d
r e q u i r e m e n t o f a g i v e n sequence s c h e d u l e .
The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
o f the t o t a l cost f u n c t i o n are s t u d i e d i n d e t a i l a n a l y t i c a l l y .

An e f f i c i e n t a l g o r i t h m i s d e v e l o p e d f o r f i n d i n g t h e o p t i m a l
values o f the d e c i s i o n v a r i a b l e s .
(4) To s t u d y t h e Kanban assignment p r o b l e m o f
Kanban system.
a deterministic
The model p r o p o s e d b y B i t r a n and Chang (1987),
a m a t h e m a t i c a l programming model f o r a d e t e r m i n i s t i c m u l t i s t a g e c a p a c i t a t e d assembly system, i s examined i n d e t a i l .
An
e f f i c i e n t and e f f e c t i v e a l g o r i t h m i s d e v e l o p e d t o s o l v e t h e
Kanban assignment p r o b l e m a s r e p r e s e n t e d b y B i t r a n and Chang* s
model f o r a l l p o s s i b l e c o n t a i n e r usage numbers and i n i t i a l
inventory l e v e l s .
1.6 Outline o f the t h e s i s
T h i s t h e s i s w i l l a n a l y s e two main p r o b l e m s o f t h e J u s t - i n - t i m e
p r o d u c t i o n system, namely t h e assembly s e q u e n c i n g p r o b l e m and t h e
36
Kanban assignment
problem.
In
Chapter
2,
review o f
l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d t o the present research i s presented.
the
The
r e v i e w summarizes t h e r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s t h a t have been c a r r i e d o u t

o n m u l t i - s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n systems.
Emphasis w i l l be p l a c e d o n t h e
r e s e a r c h done on t h e J I T p r o d u c t i o n system.
C h a p t e r 3 examines
t h e smoothing o f p r o d u c t i o n t h r o u g h t h e u s e o f a n e f f e c t i v e f i n a l
a s s e m b l y sequence s c h e d u l e .
find
such
production
sequence
systems
requirements.
E f f i c i e n t algorithms are developed t o
to
with
achieve
different
different
objectives
characteristics
of
for
part
The o b j e c t i v e s c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e s t u d y i n c l u d e
v a r i o u s c o m b i n a t i o n s o f t h e l o a d i n g g o a l and t h e usage g o a l .
The
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p a r t requirements i n c l u d e products w i t h s i m i l a r
p a r t r e q u i r e m e n t s and p r o d u c t s w i t h d i f f e r e n t p a r t r e q u i r e m e n t s .
A f t e r determining the
sequence s c h e d u l e ,
the workforce i n the
a s s e m b l y l i n e may have t o be a d j u s t e d and o v e r t i m e may have t o be

u s e d t o meet t h e w o r k l o a d r e q u i r e m e n t o f t h e sequence s c h e d u l e .
T h i s a s s e m b l y manpower p l a n n i n g p r o b l e m i s examined i n c h a p t e r 4 .
An
efficient
optimally.
(1987)
is
algorithm
is
developed
to
solve
the
problem
I n c h a p t e r 5 , t h e model d e v e l o p e d b y B i t r a n and Chang

analysed i n d e t a i l .
An
efficient
and
effective
a l g o r i t h m i s d e v e l o p e d t o s o l v e t h e Kanban assignment p r o b l e m a s
represented by t h e i r
model.
The f i n a l
chapter
c o n c l u s i o n and recommendations f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h .
37
contains
the
1.7 Summary of t h e s i s contributions
I n t h e l i t e r a t u r e on t h e J I T p r o d u c t i o n system, a s u b s t a n t i a l
amount o f r e s e a r c h has been c a r r i e d o u t t o s o l v e t h e o p e r a t i o n a l
c o n t r o l problems o f t h e system.
a
multi-stage
JIT
production
Due t o t h e i n h e r e n t c o m p l e x i t y o f
system,
most
d e v e l o p e d so f a r r e q u i r e a s i g n i f i c a n t
effort i f
the s c a l e o f
solution
methods
amount o f c o m p u t a t i o n a l
t h e problem i s l a r g e .
Such a
large
c o m p u t a t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t may hamper t h e p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f
t h e e x i s t i n g models.
In this thesis,
t h e assembly s e q u e n c i n g
p r o b l e m and t h e Kanban assignment p r o b l e m a r e examined i n d e t a i l .
In
the
JIT
production
system,
the
dispatching
of
daily
p r o d u c t i o n i s a c h i e v e d t h r o u g h t h e u s e o f a p u l l system c o n t r o l l e d
b y Kanbans and t h e sequence s c h e d u l e .
The sequence s c h e d u l e i s
particularly
the
important
production process.
in
levelling
In this thesis,
workload
in
each
e f f i c i e n t algorithms are
d e v e l o p e d t o s o l v e t h e assembly s e q u e n c i n g p r o b l e m w i t h d i f f e r e n t
objectives
requirements.
and
under
different
characteristics
of
part
When p r o d u c t s have s i m i l a r p a r t r e q u i r e m e n t s and
o n l y t h e usage g o a l i s c o n s i d e r e d , t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e o p t i m a l
sequence s c h e d u l e a r e d e r i v e d and a h e u r i s t i c i s d e v e l o p e d f o r
f i n d i n g a n upper bound f o r s u c h a u s a g e - g o a l p r o b l e m .
the
derived properties
of
the
optimal
sequence
B a s e d on
schedule,
an
e f f i c i e n t b r a n c h and bound a l g o r i t h m i s d e v e l o p e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e
o p t i m a l sequence s c h e d u l e f o r medium s i z e p r o b l e m s .
For solving
the h e u r i s t i c which i s used t o f i n d the
38
upper
bound i s
Results of
employed t o
computational
determine
experiments
the
sequence
show
that
schedule.
the h e u r i s t i c
p e r f o r m s b e t t e r t h a n t h o s e p r o p o s e d b y M i l t e n b u r g (1989).
The
a n a l y s i s i s t h e n extended t o c o v e r t h e c a s e when p r o d u c t s have

d i f f e r e n t p a r t requirements.
with
similar
Computational
part
The h e u r i s t i c d e v e l o p e d f o r systems
requirements
experiments
are
is
carried
performance o f t h e m o d i f i e d h e u r i s t i c .
modified
heuristic
Miltenburg
and
performs
Sinnamon
modified
better
(1989).
out
to
accordingly.
evaluate
the
The r e s u l t s show t h a t t h e
than
those
In addition,
developed
by
the h e u r i s t i c
p r o p o s e d f o r systems w i t h d i f f e r e n t p a r t r e q u i r e m e n t s i s f u r t h e r
m o d i f i e d t o f i n d t h e sequence s c h e d u l e w h i c h a c h i e v e s t h e g o a l
considered
in
Toyota's
goal-chasing
method.
Results
of
c o m p u t a t i o n a l e x p e r i m e n t s demonstrate t h a t i n terms o f s o l u t i o n
q u a l i t y , the m o d i f i e d h e u r i s t i c performs s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than
T o y o t a ' s g o a l - c h a s i n g method.
The p r e v i o u s a n a l y s e s a r e extended t o a n a l y s e t h e p r o b l e m t h a t
c o n s i d e r s b o t h t h e usage g o a l and t h e l o a d i n g g o a l ( t h e j o i n t - g o a l
problem).
F o r p r o d u c t i o n systems w i t h s i m i l a r p a r t r e q u i r e m e n t s ,
t h e h e u r i s t i c d e v e l o p e d f o r the u s a g e - g o a l p r o b l e m i s m o d i f i e d t o
s o l v e t h e j o i n t - g o a l problem.
are
conducted
heuristic.
better
(1990).
to
evaluate
Again, computational experiments

the
performance
of
the
modified
The r e s u l t s show t h a t t h e m o d i f i e d h e u r i s t i c g i v e s a
performance
than
those
proposed b y M i l t e n b u r g e t
al.
F i n a l l y , f o r systems w i t h d i f f e r e n t p a r t r e q u i r e m e n t s , i t
i s shown t h a t t h e h e u r i s t i c d e v e l o p e d f o r t h e u s a g e - g o a l p r o b l e m
39
c a n a l s o be u s e d t o s o l v e t h e j o i n t - g o a l p r o b l e m .
I n the l i t e r a t u r e ,
t h e r e s e a r c h done
on the c o n t r o l o f
m i x e d - m o d e l a s s e m b l y l i n e h a s b e e n c e n t r e d o n f i n d i n g s e qu e n c e
schedules
to
achieve
characteristics of
p l a n n i n g problem,
different
part
goals
requirements.
with
The
which a r i s e s from adopting
schedule, has so f a r not been t r e a t e d .
different
assembly
manpower
a g i v e n sequence
I f t h e sequence s c h e d u l e
f o u n d v a r i e s f r o m d a y t o daythe daily workload of each assembly

station will also fluctuate correspondingly.
be necessary
to adjust the manpower
In each day, it may
in each station and/or use
overtime in order to meet the workload requirement of the sequence

schedule.
In this research, an integer program is formulated to
determine the optimal number of assembly workers in each assembly

station and the optimal amount of overtime used so that the line
can run smoothly without any stoppage.
integer program are examined in detail.
The properties of
the
These properties are used
to develop an efficient algorithm to solve the integer program.
The mathematical programming model proposed by Bitran and Chang

(1987)
is
one
of
the
most
assignment models reported

noted
that due
to
the
realistic
in the
deterministic
literature.
large computational
However,
requirement
assumptions made on the container usage number and

inventory
level
of
each
item
in
Kanban
production
it
and
is
the
the initial
system,
the
applicability of Bitran and Chang's linear programming heuristic

is
severely
limited.
Through
detail
40
analysis
of
Bitran
and
Chang* s model,
some m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e model a r e made.
The
p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e m o d i f i e d model a r e d e r i v e d and t h e s e p r o p e r t i e s
a r e summarized i n s e v e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s .
Using the r e s u l t s o f the
p r o p o s i t i o n s , an e f f i c i e n t h e u r i s t i c i s developed t o s o l v e the
Kanban a s s i g n m e n t p r o b l e m a s r e p r e s e n t e d b y B i t r a n and Chang' s
model w i t h o u t making a n y r e s t r i c t i v e a s s u m p t i o n o n c o n t a i n e r u s a g e
numbers and i n i t i a l i n v e n t o r y l e v e l s .
R e s u l t s o f computational
e x p e r i m e n t s show t h a t t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e h e u r i s t i c d e v e l o p e d
i n this
thesis
programming
outweighs
heuristic
computational e f f o r t .
that
in
of
terms
Bitran
of
and
Chang's
solution
linear
quality
and
U s i n g t h e h e u r i s t i c , l a r g e s c a l e problems
c a n r e a d i l y be s o l v e d .
It is
i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e that unlike
Bitran and Chang's linear programming heuristic, the heuristic can

be
used
to
solve
the
Kanban
assignment
problem
without
restrictive assumptions on container usage numbers and

inventory levels.
41
any
initial
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
M u l t i - s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n systems a r e concerned w i t h t h e e f f i c i e n t
transformation o f
raw m a t e r i a l s
and
components
into
products through m u l t i p l e production operations.
finished
These systems
a r e complex p r i m a r i l y because o f t h e i n t e r d e p e n d e n c i e s among i t e m s

( i . e . , p r o d u c t i o n d e c i s i o n s a t a g i v e n p r o d u c t i o n stage determine
the
requirements
of
its
preceding
stages),
and
because
of
r e s t r i c t i o n s on m a t e r i a l a v a i l a b i l i t y and p r o d u c t i o n c a p a c i t y .
Demand f l u c t u a t i o n s and u n c e r t a i n t i e s about p r o d u c t i o n l e a d - t i m e s
can
create additional
problems.
Controlling
such production
systems i n v o l v e s a s e q u e n t i a l d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s w h i c h s p e c i f i e s t h e
b e s t c o m b i n a t i o n o f p r o d u c t i o n q u a n t i t i e s and i n v e n t o r i e s i n o r d e r
to
meet
the
demand o f f i n i s h e d p r o d u c t s
subject
to
capacity
constraints.
I n t h e p a s t , a l a r g e number o f r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s c o n c e r n i n g t h e
c o n t r o l o f m u l t i - s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n systems w i t h d i f f e r e n t system
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have been p u b l i s h e d .
have
proposed
production
control
classification
models
G o y a l and Gunasekaran (1990)

scheme
reported i n
for
the
the
multi-stage
literature.
The
p r o p o s e d scheme c l a s s i f i e s t h e models i n t o t h r e e b r o a d c a t e g o r i e s
a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s y s t e m c o n f i g u r a t i o n s ( i . e . number o f p r o d u c t s ,
42
number o f p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e s and number o f machines a t e a c h s t a g e ) ,

t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e models and t h e t e c h n i q u e s u s e d f o r m o d e l l i n g
t h e systems and f o r s y n t h e s i z i n g t h e c o n t r o l p o l i c i e s .
However,
i n t h e p r o p o s e d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme, no c o n s i d e r a t i o n h a s b e e n
given
to
the
principle
of
production
and
materials
flow
management.
The d e s i g n o f m u l t i - s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n s y s t e m s n o r m a l l y depends
on
two
basic
management:
demand
principles
for
push and p u l l .
production
materials
I n a p u s h system a
which includes allowances for
for each production stage.
and
lead-times,
flow
forecast
of
is determined
Based on the forecast, the number of
parts to be produced in a particular day is set and then issued to

each production station; the operation will stop when the daily
production quantity reaches the desired quantity.
On the other hand, in a pull system, a production stage demands

and then withdraws work-in-process parts from the preceding stages
only according to the rate and time at which the stage consumes
the
parts.
The
withdrawal
of
parts
authorizes
the
preceding
stages to start the production of parts for replenishing the exact

quantities withdrawn.
Thus, a pull system can be envisaged as a
chain
production
connecting
the
station
where
the
produced with the production station where it is used.
43
stock
is
2.2 Conventional multi-stage production systems
Most
conventional
production
systems
are
of
push
type.
C o n t r o l l i n g a p u s h system r e q u i r e s t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a master
p r o d u c t i o n s c h e d u l e w h i c h s p e c i f i e s how many u n i t s o f e a c h p r o d u c t
a r e t o be d e l i v e r e d and when raw m a t e r i a l s and components a r e t o
be o r d e r e d f r o m o u t s i d e s u p p l i e r s , and when p r o d u c t i o n o r d e r s f o r
p a r t s a r e t o be r e l e a s e d .
Based on t h e master p r o d u c t i o n
s c h e d u l e , t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l p a r t s and s u b a s s e m b l i e s o f
e a c h p r o d u c t i s p l a n n e d so t h a t t h e p a r t s and s u b a s s e m b l i e s w i l l
be a v a i l a b l e when needed.
The p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s i s n o r m a l l y c a l l e d
m a t e r i a l r e q u i r e m e n t s p l a n n i n g (MRP) w h i c h has been w i d e l y u s e d t o

c o n t r o l m u l t i - s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n systems.
An MRP system i s a s e t o f
l o g i c a l l y r e l a t e d p r o c e d u r e s d e s i g n e d t o manage i n v e n t o r i e s o f a l l
i t e m s i n a p r o d u c t i o n system.
E x e r c i s i n g proper c o n t r o l over
t h e s e i n v e n t o r i e s e n t a i l s making p r o p e r t i m i n g and l o t s i z i n g
decisions
during
determine
the
lot
production planning.
sizes
and
The
sequence
of
problem
becomes:
components
to
be
development
of
scheduled.
An
extensive
mathematical
systems.
literature
models
for
exists
on
conventional
the
multi-stage
production
T y p i c a l r e v i e w s have been conducted b y K o e n i g s b e r g
(1956),
Clark
(1972),
(1981),
De Bodt e t a l .
Aggrawal
(1974),
Fortuin
(1984),
Chilean
(1982),
G o y a l and Gunasekaran (1990).
44
(1977), S i l v e r
(1984),
(1986),
I n the published l i t e r a t u r e ,
the o b j e c t i v e o f
most c o n t r o l
models a v a i l a b l e f o r c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o d u c t i o n systems i s t o f i n d
p r o d u c t i o n l o t s i z e s w h i c h m i n i m i z e t h e combined c o s t s o f s e t - u p
and c a r r y i n g i n v e n t o r y .
Wagner and W h i t i n (1958) have d e v e l o p e d a
dynamic programming a l g o r i t h m t o o p t i m a l l y s o l v e a s i n g l e - s t a g e
dynamic l o t s i z i n g problem.
The s o l u t i o n o f t h e s i n g l e - s t a g e
p r o b l e m s i s i m p o r t a n t a s i t forms a b a s i s f o r making m u l t i - s t a g e
l o t s i z i n g d e c i s i o n s b y u s i n g t h e a p p r o a c h s u c c e s s i v e l y a t each
stage.
Later,
researchers
have
extended
the
algorithm to allow f o r multi-stage structures.

1969)
developed
dynamic
Wagner-Whitin
Zangwill
programming f o r m u l a t i o n s d e a l i n g w i t h
concave c o s t s , m u l t i p l e p r o d u c t s and b a c k l o g g i n g .
further
r e f i n e d Zangwills
structure.
Wagner
(1966,
approach
for
Love
(1972)
multi-stage
series
With direct extension on Love's model, Crowston and
(1973) developed dynamic programming and branch-and-bound
algorithms
for
multi-stage
assembly
systems.
These
more
complicated versions of the algorithm require a substantial amount

of computational effort, but only provide optimal solutions for
simple cases.
Research has also been directed
toward
developing
efficient
single-stage lot sizing heuristics that can capture the essence of

the time-varying demand pattern and provide an acceptable, but not
necessarily
part-period
ordering,
optimal,
solution,
balancing,
least unit
period
costs and
These
order
heuristics,
quantity,
lot-for-lot
the SilverMeal h e u r i s t i c > a r e
s t i l l b e i n g used i n m a n u f a c t u r i n g i n d u s t r i e s .
45
including
I n most o f t h e r e s e a r c h c i t e d above, c a p a c i t y r e s t r i c t i o n s have

n o t been c o n s i d e r e d .
To some e x t e n t , a n u n c a p a c i t a t e d a p p r o a c h
may be j u s t i f i e d i n t h e s h o r t term b u t t h i s r e q u i r e s a r e l a t i v e l y
constant production load.
However,
in
many s i t u a t i o n s
where
p r o d u c t i o n l o t s compete f o r l i m i t e d c a p a c i t y , c a p a c i t y c o n s t r a i n t s
cannot be i g n o r e d .
Several
approaches
have
been
c a p a c i t a t e d l o t s i z i n g problem.
Integer
programming
branch-and-bound
to
deal with
the
E x a c t s o l u t i o n methods, s u c h a s
approach
algorithm
suggested
(Vickery
(Afentakis
and M a r k l a n d
et
al.
1986)
1984),
and
are
c o m p u t a t i o n a l l y t r a c t a b l e f o r r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l s i z e problems and
have l i m i t e d v a l u e i n p r a c t i c e .
As t h e e x a c t s o l u t i o n methods
r e q u i r e a s u b s t a n t i a l amount o f c o m p u t a t i o n a l e f f o r t , D i x o n and
Silver
(1981)
have d e v e l o p e d a h e u r i s t i c t o g e n e r a t e
a near-
o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n s f o r m u l t i - s t a g e c a p a c i t a t e d l o t s i z i n g problems.
Some o f t h e r e s e a r c h e f f o r t s s t a t e d above have r e s u l t e d i n

s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o the s y n t h e s i s o f p r o d u c t i o n c o n t r o l
policies
for
the
determination
of
optimal
lot
sizes
in
m u l t i - s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n environment.
Current i n d u s t r i a l p r a c t i c e focuses on the implementation o f

Material
Requirements
Planning
(MRP)
systems.
Successful
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f MRP i n i n d u s t r y has been r e p o r t e d (Kanet 1984).

However, j u s t l i k e o t h e r forms o f p u s h systems,
MRP u s e s f i x e d
l e a d - t i m e s f o r p l a n n i n g purpose, w h i c h a r e independent o f c a p a c i t y
46
utilization.
As
result
of
the
inherent
randomness i n
p r o d u c t i o n system and t h e need t o a n t i c i p a t e c o n g e s t e d c o n d i t i o n s

in
some p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e s ,
planning
are
usually
the
l e a d - t i m e s used f o r p r o d u c t i o n
pessimistic.
Since
the
pessimistic
l e a d - t i m e s a r e l o n g e r t h a n t h e average l e a d - t i m e s , t h e o r e t i c a l l y
most j o b s s h o u l d be f i n i s h e d e a r l y and t h e n r e m a i n a s f i n i s h e d
goods i n v e n t o r y .
However, due t o l i m i t e d p r o d u c t i o n c a p a c i t y and
i n a c c u r a c y o f t h e l e a d - t i m e s used,
some j o b s
may be completed
b e f o r e t h e y a r e a c t u a l l y needed w h i l e o t h e r j o b s may b e b e h i n d
schedule.
T h e r e f o r e , i n most i n s t a n c e s , d i s p a t c h i n g o f u r g e n t
jobs i s necessary,
which leads t o h i g h l y v a r i a b l e production
l e a d - t i m e s and h i g h w o r k - i n - p r o c e s s and f i n i s h e d p r o d u c t i n v e n t o r y
levels.
Moreover, MRP does n o t a l w a y s g e n e r a t e f e a s i b l e p l a n s and
t h i s i n f e a s i b i l i t y i s n o t d e t e c t e d u n t i l i t i s t o o l a t e (Kanet
1988).
F u r t h e r m o r e , p u s h systems,
i n c l u d i n g MRP,
have s e r i o u s
drawbacks r e l a t e d t o t h e Japanese b e l i e f t h a t ' i n v e n t o r y i s t h e

root o f a l l e v i l s ' .
I n p u s h systems,
inventory i s kept t o
compensate f o r p r o b l e m s s u c h a s l o n g c y c l e t i m e s ,
times,
quality
problems,
improper
scheduling,
i n f o r m a t i o n systems, o l d h a b i t s and a t t i t u d e s .
l a r g e setup
inadequate
Thus, i n v e n t o r y i s
more o f a c o v e r - u p o f p r o d u c t i o n p r o b l e m s t h a n o f a s o l u t i o n t o
t h e problems.
P u l l systems a r e d e s i g n e d t o o b v i a t e t h e s e drawbacks.
following section,
I n the
some r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s r e l a t e d t o J u s t - i n - t i m e
( J I T ) p r o d u c t i o n systems a r e r e v i e w e d .
47
2 . 3 Just-in-time (JIT) production systems
S i n c e t h e f o r m a l i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e T o y o t a P r o d u c t i o n System
to
Western m a n u f a c t u r e r s
by
Sugimori
et a l .
1977),
it
attracted wide attention in the manufacturing literature.
has
Most of
the early reports emphasized on describing the essential elements

of
the Toyota Production System
1981a,b,c).
Later, Monden
philosophy
of
the
Toyota
and
its basic concept
(1983) wrote
Production
an early
System
(Monden
text on
to
provide
the
a
theoretical framework that explained the system philosophy and its

implementations.
In the published literature on the Toyota Production System,

most of the research effort has been centred on the JIT production
system which is a subsystem of the Toyota Production System.
The
JIT
the
concept
necessary
times.
can
items
simply be described
in
the
necessary
as
the production of
quantities
at
the
necessary
JIT production is realized through small lot production
which is controlled by a production and inventory control system

called
the
Kanban
system.
The
JIT
approach
is
particularly
attractive because cutting lot sizes triggers a chain of benefits

including
productivity,
(Schonberger 1982).
quality
and
plant
improveinents
The other supplementary benefits of JIT are
faster market response, better forecasting and less administration

(Schonberger 1982).
48
I n t h e p a s t two decades, a number o f r e p o r t s had been p u b l i s h e d

t o examine d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s o f t h e J I T p r o d u c t i o n system.
(1989),
Sohal e t a l .
research
done
extensive
on
(1989)
the
literature
JIT
and T r e l e v e n
production
review
on
(1989)
system.
the
JIT
Im
reviewed the
A
recent
production
and
system,
conducted b y G o l h a r and Stamm (1991), c l a s s i f i e d t h e l i t e r a t u r e

i n t o d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s s u c h a s i n v e n t o r y systems comparison,
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n i n m a n u f a c t u r i n g , Kanban, c e l l u l a r m a n u f a c t u r i n g ,
accounting, q u a l i t y ,
The
p u r c h a s i n g and
review i n t e g r a t e s
identifies
the
basic
the
human r e s o u r c e
management.
developments i n t h e J I T f i e l d
tenets
of
the
JIT
philosophy
such
and
as
e l i m i n a t i o n o f w a s t e , employee p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making,
s u p p l i e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n and t o t a l q u a l i t y c o n t r o l .
I n the
literature,
number o f
published t o explore different

system.
r e s e a r c h papers
aspects o f
have
been
the J I T production
As Japanese c u l t u r e has some u n i q u e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s when
comparing w i t h t h e W e s t e r n c u l t u r e , a number o f r e s e a r c h e r s have

s t u d i e d the r o l e o f c u l t u r e i n s u c c e s s f u l implementation o f the
J I T p r o d u c t i o n system and argued t h a t c u l t u r e i s c r i t i c a l t o t h e
successful
Manoochehri
1987).
implementation
1985,
by
Japanese
Musselwhite
1987,
firms
(Cooper
Gettel-Riehl
1984,
and K l e i n e r
These r e s e a r c h e r s have c l a s s i f i e d Japanese c u l t u r a l i s s u e s
i n t o two b r o a d c a t e g o r i e s : worker r e l a t e d and management r e l a t e d .

Japanese w o r k e r s a r e t y p i c a l l y l o y a l ,
co-operative
management
and w i l l i n g t o
approach
includes:
work
long hours.
respect
49
well-educated, f l e x i b l e ,
for
The
workers,
Japanese
life-time
employment, consensus and bottom-up approach t o d e c i s i o n making,

s e n i o r i t y - b a s e d pay s c a l e ,
workers.
and a p a t e r n a l i s t i c approach, toward
Reports o f s u c c e s s f u l a d a p t a t i o n o f the J I T concept i n
Japanese s u b s i d i a r i e s I n t h e U . S . have s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e Japanese

management approach may be f a r more i m p o r t a n t t h a n w o r k e r r e l a t e d
i s s u e s (Wheelwright 1981, S a k u r a i and Huang 1984 Suzaki 1985, and
Cusumano 1988).
Given
the
degree
of
Japanese
success
with
their
unique
production systems, it is a natural progression for companies in

other countries to explore the possibility of using some of the
Japanese
techniques
in
order
to
achieve
similar
success.
Recently, a number of research papers have been published on the

implementation of the JIT philosophy in manufacturing.
Schonberger (1982) discussed some advantages and implementation

issues of the JIT production system.
The JIT production system
implemented at a Japanese motorcycle subsidiary in the U.S. was

used to show the effects of implementing such a system on plant
configurations.
Given
the
major
improvements
in
quality
and
productivity that could be obtained by employing the JIT concept,

it was suggested
especially
evaluate
that
the
that
of
the management
repetitive
feasibility
of
of
the Western
manufacturing,
implementing
system.
50
the
should
JIT
industry,
seriously
production
In
implementing
the
p r e r e q u i s i t e s must e x i s t .
JIT
production
s y s t em,
certain
L e e and Ebrahimpour (1984) s t u d i e d t h e
requirements f o r implementing t h e J I T p r o d u c t i o n system i n the

Western i n d u s t r i a l i z e d n a t i o n s .
factors,
system,
such a s
management
participative
The i m p o r t a n t p r e r e q u i s i t e s and
support
management,
and u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f
supplier
management,
the
proper
p r o d u c t i o n l a y o u t and w o r k f l o w , and e x t e n s i v e t r a i n i n g programs a t

a l l l e v e l s w e r e identified and discussed
in detail.
But
for
companies intending to implement the JIT production system, they

should
know
not
only
the
requirements
for
successful
implementation but also the problems that they may encounter in

implementing
and
operating
the
JIT
production
system.
These
problems were studied by Crawford et al. (1988).
In their study,
the
problems
following
implementation
and
operating
were
discovered: cultural resistance to change, lack of training, lack

of resources, inability to meet schedule, poor quality, lack of
vendor
support,
poor
forecasting,
data
accuracy
and
machinery
breakdowns.
It was found that cultural resistance to change was
the
most
problem
frequently
encountered
in
implementing
the
system.
To
determine
applicable
to
the
the
elements
Western
of
JIT
industries.
production,
Finch
and
which
Cox
are
(1986)
examined the feasibility of implementing the JIT production system

in
small bottling
company.
Richmond
and
Blackstone
(1988)
reviewed the applicability of JIT concept to plastics processing

industry.
Their
studies showed
51
that not
all
elements of JIT
production
were
applicable
but
the
a p p l i c a b l e ones would reduce i n v e n t o r y .
implementation
of
the
I n a d d i t i o n , i t was a l s o
c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l p l a n t and i t s s p e c i f i c c o n d i t i o n s
w o u l d d e t e r m i n e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e t e c h n i q u e s t h a t s h o u l d be a p p l i e d
and t h e s t r a t e g y t o be u s e d i n t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .
Most o f t h e above mentioned s t u d i e s o n J I T were c o n c e p t u a l and

had d i s c u s s e d v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the implementation o f the
J I T philosophy.
The v a r i a b l e s d i s c u s s e d i n t h e above s t u d i e s
i n c l u d e Kanban, r e d u c e d s e t - u p t i m e s , group t e c h n o l o g y , p r e v e n t i v e
maintenance, s t a b l e p r o d u c t i o n , q u a l i t y , worker t r a i n i n g , vendor
s u p p o r t , p r o d u c t i o n l a y o u t and s u p p l i e r management.
Among t h e s e
v a r i a b l e s , Kanban i s t h e most f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d v a r i a b l e a s s o c i a t e d
w i t h t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e J I T p r o d u c t i o n system.
2.4 Mixed-model assembly l i n e s
Successful operation of
a J I T p r o d u c t i o n system r e q u i r e s a n
e f f e c t i v e mixed-model assembly l i n e f o r d i v e r s i f i e d s m a l l l o t
production.
The d e s i g n o f a mixed-model assembly l i n e i n v o l v e s a
number o f s t e p s (Monden 1983).
One o f t h e s e i m p o r t a n t s t e p s i s t o
s o l v e t h e assembly s e q u e n c i n g p r o b l e m - t h e p r o b l e m o f d e t e r m i n i n g
t h e sequence s c h e d u l e w h i c h s p e c i f i e s t h e sequence o f l a u n c h i n g
v a r i o u s p r o d u c t s i n t o t h e f i n a l p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e o f a mixed-model
assembly l i n e .
52
Okamura and Yamashina (1979) d e v e l o p e d a mixed-model a s s e m b l y

s e q u e n c i n g model t o m i n i m i z e t h e r i s k o f s t o p p i n g t h e c o n v e y o r
u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f system v a r i a b i l i t y s u c h a s v a r i a t i o n o f
operation times.
An e f f i c i e n t h e u r i s t i c was d e v e l o p e d t o s o l v e
t h e sequencing problem.
performance
of
the
The c o m p u t a t i o n a l r e s u l t s showed t h a t t h e
heuristic
was
excellent.
However,
the
p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e a l l o c a t i n g w o r k e r s i n e a c h assembly s t a t i o n and
u s i n g o v e r t i m e work h a s n o t been c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e i r model.
These
two o p t i o n s a r e u s e f u l i n r e d u c i n g t h e r i s k o f s t o p p i n g a s s e m b l y
line.
I t i s b e c a u s e t h e a s s e m b l y c y c l e t i m e c a n be l e n g t h e n e d i f
o v e r t i m e i s u s e d a n d t h e o p e r a t i o n t i m e o f a n assembly s t a t i o n c a n
be s h o r t e n e d i f more w o r k e r s a r e a s s i g n e d t o t h e s t a t i o n .
R e s e a r c h s t u d i e s have a l s o been conducted t o s o l v e t h e f i n a l

a s s e m b l y s e q u e n c i n g p r o b l e m f o r d e t e r m i n i s t i c mixed-model a s s e m b l y
lines.
known t h a t
It i s well
t h e sequence, i n
p r o d u c t s a r e i n t r o d u c e d i n t o a mixed-model a s s e m b l y
on
the
goal
which
A c c o r d i n g t o Monden
the
system
are
l i n e . depends
wishes
to
achieve.
basically
two
possible
designer
(1983) there
which various
goals:
(a) loading goal - levelling the load (the total assembly time) on
each station on the line; and
(b) usage goal
- keeping a constant usage rate for every part

used in the line.
Miltenburg
(1989) developed a
theoretical basis for
scheduling
different products in a mixed-model assembly line when products
53
have s i m i l a r p a r t r e q u i r e m e n t s .
The g o a l was t o keep a c o n s t a n t
r a t e o f usage o f a l l p a r t s u s e d b y t h e l i n e .
A l g o r i t h m s and
h e u r i s t i c s were proposed t o d e t e r m i n e t h e sequence s c h e d u l e .
The
a n a l y s i s was l a t e r extended b y M i l t e n b u r g and Sinnamon (1989) t o

consider
multi-level
different part
production
requirements.
systems
Two
when
products
have
scheduling h e u r i s t i c s
d e v e l o p e d t o s o l v e t h e assembly s e q u e n c i n g problem.
were
When b o t h t h e
usage g o a l and t h e l o a d i n g g o a l have t o be t a k e n i n t o account i n

the determination o f
the
sequence s c h e d u l e ,
(1990) d e v e l o p e d a p r o c e d u r e based on dynamic programming t o s o l v e

t h e assembly s e q u e n c i n g problem when p r o d u c t s have s i m i l a r p a r t
requirements.
However, s u c h a p r o c e d u r e c a n o n l y be a p p l i e d t o
d e t e r m i n e t h e optimum sequence s c h e d u l e when t h e s c a l e o f t h e

problem i s
small.
heuristics
were
For
large
proposed.
scale practical
However,
the
problems,
performance
two
of
the
h e u r i s t i c s p r o p o s e d b y M i l t e n b u r g (1989), M i l t e n b u r g and Sinnamon

(1989)
and
Miltenburg
et
al.
(1990)
tends
i n c r e a s i n g number o f p r o d u c t s o r p a r t s .
to
worsen
with
Moreover, f o r a l a r g e
s c a l e mixed-model assembly l i n e ,
t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e sequence
schedule u s i n g these h e u r i s t i c s
r e q u i r e s a s u b s t a n t i a l amount o f
computational e f f o r t .
The
assembly
sequencing problem o f
two-level production
s y s t e m w i t h some u n i q u e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s h a s b e e n examined b y some

researchers.
Groeflin
et
al.
(1989)
studied
the
s e q u e n c i n g p r o b l e m a r i s i n g i n t h e f i n a l assembly o f
c u s t o m i z e d mixed-model p r o d u c t i o n l i n e .
54
assembly
a highly
R e l e a s e and due d a t e s
constraints
were
formulation.
pairwise
incorporated i n
local
interchanges,
search
was
their
lexicographic
procedure,
proposed
based
to
solve
minimax
on
selective
the
problem.
However, a s t h e p r o b l e m s i z e i n c r e a s e s , t h e number o f i n t e r c h a n g e s
will
increase
rapidly
and
hence
c o m p u t a t i o n a l e f f o r t w i l l be e x p e c t e d .
significant
amount
of
Moreover, t h e model i s
l i m i t e d t o a t w o - l e v e l p r o d u c t i o n system o n l y .
I n t h e J I T p r o d u c t i o n system, t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f a mixed-model
assembly l i n e i s c o n t r o l l e d b y t h e sequence s c h e d u l e o b t a i n e d f r o m
s o l v i n g t h e assembly s e q u e n c i n g problem.
For production stages
p r e c e d i n g t o t h e mixed-model assemble l i n e , Kanbans a r e u s e d t o

c o n t r o l the p r o d u c t i o n o f these stages.
2.5 Kanban systems
The Kanban s y s t e m i s a p r o d u c t i o n and i n v e n t o r y c o n t r o l system

used t o r e a l i z e J I T production.
The most a t t r a c t i v e f e a t u r e s o f
t h e Kanban system a r e i t s q u i c k r e s p o n s i v e n e s s t o d i s r u p t i o n s i n a
m a n u f a c t u r i n g l i n e t h r o u g h i t s a u t o m a t i c f e e d b a c k mechanism, i t s
tendency
to
identify
problematic
areas,
and
its
inherent
s i m p l i c i t y t h a t makes i t o p e r a t i o n a l w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g l a r g e and
complex i n f o r m a t i o n systems.
Through t h e u s e o f Kanbans> t h e
p r o d u c t i o n o f r e q u i r e d components i s a u t h o r i z e d and t h e components

a r e d e l i v e r e d j u s t - i n - t i m e t o meet t h e demand o f e a c h p r o d u c t i o n
stage.
The h i g h l y v i s i b l e Kanban s y s t e m p i n p o i n t s t h e c o n t r o l o f
55
i n v e n t o r y l e v e l s f o r e a c h s p e c i f i c component,
and a t
the
time,
fixed
schedule.
permits
some
deviations
from
the
same
Schonberger (1983) has d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l t h e o p e r a t i o n mechanism

o f s i n g l e - c a r d and d u a l - c a r d Kanban systems.
out
that
t h e d u a l - c a r d system i s
I t h a s been p o i n t e d
more e f f e c t i v e I n r e d u c i n g
w o r k - i n - p r o c e s s i n v e n t o r y and i n p r o d u c t i v i t y improvement.
I n t h e p a s t decade, a g r o w i n g number o f companies i n t h e U . S .

s t a r t e d i m p l e m e n t i n g some o f t h e Japanese t e c h n i q u e s , e s p e c i a l l y
t h e Kanban system, i n b o t h p r o d u c t i o n and p u r c h a s i n g .
successful
implementations
of
the
Kanban
system
A number o f
have
been
reported.
D a v i s and S t u b i t z (1987) i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f a
Kanban system f o r
a custom d o o r m a n u f a c t u r e r .
S i m u l a t i o n and
d i s c r e t e o p t i m i z a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s were a p p l i e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e
number o f Kanbans t o be i s s u e d t o e a c h p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e .
Their
r e s u l t s demonstrated t h a t t h e Kanban a p p r o a c h c o u l d be a p p l i e d t o
a p r o d u c t i o n environment w h i c h n e i t h e r r e p r e s e n t e d a p u r e f l o w
shop n o r c o n t a i n e d b a l a n c e d p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s e s .
a p p r o a c h , G r a v e l and P r i c e
might
be
adapted
to
Using a s i m i l a r
(1988) showed how t h e Kanban system
job
shop.
number
of
simulation
e x p e r i m e n t s were c a r r i e d o u t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e b e s t c o m b i n a t i o n o f
t h e number o f Kanbans and Kanban l o t - s i z e
s i z e ) f o r each product.
resulting
Kanban
system
(equal t o container
A f t e r extensive simulation tests,

was
then
implemented.
The
the
actual
performance was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s i m u l a t i o n r e s u l t s and showed
56
a marked improvement o v e r the p r e v i o u s p r a c t i c e .
Successful
operation
of
the
Kanban
system
requires
the
e x i s t e n c e o f c e r t a i n p r o d u c t i o n c o n d i t i o n s t h a t may n o t e x i s t i n
companies i n t e n d i n g t o implement i t .
A number o f r e s e a r c h e r s have
u s e d s i m u l a t i o n approach t o
identify
and
study
the c r i t i c a l
f a c t o r s w h i c h have i m p o r t a n t
impact o n t h e performance o f
the
Kanban system i f t h e a c t u a l p r o d u c t i o n c o n d i t i o n s d e v i a t e f r o m t h e
ideal conditions.
I n t h e l i t e r a t u r e , the f a c t o r s considered by
d i f f e r e n t researchers include v a r i a b i l i t y o f processing times,

variability
of
demand,
variations
in
the
master
production
s c h e d u l e and i m b a l a n c e o f work l o a d between p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e s .

Changes o f
t h e s e f a c t o r s a r e s y s t e m a t i c a l l y m o n i t o r e d and the
performance o f t h e Kanban system i s e v a l u a t e d i n terms o f o v e r t i m e

requirement,
total
production
cost,
work-in-process
inventory
l e v e l , queue l e n g t h and w a i t i n g t i m e o f p r o d u c t i o n s t a t i o n s , and

u t i l i z a t i o n of production stations.
T h i s type o f s i m u l a t i o n study
a i m s a t s t u d y i n g t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e Kanban system t o Western

m a n u f a c t u r i n g companies and t h e problems a r i s i n g f r o m implementing
t h e Kanban system.
Huang e t a l .
(1983) s t u d i e d t h e a d a p t a b i l i t y o f t h e Kanban
s y s t e m t o t h e U . S . p r o d u c t i o n environment w i t h h y p o t h e t i c a l d a t a .
A
simulation
model
for
developed t o
study
the
variable
master
production
multi-stage
effect
production
stages.
The
of
production
was
v a r i a b l e processing times,
schedule,
and
simulation results
57
system
imbalances
showed
between
that
the
v a r i a b i l i t y o f b o t h t h e o v e r t i m e and d a i l y p r o d u c t i o n i n c r e a s e d
s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s t h e v a r i a b i l i t y i n p r o c e s s i n g t i m e s and demand
r a t e s increased.
variability of
A l t h o u g h t h e i r e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s about t h e
demand a r e
interesting,
the r e s u l t s
cannot
be
g e n e r a l i z e d f o r a c t u a l systems i n w h i c h t h e Kanban system i s

employed.
I t i s because i n g e n e r a l , Kanban systems a r e d e s i g n e d
to
to
adapt
small
changes
(10%)
in
daily
demand.
This
flexibility of the Kanban system had not been taken into account
in their study.
In studying
the
impact
of
imbalances between
production stages, the processing times at different stages were

assumed to be the same except at the bottleneck stage.
Under this
assumption, the effect of location and severity of the bottleneck

on the performance of the Kanban system was investigated.
The
assumption made may not be valid because the processing times at

different stages are usually different due to the uneven task time
and the technological constraints.
A more in-depth simulation study on the effects of imbalance in

a
JIT production system was carried
(1988).
Different
types
considered in their study.

imbalance
would
create
of
out by Sarker
processing
time
and Harris
variations
were
It was found that different types of

different
problems
such
as
unequal
utilization of operators, fluctuation of production rate, creation

of temporary inventory,
This
simulation
study
blocking, and ' starvation' in the line.

provides
some
useful
guidelines
management to control a JIT production system with imbalance.
58
for
S i n c e t h e e f f e c t s o f imbalance between p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e s a r e
highly
undesirable,
investigating.
methods
to
reduce
them
are
worth
A s shown i n t h e s t u d y o f Huang e t a l . (1983), t h e
e f f e c t s o f imbalance c a n be reduced b y i n c r e a s i n g w o r k - i n - p r o c e s s
inventory levels.
However,
the
allowance o f
higher work-in-
p r o c e s s l e v e l s i n a J I T p r o d u c t i o n system c o n t r a d i c t s i t s purpose
and b a s i c p h i l o s o p h y .
Using simulation, V i l l e d a e t a l .
(1988)
have a n a l y s e d d i f f e r e n t methods o f w o r k l o a d assignment t o reduce

t h e e f f e c t s o f imbalance.
I t has been f o u n d t h a t a s s i g n i n g l e s s
work t o p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e s near t h e end o f each p r o d u c t i o n l i n e

r e d u c e s t h e e f f e c t s o f imbalance, and t h a t t h e o u t p u t r a t e o f t h e
system decreases a s the v a r i a b i l i t y o f p r o c e s s i n g times i n f i n a l
assembly s t a t i o n s i n c r e a s e s .
T h e i r r e s u l t s c o n f i r m t h e importance
o f p r o d u c t i o n smoothing i n t h e f i n a l assembly l i n e .
Most
of
the
above
research
studies
have
shown
that
the
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e Kanban system i n a p r o d u c t i o n environment

without
the necessary p r e r e q u i s i t e s
problems.
causes d i f f e r e n t
types o f
I n g e n e r a l , t h e Kanban s y s t e m cannot be a u t o m a t i c a l l y
a p p l i e d t o Western m a n u f a c t u r i n g companies w i t h t h e same l e v e l o f

e x p e c t e d s u c c e s s a s a c h i e v e d i n Japan, p a r t i c u l a r l y d u r i n g t h e
t r a n s i t i o n period.
The above s i m u l a t i o n r e s u l t s a l s o s u p p o r t t h e
f a c t t h a t some r e s t r i c t i v e c o n d i t i o n s must e x i s t f o r a s u c c e s s f u l
o p e r a t i o n o f t h e Kanban system and a s u b s t a n t i a l amount o f e f f o r t
s h o u l d be d e v o t e d t o p r e p a r i n g t h e m a n u f a c t u r i n g environment f o r
implementation.
59
Some r e s e a r c h e r s have s t u d i e d t h e b e h a v i o u r o f
t h e Kanban
system b y changing some c r u c i a l system parameters s u c h a s number

o f Kanbans, s i z e o f c o n t a i n e r s , p r o d u c t i o n s c h e d u l i n g r u l e and
e x t e n t o f j o b mix.
The performances o f t h e system i n d i f f e r e n t
s i m u l a t i o n s t u d i e s a r e e v a l u a t e d i n terms o f j o b t a r d i n e s s , j o b
queueing
time,
process u t i l i z a t i o n ,
work-in-process
inventory
l e v e l , back o r d e r l e v e l and s h o r t a g e o f f i n i s h e d p r o d u c t .
simulation studies are useful f o r investigating the
These
impact o f
o p e r a t i o n a l c o n t r o l p a r a m e t e r s on t h e performance o f t h e Kanban
system.
The impact o f demand f l u c t u a t i o n and t h e number o f Kanbans on

the behaviour o f the l e v e l o f work-in-process i n a production
s y s t e m has b e e n s t u d i e d b y Ebrahimpour and F a t h i (1985) u s i n g
dynamic s i m u l a t i o n model.
reduction
of
Kanbans
The s i m u l a t i o n r e s u l t s have shown t h a t
reduces
work-in-process
inventory
and
f l u c t u a t i n g demand l e a d s t o a h i g h e r w o r k - i n - p r o c e s s i n v e n t o r y
level.
B e s i d e s t h e demand p a t t e r n , o t h e r s y s t e m parameters a l s o have

significant
impact
on
the
performance o f
the
Kanban system,
K i m u r a and T e r a d a (1981) have d e v e l o p e d s e v e r a l b a s i c e q u a t i o n s

for
t h e Kanban system i n a n u n c a p a c i t a t e d m u l t i - s t a g e s e r i a l
p r o d u c t i o n s e t t i n g t o show how t h e f l u c t u a t i o n o f f i n a l p r o d u c t
demand i n f l u e n c e s
t h e f l u c t u a t i o n o f p r o d u c t i o n and i n v e n t o r y
l e v e l s a t preceding stages.
The a n a l y s i s h a s shown t h a t when t h e
l o t s i z e i s small, the transmission o f production f l u c t u a t i o n a t
60
any s t a g e does n o t a m p l i f y i n t h e p r e v i o u s s t a g e .
the l o t s i z e i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y
become
invalid.
large,
Therefore,
the
However, when
equations
simulation
has
developed
been
used
to
i n v e s t i g a t e t h e e f f e c t o f l o t s i z e on t h e a m p l i f i c a t i o n o f t h e
f l u c t u a t i o n i n production level.
The s i m u l a t i o n r e s u l t s have
i n d i c a t e d t h a t , f o r u n l i m i t e d product i o n capacity, f l u c t u a t i o n s o f
p r o d u c t i o n and i n v e n t o r y l e v e l s a r e a m p l i f i e d b y i n c r e a s i n g l o t
s i z e o r b y i n c r e a s i n g p r o d u c t i o n and d e l i v e r y l e a d - t i m e .
Hence,
l o t s i z e s h o u l d be k e p t a s s m a l l a s p o s s i b l e i n o r d e r t o reduce
production fluctuation.
A more complete s i m u l a t i o n s t u d y h a s been c a r r i e d o u t b y Lee

(1987) t o e v a l u a t e some s a l i e n t p a r a m e t e r s o f t h e Kanban system.
These p a r a m e t e r s i n c l u d e s c h e d u l i n g r u l e , demand l e v e l , p r o d u c t i o n
Kanban l o t - s i z e , r e o r d e r Kanban l e v e l and e x t e n t o f j o b m i x .
The
simulation
job
results
have
demonstrated
that
in
terms
of
t a r d i n e s s and q u e u e i n g t i m e , t h e
common p r e v a i l i n g p r a c t i c e o f
assigning greater
jobs
priorities
to
frequencies i s not as e f f e c t i v e as
with higher
production
a s h o r t e s t p r o c e s s i n g time
b a s e d r u l e , and t h a t u n l i k e t r a d i t i o n a l p u s h systems, i n c r e a s i n g
demand l e v e l i n a J I T p r o d u c t i o n system does n o t e n s u r e a h i g h
process u t i l i z a t i o n l e v e l .
The s i m u l a t i o n r e s u l t s
have a l s o
i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n c r e a s i n g p r o d u c t i o n Kanban l o t - s i z e and r e o r d e r
Kanban l e v e l c a n improve t h e mean t a r d i n e s s b u t cause e s c a l a t i o n
i n inventory l e v e l .
F u r t h e r m o r e , i t has a l s o been shown t h a t
c o n t r a r y t o common c o n j e c t u r e , a n e n l a r g e d p r o d u c t m i x a c t u a l l y
p r o d u c e s b e t t e r p r o c e s s u t i l i z a t i o n and mean j o b t a r d i n e s s .
61
The
study
indeed
provides
some
useful
insights
Into
the
c a u s e - a n d - e f f e c t s o f t h e v a r i o u s system parameters.
Among t h e s y s t e m p a r a m e t e r s r e q u i r e d t o be d e t e r m i n e d when
c o n t r o l l i n g a Kanban system, t h e number o f Kanbans t o b e i s s u e d t o
each production stage i s
management.
a decision frequently
A n indepth study of
the
made
by
the
factors influencing
the
number of Kanbans required at a production stage was carried out

by Philipoom et al. (1987).
Through the analysis of the Toyotas
procedure for the determination of the number of Kanbans required

at
production
stage,
four
major
factors
were
identified
throughput velocity (i.e., the rate at which items flow through a

machine), coefficient of variation
utilization
rate
and
in processing
times machine
autocorrelation between processing
times.
The impact of these factors on the number of Kanbans required was

analysed
with
hypothetical
demonstrated that reducing
data.
The
simulation
results
the coefficient of variation reduced
the number of Kanbans exponentially.
The other factors had a
similar response on the Kanban level.
The study provides
the
potential Kanban users with some insight into the variability of

pull-type systems.
Through the use of a system dynamics model, Gupta and Gupta

(1989) investigated the performance of a multi-line, multi-stage
dual card Kanban production system under the stimulus of various
factors.
These
factors
included
various
management
policy
variables (such as changing the number of Kanbans and changing the
62
s i z e o f c o n t a i n e r s used i n v a r i o u s p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e s ) , unexpected
circumstances
(such
as
production
stoppages
breakdown) and p r o c e s s i n g t i m e u n c e r t a i n t i e s .
the
inventory l e v e l
was
due
to
machine
I t was f o u n d t h a t
reduced b y d e c r e a s i n g t h e
number o f
Kanbans i n t h e system, b y d e c r e a s i n g t h e s i z e o f c o n t a i n e r s , o r b y
increasing
the
size
of
decreasing
the
number
containers
of
and,
Kanbans.
at
This
the
study
same
time,
showed
the
importance o f number o f Kanbans and Kanban l o t - s i z e i n c o n t r o l l i n g

A l l t h e above s i m u l a t i o n s t u d i e s o f t h e Kanban system have

revealed
the
fact
that
the
flexibility
and
versatility
of
s i m u l a t i o n l e n d i t s e l f v e r y w e l l t o a n a l y s i n g t h e Kanban system.
However, s i m u l a t i o n approach do have some drawbacks when a p p l i e d
t o p r a c t i c a l problems.
built
and
validation.
require
Usually,
S i m u l a t i o n models may be c o s t l y t o be
long
in
their
construction
and
a l a r g e amount o f c o m p u t a t i o n a l e f f o r t i s
required i n order t o f i n d
parameters.
time
the
optimal values o f
the
system
Hence, t h e use o f s i m u l a t i o n i n making s h o r t term
r e p e t i t i v e o p e r a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s o f Kanban systems i s s t i l l t o o
e x p e n s i v e t o be adopted.
I n o p e r a t i n g t h e Kanban system, t h e number o f Kanbans i s s u e d t o

e a c h p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e h a s t o be d e t e r m i n e d and t h i s number i s k e p t
unchanged t h r o u g h o u t t h e p l a n n i n g h o r i z o n .
The number o f Kanbans
i s s u e d t o a p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e imposes a l i m i t o n t h e maximum amount

o f i n v e n t o r y t h a t c a n be accumulated a t t h a t s t a g e and r e f l e c t s
63
the operating e f f i c i e n c y a t that stage.
Hence,
t h e number o f
Kanbans c i r c u l a t i n g a t e a c h s t a g e s h o u l d be s e t a p p r o p r i a t e l y .
Thus,
the
Kanban
assignment
problem,
i.e.
the
problem
of
d e t e r m i n i n g t h e number o f Kanbans t o be i s s u e d t o e a c h p r o d u c t i o n
s t a g e i n o r d e r t o c o n t r o l t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between p r o d u c t i o n and
inventory levels, i s
one o f
problems o f a Kanban system.
the
important o p e r a t i o n a l c o n t r o l
Monden (1983) p r o v i d e d a n e x p r e s s i o n
w h i c h T o y o t a u s e s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e number o f Kanbans r e q u i r e d i n a
production stage.
The number o f Kanbans r e q u i r e d i s a f u n c t i o n o f
t h e e x p e c t e d d a i l y demand, t h e procurement l e a d - t i m e , t h e s a f e t y
s t o c k l e v e l and t h e c o n t a i n e r c a p a c i t y .
Since i t i s e s s e n t i a l l y a
single-stage s t a t i c
the
inventory
model,
expression,
in
most
c a s e s , c a n o n l y g i v e a rough a p p r o x i m a t i o n t o t h e a c t u a l number o f
Kanbans needed a t e a c h p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e .
I n t h e l i t e r a t u r e , the
p r o b l e m h a s been s t u d i e d m a t h e m a t i c a l l y u s i n g s t o c h a s t i c models
w i t h d i f f e r e n t o b j e c t i v e s i n d i f f e r e n t m a n u f a c t u r i n g environments.
The
stochastic
uncertainty
elements
of
product
considered
demand,
in
these
models
variability
in
p r o c e s s i n g t i m e s and random machine breakdowns.
include
production
These s t o c h a s t i c
models a r e u s e f u l i n s t u d y i n g t h e impact o f d i f f e r e n t s o u r c e s o f
u n c e r t a i n t y on t h e performance o f t h e system.
Kim
(1985)
has
developed
computerized v e r s i o n
of
operating p o l i c y
practising
of
the
periodic
dual-card
a
pull
pull
Kanban
system,
system,
system.
as
a
an
Through
c o m p u t e r i z e d m a t e r i a l management system, t h e s t a t u s o f m a t e r i a l
f l o w a t a l l stages i s reviewed a t r e g u l a r i n t e r v a l s .
64
The t i m e
r e q u i r e d f o r a r e v i e w i s assumed t o be n e g l i g i b l e .
the
review only
consumed
the
exact
at a succeeding
amount
stage
of
since
As a r e s u l t o f
material
the
that
last
has
review
been
time
is
allowed to be withdrawn from or produced at a preceding stage.

Under
the
assumption
of
stationary
stochastic
final
product
demand, a Markovian based solution approach has been developed for

the analysis of
product
the fluctuation of material flow for a single
in a single production
capacity.
maximum
The
stock
probability
of
objective
level
no
pre-targeted level.
of
for
line with unlimited production
the analysis
each
stockout
is
is
to determine
stocking
point
so
that
at
equal
to
least
the
the
certain
Since the maximum inventory, in terms of the
number of full containers, at each inventory point is equal to the

number of Kanbans issued to that Inventory point, the objective
can be interpreted as finding the number of Kanbans to be issued
to each inventory point so that the stockout probability Is less
than
pre-specif ied
value.
It
has
been
concluded
that
the
fluctuation of work-in-process material flow is propagated to the

preceding
stages
but
not
amplified.
However,
it
has
been
discovered by the author of this thesis that this conclusion is

incorrect
(please see Appendix A).
presented
in Kim's paper
can only be
In addition,
applied
the analysis
to uncapacitated
multi-stage serial production systems and the solution procedure

requires
the
computation
of
number
of
fairly
cumbersome
convolutions.
A number
of researchers have also used Markovian models
65
to
study
the
Kanban
multi-stage
assignment
production
problem f o r
systems.
designing stochastic
Karmarkar
and
Kekre
(1988)
d e v e l o p e d approximate M a r k o v i a n models t o s t u d y t h e e f f e c t o f
c o n t a i n e r s i z e and t h e number o f Kanbans on t h e e x p e c t e d i n v e n t o r y
and back o r d e r c o s t s o f s i n g l e - c a r d and d u a l - c a r d Kanban c e l l s ,
and a t w o - s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n system.
I t was f o u n d t h a t c o n t a i n e r
s i z e had a s i g n i f i c a n t impact o n p r o d u c t i o n l e a d - t i m e s w h i l e t h e
number o f Kanbans had a n i m p o r t a n t e f f e c t on i n v e n t o r y l e v e l .
The
s t u d y c a n p r o v i d e some i n s i g h t s i n t o t h e p a r a m e t r i c b e h a v i o u r o f
t h e system v a r i a b l e s s u c h a s s i z e o f t h e c o n t a i n e r s and t h e number
of
Kanbans.
Later,
Deleersnyder
et al.
(1989)
studied
the
o p e r a t i o n a l c o n t r o l p r o b l e m i n implementing a Kanban system.
g e n e r a l m u l t i - s t a g e s e r i a l p r o d u c t i o n system was m o d e l l e d a s a
d i s c r e t e t i m e Markov p r o c e s s .
Capacity constraints, stochastic
machine r e l i a b i l i t y and demand v a r i a b i l i t y were i n c l u d e d i n the

model.
I n t h e i r a n a l y s i s , s e v e r a l e q u a t i o n s were d e r i v e d t o s o l v e
t h e Kanban assignment problem.
However, t h e i r M a r k o v i a n model
s u f f e r s t h e p r o b l e m o f s t a t e - s p a c e e x p l o s i o n , i . e . t h e number o f
s t a t e s i n c r e a s e s e x p o n e n t i a l l y w i t h the problem s i z e .
Therefore,
a s i g n i f i c a n t amount o f c o m p u t a t i o n a l e f f o r t and computer memory

a r e r e q u i r e d t o s o l v e t h e Kanban assignment p r o b l e m when t h e
problem s i z e i s l a r g e .
I n a n u n s t a b l e p r o d u c t i o n environment,
some r e s e a r c h e r s have
a r g u e d t h a t t h e number o f Kanbans s h o u l d b e a d j u s t e d d y n a m i c a l l y
i n s t e a d o f being kept a t constant.
Rees e t a l . (1987) d e v e l o p e d a
p r o c e d u r e f o r d y x i a m i c a l l y a d j u s t i n g t h e number o f Kanbans a t e a c h
66
production
station
environment.
of
Kanbans
estimated
in
an
unstable
uncapacitated
production
The f o r m u l a used a t T o y o t a t o d e t e r m i n e t h e number

required
density
was
analysed i n d e t a i l .
functions
of
lead-time
Based
and
the
on
the
forecasted
demand, t h e p r o b a b i l i t y mass f u n c t i o n o f t h e number o f Kanbans

r e q u i r e d was determined.
The number o f Kanbans needed was f o u n d
b y m i n i m i z i n g t h e sum o f h o l d i n g and s h o r t a g e c o s t s .
In their
a n a l y s i s , t h e method used t o e s t i m a t e t h e l e a d - t i m e d i s t r i b u t i o n
i s questionable.
I t i s because
l e a d - t i m e depends h e a v i l y on
p r o d u c t i o n c a p a c i t i e s o f p r o d u c t i o n s t a t i o n s a s w e l l as w o r k - i n process
inventory
levels
of
preceding
production
stations.
However, t h e s e two i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s have n o t been c o n s i d e r e d i n

the e s t i m a t i o n o f the lead-time d e n s i t y f u n c t i o n .
In addition,
v a r i o u s r e s e a r c h e r s (Ebrahimpour and F a t h i 1985, Gupta and Gupta

1989 have pointed out that work-in-process inventory level of a
production station is affected by the number of Kanbans issued to
the station.
station
Hence, the number of Kanbans issued to a production
would
affect
the
number
succeeding production station.
of
Kanbans
required
In their study, this
in
the
important
phenomena has not been taken into consideration.
Although
realistic,
substantial
stochastic
most
of
amount
Kanban
the
of
assignment
existing
computational
solution
effort.
models
are
algorithms
Hence,
more
require
for
large
scale problems, it is time consuming to find the optimal solution.

For
successful
implementation
of
the
Kanban
system,
the
variability of stochastic elements, such as processing times and
67
machine breakdowns, i n a p r o d u c t i o n s y s t e m have t o be r e d u c e d t o

an acceptable l e v e l .
Hence, i n t h i s c a s e , t h e Kanban s y s t e m c a n
be m o d e l l e d d e t e r m i n i s t i c a l l y .
A number o f r e s e a r c h e r s have u s e d
d e t e r m i n i s t i c models t o s t u d y t h e Kanban assignment p r o b l e m o f t h e

Kanban system w i t h d i f f e r e n t a s s u m p t i o n s .
Miyazaki e t a l .
(1988)
have
derived
several
equations
to
d e t e r m i n e t h e minimum number o f w i t h d r a w a l Kanbans f o r a Kanban

system w i t h u n l i m i t e d p r o d u c t i o n c a p a c i t y .
In deriving
e q u a t i o n s , p a r t demand r a t e i s assumed t o be c o n s t a n t .
the
Based on
t h e e q u a t i o n s , a n a l g o r i t h m has been d e v e l o p e d t o f i n d t h e o p t i m a l
o r d e r i n t e r v a l w h i c h m i n i m i z e s t h e sum o f i n v e n t o r y c a r r y i n g c o s t
a n d Kanban w i t h d r a w a l c o s t .
However, f o r systems w i t h r e l a t i v e l y
l a r g e c o n t a i n e r s i z e , the v a l i d i t y o f t h e assumption o f constant

part
demand r a t e i n a m u l t i - s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n system i s h i g h l y
questionable.
When t h e c o n t a i n e r s i z e i s r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l , s i m p l e
e q u a t i o n s c a n be u s e d t o s o l v e t h e p r o b l e m i n s t e a d o f u s i n g t h e i r
complicated equations.
I t h a s been shown b y t h e a u t h o r o f t h i s
t h e s i s that f o r small container s i z e ,
their
model i s j u s t
s p e c i a l c a s e o f t h e f a m i l i a r p e r i o d i c r e v i e w system w i t h o r d e r
q u a n t i t y r e s t r i c t e d t o m u l t i p l e s o f c o n t a i n e r c a p a c i t y and when
the container size is relatively large, the assumption of constant
part demand rate is not a reasonable one (please see Appendix A).
The Kanban assignment problem of a deterministic multi-stage

capacitated assembly system with time-varying final product demand
has been studied by Bitran and Chang
68
(1987).
With extension on
K i m u r a and Terada, s s e r i a l model, a n i n t e g e r l i n e a r programming

model has been proposed t o determine t h e number o f c i r c u l a t i n g
Kanbans and hence,
Their
integer
However,
the
linear
maximum i n v e n t o r y l e v e l a t e a c h s t a g e .
program i s
computationally
when t h e c o n t a i n e r usage
containers of
an
item
required to
number
(the
make
intractable.
number o f f u l l
container
of
its
immediate s u c c e s s o r ) and t h e i n i t i a l i n v e n t o r y l e v e l o f e a c h i t e m
s a t i s f y c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s , i t h a s been shown t h a t t h e number o f
Kanbans r e q u i r e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l model c a n be o b t a i n e d b y s o l v i n g
the
linear
program d e r i v e d f r o m r e l a x i n g
the
integer
linear
program and t h e n r o u n d i n g t h e s o l u t i o n o f t h e l i n e a r program t o a

suitable integer solution.
I t has been f o u n d t h a t t h e s i z e o f t h e
l i n e a r program i s l a r g e f o r problems o f r e a l i s t i c s i z e and hence a

s i g n i f i c a n t amount o f c o m p u t a t i o n a l e f f o r t i s r e q u i r e d t o s o l v e
t h e l i n e a r program.
will
have
2000
variables.
F o r example, a 100 s t a g e s 10 p e r i o d s problem
(2x100x10)
constraints
and
1100
(100x10+100)
F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e i r s o l u t i o n method i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e
t o c a s e s where t h e c o n t a i n e r usage number o r t h e i n i t i a l i n v e n t o r y

level of
a n i t e m does n o t s a t i s f y
the
conditions.
more
e f f i c i e n t and e f f e c t i v e method i s needed t o s o l v e t h e i r i n t e g e r

l i n e a r program.
S i n c e i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o f i n d the optimal s o l u t i o n t o B i t r a n
and
Chang's
integer
linear
program,
some
researchers
s i m p l i f i e d t h e model b y making d i f f e r e n t assumptions.
have
With the
assumption o f i n f i n i t e p r o d u c t i o n c a p a c i t y a t each stage, z e r o

p r o d u c t i o n l e a d t i m e and s i n g l e p e r i o d Kanban d e l i v e r y l e a d t i m e .
69
L i and Co (1991) have developed a dynamic programming a l g o r i t h m t o

s o l v e B i t r a n and C h a n g ' s i n t e g e r l i n e a r program o p t i m a l l y .
The
number o f s t a t e s i n t h e a l g o r i t h m i n c r e a s e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h t h e
number o f p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e s .
this
method t a k e s
Moreover,
the
Therefore, f o r l a r g e s c a l e problems,
l o n g time t o f i n d the o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n .
application of
their
algorithm i s
limited
to
u n c a p a c i t a t e d p r o d u c t i o n systems w i t h z e r o p r o d u c t i o n l e a d - t i m e .
Based on B i t r a n and Chang* s model, B a r d and Go1any (1991) have

d e v e l o p e d a mixed i n t e g e r programming f o r m u l a t i o n t o s o l v e t h e
Kanban assignment p r o b l e m f o r a m u l t i - s t a g e d e t e r m i n i s t i c Kanban
system.
However, i t c a n e a s i l y be shown t h a t t h e model developed
o n l y p r o v i d e s a n approximate s o l u t i o n t o
t h e problem and t h e
i n t e g e r program i s c o m p u t a t i o n a l l y i n t r a c t a b l e i f t h e s i z e o f the
problem i s l a r g e .
I n t h i s c h a p t e r , a n a t t e m p t h a s been made t o d e v e l o p a s i m p l e
but
integrated review o f
the l i t e r a t u r e
a s p e c t s o f t h e J I T p r o d u c t i o n system.
on s e v e r a l
important
The l i t e r a t u r e h a s been
c l a s s i f i e d according t o the nature o f s t u d i e s .
Various studies
r e l a t e d t o d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s o f t h e J I T p r o d u c t i o n system have
b e e n r e v i e w e d and t h e s a l i e n t f e a t u r e s o f t h e s t u d i e s have been
highlighted.
I t h a s been n o t e d t h a t most s t u d i e s on t h e J I T
p r o d u c t i o n system a r e conceptual.
70
I n the published l i t e r a t u r e , a
large
number o f
Unfortunately,
t h e c r i t i c a l v a r i a b l e s have been i d e n t i f i e d .
there
is
little
consensus
among
researchers
r e g a r d i n g t h e importance o f t h e v a r i a b l e s i n t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .
Hence,
there i s
need
to
identify
the
critical
variables
associated w i t h d i f f e r e n t tenets of the JIT philosophy.
One o f
the
major o p e r a t i o n a l c o n t r o l
problems
p r o d u c t i o n system i s t h e assembly s e q u e n c i n g problem.
of
the
JIT
A number o f
s o l u t i o n methods have been d e v e l o p e d f o r s o l v i n g t h e problem.

However, i t h a s been n o t e d t h a t t h e c o m p u t a t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s o f
most o f t h e s o l u t i o n methods r e p o r t e d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e a r e q u i t e
s i g n i f i c a n t f o r p r o d u c t i o n systems w i t h a l a r g e number o f p a r t s .
Further
research i s
needed t o
develop
more e f f i c i e n t
and
e f f e c t i v e method t o f i n d t h e sequence s c h e d u l e .
In
the
literature,
research
done
on
the
control
mixed-model a s s e m b l y l i n e has been c e n t r e d o n f i n d i n g a

of
good
The assembly manpower p l a n n i n g problem, namely
t h e problem o f determining o f t h e o p t i m a l s t r a t e g y o f a d j u s t i n g
t h e number o f w o r k e r s i n e a c h assembly s t a t i o n and u s i n g o v e r t i m e
i n o r d e r t o meet t h e w o r k l o a d r e q u i r e m e n t o f
s c h e d u l e , has so f a r n o t been t r e a t e d .
a g i v e n sequence
F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed
t o d e v e l o p m a t h e m a t i c a l model f o r t h i s problem.
S i m u l a t i o n and mathematical
s t u d y i n g t h e Kanban system.
models a r e
frequently
used i n
A number o f s i m u l a t i o n s t u d i e s have
b e e n c a r r i e d o u t t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h have I m p o r t a n t
71
i m p a c t on t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e Kanban system.
that
the
number o f Kanbans t o be
c r i t i c a l factors.
I t h a s been n o t e d
issued i s
one o f
the
most
S i n c e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s o f s i m u l a t i o n models a r e
very difficult a
number
of
researchers
have
used
stochastic
models to study the major operational control problems of Kanban

systems.
One of
problem.
However,
algorithms
for
substantial
algorithms
the major problems
the Kanban assignment
it has been noted that most of the existing
stochastic Kanban
amount
have
is
of
assignment
computational
limited
value
in
problem
effort.
practical
require
Thus,
these
application.
For
successful implementation of the Kanban system, the variability of

stochastic elements has
Hence,
deterministic
system.
to be reduced
models
can be
to an acceptable
used
to
model
the
level.
Kanban
A number of researchers have used deterministic models to
study the Kanban assignment problem.
However, most of the models
reported
realistic
in
the
literature are not
and
most of
the
algorithms developed are computationally tractable for small scale

problems only thus limiting the applicability of these models.
There is a need to develop an efficient and effective algorithm to
find a good feasible solution of the Kanban assignment problem as
represented by some realistic Kanban assignment models, such as
the model proposed by Bitran and Chang (1987).
In the following chapters, attempts will be made

efficient
and
effective
algorithms
to
solve
the
to develop
assembly
sequencing problem, the assembly manpower planning problem and the

Kanban assignment problem.
72
CHAPTER 3
ASSEMBLY SEQUENCING PROBLEM
3.1 Introduction
Smoothing o f p r o d u c t i o n i s a n i m p o r t a n t p r e r e q u i s i t e a n d t h e
cornerstone o f J I T production.
I n o r d e r t o produce o n l y the
necessary products i n the necessary q u a n t i t i e s a t the necessary

t i m e s , a p r o d u c t i o n l i n e i s no l o n g e r c o m m i t t e d t o m a n u f a c t u r i n g a
s i n g l e product i n l a r g e - l o t s i z e s .
Instead a single line must
produce a variety of products each day in small-lot sizes.
Thus,
a mixed-model assembly line with small-lot production is one of

the distinctive features of JIT production.
mixed-model
assembly
line
is
controlled
launching various products into the line.
The production of a
by
the
sequence
of
This chapter deals with
the assembly sequencing problem t h e p r o b l e m o f d e t e r m i n i n g t h e

sequence s c h e d u l e w h i c h s p e c i f i e s
the
sequence o f
introducing
v a r i o u s p r o d u c t s i n t o t h e f i n a l p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e o f a mixed-model
assembly l i n e i n a J I T manufacturing environment.
I t i s w e l l known t h a t t h e sequence i n w h i c h v a r i o u s p r o d u c t s
a r e i n t r o d u c e d i n t o a mixed-model a s s e m b l y l i n e depends o n t h e
g o a l which t h e system d e s i g n e r wishes t o achieve.
According to
Monden ( 1 9 8 3 ) , t h e r e a r e b a s i c a l l y two p o s s i b l e g o a l s :
(a) usage g o a l
- k e e p i n g a constant usage r a t e f o r e v e r y p a r t o r
s u b - a s s e m b l y o n t h e l i n e ; and
73
(b) l o a d i n g g o a l - l e v e l l i n g t h e l o a d
( t o t a l assembly time)
on
each s t a t i o n on the l i n e .
The g o a l o f k e e p i n g a c o n s t a n t r a t e o f usage o f e v e r y p a r t u s e d
b y the l i n e i s c a l l e d l e v e l l i n g , o r b a l a n c i n g the schedule ( H a l l
1983 Japanese Management Association 1985).
(1983),
the
important
usage
than
the
goal
is
generally
loading goal.
At
According to Monden
considered
Toyota,
to
be
more
the goal-chasing
method developed by Kotani (1982) is being used to determine the

sequence
schedule
literature,
which
a number
sequencing problem.
of
achieves
the
usage
researchers have
Groeflin
et
al.
goal.
studied
In
the
(1989) have
the
assembly
studied
assembly sequencing problem with due-date constraints and
the
have
used a lexicographic minimax formulation to determine the sequence

schedule.
Miltenburg (1989) has developed several algorithms and
heuristics to solve the assembly sequencing problem for the case

of
products
with
similar
part
requirements
(i.e.
products
requiring approximately the same number and mix of parts).
Later,
Miltenburg and Sinnamon (1989) have extended the previous results

for the case of products with different part requirements and have
shown that
heuristics.
the goal-chasing method
is a special
case of
their
However, the amount of computational effort required
in their heuristics is considerably large.
Even though the usage goal is the most important goal, it may
not be the only goal
assembly line.
to be achieved
in controlling
the final
In the literature, a number of researchers have
74
c o n s i d e r e d o t h e r g o a l s when d e t e r m i n i n g t h e sequence s c h e d u l e .
Okamura and
Yamashina
(1979)
have
developed
a heuristic for
f i n d i n g t h e sequence s c h e d u l e w h i c h m i n i m i z e s t h e r i s k o f s t o p p i n g
a
mixed-model
assembly l i n e .
(1990)
have
developed an optimal a l g o r i t h m as w e l l as h e u r i s t i c s f o r f i n d i n g
t h e sequence s c h e d u l e t o a c h i e v e b o t h t h e usage g o a l and t h e
loading goal.
I n t h i s c h a p t e r , t h e assembly s e q u e n c i n g problem i s e x t e n s i v e l y
a n a l y s e d f o r mixed-model assembly l i n e s w i t h d i f f e r e n t g o a l s o f
c o n t r o l and w i t h p r o d u c t s h a v i n g d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p a r t
requirements.
When p r o d u c t s have s i m i l a r p a r t r e q u i r e m e n t s and
o n l y t h e usage g o a l i s c o n s i d e r e d , t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e o p t i m a l
sequence s c h e d u l e a r e d e r i v e d and a h e u r i s t i c i s d e v e l o p e d f o r
f i n d i n g a n upper bound f o r t h e u s a g e - g o a l problem.
derived properties,
Based on t h e
a n e f f i c i e n t b r a n c h and bound a l g o r i t h m i s
d e v e l o p e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e o p t i m a l sequence s c h e d u l e f o r medium
s i z e problems.
F o r s o l v i n g l a r g e s c a l e problems, t h e h e u r i s t i c
w h i c h i s u s e d t o f i n d t h e upper bound i s employed t o d e t e r m i n e t h e

C o m p u t a t i o n a l e x p e r i m e n t s a r e conducted t o
e v a l u a t e t h e performance o f t h e h e u r i s t i c .
extended t o cover the
requirements.
The a n a l y s i s i s t h e n
c a s e when p r o d u c t s have d i f f e r e n t p a r t
The h e u r i s t i c d e v e l o p e d f o r p r o d u c t s w i t h s i m i l a r
p a r t requirements i s modified a c c o r d i n g l y .
The performance o f t h e
m o d i f i e d h e u r i s t i c i s e v a l u a t e d b y a s e t o f randomly g e n e r a t e d
t e s t problems.
part
The h e u r i s t i c proposed f o r p r o d u c t s w i t h d i f f e r e n t
requirements i s
further
modified t o f i n d
75
the
sequence
schedule
which
achieves
g o a l - c h a s i n g method.
the
goal
considered
in
Toyota,s
The p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e m o d i f i e d h e u r i s t i c i s
compared w i t h t h a t o f
t h e g o a l - c h a s i n g method u s i n g a s e t o f
randomly generated t e s t problems.
When t h e usage g o a l i s n o t t h e o n l y g o a l t o b e c o n s i d e r e d , t h e
p r e v i o u s a n a l y s e s a r e extended t o a n a l y s e the j o i n t - g o a l problem t h e p r o b l e m t h a t c o n s i d e r s b o t h t h e u s a g e and l o a d i n g g o a l s .
For
p r o d u c t i o n systems w i t h s i m i l a r p a r t requirements, the h e u r i s t i c

developed f o r the usage-goal problem i s modified t o s o l v e the
joint-goal
problem.
Again,
computational
experiments
are
conducted t o e v a l u a t e t h e performance o f t h e m o d i f i e d h e u r i s t i c .
F i n a l l y for production systems with different part requirements,
it
is
problem
The
shown
that
the
can
also
be
results
obtained
heuristic
used
to
in
all
developed
solve
the
the
for
the
usage-goal
joint-goal
computational
problem.
experiments
mentioned above clearly indicate that the heuristics developed in

this chapter perform better than existing algorithms.
3.2 Usage-goal problem
In this section, the goal of controlling a mixed-model assembly

line is to keep the consumption rate of each part used by the line
as constant as possible.
Since the JIT production system is a
pull system, smoothed consumption of parts in the final assembly
76
line
means
Hence,
smoothed w i t h d r a w a l s
smoothing o f
from the preceding processes.
p r o d u c t i o n can be
achieved by u s i n g the
sequence s c h e d u l e t h a t c o n s i d e r s t h e usage g o a l .
In
this
section,
requirements a s w e l l
considered.
production
production
systems
with
as w i t h d i f f e r e n t p a r t
similar
part
requirements a r e
I n t h e f o l l o w i n g , t h e assembly sequencing problem o f

systems w i t h s i m i l a r p a r t
requirements i s
studied
first.
3.2.1 Production systems with s i m i l a r part requirements
G e n e r a l l y , a v a r i e t y o f p a r t s a r e r e q u i r e d i n t h e assembly o f
products i n
mixed-model
assembly l i n e .
I n JIT production
s y s t e m s , a mixed-model p r o d u c t i o n l i n e u s u a l l y produces p r o d u c t s
w i t h s i m i l a r p a r t requirements.
Therefore, i n t h i s case,
c o n s t a n t r a t e o f p a r t usage c a n be a c h i e v e d b y c o n s i d e r i n g o n l y
t h e demand r a t e s f o r f i n a l p r o d u c t s .
I n t h e subsequent a n a l y s i s
o f t h i s s e c t i o n , a mixed-model assembly l i n e a s s e m b l i n g p r o d u c t s
w i t h s i m i l a r p a r t requirements i s considered.
3 . 2 . 1 . 1 Mathematical model
In
developing
the
mathematical
model
for
the
s e q u e n c i n g problem, t h e f o l l o w i n g n o t a t i o n s a r e used.
77
assembly
number o f p r o d u c t s t o be produced i n t h e p l a n n i n g h o r i z o n
p r o d u c t i o n requirement o f p r o d u c t h i n t h e p l a n n i n g h o r i z o n
t o t a l number o f u n i t s o f a l l p r o d u c t s t o be produced i n t h e
planning horizon
demand r a t i o o f p r o d u c t h
t o t a l number o f u n i t s o f p r o d u c t h produced i n t h e f i r s t k
f i n a l assemblies
Indeed, i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t K
and r
h .
The f o l l o w i n g
i n d i c a t o r v a r i a b l e i s u s e d t o i n d i c a t e t h e p r o d u c t assembled i n
k t h assembly.
i f p r o d u c t h i s assembled a t k t h assembly
otherwise
I t i s obvious t h a t , f o r k e { 1 , . . . K } ,
x"" 1
i f 6
= 1
otherwise
and
The o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n o f t h e u s a g e - g o a l problem c a n be e x p r e s s e d
i n one o f t h e f o l l o w i n g f o r m s :
78
minimize
k=l h=l
and
minimize
k -
The f i r s t o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n s e e k s t o m i n i m i z e t h e
variations
(squared d e v i a t i o n s )
of
the
sum o f
actual proportions of
p r o d u c t s produced f r o m t h e d e s i r e d p r o p o r t i o n s f o r a n assembly
sequence.
The second o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n aims a t m i n i m i z i n g the
sum o f v a r i a t i o n s o f t h e a c t u a l p r o d u c t i o n q u a n t i t i e s f r o m t h e
d e s i r e d p r o d u c t i o n q u a n t i t i e s f o r a n assembly sequence.
B o t h the
o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n s a r e r e a s o n a b l e and w i l l r e s u l t i n s i m i l a r
sequence
schedules
(Miltenburg
1989).
However,
the
second
o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n i s b e t t e r t h a n t h e f i r s t one i n t h e sense t h a t
i n t h e f i r s t o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n t h e terms l a t e i n t h e s c h e d u l e
( i . e . f o r large k ) w i l l contribute l e s s t o the o v e r a l l v a r i a t i o n
than e a r l i e r
terms.
S i n c e s c h e d u l i n g p r o c e s s i s a n ongoing
p r o c e s s , t h e second o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n i s u s e d i n t h e a n a l y s i s .
The assembly s e q u e n c i n g problem t h u s becomes
79
Problem (Us)
Minimize
k=l h=l
" kr
x k - x 1 "" 1
h
= 1K
(C3.1)
k: = 1, ,K; h = 1, . . ,n
={01,d }
(C3.2)
k = 1.K; h = 1,..,n
(C3.3)
Suppose the cumulative production vector <X> = {Xi1,.

1
K
X , . , X } is a feasible solution of Problem (Us).
n
X K
The fact that
<X> is a feasible cumulative production vector implies <X> should

satisfy the inequality that
for all k {1,..,K> and for all h {1,..n>.
It is shown in the
following that feasible solutions of Problem
(Us) must
inequality
(3.1.
n
obvious that
T Xk =
h=X
which i s
Since <X> satisfies constraint

n
[ X1",1 + 1.
h
h=l
non-empty s u b s e t o f
c o n s t r a i n t (C3.2) i m p l i e s t h a t
satisfy
(C3.1), it is
If X k > X^"1 + 1 for all j Q

J
J
{1, ..,11}
then
<X> s a t i s f y i n g
Hence,
the
above
inequality
s a t i s f i e s constraint (C3.1).
contradicts
Thus, i f
the
fact
that
<X>
<X> s a t i s f i e s c o n s t r a i n t s
(C3.1) and (C3.2) then <X> must satisfy the inequality that
+ 1f
o r
h and k .
T h e r e f o r e , i n e q u a l i t y ( 3 . 1 ) need n o t be
i n c l u d e d i n Problem (Us).
Miltenburg
(Us).
(1989) d e v e l o p e d two a l g o r i t h m s t o s o l v e P r o b l e m
However,
optimal solution.
t h e a l g o r i t h m s do n o t
guarantee t o g i v e
the
I n a d d i t i o n , the performance o f the a l g o r i t h m s
t e n d s t o w o r s e n w i t h i n c r e a s i n g number o f p r o d u c t s i n a p r o d u c t i o n
system.
I n the f o l l o w i n g , the p r o p e r t i e s o f the optimal s o l u t i o n
o f P r o b l e m (Us) a r e s t u d i e d .
3 . 2 . 1 . 2 P r o p e r t i e s o f the optimal s o l u t i o n
In
the
subsequent
analysis,
for
the
sake o f
presentation
c o n v e n i e n c e , a l l t h e p r o d u c t s a r e numbered i n t h e d e s c e n d i n g o r d e r
of
their
respective
production
requirements
and
hence
For a given cumulative production vector <X>,

s u p p o s e p r o d u c t s h and h" are assembled at sequence positions k*
k*
and k" of the sequence respectively, i . e . = 1 and
the products assembled at sequence positions
k*
and
k"
= 1.
k"
of
If
the
sequence are interchanged, the cumulative production vector will

change.
Let <X> be the cumulative production vector after the
interchange.
<X> is given as follows:
81
f o r a l l h * h, and h" , and f o r a l l k U,..K>

for all h {h,,h">
a n d f o r a l l k {1k,-1k" " , K }
for all k {k .
for all k {k.
The
change
in
objective
value
due
to
the
interchange
A(hk h",k"), is equal to
E
E
h=i k=i
heh!!"}
\
k=k>
- kr ) 2 - ( - kr ) 2 ]
h
- kr
-(
k r )2]
k-k,
[(X,- kr h> ) 2 + ( X ^ r kr
- hii)2
1 - kr J
L
[K(<, =1^
1 - krh, ) 2
- 1) - k ( d h ,
.,]
For <X> to be an optimal solution of Problem (Us), the change in

objective
value
non-decreasing.
properties
of
after
Using
the
any
the
optimal
pairwise
idea
of
interchange
pairwise
solutions
investigated in the following propositions.
82
of
should
be
interchange,
the
Problem
(Us)
are
Propositi on 3.1
There e x i s t s a n o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n o f Problem (Us),
X>, which has
the following property

for K
2
k"
> k' t l ,
if products h,
and
h" are assembled at
sequence positions k, and k" respectively, i.e. 6^' = 1 a n d : =

1, then
k ( d h , - d h " ) ] ^ o .
_
bk.
Proof
Suppose <X> is an optimal solution of Problem (Us) and 5k= 1
h,
and= 1
where K
2 k" > k*
5
1.
If the products assembled at
sequence positions k and k" of the sequence are interchanged then

the
change
in
objective
value
due
to
the
interchange,
(hkh",k"), is equal to
If
M h , ,kh" ,k")
DH
>
interchange decreases.
"
then
Thus,
the
<X>
contradicts the optimality of <X>.
objective
value
after
the
is a better solution which

Therefore, Adi, ,kh"k")
=
0.
Hence, the proposition is true.
Using the idea of comparing the change in objective value of a

pairwise
interchange
again,
it
can be
83
shown
that
the
optimal
s o l u t i o n has the p r o p e r t i e s s t a t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g p r o p o s i t i o n .
P r o p o s i t i o n 3.2
There e x i s t s an o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n o f
Problem
(Us),
<X>,
which
s a t i s f i e s the f o l l o w i n g conditions
(i)
if d , > d , then X
h,
h"
h'
(ii)
if d
= d
for all k {1,..,K}
.
, then X k
for all k {1,..K}
(iii) X 1
Proof:
Suppose <X> i s a n o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n o f P r o b l e m ( U s ) .
When >
dû , suppose Xîi > f o r some k e {1, . . ,K> and let
k" = the minimum value of k such that X k > ^

and 5 k = 1
h"
h,
h"
and
k
k' = the minimum value of k such that = 1 and k > k " .
It follows from the above definitions of k" and kthat

for all k {k", . ,k:-I}.
Since d
n
> d
and X^|( >

n
{ k " , . . - 1 > , it is obvious that
A(h",k",h, ,lc,) = |
k * -1
E (--1)-
k(dh - ,
for all k
Thus,
t h e above i n e q u a l i t y c o n t r a d i c t s
Hence, t h e i n e q u a l i t y t h a t
<X> s a t i s f i e s c o n d i t i o n
When =
the o p t i m a l i t y o f
> X^> c a n n o t be t r u e .
<X>.
Therefore,
1 f o r some k
and l e t
k " = t h e minimum v a l u e o f k s u c h t h a t ^
> X k + 1 and 6 k
h"
h*
= l
h"
and
k = the minimum value of k such t h a t = 1 and k > k.
Since
= d h , , and
+ 1 f o r a l l k {k", . .
it is
obvious that
Aai",k",hk=
[K(X
E
ksk"
X=-
1)
> 0.
Thus, the above inequality contradicts the optimality of <X> and

hence Xîi ^
Since d
+ 1.
2
= d
h
Therefore, <X> satisfies condition (ii).
for h *
1,
if d
1
> d
h
for all h ^ 1 then it
follows from <X> satisfying condition (i) that X 1 ^ X! for all h

1
h
1.
Hence, X 1 = 1 .
i
If d
= d f o r a l l h where ^ i s a s u b s e t
h
o f {1,..
( i ) t h a t X) = 0 f o r a l l j
solution with
^ .
Hence, there exists an optimal
= 1.
85
Proposition 3.3
Let
There e x i s t s a n o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n o f P r o b l e m
( U s ) , <X>, w h i c h s a t i s f i e s t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s
(i)
if dh, > dhii then
(ii)
if d h , = t h e n
(iii)
for all k {1,. . ,K>

+ 1
a Y^.
for all k {1,. . ,K>
= 1.
Proof:
Suppose <X> is an optimal solution of Problem (Us).
d
, suppose
When d
>
h*
for some k {1..K} and let
k = the maximum value of k such that Y k
h"
> V1
h,
and 5 k
h"
= 1
and
k
k" = the minimum value of k such that5 = 1
h"
and k > k .
It follows from the above definitions of k' and k" that

for all k
{
h1'I
> ^ h
the products assembled at sequence
positions k* and k" are interchanged, it is obvious that
ku-l
M h , ,k,,h",k") = | E [K(x^- - 1 ) ksk'
kCdh,- d h J ]
- + _ 1 ) - k ( d h , - dhii)]
( t , " 4
" 1)].
S i n c e K > k and
and
> _ i f Y^,, >
thus contradicting
t h e n A(h ,k,h" k > 0
the optimality of
inequality that
<X>.
cannot be true.
Therefore,
the
Hence, <Y> satisfies
condition (i).
When d
= , s u p p o s e . Y = , + 1 for some k {1,..,K}
and let
k = the maximum value of k such that Y k > ^

+ 1 and 6 k = 1
h"
h,
h,
and
k" = the minimum value of k sucht h a t =
Since
= d, and Y^,, >
1 and k > k* .
+ 1 for all k {k, , .
), it is
obvious that
M h , h",k"= ~
k"-l
E tK(X^
[K(d
- d .. -
+ Y
1)]
[K(Yk. - Yk. - 1 ) ]
T h u s , t h e above i n e q u a l i t y c o n t r a d i c t s t h e o p t i m a l i t y o f
h e n c e Y k ^ ^ + 1.
h"
h'
Since d
^ d
<X> and
T h e r e f o r e , <Y> s a t i s f i e s c o n d i t i o n ( i i ) .
f o r h * 1, i f d
87
>
1
f o l l o w s f r o m <Y> s a t i s f y i n g c o n d i t i o n ( i ) t h a t Y1^1
K1
h 1.
Hence, Y 1
2 Y 1 ^ 1 for all
= 1.
If d
= d
f o r a l l h where ^ i s a
h
s u b s e t o f { 1 , . . ,11} t h e n i t can be deduced f r o m

=
condition ( i ) that
<Y> s a t i s f y i n g
0 f o r a l l j ^ . H e n c e , there e x i s t s an
o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n w i t h Y1 = 1.
Using the properties stated i n Propositions

(3.3), only the set
of feasible solutions
(3.1 (3.2) and
that have all
these
properties need to be considered when searching for the optimal

solution of Problem (Us).
Even though Problem (Us) is a nonlinear
integer program, if constraint (C3.2) is relaxed then the relaxed

problem can easily be solved optimally.
The optimal objective
value of the relaxed problem is a lower bound to that of Problem

(Us).
On the other hand, an upper bound for the optimal objective
value of Problem (Us) can be determined using a heuristic.
Since
efficient procedures for finding the lower and upper bounds can be
developed, a branch and bound algorithm is used to solve Problem
(Us) optimally.
As a matter of fact, most of
the
successful
algorithms for solving integer programming problems are of branch

and
bound
develop
Problem
an
type
efficient
(Us),
integrated
(Garfinkel
into
the
and
branch
properties
Nemhauser
and
bound
studied
the algorithm.
1972).
In
algorithm
in
the
for
above
order
to
solving
can
In the following section,
be
the
procedure for finding a good lower bound for the optimal objective
value of Problem (Us) is developed.
88
3 . 2 . 1 . 3 Lower bounding procedure
I t i s o b v i o u s t h a t t h e q u a l i t y o f a lower bound has a d e f i n i t e

impact
on
the
performance
of
branch
Lagrangean r e l a x a t i o n i s one o f t h e
and
bound a l g o r i t h m .
commonly used methods f o r
f i n d i n g lower bounds and i t has been shown t h a t t h i s method has

significantly
improved
the
efficiency
a l g o r i t h m ( G e o f f r i o n 1974, F i s h e r 1981).
of
branch
and
bound
To be w o r t h w h i l e , t h i s
bounding p r o c e d u r e s h o u l d reduce the o r i g i n a l problem t o a s m a l l e r

e a s i l y s o l v e d sub-problem and has a s m a l l d u a l i t y gap.
Lagrangean
r e l a x a t i o n s a t i s f i e s b o t h r e q u i r e m e n t s when a p p l y i n g t o Problem
(Us)
Let r ,
I
1
K I
1
K
n
,. . ,^ }, be a n x K d i m e n s i o n a l
n
v e c t o r o f n o n - p o s i t i v e Lagrange m u l t i p l i e r s .
After multiplying
c o n s t r a i n t (C3.2) o f Problem (Us) by r and a d d i n g t h e p r o d u c t t o

t h e o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n , the f o l l o w i n g problem i s obtained.
Problem (Ul)
M i n i m i z e ZdCD
c o n s t r a i n t s (C3.1) and (C3.3)
P r o b l e m ( U l ) i s s t i l l a n o n - l i n e a r I n t e g e r program w h i c h i s
d i f f i c u l t t o be s o l v e d o p t i m a l l y .
T h e r e f o r e , c o n s t r a i n t (C3.3) o f
P r o b l e m ( U l ) i s r e l a x e d and t h e r e l a x e d p r o b l e m i s t h e n s o l v e d .
B a s e d o n t h e o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n o f t h e r e l a x e d problem, t h e o p t i m a l
89
s o l u t i o n o f Problem ( U l ) can t h e n be determined.
I f constraint
( C 3 . 3 ) o f Problem ( U l ) i s r e l a x e d , t h e problem becomes
Problem (U2)
Minimize
s.t.
d
ZD(r)
c o n s t r a i n t s e t (C3.1) and
~ 0
h =
(C3.3')
It is worthwhile to note that Problem (U2) is just a problem of

minimizing
constraints
convex
and
its
function
optimal
Kuhn-Tucker conditions.
subject
solution
to
can
a
be
set
found
of
linear
using
the
The optimal solution of Problem (U2) is
given in the following proposition.
Proposition 3.4
For h = 1..11 and k = 1, . . ,K, if the Lagrange multiplier vector
F, F ^ 0, satisfies the inequality that
2n(kr - d ) ^ n ( / -
h
+ 1
I
,
,,
then
90
"^
+ 1 ) s 2nkr
(3'2)
+kr
2n
(3.3)
i s t h e o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n o f P r o b l e m (U2).
Proof
If <X> always satisfies constraint (C3.3'), it is obvious that
the
Lagrangian
associated
with
Problem
(U2), L ( X r , n )
is
as
follows:
It can easily be shown that the first order necessary conditions

(Kuhn-Tucker conditions) for a solution to be optimal are
8 L(X>r,n)
dX
= 2(Xk k r +
h
h
- rk+1 +
h
8 L(X>r>n
'> =
dn
k
E
h=i
- k = 0
for all k
Since
8 L
xr,n) = o
k
k
ax
for all h, j and k,
t
r = 0
k
for all h and k
and
a 2 L(x,r,n)
(axk)2
f o r a l l h and k ,
i t i s obvious that
ZDCD i s
convex f u n c t i o n .
Hence,
the
s o l u t i o n o f t h e above two f i r s t o r d e r n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n s ,
+ kr for all h and k,

h
i s t h e o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n o f P r o b l e m (U2) i f d
2n(kr
- d ) ^ n(2rk
h
h
r
,-
^
J
^ X k ^ 0, i . e .
h
h
^ 2nkr
K
h
Hence, t h e p r o p o s i t i o n i s t r u e .
S i n c e i t i s s t i l l d i f f i c u l t t o determine the optimal s o l u t i o n

o f Problem (Ul) based on the optimal s o l u t i o n o f Problem (U2)a
slight
modification
of
Problem
objective function of Problem
(U2)
(U2)
problem is obtained.
92
is
considered.
is modified,
If
the
the following
Problem (U3)
Minimize
" f t
J]
J] J x J k=i h=i (
f
2- D ~
k r + j=i j
L h
2n
]I
J/
s . t . c o n s t r a i n t s ( C 3 . 1 ) and (C3.3.
where B
It
is shown in the following proposition that the objective
functions of Problems
term*
(U2) and
(U3) differ only by a constant
Hence, these two problems have the same set of optimal
solutions.
Proposition 3.5
Problems (U2) and (U3) have the same set of feasible solutions and
the same set of optimal solutions.
Proof:
It is obvious that Problems (U2) and (U3) have the same set of
feasible solutions as the constraints of both the problems are the
same.
It can be shown from expanding and regrouping the terms in
the objective function of Problem (U3) that
93
k=l h=l
2n
The summation t e r m i n t h e above e q u a t i o n i s a c o n s t a n t f o r a g i v e n

T.
Therefore, f e a s i b l e s o l u t i o n s t h a t minimize the o b j e c t i v e
f u n c t i o n o f P r o b l e m (U2) would a l s o m i n i m i z e t h a t o f P r o b l e m (U3).

Hence, t h e s e two pr o bl em s have t h e same s e t o f o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n s .
The
optimal
solution
of
Problem
(U3)
satisfies a l l
c o n s t r a i n t s o f Problem (Ul) except c o n s t r a i n t (C3.3).
the
However, i t
i s not d i f f i c u l t t o adjust t h i s s o l u t i o n t o s a t i s f y constraint

(C3.3).
L e t <Xk> =
. . , X k } R n satisfy equation (3.3and R

n
94
i s t h e s e t o f r e a l numbers.
I n a d j u s t i n g the s o l u t i o n ,
the
p r o b l e m i s t o f i n d t h e n e a r e s t i n t e g e r p o i n t <Mk> = {Mk , . . , M k >

1
Qn
n
to the real point <X k > where
J] #
h=l
non-negative
integers
(Miltenburg
= k and Q is the set of
1989).
Algorithm
of
Miltenburg (1989) can be used to find <Mk> for all k {1, . . ,K}.
Thus, for a given T that satisfies inequality (3.2), the optimal
solution of Problem
(Ul) can be determined based on the optimal
solution of Problem (U3).
It has been shown that the vector <Mk> obtained by Miltenburg's

algorithm
(Miltenburg
satisfies
1989).
the
inequality
Therefore,
that
|M= -
the optimal solution of Problem
(Ul) possibly violates only constraint (C3.Z) of Problem (Us).
good lower bound for the optimal objective value of Problem (Us)
can be
obtained
by
determining an appropriate vector
minimizes the difference between Z D C D
and Z.
F which
The problem of
finding such a Lagrange multiplier vector F is formulated as the

following mathematical program.
Problem (D)
Maximize { Z D C D | F ^ 0>
For solving problems like Problem (D), subgradient optimization

procedure is frequently used
to produce a sequence of Lagrange
multipliers that converge to an optimal or a near optimal dual
95
solution.
T h i s p r o c e d u r e has been s u c c e s s f u l l y u s e d f o r s o l v i n g a
v a r i e t y o f c o m b i n a t o r i a l problems
Karp 1971, Held et al, 1974).
( G a v i s h 1978 1982, Held and
In some computational tests (Fisher
1981), lower bounds obtained from this procedure deviate slightly

from the optimal solutions.
However, Problem (Us) has a special
characteristic that requires a very good lower bound to cut down

the number of pending nodes to be tested.
The difference between
the objective value of a near optimal solution and
the optimal
objective value tends to get smaller as the total number of units

of products to be produced
(i.e. K ) increases.
In addition, in
using the subgradient optimization procedure to find the vector F,

it is found that the quality of r depends heavily on the choice of
initial step size.
However, it is very difficult to find a rule
for choosing a good initial step size.
If the choice of initial
step size is not good, a large number of iterations is required to

improve the quality of F.
Therefore, a more effective procedure
is needed to find a good lower bound.
Instead
of
using
subgradient
optimization
procedure,
heuristic is developed for solving Problem (D).
The basic idea of
the
solved
heuristic
Algorithm
is
that
Problem
1 of Miltenburg
(Ul)
is
first
(1989) with F =
infeasible sequence position (i.e.
0.
by using
Then for each
- 1)>
the objective
value of Problem (Ul) is increased by adjusting the vector T while

keeping
the vector
position k,
the
positions k-1, k
<M>
unchanged.
For an infeasible sequence
Lagrange multipliers
and k+1
associated with
are adjusted
96
so as
to
sequence
increase
the
objective value.
From e q u a t i o n
(3.3),
whenever
t h e Lagrange
m u l t i p l i e r s a r e v a r i e d , t h e v e c t o r <X> w i l l change and hence t h e

vector
<M> may a l s o change.
adjustments
made
certain limits.
on
the
I n o r d e r t o k e e p <M> unchanged, t h e
Lagrange m u l t i p l i e r s
I t h a s been p r o v e d t h a t f o r
{1,..>K>, there exists an a
must
be w i t h i n
a given k,
[0,1] such that
(3.4)
for all h if and only if <Mk> is the nearest integer point to x S

(Miltenburg 1989).
obvious that
Substituting r = 0 into equation3.3), it is
= kr .
Hence, a
= max{Mk - kr , h = 1,..,n}
h
satisfies inequality (3.4) for all h.
Therefore, in order to keep
<M> unchanged, the adjustments made on the Lagrange multipliers

and hence on <X> must satisfy inequalities (3.2) and (3.4 i.e.
2n(kr - d ) s n(r^ r^ +1 ) h
r^ +1 ) ^ 2 n k r
j
and
2n[krh-
^n ( -
+ 1
E
(
2 n ( k r
h +
For an infeasible sequence position k, the problem of finding F to

increase the value of Z D C D is formulated as the following linear
program.
97
Maximize
J]
Y r f M s - M s - 1 )
h
h
J
s=k-i h=i h
2n{sr + max[ (a -1) - M s , -d ]> ^n

h
s
h
<
_( i )^
1+
j=i
s = k - l , k a n d k + 1 h = 1,..n
n (
<
-c
)
-
2n[sr + min(0,a - Ms)]

h
s
h
s = k - l , k and k+1 h = 1,..,n

- 0
s = k - 1 , k and k+1 h = 1,..,n
Since <M> is kept unchanged, the term (Mk - kr ) 2 in Z D C D is a

h
h
constant.
As
- M ^ 1 ) is the only term in Z D C D that can be

h
increased by changing r, the objective of the linear program is to

maximize
the
increase
in
ZDCD
by
adjusting
the
Lagrange
multipliers associated with sequence positions k-1, k and
k+1.
that for any feasible r, <XS> given by
The constraints ensure
equation (3.3) is the optimal solution of Problem (U2) and even if

F and hence <XS> are varied, <MS> is still the nearest integer
point
to
<XS>.
The
linear
program
corresponding
to
each
infeasible sequence position is solved sequentially starting from

the last infeasible sequence position, and the vectors F and <X>
are updated accordingly.
variations
positions
of
k
the
to
K,
Hence, the lower bound for the sum of
optimal
LB(k),
sequence
schedule
can
determined.
be
from
sequence
Empirical
computational tests indicate that the heuristic developed in this
98
s e c t i o n i s s u p e r i o r t o t h e u s u a l s u b g r a d i e n t o p t i m i z a t i o n method.
The i n t u i t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h a t i n s u b g r a d i e n t o p t i m i z a t i o n
procedure
<M> o s c i l l a t e s w i t h t h e v e c t o r R and hence ZDCD a l s o
o s c i l l a t e s w i t h <r>.
Therefore, i t
takes
large
number o f
i t e r a t i o n s t o improve t h e s o l u t i o n q u a l i t y .
3 . 2 . 1 . 4 Upper bounding Procedure
I t i s o b v i o u s t h a t when P r o b l e m ( U l ) i s s o l v e d o p t i m a l l y , i f
^
f o r a l l h e { 1 , . . , n } and k g { 1 , . . , K } , a n o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n
o f P r o b l e m (Us) i s o b t a i n e d .
O t h e r w i s e , t h e sequence s c h e d u l e
d e r i v e d i s i n f e a s i b l e and M i l t e n b u r g (1989) p r o p o s e d A l g o r i t h m 3
i n his
paper
to
correct
the
infeasibility.
However,
the
performance o f h i s a l g o r i t h m tends t o worsen w i t h i n c r e a s i n g

number o f p r o d u c t s i n t h e system.
I n o r d e r t o f i n d a good i n i t i a l
u p p e r bound, a b e t t e r a l g o r i t h m i s needed.
development
of
more
efficient
and
The a n a l y s i s f o r t h e
effective heuristic i s
o u t l i n e d below.
F o r a g i v e n a s s e m b l y sequence o f t h e f i r s t k p r o d u c t s , wk, t h e
sum o f t h e v a r i a t i o n s f o r t h e f i r s t k+2 p r o d u c t s w i t h p a r t i a l
sequence toc, and w i t h p r o d u c t a s c h e d u l e d a t sequence p o s i t i o n k+1
a n d p r o d u c t b s c h e d u l e d a t sequence p o s i t i o n k+2 i s d e n o t e d b y
V
(7ik,a,b).
k+2
I t i s n o t d i f f i c u l t t o n o t e t h a t t h e sum o f t h e
v a r i a t i o n s f o r the f i r s t k products,
V k (7rkis independent of
products scheduled at sequence positions k+1 and k+2.
99
Therefore,
i n comparing d e c i s i o n s made I n s c h e d u l i n g d i f f e r e n t p r o d u c t s a t
t h e s e two p o s i t i o n s , o n l y t h e sum o f t h e v a r i a t i o n s o f sequence
p o s i t i o n s k+1 and k+2 corresponding t o each d e c i s i o n needs t o be
compared.
Hence, o n l y the v a l u e o f V
(irk,a,b) ~ V (71k) needs t o

k+2
k
be e v a l u a t e d and compared f o r t h e p r o d u c t s a and b s p e c i f i e d i n

e a c h sequence s c h e d u l i n g d e c i s i o n .
When examining
2(7nc,a,b)-
(irk) i n d e t a i l ,
K+
( 7 i k , a , b ) - V (irk)
2
k
1 - (k+1 ) r ] 2 + [X k + 1 + 1 - (k+2)r ] 2
a
b
b
+ I { [x k - ( k + l ) r ] 2 + tx k - (k+2)r ]2>
.
m
ni
m
m*a,Lb
It is worthwhile to note that when making pairwise comparison of

V
(rrk,a,b)
k+2
values of
some m.
k
m
( k + l ) r ] 2 and [X k m
m
(k+2)r ] 2 a r e t h e same f o r
m
T h e r e f o r e , n o t a l l t h e terms i n t h e above e q u a t i o n need
t o be e v a l u a t e d i n each comparison.
The
following
notations
are
necessary i n
presenting
the
subsequent mathematical a n a l y s i s .
(Trk,0,b)
k+2
= sum o f t h e v a r i a t i o n s f o r t h e f i r s t k+2 p r o d u c t s
w i t h p a r t i a l sequence irk,
and w i t h no p r o d u c t
s c h e d u l e d a t sequence p o s i t i o n k+1 and p r o d u c t b

sch e du le d a t sequence p o s i t i o n k+2
100
(Trk,a,0)
=sum
o f t h e v a r i a t i o n s f o r t h e f i r s t k+2 p r o d u c t s
with partial
sequence
itk,
and w i t h p r o d u c t
s c h e d u l e d a t sequence p o s i t i o n k+1 and no p r o d u c t

s c h e d u l e d a t sequence p o s i t i o n k+2
(7rk,0,0)
= sum o f t h e v a r i a t i o n s f o r t h e f i r s t k+2 p r o d u c t s
w i t h p a r t i a l sequence irk,
and w i t h no p r o d u c t
s c h e d u l e d a t sequence p o s i t i o n s k+1 and k+2

= incremental v a r i a t i o n o f scheduling product a a t
sequence p o s i t i o n k+1 and p r o d u c t b a t sequence
p o s i t i o n k+2
= V
k+2
(7nc,a,b) - V
k+2
(^,0,0)
( 7 r k , a , b , c ) = sum o f t h e v a r i a t i o n s f o r t h e f i r s t k+3 p r o d u c t s
with partial
sequence
toc,
and w i t h p r o d u c t
scheduled a t
sequence p o s i t i o n k+1,
product
a
b
s.cheduled a t sequence p o s i t i o n k+2 and p r o d u c t c

s c h e d u l e d a t sequence p o s i t i o n k+3
( T t k , 0 , 0 , 0 = sum of the variations for the first k+3 products
with partial
sequence
thc,
and with no product
scheduled at sequence positions k+1, k+2 and k+3
(TCka,bc = incremental variation of scheduling product a at

sequence
position
k+1,
product
at
sequence
position k+2 and product c at sequence position

k+3
= V
k+3
(irk,a,b,c) - V
k+3
101
(7rk,00,0)
P,
K+d
Pk
the value o f a which minimizes V
+2
q.K + J
i s
the value o f a (a ^ p k
i s
the value o f c which minimizes V
+2
) w h i c h m i n i m i z e s V k +2 (7nc,a,0)
q k + 3 is the value of c (c * q ^ )
<
3k+ 3 i s the value of c

V
The
(irk.a.O)
k+2
(7rk,0,0c)
k+3
which minimizes V k + 3 (^,0,0, c)
(c * q k + 3 and c
(7rk,0,0c)
terms
JCfZ
(7rk,0,c),
(trk,a,0),
C
i ^
Vk+3(7nc,0,0,0) are arbitrarily introduced
at
sequence
position
k+2,
(rrk,0,0)
K+2
and
in order to facilitate
the presentation of mathematical analysis.

scheduled
the
For a given product

product
scheduled
at
sequence position k+1 which minimizes the sum of the variations

for the first k+2 positions can be found by comparing n different
possible decisions.
A more efficient way
to find the product
scheduled at position k+1 is given in the following proposition.
Proposition 3.6
For a given partial sequence trk, when product b is scheduled at
s e q u e n c e p o s i t i o n k+2, and a
V
k+2
i s the v a l u e o f a which minimizes
(7ika,b) (a, b = 1,. .,11), then
(3.5)
U (u{p k + 2 ,P k +2 } ) which minimizes Vk+2(Trk,u,b) if b = P k + 2
102
Proof
F o r a = 1..,n; b = 1,..,n, it is obvious from the definition
of V
7rk,a,b) that
k+2
m i n {V
k +2
(7i:k,a,b)> = V
k + 2 ( 7 r k , 0 > 0 ) +m
I t c a n be shown f r o m t h e d e f i n i t i o
i n
{Vk+ 2(TCk>a,b)}.
(3.6)
7ik,a,0)Vk+2(TCk,00)
and V k+2 (TCk,0,b) t h a t
/ (irk,a,0) = V (ttk) + [x1" + 1- (

k+2
k
a
k
+ I {[x - (
i i
[)^ +1 a
(k+2)r ]
a
- (k+2)r ] >
m
(rrk, 0 , 0 ) = V (mc) + Y { [X k - (k
k+2
^
[xk - (k+2)r ] 2 >

ro
m
(7rk,0,b) = V (Tik) + tX k - (k+1)
+ 1 (k+2)r ] 2
b
k+2
+ I {[xk -(
[X k (k+2)r ] 2 }
I n a d d i t i o n , i t c a n e a s i l y be shown
(k+l)r ]
a
(k+2)r ]
V
k+2
(7rk,a,b) = 2[X^ ( k + 2 ) r J
b
b
(k+l)r ]
b
(k+2)r ]
103
i f a ^ b
(3.7)
i f
Hence, when b
( 7 r k , P
[X
k+2
, 0 )
- (k+l)r
k+2
a,0)
] + [Xk
k+2
f o ra l l a
- (k+2)r
^k+2
= 1,..,]
]
Pk+2
[ < - ( k + l ) r ] + [X^ ~ ( k + 2 ) r ]
for a l l a =
(3.8)
I t c a n t h e r e f o r e be deduced f r o m e q u a t i o n s ( 3 . 6 ) and ( 3 . 7 ) and

i n e q u a l i t y (3.8) t h a t
Pk+2
(3.9)
However, when b = p k + 2 , the definition of
It
k+2
(Trk,p
can
^k+2
also
,0) ^ V
k+2
be
(7rk,a0)
deduced
from
implies that
for a * p
k+2
equations
(3.6)
(3.10)
and
(3.7)
and
inequality (3.10) that
a* = u (u {pk 2 p k + 2 > ) which m i n i m i z e s ( 7 r k , u , b
104
3.11)
I n v i e w o f e q u a t i o n s ( 3 . 9 ) and ( 3 . 1 1 ) , t h e p r o p o s i t i o n i s p r o v e d .
U s i n g s i m i l a r i d e a , t h e a n a l y s i s i s extended t o c o n s i d e r the
incremental v a r i a t i o n o f
For
given
products
positions,
scheduled
the product
minimizes the
three consecutive
at
the
scheduled a t
sequence p o s i t i o n s .
first
two
consecutive
the next p o s i t i o n ,
incremental v a r i a t i o n ,
which
c a n e a s i l y be d e t e r m i n e d
u s i n g the f o l l o w i n g proposition.
Proposition 3.7
For
a given p a r t i a l
sequence irk,
when p r o d u c t
a scheduled a t
sequence p o s i t i o n k+1 and p r o d u c t b s c h e d u l e d a t sequence p o s i t i o n

k+2,
and
is
the
value
of
c which
minimizes
Vk+3(7nc,a,bc)
(a, b and c = 1,.,n),
if a and b * q
u (u{q k + 3 ,q k + 3 }) which
if
minimizes X k + 2 - (k+3)r
u
u
V ( V {
S + 3' \
\ +3 } )
and b * 5 k + 3
i f
which minimizes x k + 2 - (k+3)r
105
or b = q k + 3 , and
= q k + 3 and b = o r
(3.12)
Proof:
Let
be
Suppose p r o d u c t
the
value
m is
of
which minimizes
scheduled a t
V^^{nk y s.,b t c ) .
sequence p o s i t i o n k+3,
the
d e f i n i t i o n o f V k + 3 (7rk,a,b,m) and V k + 3 (7rk,0,0,m) i m p l i e s t h a t
V k + 3 (7rk,a,b,m) = V ^ f T t k , a , b ) + ^ [^+ 2 - (k+3)r ]

1 - (k+3)r
k+2
K+2
i t
- Ck+3)r ]
(irk,0,0)
(7Ck,ab) - V
K+2
2[Xk - (k+3)]
(7nc,0,0) + 2[5^ - (k+3)r

a
i
k+3
(abm)
where
k+3
(a,b,m)
2[X - (k+3)r ] + 3
m
m
if a * b * m
2 [ ^ -k+3)r ] + 9
m
m
if a = b = m
2 [ ^ - (k+3)r ] + 5
if a * b and b = m
2[)^ - (k+3)r ] + 5
m
n
i
if a = b and b ^ m
2 [ ^ - (k+3)r ] + 5
if a b and a = m
and
k+3
(7ik,0,0,m) = 2 [ ^ - (k+3)r ] + 1
m
c* c a n be found b y c o n s i d e r i n g the f o l l o w i n g cases:
106
(3.13)
Gase
(1)
when
definition of
and
implies that
S W
k+3
( a > b , c )
= 1 ,n.
Therefore,
V k +3(TCk,a,b>qk+3 ) < U i r k A b
for c =
Hence, c # = q k + 3
(3.14)
Case (2) when a or b =

( 3 . 1 3 ) the definition of
k+3
(7rk,a,b,q
k+ 3
) ^ V
k+ 3
^ , and a and b *
^ from e q u a t i o n
implies that
(7rk,a,b,c
for all c * nq
k+3
and hence
V k + 3(^,a,b,c*) = min{V k+ 3(7nca,bqk+ 3Vk+3(7rk,a,b,îk+3h
107
Since
( a , b , m) i s a l s o e q u a l t o
2 [ X k + 2 - (k+3)r ] + 3
m
m
k+3
(a,b,m)
i f a
*b m
2 [ X k + 2 (k+3)r ] + 5
m
m
if a = b
2[X k + 2 - (k+3)r ] + 3
m
m
if a
2 [ ^
m
2 [ - ( k + 3 ) r ] + 3
i f a
b and
if a = b
- (k+3)r ] + 5
m
= m
and
b and
i t c a n t h e r e f o r e b e deduced f r o m e q u a t i o n ( 3 . 1 3 ) t h a t
which minimizes X
.k+2
- (k+3)
(3.15)
w h e r e u {q
, q
)
^k+3 ^k+3
Case (3) when a = q

q
and b = q
, or when a = q
, from equation (3.13), the definition of q
k+3
(7nc,a,b,q
) Vi
(Tck,a,b,c)
for a l l c q
a n d hence
k+3 (7nc, a ,b,q k+3 )

(TTk,a,b,c ) = m i n
Vk+3^k,a,b,qk+3)
V k+3 (inc,a,b,q k+3 )
108
and b
implies that
and q
I t c a n be deduced from e q u a t i o n (3.13) t h a t
= v w h i c h m i n i m i z e s X1^2 - (k+3)r
where v {q
, q
H q
k+3
(3.16)
>.
I n v i e w o f e q u a t i o n s ( 3 . 1 4 ) , (3.15) and ( 3 . 1 6 ) , P r o p o s i t i o n ( 3 . 7 )
i s proved.
Propositions
(3.6)
and
(3.7)
are
incorporated
into
the
f o l l o w i n g h e u r i s t i c w h i c h determines t h e p r o d u c t t o be scheduled
a t e a c h sequence p o s i t i o n .
H e u r i s t i c 3A
Step 1
Determine t h e sequence s c h e d u l e u s i n g A l g o r i t h m 1 o f M i l t e n b u r g
(1989).
I f t h e sequence s c h e d u l e i s f e a s i b l e , s t o p .
Step 2
For an i n f e a s i b l e
sequence p o s i t i o n t ,
set
p r o d u c t s h w i t h i n f e a s i b l e schedule a t x , i . e .
Set k = t - v - 1*
109
T.l
F i n d $k+i and $k+2, t h e r e s p e c t i v e s e t s o f p r o d u c t s a v a i l a b l e

t o be s c h e d u l e d a t sequence p o s i t i o n s k+1 and k+2.
Step 3
T e n t a t i v e l y schedule the f i r s t product i n
$k+2 a t
sequence
p o s i t i o n k+2, and u p d a t e $k+i i f n e c e s s a r y .

I n i t i a l i z e t h e sum o f t h e v a r i a t i o n s o f p o s i t i o n s k+1, k+2 and
k+3, i m i n , b y s e t t i n g i m i n = oo.
Determine
Pk+2,
Pk+2>
q k +3 ,
and
qk+3
as
defined
previously.
Step 4
Find
product
variations
of
(a
the
$k+i) which
first
k+2
Proposition (3.6), i.e. find a
minimizes
products,
the
sum
of
Vk+2(Trka,b),
the
using
which satisfies equation (3.5),
and t e n t a t i v e l y s c h e d u l e p r o d u c t a a t sequence p o s i t i o n t+1.
F i n d product
variations
of
(c
$k+3) which
minimizes
scheduling products a , b
the
and
incremental
at
sequence
positions k+1, k+2 and k+3 respectively, U 7 1 ^ , 2 1 , b , c )using

Proposition
(3.7),
i.e.
find
which
satisfies
equation
(3.12).
Compute V
(irk,a , b , c ) and i f
r
k+3
*
set a, - a
and imin =
110
(rrk,a , b , c )
k+3
*
, b c )
< imin then
Step 5
I f a l l the products i n
$k+2 have been t e n t a t i v e l y s c h e d u l e d
then
s c h e d u l e p r o d u c t a, a t sequence p o s i t i o n k+1, i . e . s e t
else
s e t b = t h e n e x t p r o d u c t a v a i l a b l e i n k+2 and g o t o S t e p 4
end i f .
S e t k = k + 1 and i f t h e sequence s c h e d u l e matches w i t h t h e

schedule determined i n Step 1 then repeat steps 2 t o 5 f o r
o t h e r i n f e a s i b l e sequence p o s i t i o n s e l s e g o t o S t e p 3 .
I f t h e sequence s c h e d u l e i s f e a s i b l e f o r a l l o t h e r sequence
p o s i t i o n s then stop.
U s i n g t h e h e u r i s t i c , a n i n i t i a l upper bound f o r Problem (Us)

c a n be determined.
The number o f computations f o r f i n d i n g t h e
p r o d u c t t o be s c h e d u l e d a t e a c h sequence p o s i t i o n i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y
2n2.
A n u m e r i c a l example i s used t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e c o m p u t a t i o n a l
a s p e c t o f H e u r i s t i c 3A.
= d
line.
= 6 and d
There a r e n = 3 p r o d u c t s w i t h demands
= 1 to be assembled on a mixed-model assembly
Hence, r = r = 6/13 and

1
2
in
rJ =
1/13.
When applying
H e u r i s t i c 3A, S t e p 1 g i v e s t h e f o l l o w i n g s c h e d u l e :
Sequence p o s i t i o n
Product scheduled
(1,0,0)
(1,1,0
(2,1,0)
(2,2,0)
(2,2,1)
(3.3.0)
1,2,-3
(3.3.1)
Sequence position 6 is infeasible as during the position one unit

of product 1 and one unit of product 2 must be produced while one
unit of product 3 must be 'destroyed' .
and k = x
p
2,
^k+2
\
- y - 1 = 4.
+
In Step 2, x = 6,
In Step 3, it is found that p k +
1, q k + 3 = 2 and
3.
Step 4 gives the
following table:
k+3(7rka ,b,<
-3.69
-3.69
-3.08
Since the values of V
k+3
(rrk,a , b c a r e the same for b = 1 and 2,
ties are broken arbitrarily and the partial sequence corresponds

to the case that b = 1 is chosen.
112
Thus, adetermined in step 5
i s equal to 2.
Therefore,
<M > = { 2 , 3 , 0 } w h i c h matches w i t h t h e
sequence found i n s t e p 1.
Steps 2 t o 5 a r e then repeated f o r
o t h e r i n f e a s i b l e sequence p o s i t i o n s .
The sequence s c h e d u l e f o u n d
b y H e u r i s t i c 3A i s 1 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 1 - - 2 - 1 - 2 w h i c h i s t h e o p t i m a l
The t o t a l v a r i a t i o n s o f t h i s s c h e d u l e i s
4.615.
U s i n g t h e t i g h t bounds f o u n d by t h e p r o c e d u r e s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e
p r e v i o u s two s e c t i o n s , a n e f f i c i e n t b r a n c h and bound a l g o r i t h m i s
developed i n t h i s s e c t i o n .
I t i s w o r t h w h i l e t o note t h a t once t h e
l o w e r bound o f t h e sum o f the v a r i a t i o n s o f sequence p o s i t i o n s k

t o K, L B ( k ) , i s found,
a good lower bound f o r t h e
sum o f t h e
v a r i a t i o n s f r o m sequence p o s i t i o n s 1 t o K c a n be determined.
For
a p a r t i c u l a r p a r t i a l sequence f r o m sequence p o s i t i o n s 1 t o ( k - 1 ) ,
t h e l o w e r bound i s e q u a l t o t h e
p a r t i a l sequence and L B ( k ) .
(Us)
sum o f t h e v a r i a t i o n s o f t h e
An
c a n be f o u n d b y H e u r i s t i c
i n i t i a l upper bound o f Problem

3A d e s c r i b e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s
section.
The s e a r c h s t r a t e g y used i s d e p t h - f i r s t .
With t h i s strategy
t h e memory r e q u i r e d f o r t h e b r a n c h i n g p r o c e d u r e c a n be k e p t t o a
minimum.
The b r a n c h i n g r u l e used i s t o s e l e c t t h e pending node
w h i c h h a s t h e l o w e s t lower bound among 3.11 t h e p e n d i n g nodes.
113
The b r a n c h and bound a l g o r i t h m d e s c r i b e d I n t h e

programmed i n FORTRAN.
above
was
I t s performance was e v a l u a t e d by u s i n g a
s e t o f 90 randomly generated t e s t problems.

o f p r o d u c t s ranged from 3 t o 9.
The number o f t y p e s
The t o t a l p r o d u c t i o n q u a n t i t y o f
f i n a l p r o d u c t s i n t h e p l a n n i n g h o r i z o n (K) o f t h e t e s t problems
was i n t h e range o f 50 t o 500.
were
generated.
conducted.
Two
sets
F o r each c a s e , f i v e t e s t problems
of
computational
experiments
were
The f i r s t one was used t o t e s t t h e s e n s i t i v i t y o f t h e
p r o c e d u r e t o t h e number o f t y p e s o f p r o d u c t s i n the system.
The
s e c o n d s e t o f e x p e r i m e n t s was c a r r i e d o u t on the 6 p r o d u c t - t y p e
p r o b l e m and i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e s e n s i t i v i t y o f t h e procedure t o t h e
total
production quantity o f f i n a l
products i n
the p l a n n i n g
horizon.
The c o m p u t a t i o n a l r e s u l t s f o r t h e f i r s t s e t o f experiments a r e
summarized i n T a b l e 3 . 1 .
ub
and Z
lb
are the t o t a l v a r i a t i o n s
o b t a i n e d b y t h e methods d e s c r i b e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n s t o f i n d
t h e upper bound and t h e lower bound r e s p e c t i v e l y .
i s the
t o t a l v a r i a t i o n s o b t a i n e d b y t h e b r a n c h and bound a l g o r i t h m .
C o m p u t a t i o n a l t i m e a r e g i v e n i n CPU seconds o f a Vax computer.
114
T a b l e 3 . 1 Computational r e s u l t s o f t h e b r a n c h and bound a l g o r i t h m
Total
Number
of types production
of
quantity
(K)
products
(n)
The
m m
max
min
CPU.time
in
seconds
100
mean
m m
mean
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
00
00
00
00
00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
01
04
07
08
08
0.05
0.12
0.21
0.28
0.31
0.15
0.33
0.33
0.44
0.90
00
00
00
00
00
0.18
1.54
0.38
0.42
0.42
0.89
5.84
0.65
1.84
l.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
14
09
05
02
19
0.56
0.28
0.24
0.10
0.37
0.04
1.01
1.09
2.36
5.79
0.92
1.75
2.30
3.09
17.04
1.76
2.11
3.22
4.07
54.62
00
11
06
18
38
0.28
1.01
0.66
0.05
0.74
1.42
1.48
1.23
0.88
1.15
0.41 2.51
0.35 6.30
0.10 8.60
0.23 14.26
0.25 1 4 . 8 1
4.36
7.36
10.78
21.96
22.59
5.73
8.32
13.06
39.10
37.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50
100
150
200
250
50
100
150
200
250
of
mean
lb
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50
100
150
200
250
performance
100
the
branch
00
00
00
00
00
and
0.20
0.10
0.02
0.09
0.09
bound
algorithm
is
characterized i n the f o l l o w i n g observations:

( a ) The
lower
bounds
generated
by
the
Lagrangean r e l a x a t i o n
p r o c e d u r e o f a l l t h e t e s t problems a r e v e r y s h a r p .
bound i s w i t h i n 0 . 5 6 p e r c e n t o f t h e o p t i m a l v a l u e .
The w o r s t
I n some
cases the optimal solution of Problem (Ul) is also an optimal

solution of Problem (Us).
(b) For a given K, computing
times seem
to
increase with n .
However, any decisive conclusions cannot be drawn since the

number of problems solved is relatively small.
115
( c ) H e u r i s t i c 3A u s u a l l y generates r a t h e r good upper bound.
The
average percentage d e v i a t i o n from the o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n i s 0 . 3 8

p e r c e n t and the maximum d e v i a t i o n i s 5 . 8 4 p e r c e n t .
T a b l e 3 . 2 p r e s e n t s t h e computational r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d on the 6
p r o d u c t - t y p e (n = 6) sequencing problem w i t h t h e t o t a l p r o d u c t i o n
q u a n t i t y i n the p l a n n i n g h o r i z o n (K) s e t t i n g s e q u e n t i a l l y t o 300
400 and 500.
Five problems were generated for each value of T.
Table 3.2 Sensitivity analysis of the computing time for the

branch and bound algorithm
( *
reached t h e upper l i m i t on computing time and Z
i s replaced
opt
b y t h e b e s t s o l u t i o n g i v e n by t h e b r a n c h and bound a l g o r i t h m )
Total
production
quantity
Problem
number
100
0.33
0.49
1.41
0.05
0.61
0.62
0.14
0.83
0.37
0.29
0 . 2 0
0.40
0.90^
1.50
0*02
116
opt
1b
0.20
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.14
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.09
0.02*
0.27
0.03.
0.19
100
CPU time
in
seconds
9.02
14.17
9.07
25.03
18.21
66.87
14.04
11.56
12.88
27.04
14.93 #
180.00
13.16^
180.00
9.28
A s e x p e c t e d , computing t i m e s a r e h i g h l y dependent on t h e t o t a l
production quantity i n
the
planning
horizon.
This
can
be
e x p l a i n e d by t h e f a c t s t h a t as K i n c r e a s e s , t h e d i f f e r e n c e between
t h e o b j e c t i v e v a l u e o f a n e a r - o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n and t h e o p t i m a l
o b j e c t i v e v a l u e tends t o become s m a l l e r , and t h e nuinber
nodes i n c r e a s e s d r a m a t i c a l l y .
Therefore,
l o n g e r computing t i m e
was s p e n t on b r a n c h and bound p r o c e s s .
3 . 2 . 1 . 6 Sequence s c h e d u l e f o r l a r g e s c a l e problems
For
large
scale
problems,
described i n section 3.2.1.5

the
takes
medium s i z e
and
bound a l g o r i t h m
long time t o f i n d the
I n t h i s c a s e , H e u r i s t i c 3A c a n be used t o f i n d
a good s o l u t i o n t o Problem (Us).

of
branch
From t h e c o m p u t a t i o n a l r e s u l t s
assembly s e q u e n c i n g problems p r e s e n t e d i n t h e
p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n , t h e performance o f t h e h e u r i s t i c i s good.
For
l a r g e s c a l e p r o b l e m s , t h e performance o f H e u r i s t i c 3A was f u r t h e r
e v a l u a t e d b y u s i n g a s e t o f 120 randomly g e n e r a t e d t e s t problems.
The number o f t y p e s o f p r o d u c t s ranged f r o m 3 t o 9 .
The t o t a l
p r o d u c t i o n q u a n t i t y i n t h e p l a n n i n g h o r i z o n f o r t h e t e s t problems
F o r e a c h c a s e , t e n t e s t problems
were randomly g e n e r a t e d .
The performance o f H e u r i s t i c 3A i s summarized i n T a b l e 3 . 3 .

The c o m p u t a t i o n a l r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d u s i n g a Vax computer.
117
Zi,
22 and ZA a r e t h e r e s p e c t i v e t o t a l v a r i a t i o n s o b t a i n e d b y u s i n g
A l g o r i t h m 3 ( w i t h H e u r i s t i c 1) and A l g o r i t h m 3 w i t h ( H e u r i s t i c 2 )
o f M i l t e n b u r g (1989), and H e u r i s t i c 3A.
Hi,
H2 and HA a r e t h e
mean CPU t i m e i n seconds f o r u s i n g A l g o r i t h m 3 ( w i t h H e u r i s t i c s 1

a n d 2 ) and H e u r i s t i c 3A r e s p e c t i v e l y .
T a b l e 3 . 3 C o m p u t a t i o n a l r e s u l t s o f H e u r i s t i c 3A
Total
No. o f
products production
quantity
Zl
2 A noo
2 2
mean
max
0.86
0.12
0.44
0.32
100
500
1000
1500
0.00 0.09
0.00 0.02
0.00 0.12
0.00 0.08
100
500
1000
1500
100
500
1000
1500
*100
ZA
2A
min
_Z
min
mean
max
mean CPU t i m e
i n seconds
Hi
H2
HA
0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.10 0.63 1.63

0.00 0.14 0.43
0.00 0.33 0.93
0.07 0.27 0.52
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.02
0.00 0.03
0.00 0.03
0.00
0.07
0.10
0.16
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.10
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.08
0.10 2.14 4.93

0.01 0.58 1.42
0.00 0.46 1.15
0.00 0.28 0.68
0.00 0.48 1.64

0.00 0.02 0.09
0.00 0.04 0.16
0.00 0.03 0.10
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.03
0.09
0.18
0.23
0.03
0.07
0.08
0.16
From T a b l e 3 . 3 , t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s
(a) Heuristic 3A produces the least total variation than Algorithm
3
of Miltenburg
(with Heuristics 1 and 2) in all the test
problems.
118
(b Although Algorithm 3
(with Heuristic
1) requires the least
amount of computational effort in all cases, the quality of

solutions (in terms of total variation) obtained is the worst,
(c) Heuristic
3A
Heuristic 2).
is
more
efficient
than
Algorithm
(with
It takes, on the average, less than
to solve the test problem with the largest problem size.
From the above computational results, Heuristic 3A outperforms

the existing algorithms in terms of solution quality and
is an
efficient and effective heuristic for solving large scale assembly

sequencing problems.
3.2.2 Production systems with different part requirements
When different products require different number and mix of

parts, the demand rates of the products as well as the usage rates
of the parts have to be considered when scheduling the mixed-model
assembly line in order to achieve the usage goal.
3.2.2.1 Mathematical model
To facilitate the analysis of a production system with different

part requirements, the production system is divided into different
levels. For example, a four-level production system may have a
119
structure
as
follows:
level
products,
level
sub-
assemblies, l e v e l 3
purchased p a r t s .
into
Raw m a t e r i a l s and p u r c h a s e d p a r t s a r e f a b r i c a t e d
components w h i c h a r e
then
combined i n t o
S u b - a s s e m b l i e s a r e assembled i n t o p r o d u c t s .
sub-assemblies.
There may be more
t h a n one i t e m a t e a c h l e v e l .
The
mathematical
model
for
such
production
system i s
developed by u s i n g the f o l l o w i n g variables
level number, j =
number of items at level j, j = 1,.. , J
demand for product h, h = 1,..,
number of units of item i at level j used to produce one
j = 1,..J; h = 1,..,ni
unit of product h, i = 1 .
total demand of all the items in level j, j = 1,..,J

ratio of level j production devoted to item i, i = 1,..11?
j
= 1.J
weight
assigned
to
level
to
reflect
the
relative
imp or tanc e o f h a v i n g a ' g o o d ' s c h e d u l e a t l e v e l j

number o f u n i t s o f p r o d u c t h assembled d u r i n g t h e f i r s t k
products
120
Indeed, i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t
Z aijh
h=l i = l
and
aijhd y t j
The m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n o f Problem (Us) t h e n becomes
Problem (Ud)
Minimize
Ki J A j
(
xv
J J]
X Wj J J X
k=l j =1 i=l
v h=l
(aijh -
ij
Omjh)
,..,Kl
xk {0,1,.
(C3.4}
.,..,Ki; h
1,
, Ki; h =
(C3.5)
(C3.6)
In the objective function of Problem (Ud), the term
J] ^
h=i
aijh
represents the number of item i in level j required for assembling
121
the f i r s t
k p r o d u c t s whereas t h e
term
[ # r
h=l ^
J] omjh i s t h e
j m=l
d e s i r e d q u a n t i t y o f i t e m i i n l e v e l j consumed i n a s s e m b l i n g t h e
f i r s t k products.
Hence, the o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n aims a t f i n d i n g
t h e minimum sum o f v a r i a t i o n s o f t h e a c t u a l consumption q u a n t i t i e s

o f t h e i t e m s f r o m t h e d e s i r e d consumption q u a n t i t i e s o f t h e i t e m s .
Problem (Ud) i s a n o n - l i n e a r i n t e g e r program and t h e Lagrangean

r e l a x a t i o n method d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 3 . 2 . 1 . 3 i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e
t o t h e problem because t h e r e s u l t i n g r e l a x e d problem i s s t i l l t o o
d i f f i c u l t t o be s o l v e d .
solved
optimally
by
I t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e problem can be
a
polynomial
time-bounded
algorithm.
M i l t e n b u r g and Sinnamon (1989) d e v e l o p e d two h e u r i s t i c s t o f i n d

t h e sequence s c h e d u l e f o r p r o d u c t i o n systems w i t h d i f f e r e n t p a r t
requirements.
heuristics i s
However,
the
considerably
computational
large
and
the
requirement
of
performance o f
the
the
h e u r i s t i c s t e n d s t o worsen w i t h I n c r e a s i n g nuinber o f p a r t s i n t h e
system.
T h e r e f o r e , H e u r i s t i c 3A d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 3 . 2 . 1 . 4 i s
m o d i f i e d f o r s o l v i n g Problem (Ud).
3 . 2 . 2 . 2 System a n a l y s i s
U s i n g the n o t a t i o n s presented i n s e c t i o n 3 . 2 . 1 . 4 , f o r a g i v e n
p a r t i a l sequence irk, i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t t h e i n c r e m e n t a l v a r i a t i o n
o f s c h e d u l i n g p r o d u c t a a t sequence p o s i t i o n k+1 and p r o d u c t b a t
122
sequence p o s i t i o n k+2 s a t i s f i e s t h e f o l l o w i n g equation
k+2(7nc,a,b) = V k+2 ( i r k , 0 , 0 ) + \
which clearly indicates that for a given product b scheduled at

sequence position k+2, product a that minimizes V k +2(Tnc,a,b) also
minimizes V
For
(iTka,b.
k+2
a given partial
sequence
irk,
the product
scheduled
at
sequence positions k+1, which minimizes the sum of the variations

from
sequence
product h.
position
instead
of
to
position
k+1,
can
be
found
by
This approach is used in Heuristic 1 of Miltenburg and
Sinnamon (1989).
considerably
However, the number of computations required is
large.
comparing
In finding
the
value
the best
of
the
scheduling decision,
term
directly,
the
incremental variation of each decision is calculated and compared.

The analysis of using Incremental variation in comparing different
scheduling decisions is presented in the following proposition.
123
Proposition 3.8
F o r a g i v e n p a r t i a l sequence itk, i f p r o d u c t a (a
s c h e d u l e d a t sequence p o s i t i o n k+1,
v a r i a t i o n from sequence p o s i t i o n
{1nj)
is
which minimizes the t o t a l
1 t o p o s i t i o n k+1,
then the
following inequality i s satisfied:
E E Wj(Aija( 2 E xjh Aijh +

j=l i=l I
h=l
E Wj jz ( 2 [
where A i j h = a i j h - r
A i j h + A i j z ) V f o r a l l 2 = 1,
Omjh
f o r 1 = 1,
(3.17)
j-
h = 1,
Proof:
F o r a g i v e n p a r t i a l sequence trk, when p r o d u c t z i s s c h e d u l e d a t
sequence p o s i t i o n k+1, t h e t o t a l v a r i a t i o n f r o m sequence p o s i t i o n
1 t o p o s i t i o n k+1, V^Crac^z), e q u a l s t o
J ] A i j h + (X: + l)Aijz)|
V (irk) + I
I Wj
1=1 i = l
When
no
product
Is
scheduled
at
sequence
position
k+1,
hypothetical case to facilitate the analysis, the total variation
124
f r o m sequence p o s i t i o n 1 t o p o s i t i o n k+1, V
(7rk,0), e q u a l s t o
k+1
I E Wj( I xl Aijh I 2 .
j=l i=l ^ h=l
J
The i n c r e m e n t a l v a r i a t i o n o f s c h e d u l i n g p r o d u c t
p o s i t i o n k+1,
= E
Since V
k+1
sequence
(irk,z) e q u a l s t o V k + i (irk^z) - V k + i ( i n c > 0 ) > i . e .
k+1
z at
Aijz( 2 Z X= Aijh + Aijz)|
(7rk0) is constant for all z = 1,. n ,

'
l
(irk,a) V
(irk,z)
f o r a l l z = 1, . ,n
implies that
Vk+i(7rk,a) ^ Vk+i(Tnc,z)
for all z =
Hence, the proposition is proved.
Since Aijh is constant for all sequence positions, once it is

determined,
its
value
sequence scheduling.
can
be
used
throughout
the
remaining
In addition, when Proposition (3.8) is used
125
t o f i n d the product which minimizes the incremental v a r i a t i o n o f

p r o d u c t s c h e d u l e d a t sequence p o s i t i o n k+1, t h e v a l u e o f t h e term
n
Z
h=l
A U h i n i n e q u a l i t y (3.17) i s t h e same f o r a l l p r o d u c t s and
therefore
needs
to
be
determined
only
once.
When
using
P r o p o s i t i o n ( 3 . 8 ) t o f i n d t h e p r o d u c t t o be s c h e d u l e d a t sequence
p o s i t i o n k+1, t h e amount o f c o m p u t a t i o n a l e f f o r t r e q u i r e d i s l e s s
than that required by H e u r i s t i c
1 o f M i l t e n b u r g and Sinnamon
(1989).
3 . 2 . 2 . 3 S o l u t i o n Method
B y m o d i f y i n g H e u r i s t i c 3A d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 3 . 2 . 1 . 4 ,
the
f o l l o w i n g h e u r i s t i c i s developed f o r s o l v i n g Problem (Ud).
H e u r i s t i c 3B
Step
F i n d A i j h f o r a l l i , j and h ,
= 1,..,]
1 , . . , n as defined i n Proposition (3.8).
S t a r t w i t h t h e f i r s t sequence p o s i t i o n , i . e . s e t k
126
1,. ., J;
I n i t i a l i z e sets
$1 and $2,
the r e s p e c t i v e s e t s o f products
a v a i l a b l e t o be s c h e d u l e d a t sequence p o s i t i o n s 1 a n d 2 , b y
s e t t i n g #1 = 2 = {1,.. ,n>.
Step 1
Tentatively
schedule
the first product
in fc+2 (the
set
of
products available to be scheduled at sequence position k+2) at

sequence position k+2 and update $k+i if necessary.
Set imin = 00.
Step 2
Find
product
(a
$k+i) which
minimizes
the
incremental
variation of scheduling product a at sequence position k+1 and

product
at
sequence position k+2,
i.e.
Vk+2(inc,a,b)and
tentatively schedule product a at sequence position k+1.
Find
product
variation
of
(c
$k+3) which minimizes
scheduling
products
a,
and
the
c
incremental
at
sequence
positions k+1, k+2 and k+3 respectively, Vk+3(rac,a,b, c), using

Proposition
(3.8),
i.e.
find
which
satisfies
inequality
(3.17) (with k in inequality (3.17) replaced by k+2).
Compute V
= a
k+3
(7tk,a,b,c) and if V
^(irk^.b.c) < imin then set a,
k+3
and imin = V
k+3
inc,a,b,c)
127
Step 3
^k+2 have been t e n t a t i v e l y s c h e d u l e d
then
s c h e d u l e p r o d u c t a , a t sequence p o s i t i o n k+1, i . e . s e t
else
set b = the next product available in $k+2 and goto Step 2
end if.
Increase the sequence position number by one, i.e. set k = k +

1 and if k < Ki goto Step 1, otherwise stop.
At each sequence position, Heuristic 3B schedules one product

at a time but bases its scheduling decision on the incremental
variation of three consecutive sequence positions - the current
sequence position and the next two sequence positions .
In Step 2
of Heuristic 3B, the maximum number of products to be considered

in scheduling the products at positions k+1 and k+3 are both equal
to
for
The maximum of number times that Step 2 has to be repeated

each
is
equal
to
Therefore,
requirement of Heuristic 3B varies with
the
and Ki.
computational
In Step 2, for
the sake of reducing the computational effort of Heuristic 3B the

following cases are considered when finding the product scheduled
at sequence position k+1 which minimizes the terms V^2(inca, b).
128
Case (1) when a * b ,
k+2 (rrk.a.b) = E
j=
W {2 ( A i j a ) 2 ( 2 0 + 1) + ( A i j b ) 2 ( 2 ^
k+1
I
E (Xm
(
h=l m*h
1
h
E (<+2 <n+2 - m x"hx > i J h
, 4
h=1 m^h
rij
E w {2 (Aija)2 (ZX1" + 1 ) + (Aijb)2 {2^- + 1)

a
b
j = i i=i J
2 J] X1
Aija Ai jm + 2a[X^ Aija Aijb b+
ija Aijb + J] f
m
mâ^b
Aija Aijb
Aijm(Aija + Aijb)}.
Case (2) when a = b,
7 o(7rk,a,a) = E
E W { ( A i j a ) 2 (25^ + 1) + ( A i j a ) 2 (45^ + 4 )
k+2
a
a
j = l 1=1 jJ
+ 6 J] ^ A i j a Aijm }
=E
E Wt{(Aija)2 ( 6 0 + 5 ) + 6
a
j=l i=l J
A i j a Aijm },
I n f i n d i n g t h e p r o d u c t s c h e d u l e d a t sequence p o s i t i o n k+3 w h i c h
minimizes
k+3
(iTk,a,b,c) i n Step
the
following
cases
are
considered in order to save the required computational effort.
129
Case (1) when a ^ b * c ,

-
k+3 (Trk,ab,c) =
Vk+2(7nc,a,b) +
E
Z W {(Aija)2
j=l i=l j
(Aijb)2 (2X^+ 1 ) +
b
(25^
a
(Aijc)2 ( 2 ^ + 1 )
c
n
+
E (#+
=Vk+2(Trk,a,b) +
- X
k
c
X ^ A u h Aijm}
n
J
W {(Aija)2 (25^ + 1 )
J
j=i i=i
(Aijb)2 ( 2 X k + 1 ) +
b
+ 2tXk
+
X ^
h=l m^h
(Aijc)2 ( 2 X k + 1
c
Ai jaCAijb + A i j c ) +
A i jb(Ai ja + A i j c )
A i jc(Ai ja + A i j b )
+ A i jaAi jb + A i jbAi jc + A i jaAi jc] }
+ T
m*a
X k ( A i j a + A i jb + A i j c ) A i j m .
b, c
Case (2) when a = b = c,
k+3
(irk,a,a,a) = V
k+2
(irk,a,a)
j = 1 i = 1
+6 5 ] ^
A i j a Aijm>
130
{ ( A i j a ) 2 ( 6a ^ + 9 )
Case (3) when a = b and b c
V k+3 (7rk,a,a,c) = V ^ C ^ a , a)
{(Aija)2
(45^ +
j=i i=i
( A i j c ) 2 ( 2 X k + 1 ) + 2 ) ^ AijaAijc +
AijaAijc
+ 4 A i j a A i j c 2+
4 )
^ ( A i j a + ZAijcjAijm}.
mA,c
Case (4) when a = c and a * b,
k+3
(7rk
a,b
J
+
( 7 r k , a , b )
+ (Aijb)
I
I
j=i i=i
W{(Aija)
A i jaAijb +
a
m*a,b
(4)^
+ 4)
(2X + 1 ) + 2 X
+ 4 A i jaAi jb + 2
A i jaAi jb
X10 ( A i j b + 2 A i j a ) A i j m } .
m
Case (5) when b = c and a b ,

_
k+3(Trk,a,b,b) =
J
E
j
E
W {(Aijb)2 ( 4 ^ + 4)
( A i j a ) 2 ( 2 X : + 1 ) + 2 X ^ A i j b A i j a + 4 X ^ AijbAijs
4AljbAija
XÂija
m*b,a
2Aijb)Aijm>.
As all Aijh have been found in Step 0, the terms needed to be

evaluated in step 2 are all in terms of Aijh and
the computational effort to is much reduced.
131
, and hence
3 . 2 . 2 . 4 N u m e r i c a l example
(Example 2 o f M i l t e n b u r g and Sinnamon 1989)
There a r e
p r o d u c t s w i t h demands 6000, 6000 and 1000 u n i t s .
= 3
The p r o d u c t s
c o n s i s t o f n 2 = 3 d i f f e r e n t sub-assemblies each of which consists

of up to n 3 = 4 different components, and each components consists
of up
to n 4 = 3 different types of raw material.
The bill of
material are:
Product
Sub assembly
1
3
0
1
0
Sub-assembly
Component
1
Component
material
01
01
0
0
1
1
The weight assigned to each level is the same and equal to 1, i.e.
Wj = 1 for j =1,. ., 4.
The demand ratio for each item is shown in
the following table:

demand ratio
Level
.4615
0.4615
.0769
sub-assembly, j
0.2609
0.5652
.1739
component, j = -
.1724
0.3276
0.2241
raw material, j
.3095
0.4167
0.2738
product, j = 1
132
2759
I n S t e p 0 o f H e u r i s t i c 3B, A i j h i s computed f o r a l l i , j and h i

=1
; j = 1, . . , J; h = 1, . ., .
The values of Aijh are shown
as below:
Aljh
0.54 -0.46 -0.08
-0.46
0.54 -0.08
-0.46 -0.46
0.92
0.48 -0.13 -0.35
-0.26
0.44 -0.17
-1.30 -1.83
3.13
0.31
0.10 -1.10
-0.35
0.35
0.55 -0.55
0.20 -6.20 -3.93
0.63
-0.62
0.17
0.45
7.00 -0.50 -6.50
A2jh
0.69
-0.55 -0.08
A3jh
A4jh
Aijh
In Step 0 i t is found that
A2jh
A3jh
A4jh
1 = $2 = {1,2,3}.
starts with k = 0 and the product
Aljh
A2jh
A3jh
The heuristic
to be scheduled at sequence
position k+1 (i.e. sequence position 1) is determined by Steps 1,

2 and 3.
At sequence position 1, the following
(n^ = 3 ) cases
are considered in Step 2:
Case
(1)
when
the
first
product
in
level
is
tentatively
scheduled at sequence position 2,

if product 1 is scheduled at sequence position 1, V 2 (ll= 16.90;
if product 2 is scheduled at sequence position 1, V 2 2,l= 9.49;
if product 3 is scheduled at sequence position 1, V 2 ( 3 , l = 473.79.
Therefore, product 2 is tentatively scheduled at sequence position
1.
For
such
partial
sequence
133
schedule
of
the
first
two
A4jh
9.93
positions,
i f product
1 i s s c h e d u l e d a t sequence p o s i t i o n 3, ^ ( 2 , 1 , 1 )
V ( 2 , 1 , 0 ) = 11.73;
i f product
2 i s s c h e d u l e d a t sequence p o s i t i o n
3 ^ ( 2 , 1 , 2 ) -
V (2,1,0) = 8.36;
3
if product 3 is scheduled at sequence position
3 ^ ( 2 , 1 , 3 ) -
V (2,1,0) = 173.50.
Therefore,
the partial
sequence
schedule
for
this case
is
to
schedule product 2 at sequence position 1, product 1 at sequence

position 2 and product 2 at sequence position 3, and 7^(2 1 , 2 ) =
25.08.
Case
(2) when product
is
tentatively
scheduled
at
sequence
position 2,
V (1,2) = 10.61;
2
2 (2,2) = 11.29;
V (3,2) = 486.14.
2
Hence, product 1 is tentatively scheduled at sequence position 1.

For the partial sequence {1,2),
V (1,2,1) - V (1,2,0)
3
= 11.73;
V (1,2,2) - V (1,2,0) = 8.37;

3
V 3 (1,2,3) - V (1,2,0) = 173.50.

Therefore, the partial sequence schedule for this case is
134
a n d V3 ( 1 , 2 , 2 ) = 26.02
Case
(3) when product
is
tentatively
scheduled
at
sequence
position 2,
2 (1,3) = 216.91;
V 2 (2,3) = 228.13;
2 (3,3) = 1301.3.
Hence, product 1 is tentatively scheduled at sequence position 1.

For the partial sequence {1,3}
V 3 (1,3,1)
V (1,3,2) 3
1,3,0) = -32.79
(1,3,3) - V (1,3,0) = 730.67.

3
S
Therefore, the partial sequence schedule for this case is {1,3,1}
and V (1,3,1) = 390.47.
From
the
above
calculations,
the
partial
sequence
schedule
{2,1,2} has the minimum incremental variation for the first three
sequence positions and product 2 (a* = 2) Is the product scheduled
at sequence position 1 (k+1).
The variation of sequence position
1 is 2.26.
Steps 1 to 3 of the heuristic are repeated to find the
product
be
to
scheduled
at
the
remaining
sequence
positions.
Detail of scheduling the example for other sequence positions is

summarized in the below.
135
Position
k+1
k+3
(n,a,b,c)
46.33
Product V a r i a t i o n T o t a l
scheduled
of
variation
position
k+1
.23
.49
15.59
25.08
28.48
53.56
43.39
96.95
65.07
162.02
65.07
227.09
43.39
270.48
28.48
297.96
15.59
314.55
7.23
321.78
2.26
324.03
0.00
324.03
44.52
323.54
66.22
65.77
250.37
87.46
87.90
183.45
98.67
96.19
116.52
66.86
80.81
43.35
-58.26
-52.21
-31.63
-107.73
-107.29
810.77
-78.43
-78.87
737.60
10
-58.55
-60.35
664.42
11
-37.30
-36.18
597.50
12
-16.05
-17.17
530.57
3.83
13
2.71
457.40
136
At
sequence
position
p o s i t i o n i s zero.
13,
the
variation
of
that
sequence
I t h a s been p r o v e d t h a t i f t h e v a r i a t i o n o f
s e q u e n c e p o s i t i o n f i i s e q u a l t o z e r o , t h e s c h e d u l e f o r sequence
p o s i t i o n s 1,
fx+2, . . . ,2/i;
w i l l be r e p e a t e d i n sequence p o s i t i o n s fi+1,
again i n positions
2fx+2,. . ,3^;
( M i l t e n b u r g and Sinnamon 1989).
and
so
Hence, i n t h i s example,
on
the
s c h e d u l e f o r t h e r e m a i n i n g sequence p o s i t i o n s w i l l r e p e a t t h e
s c h e d u l e f o r sequence p o s i t i o n 1 t o p o s i t i o n 13,
that isthe
schedule {2,1,2,2,1,1,3,1,1,2,2,1,2} will repeat 1000 times.
The
sequence schedule found by Heuristic 3B is actually the optimal

one.
The same problem is also solved by Heuristics 1 and 2 of
Miltenburg and Sinnamon
(1989).
Heuristic 1 produces a partial
schedule {2,1,2,2,1,2,3,1,1,1,2,1,2} repeating 1000 times with a

total variation of 338.18 over each cycle.
The sequence schedule
found by Heuristic 2 is the same as that determined by Heuristic

3B.
3.2.2.5 Performance Evaluation
Heuristic 3B was programmed in FORTRAN 77 and its performance

was evaluated on a set of 360 randomly generated test problems.
The number of products ranged from 3 to 9 t h e number of levels
from 2 to 8 and the total production quantity of final products
(Ki) from 100 to 1500.
was
equal
to
the
The number of items produced in each level
number
of
products
137
in
level
(n^).
The
c o m p u t a t i o n a l r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d u s i n g a Vax computer a r e siunmarized

i n T a b l e s 3 . 4 , 3 . 5 and 3 . 6 .
Zi,
Z2 and
Zb a r e t h e r e s p e c t i v e
t o t a l v a r i a t i o n o b t a i n e d b y u s i n g H e u r i s t i c s 1 and 2 o f M i l t e n b u r g
and Sinnamon (1989), and H e u r i s t i c 3B o f t h i s c h a p t e r .
H i , H2 and
Hb a r e t h e mean CPU t i m e i n seconds f o r u s i n g H e u r i s t i c s 1, 2 and

3B r e s p e c t i v e l y .
T a b l e 3 . 4 C o m p u t a t i o n a l r e s u l t s o f H e u r i s t i c 3B f o r t h e t h r e e - p r o d u c t
no. o f t o t a l
l e v e l s production
quantity
Zi ZB
* 100
~Zi
min
mean
Z2- Zb
~Zb~
max
min
100
500
000
500
33.1 9 2 . 0
63.4 172.5
12.3 95.9
33.9 194.8
100
500
000
500
5.8 24.
23.2 114.
10.9 35.
28.1 159.
100
500
1000
1500
0.0
4 . 6 24.1
0 . 0 11.9 85.4
0.0
1.1
6.0
0.0
4 . 0 23.9
138
* 100
Mean CPU
time in seconds
mean
max
Hi
H2
Hb
0
0
6.
15.
2.
24.2
81.9
18.0
13.7
0.02
0.09
0.17
0.21
0.05
0.30
0.56
0.94
0.03
0.14
0.28
0.37
0.1
1.0
2 . 3 14.2
9.6
1.2
1 2 . 3 101.9
0.05
0.15
0.31
0.46
0.11
0.58
1.11
1.63
0.03
0.15
0.28
0.42
0.06
0.32
0.65
0.98
0.22
1.10
2.28
3.47
0.03
0.14
0.27
0.42
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.2
3.0
2.0
0.5
1.2
T a b l e 3 . 5 Cominrt^tional r e s u l t s o f H e u r i s t i c 3B f o r t h e s i x - p r o d u c t c a s e
no. of total
levels production
quantity
10C
50(
00(
50(
Zi- 2b
* 100
"^2i~
min
22- Zb
* 100
~Zb"
mean
min
mean
32.8 91.9 244.3

17.8 75.4 186.5
1.6 88.6 379.1
-0.4 88.0 219.2
5.9
0.9
0.0
1.0
15.6
16.8
11.8
16.6
10C
50(
00(
50(
2
3
1
1
14,
10(
50(
00(
50(
5.3
2.5
0.8
1.6
14.6
6.5
8.4
5.4
11.
10.
44.5
22.2
26.7
19.3
0.0
0.1
n
u. o
0.2
3.3
1.6
o
I
m T
38.9
15.8
41.3
10.6
-0.5
-0.1
-0.3
0.2
2.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.9
Mean CPU
time in seconds
H2
Hb
0.41
1.79
3.71
5.33
0.14
0.74
1.42
2.16
0.10 0.74
0.50 3.75
0.96 7.62
1.47 11.62
0.14
0.72
1.44
2.18
20 1 . 7 6
96 8 . 5 5
05 16.94
07 2 5 . 3 7
0.15
0.73
1.46
2.15
Hi
37.8
52.5
68.1
41.3
9.8
5.1
c O9
w
8.2
12.1
2.7
5.5
3.0
05
22
43
61
Table 3.6 Computational results of Heuristic 3B for the nine-product case
no. of total
levels production
quantity
100
500
1000
1500
100
500
1000
1500
100
500
1000
1 son
Z2- Zb
100
~Zb"
Zi- Zb
* 100
~Zb
min
5 .
1.:
4J
1.:
4 . '
2.
5.
2.
0.
2.
3 .
3.
mean
43.8
87.9
70.8
107.1
max
min
139.6 - 4 . 6
212.6
2.8
153.2
0.5
273.0 7 . 4
12.1
12.3
17.4
16.3
33.
26,
59.
-1,
7.2
7.6
7.4
8.3
25,
13,
14,
15.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-2.
139
1.
0.
Hi
mean
Hb
0.12 1.12
0.46 5.88
0.87 11.71
1.29 17.62
0.47
2.29
4.57
6.86
8.3
0.23 2.52
1 . 0 0 12.29
1.99 24.29
3.01 35.97
0.46
2.32
4.57
6.85
2.4
3.6
2.7
4.1
0.47 4 . 8 9
2.15 2 5 . 0 4
4.19 4 8 . 7 5
6.37 7 2 . 9 9
0.47
2.26
4.48
6.77
14.2 93.7
17.4 33.6
14.7 41.2
25.6 71.2
3.5
1.3
2.8
3.5
Mean CPU
time in seconds
23.9
6.8
6.6
There a r e s e v e r a l general observations from the r e s u l t s o f t h e

c o m p u t a t i o n a l experiments:
(a) I n terms o f s o l u t i o n q u a l i t y , out o f 360 t e s t problems, t h e r e
a r e o n l y 10 o c c a s i o n s t h a t H e u r i s t i c 2 outperforms H e u r i s t i c
3B and 2 o c c a s i o n s t h a t H e u r i s t i c 1 outperforms H e u r i s t i c 3B.
I n g e n e r a l , t h e performance o f H e u r i s t i c 3B i s much b e t t e r
t h a n t h a t o f H e u r i s t i c s 1 and 2 .
The mean d i f f e r e n c e and t h e
maximum d i f f e r e n c e o f t h e t o t a l v a r i a t i o n s f o u n d b y H e u r i s t i c s
1 and 3B a r e 2 9 . 3 p e r c e n t s and 379.1 p e r c e n t s r e s p e c t i v e l y
whereas t h e mean d i f f e r e n c e and t h e maximum d i f f e r e n c e o f t h e
t o t a l v a r i a t i o n s f o u n d b y H e u r i s t i c s 2 and 3B a r e 5 . 7 p e r c e n t s
and 101.9 p e r c e n t s r e s p e c t i v e l y .
(b) The amount o f c o m p u t a t i o n a l e f f o r t o f H e u r i s t i c 3B i s q u i t e
i n s e n s i t i v e t o t h e number o f l e v e l s , b u t seems t o v a r y w i t h
2
and K i .
I n most t e s t problems,
t h e d i f f e r e n c e between
c o m p u t a t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s o f H e u r i s t i c s 1 and 3B i s n o t v e r y
significant.
As
the
nuinber
of
levels
increases,
the
c o m p u t a t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t o f H e u r i s t i c 1 approaches t o t h a t o f
H e u r i s t i c 3B.
I n a l l t h e t e s t problems, H e u r i s t i c 2 t a k e s t h e
l o n g e s t t i m e t o f i n d t h e sequence s c h e d u l e .
( c ) The performance o f H e u r i s t i c s 1 and 2 t e n d s t o worsen a s t h e
number o f p r o d u c t s i n t h e system (n^) i n c r e a s e s .
140
3 . 2 . 2 . 6 Toyota*s Goal-chasing method
I n Toyota, f o r the sake o f r e d u c i n g computational e f f o r t i n

d e t e r m i n i n g t h e sequence s c h e d u l e , a l l i t e m s i n t h e p r o d u c t i o n
s y s t e m a r e c l a s s i f i e d i n t o two l e v e l s : p r o d u c t s ( l e v e l 1 i t e m s )
and p a r t s ( l e v e l 2 items).
The a n a l y s i s f o r t h e p r o d u c t i o n system
w i t h such a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s s i m i l a r t o the a n a l y s i s presented i n

Section 3.2.2.
The m a t h e m a t i c a l model f o r t h e t w o - l e v e l p r o d u c t i o n system i s

developed by u s i n g the f o l l o w i n g variables
level number j = 1 and 2
rij
number of items at level j, j = 1 and 2

demand for product h, h = 1,..,
aih
number
of units
product h, i
of
part
i used
to
one unit
total production quantity of products
Ni
total
of
part
required
for
producing
all
products, i = 1 , .
^
of
= l,..,n2; h = I,..,
number
produce
number o f u n i t s o f p r o d u c t h assembled d u r i n g t h e f i r s t k
f i n a l assemblies
I t i s obvious that K =
and N
141
= J] a i h d
the
I n T o y o t a , t h e o b j e c t i v e o f t h e assembly s e q u e n c i n g p r o b l e m i s
t o d e t e r m i n e t h e sequence s c h e d u l e t h a t m i n i m i z e s t h e s q u a r e r o o t
of
the
sum o f
variations
of
the
desired parts
consumption
q u a n t i t i e s f r o m t h e a c t u a l p a r t s consumption q u a n t i t i e s .
The
o b j e c t i v e c a n be e x p r e s s e d m a t h e m a t i c a l l y a s f o l l o w s
minimize ZX)
It
is
obvious
solution.
used
as
that
ZCX)
)}2
<xih(X=
and
[2(X) ]
have
the
same
Therefore, in the subsequent analysis, [Z(X)]

the
objective
function.
Thus,
the
final
optimal
will be
assembly
sequencing problem can be stated mathematically as follows
Problem (G)
Minimize
J] 1
aih
(xh
[k = k
h
k = 1, . . ,K
k - x k-1
h
h
k =
{0,1,. . ,d }
(C3.7)
h = 1,..,11
k = 1,..,K; h = l n
142
(C3.8)
(C3.9)
I n t h e above o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n , t h e term
aih represents
h=l
t h e number o f p a r t i r e q u i r e d f o r a s s e m b l i n g t h e f i r s t k f i n a l
n
p r o d u c t s whereas the term
[ aihk N ^ i s the d e s i r e d q u a n t i t y o f
p a r t i consumed i n a s s e m b l i n g t h e f i r s t k f i n a l p r o d u c t s .
Hence,
the
sum o f
objective
function
aims
at
finding
the
minimum
v a r i a t i o n s o f t h e a c t u a l p a r t s consumption q u a n t i t i e s from t h e
d e s i r e d p a r t s consumption q u a n t i t i e s .
P r o b l e m (G) i s a n o n - l i n e a r i n t e g e r program and i t i s u n l i k e l y

that
the
problem
can
be
time-bounded a l g o r i t h m .
solved
optimally
by
polynomial
S i n c e t h e t w o - l e v e l p r o d u c t i o n system i s
a s p e c i a l c a s e o f t h e system c o n s i d e r e d i n s e c t i o n 3 . 2 . 2 . 2 , t h e
a n a l y s i s and t h e h e u r i s t i c p r e s e n t e d i n s e c t i o n 3 . 2 . 2 . 2 can be
m o d i f i e d f o r t h e t w o - l e v e l p r o d u c t i o n system.
For
a given p a r t i a l
sequence
toc,
the product
scheduled a t
sequence p o s i t i o n k+1, w h i c h m i n i m i z e s t h e sum o f t h e v a r i a t i o n s

from
sequence p o s i t i o n
However,
the
large.
I n f i n d i n g the best
comparing
the
variation of
number o f
1 to position
value
of
computations
the
k+1,
c a n be
required i s
found by
considerably
scheduling decision,
instead o f
term d i r e c t l y ,
incremental
e a c h d e c i s i o n i s c a l c u l a t e d and
the
compared.
The
a n a l y s i s o f u s i n g increnient.a 1 v a r i s i t i o n I n coniparing d i f f e r e n t
143
s c h e d u l i n g d e c i s i o n s i s presented i n the f o l l o w i n g p r o p o s i t i o n .
Proposition 3.9
For
a g i v e n p a r t i a l sequence irk, i f p r o d u c t a
scheduled
at
sequence
variation
from
position k+1
sequence
position
which
to
(a
{i, . . , n })
minimizes
position
k+1
the
total
then
the
following inequality is satisfied.
aimjaim -
ZCk+DN^/xi + 2 ^
J] aim aih
for all m = 1.
The proof of Proposition (3.9) is similar to that of Proposition

(3.8).
Heuristic 3B described in section 3.2.2.2 is modified in the

following for solving Problem (G).
144
(3.18)
H e u r i s t i c 3C
Step 0
S t a r t w i t h t h e f i r s t sequence p o s i t i o n , i . e . s e t k = 0 .
$1 and
2,
the
respective sets of products
available to be scheduled at sequence positions 1 and 2, by

setting
= $2 = {1,. . ,n>.
Step 1
Tentatively
schedule
the
first product
in
$k+2
(the
set
of

sequence position k+2 and update k+i if necessary.
Set imin : oo.
Step 2
Find
product
(a
f k+i) which
minimizes
the
incremental
variation of scheduling product a at sequence position k+1 and

product
at
sequence
position
k+2,
V k + 2 (Tnc,afb)
and
tentatively schedule product a at sequence position k+1.
Find
product
variation
of
(c
^k+3) which minimizes
scheduling
products
a,
and
the
c
incremental
at
sequence
positions k+1, k+2 and k+3 respectively, V k + 3
c), using
Proposition
inequality
(3.9)
i.e.
find
which
satisfies
(3.18) (with k in inequality (3.18) replaced by k+2).
145
Compute V k + 3 (7ncab,c ) a n d i f ( i r k , ab, c ) < i m i n t h e n s e t a ,

= a
and imin = Vi
k+3
(7rka,bc).
Step 3
If all
the products
in
$k+2 have been tentatively scheduled
then
schedule product a, at sequence position k+1, i.e. set
else
set b = the next product available in $k+2 and goto Step 2
end if
Increase the sequence position number by one, i.e. set k = k +

1 and if k < Ki goto Step 1, otherwise stop.
At each sequence position, Heuristic 3C schedules one product

at a time but bases its scheduling decision on the incremental
variation of three consecutive sequence positions - the current
sequence
position
and
the
next
two
sequence
positions.
In
Heuristic 3C, most of the computations and comparisons are carried

out In Step 2.
In this step, V
k+2
(iik,a,b), V
k+3
terms in inequality (3.18) need to be evaluated.
146
(irk,a,b,c) and the

Since
(7ik,a,b) =
k +2
(aia
J] X
+ aib)\
(aia
J aih(aia
+ aib) - 2(k+2)N
+ aib)
and
_
+3
( 7 r k , a > b , c )
(Trk,a,b)
+ 2
(CXia +
Jx j
06ib
I aih(aia + aib + aic)
+ aic)-! ( a i a
+ aib + a i c )
2(k+3)N
all the terms to be evaluated in Step 2 have terms

n
1 ..1^
and
and
[ aia aib, a =
1=1
J aia N /K
in
common.
It
is
I=L
worthwhile to note that the values of these common terms do not

depend on sequence position k; thus, these common terms can be
determined
beforehand
and
need
not
be
repeated
for
each
k.
Therefore, the computation requirement of Step 2 is much reduced.

Since Heuristic 3C is similar to Heuristic 3B, it can easily be
shown that the computational requirement of Heuristic 3C varies
with
and K.
For the goal-chasing method, its computational
requirement varies with
and K.
147
H e u r i s t i c 3C d e s c r i b e d i n t h e above was programmed i n FORTRAN.

I t s pe r for manc e was e v a l u a t e d on a s e t o f 120 randomly g e n e r a t e d
t e s t problems.
The number o f p r o d u c t s ra n g ed f r o m 3 t o 9 and t h e
t o t a l p r o d u c t i o n q u a n t i t y o f f i n a l p r o d u c t s f r o m 100 t o 1500.
T h e r e were 12 p a r t s i n t h e p r o d u c t i o n system.
The c o m p u t a t i o n a l
r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d u s i n g a Vax computer a r e summarized i n T a b l e 3 . 7 .

ZG and Zc a r e t h e r e s p e c t i v e t o t a l v a r i a t i o n s o b t a i n e d b y us i n g
t h e g o a l - c h a s i n g method and H e u r i s t i c 3C.
HG and He a r e t h e mean
CPU t i m e i n seconds f o r u s i n g G o a l - c h a s i n g Method and H e u r i s t i c 3C

respectively.
F o r t h e s i x - p r o d u c t c a s e , s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s o f t h e computing
t i m e o f H e u r i s t i c 3C t o t h e number o f p a r t s i n t h e p r o d u c t i o n
system.
The number o f p a r t s was s e t t o 50100, 200 and 400
sequentially.
generated.
For each case,
ten
test problems were randomly
The computational results of the sensitivity analysis
are summarized in Table 3.8.
There are several general observations from the results of the

computational experiments summarized in Tables 3.7 and 3.8:
(a) In
terms
of
solution
quality,
Heuristic
3C
outperforms
the goal-chasing method in all the test problems.

(b) The amount of computational requirement of Heuristic 3C seems
to vary with
(c) In
terms
of
and K.
solution
quality,
the
performance
of
the
goal-chasing method tends to worsen as the number of products
148
i n t h e system i n c r e a s e s .
(d) I n c r e a s i n g the number o f p a r t s seems t o have no s i g n i f i c a n t
e f f e c t on t h e c o m p u t a t i o n a l requirements o f H e u r i s t i c 3C and
t h e g o a l - c h a s i n g method
from 12
As the number of parts increases
to 400, the mean increase in CPU time is only 0.1
seconds for both methods.
Table 3.7 Computational results of Heuristic 3C
Number of
products
total
production
quantity
- Zc
ZG
Mean CPU time

in seconds
100
Zc
min
max
mean
100
0.00
3.63
0.42
0.03
0.01
500
0.00
19.02
2.53
0.15
0.01
1000
0.00
11.72
2.17
0.28
0.03
1500
0.00
3.16
0.82
0.41
0.05
100
0.75
25.57
8.83
0.11
0.01
500
2.32
19.43
8.71
0.52
0.05
1000
0.67
44.58
13.65
1.04
0.10
1500
2.02
43.76
11.70
1.54
0.14
100
6.05
36.44
19.94
0.24
0.02
500
6.26
42.40
22.79
1.27
0.09
1000
9.20
103.41
31.65
2.53
0.18
1500
7.11
130.06
36.88
3.87
0.26
149
Table 3.8 S e n s i t i v i t y analysis of the computing time f o r H e u r i s t i c 3C
Number o f
parts
50
100
200
400
total
production
quantity
ZG
- Zc
Zc
Mean CPU t i m e
i n seconds
*100
mm
max
mean
He
Hg
100
0.00
4.45
2.22
0.12
0.02
500
2.10
10.62
5.21
0.54
0.06
1000
1.26
6.89
3.86
1.06
0.11
1500
0.82
13.44
5.53
1.57
0.16
100
0.00
14.95
4.83
0.14
0.03
500
1.85
9.73
5.31
0.56
0.07
1000
1.80
8.56
4.32
1.10
0.12
1500
1.43
12.32
5.68
1.65
0.16
100
0.08
8,53
2.58
0.16
0.06
500
1.78
10.79
5.32
0.61
0.09
1000
1.23
8.03
4.06
1.12
0.14
1500
1.79
6.32
3.73
1.64
0.19
100
0.12
8.55
3.04
0.21
0.10
500
0.03
7.57
3.38
0.62
0.14
1000
0.57
9.30
5.21
1.18
0.18
1500
0.30
7.90
4.54
1.75
0.24
150
3.3 Joint-goal problem
I n c o n t r o l l i n g a mixed-model assembly l i n e , t h e usage g o a l i s

g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d t o be t h e most i m p o r t a n t g o a l .
However
it
may not be the only goal to be considered in finding the sequence

schedule.
finding
If both the usage and loading goals are considered in

the
sequence
schedule,
the
joint~goal
problem,
the
assembly sequencing problem that considers both the goals, has to

be solved.
The previous analysis for the usage-goal problem can
be extended to consider both goals.
In the following section, the
joint-goal
systems
problem
of
production
with
similar
part
requirements is studied.
3.3.1 Production systems with similar part requirements
Using the notations used in section 3.2.1.1, the variation of

production quantities at sequence position k is given by
At
sequence position
k the variation
of work
load
in
the
assembly line is
L
k
where
kr 2
= [ <[K - J
h=l
/
3
H
Scheduling
is the time required to assemble one unit of product h.

of
products
to
minimize L k
151
results
in
sequence
s c h e d u l e h a v i n g p r o d u c t s w i t h l o n g assembly t i m e s f o l l o w e d b y
p r o d u c t s h a v i n g r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t assembly t i m e s .
I n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e b o t h t h e g o a l s , t h e assembly sequencing
p r o b l e m o f p r o d u c t i o n systems w i t h s i m i l a r p a r t r e q u i r e m e n t s i s
t h u s m o d i f i e d a s t h e f o l l o w i n g j o i n t - g o a l problem:
Problem (Js)
s . t . c o n s t r a i n t s ( C 3 . 1 ) , (C3.2) and ( C 3 . 3 ) .
where a n d u>^ are respective relative weights for the usage goal
and the loading goal.
If
only
one goal
problem,
and
is
can
considered
be
set
in
to
the
assembly
appropriate
sequencing
values.
maintaining constant items usage rates is the only goal then
1 a n d = 0.
On the other hand, setting = 0
and
If
=
= 1 will
reduce a joint-goal problem to a pure loading-problem.
In
fact,
the
objective
function
in
rewritten in a more compact form as below:
152
Problem
(Js)
can
be
where W = o)
H
+ w B2 .
L
I t i s o b v i o u s t h a t t h e o n l y d i f f e r e n c e between Problems (Us)

and ( J s ) i s t h e term W
h
objective
relaxation
function
approach
of
not
However, the existence of W

Problem
(Js)
applicable
to
renders
Problem
the
in the
Lagrangean
(Js).
It
is
unlikely that an efficient algorithm can be developed for solving

Problem (Js) optimally.
In the following, a heuristic is proposed
for solving Problem (Js).
3.3.1.1 Solution Method
It can easily be shown that Propositions (3.6) and (3.7) still

hold even if the objective function considered in the analysis of
section 3.2.1.4 is replaced by the objective function of Problem
(Js).
Using the idea of comparing the incremental variation of
each decision, the following heuristic is developed by modifying

Heuristic 3A.
H e u r i s t i c 3D
Step 0
S t a r t w i t h t h e f i r s t sequence p o s i t i o n , i . e . s e t k = 0 .
$1 and $ 2 ,
the respective s e t s o f products
a v a i l a b l e t o be s c h e d u l e d a t sequence p o s i t i o n s 1 and 2 , b y
s e t t i n g 1 = $2 = { 1 , . . fn}.
Step 1
Tentatively
schedule
the
first product
in
$k+2
(the
set
of

sequence position k+2 and update $k+i if necessary.
Set imin = 00.
Determine
Pk+2,
Pk+2,
qk+3,
+ 3
and
qk+3
as
defined
previously.
Step 2
Find product a (a $
) which minimizes the sum of variations
k+1
of sequence positions 1 to k+2, Vk+2(7rk,a,b), using Proposition
(3.6),
i.e.
find
which
tentatively schedule product a
Find
product
variations
of
(c
satisfies
m
equation
and
at sequence position k+1.
fc+3) which minimizes
scheduling
(3.5),
products
a,
and
the
c
incremental
at
sequence
positions k+1k+2 and k+3 respectively, Vk+3(Trk,a,bc), using

Proposition
(3.7),
i.e.
find
(3.12).
154
which
satisfies
equation
Compute V
Ktj
s e t a* = a
(irk, a , b , c ) and i f
(irk, a , b , c )
k+3
< i m i n then
and i m i n = V k +3 (7ik,a*,b,c*
Step 3
^k+2 have been t e n t a t i v e l y scheduled
then
s c h e d u l e p r o d u c t a ' a t sequence p o s i t i o n k+1, i . e . s e t f"1"1 f
3
else
set b = the next product available in k+2 and goto S t e p 2
end i f .
I n c r e a s e t h e sequence p o s i t i o n number by one, i . e . s e t k = k +

1.
I f k < K t h e n g o t o S t e p 1; o t h e r w i s e , s t o p .
3 . 3 . 1 . 2 Performance Evaluation
H e u r i s t i c 3D d e s c r i b e d i n t h e above was programmed i n FORTRAN.

I t s performance was f i r s t e v a l u a t e d u s i n g t h e t e s t problems o f
(1990).
The two d a t a s e t s u s e d i n t h e t e s t
problems a r e as f o l l o w s :
155
(5,8,10,7)
(2,3,4,4)
(2,4,9,15)
(4,5,3,4)
(5,6,9,10)
(3,2,4,3)
(3,7,17,23)
(1,8,2,9)
(8,13,16,13)
(2,2,6,6)
(2,6,14,28)
(8,2,3,8)
(5,8,10,7,8,7)
(2,2,3,3,4,4)
(3,4,5,7,10,15)
(2.4.5.3.6.2)
(1,3,5,8,14,14)
(4.3.5.4.5.3)
(8,13,16,13,16,14)
(2,2,3,4,7,7)
(4,8,9,15,20,24)
(2,7,4,3,9,3)
(2,7,9,12,20,30)
(7,3,6,2,7,1)
I n t h e above d a t a s e t s , d 1 i s t h e demand v e c t o r o f f i n a l p r o d u c t s
and
W1 i s
the weight v e c t o r o f
c o m b i n a t i o n s o f d 1 and
experiments.
optimal
Heuristic
W1 were c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e c o m p u t a t i o n a l
value
and
the
objective
values
1 and H e u r i s t i c 2 o f M i l t e n b u r g e t a l .
3D
Twelve
D i , D2 and Do a r e t h e p e r c e n t a g e d i f f e r e n c e between
objective
Heuristic
the f i n a l products.
respectively.
The
results
of
found
(1990),
by
and
computational
e x p e r i m e n t a r e summarized i n t h e T a b l e s 3 . 9 and 3 . 1 0 .
From t h e
t a b l e s , i t c a n be observed t h a t i n terms o f s o l u t i o n q u a l i t y ,
156
H e u r i s t i c 3D performs b e t t e r t h a n H e u r i s t i c s 1 and 2 o f M i l t e n b u r g
et al.
(1990) in all the test problems.
The average deviation
from optimal values is 2.5% for Heuristic 1, 0.34% for Heuristic 2

and 0.23% for Heuristic 3C.
Table 3.9 Computational results of Heuristic 3D for small scale

4-product problems
Combination of
d1
and W 1
Di
D2
DD
4.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
d3 - W3
-W
3.15
0.00
0.00
-W
5.87
0.00
0.00
-W
1.52
0.00
0.0
d3 - W6
0.40
0.00
0.00
W:
10.08
1.49
0.00
d5
0.00
0.00
0.00
d6
0.00
0.00
0.00
d4
4.82
0.00
0.00
d5
1.23
0.96
0.96
d6
W6
0.00
0.00
0.00
157
Table 3.10 Computational r e s u l t s of Heuristic 3D f o r small scale

6-product problems
Combination o f
Di
D2
DD
W1
2.05
0.00
0.00
5.51
0.00
0.00
1.14
1.14
0.00
2.73
1.21
1.21
5.16
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.10
0.10
d 1 and W1
D1
- W
_ W
- W
- W
1.06
0.47
0.47
- W
4.13
0.00
0.00
d 6 - W3
0.03
0.00
0.00
- W
2.43
0.90
0.90
D 5 - W5
4.47
1.89
1.89
0.09
0.00
0.00
d
d
- W
The performance o f H e u r i s t i c 3D was f u r t h e r e v a l u a t e d b y u s i n g

a s e t o f 240 randomly g e n e r a t e d l a r g e s c a l e t e s t problems.
number o f t y p e s o f p r o d u c t s (n) v a r i e d between 3 ajid 9 .
The
The t o t a l
p r o d u c t i o n q u a n t i t y o f f i n a l p r o d u c t s (K) f o r t h e t e s t problems
the c o m p u t a t i o n a l e x p e r i m e n t s .
Two s e t s o f w e i g h t s were used i n

Their v a l u e s were sampled
u n i f o r m d i s t r i b u t i o n s w i t h i n t e r v a l s [ 0 . 1 , 0 . 5 ] and [ 0 . 1 , 1 . 1 1 .
e a c h c a s e , t e n t e s t problems were g e n e r a t e d .
158
For
he c o m p u t a t i o n a l r e s u l t s o f H e u r i s t i c
3D a r e summarized I n
T a b l e s 3 . 1 1 and 3 . 1 2 .
The computational r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d
u s i n g a Vax computer.
Zi,
variations
22 and
ZD a r e t h e r e s p e c t i v e t o t a l
obtained by u s i n g H e u r i s t i c
1 and H e u r i s t i c
M i l t e n b u r g e t a l . (1990), and H e u r i s t i c 3D.

mean
CPU
HI, H2 and
t i m e i n seconds f o r u s i n g H e u r i s t i c s
2 of
HD a r e t h e
and
and
H e u r i s t i c 3D r e s p e c t i v e l y .
Table 3.11 Computational r e s u l t s of H e u r i s t i c 3D using weightings

sampled from the U[0.1,0,5]
Total
No. o f
types o f production
products quantity
(n)
(K)
Zi - Z D
Z2
Zd
min
mean
12.57 0 . 0 0
16.29 0 . 0 0
21.08 0 . 0 0
11.22 0 . 0 0
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.04
0.21
0.32
0.39
0.49
0.46
0.39
4.11
4.52
7.19
7.43
mean
100
500
1000
1500
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.66
4.12
4.89
2.40
100
500
1000
1500
100
500
1000
1500
max
Zd
ZD
min
*100
*100
max
mean CPU t i m e
i n seconds
Hi
H2
HD
0.71
0.06
0.01
0.04
6.79 0.08
0.41 0.08
0.03
0.12
0.25
0.31
0.02
0.09
0.17
0.26
4 . 0 1 14.16 0 . 0 0
2.50 8.55 0 . 0 0
2.94 9.18 0 . 0 0
2.28 7.02 0.02
0.22
0.18
0.21
0.40
1.23
0.76
1.05
1.32
0.02
0.08
0.18
0.20
0.11
0.53
1.05
1.61
0.03
0.17
0.37
0.53
14.40 0 . 0 0
14.16 0 . 0 0
19.04 0 . 0 3
16.91 0 . 0 0
0.08
0.37
0.85
0.93
0.80
1.02
1.54
3.03
0.04
0.16
0.32
0.45
0.26
1.50
2.87
4.32
0.07
0.30
0.66
0.89
159
0.00
0.00
Table 3.12 Computational r e s u l t s of Heuristic 3D using weightings

sampled from the UtO. 1,1.1]
Total
No. o f
types o f production
products quantity
(n)
(K)
ZI
ZD
ZD
min
Z 2 - ZD
*100
mean
max
min
mean
max
0.93 2.55
1.85 16,17
3 . 3 9 20.28
2 . 5 7 10.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3 . 5 9 10.52
5 . 7 6 12.44
4 . 2 6 11.24
100
500
1000
1500
D.00
100
500
1000
1500
0.03
0.89
0.24
1.39
7.11
00
00
03
00
100
500
1000
1500
0.00 2.42 6.08

0 . 8 3 4 . 9 7 14.09
0 . 6 2 7 . 2 2 22.22
2.62 5.45 8.46
00
00
02
09
3.00
0.00
0.00
*100
ZD
3.68
mean CPU time

i n seconds
Hi
H2
HD
0.01
0.04
6 . 6 3 0.08
3 . 5 8 0.08
0.03
0.12
0.25
0.31
02
09
17
26
0.34
0.46
0.67
0.30
1.23
1.80
2.44
0.92
02
08
18
20
0.11
0.53
1.05
1.61
0.03
0.17
0.37
0.53
0.44
1.014
1.24
0.53
1.23
6.53
8.81
1.03
04
16
32
45
0.26
1.50
2.87
4.32
0.07
0.30
0.74
0.49
From T a b l e s 3 . 1 1 and 3.
a r e s i m i l a r t o t h a t observed i n s e c t i o n 3 . 2 . 1 . 6 .
I n terms o f
s o l u t i o n q u a l i t y , H e u r i s t i c 3D performs b e t t e r t h a n H e u r i s t i c s 1
and 2 i n a l l t h e t e s t problems.
Heuristic
weightings.
efficient
3D i s
consistently
Moreover,
good f o r
t h e performance o f
different
values
of
Among t h e t h r e e h e u r i s t i c s , H e u r i s t i c 1 i s t h e most
heuristic
but
is
also
the
least
effective
one.
H e u r i s t i c 3D i s more e f f i c i e n t and e f f e c t i v e t h a n H e u r i s t i c 2 , a n d
t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e c o m p u t a t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s o f H e u r i s t i c
m and H e u r i s t i c 1 i s n o t v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t .
160
0.66
0.89
3 . 3 . 2 Production systems with d i f f e r e n t part requirements
When b o t h t h e g o a l s a r e c o n s i d e r e d i n sequence s c h e d u l i n g , t h e
f o r m u l a t i o n o f the j o i n t - g o a l problem o f p r o d u c t i o n systems w i t h
d i f f e r e n t p a r t requirements c a n be o b t a i n e d b y m o d i f y i n g Problem
(Js) described i n section 3.2.2.1.
I n presenting the j o i n t - g o a l
problem, the f o l l o w i n g n o t a t i o n s are necessary.
(3
the time required to assemble one unit of item i at level j
weight assigned to level j to reflect the relative importance

of having constant consumption rate for items at level j
weight
assigned
relatively
to
item
importance
of
at
having
level
to
smoothed
reflect
the
workload
of
producing item i at level j
Together with the notations used in section 3.2.2.1, the modified

version of Problem (Js) then becomes:
Problem CJd)
Ki
Minimize
E I
k=l j=l
ij
(aijh
ij
constraints (C3.4), (C3.5) and (C3.6)
W H E
A)
W +
161
Omjh)
I t i s o b v i o u s t h a t t h e o n l y d i f f e r e n c e between Problems (Ud)

and ( J d ) i s t h e w e i g h t i n g f a c t o r s i n t h e o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n s .
It
c a n e a s i l y be shown t h a t w i t h a minor m o d i f i c a t i o n P r o p o s i t i o n
( 3 . 8 ) s t i l l h o l d s when t h e o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e
a n a l y s i s o f s e c t i o n 3 . 2 . 2 . 2 i s replaced by the o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n
o f Problem (Jd).
replace
The m o d i f i c a t i o n made t o P r o p o s i t i o n ( 3 . 8 ) i s t o
b y W^.
H e u r i s t i c 3B d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 3 . 2 . 2 . 2 c a n
be u s e d t o s o l v e Problem ( J d ) .
I n t h i s c h a p t e r , t h e problem o f f i n d i n g a n assembly sequence

s c h e d u l e h a s been e x t e n s i v e l y a n a l y s e d f o r d i f f e r e n t g o a l s i n
c o n t r o l l i n g t h e assembly l i n e and f o r d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f
p r o d u c t i o n systems.
I n the f i r s t part o f
the analysis,
the
p r o b l e m o f d e t e r m i n i n g sequence s c h e d u l e t o a c h i e v e t h e usage g o a l
f o r two d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p a r t r e q u i r e m e n t s has been
studied.
For
products
with
similar
part
requirements,
an
e f f i c i e n t b r a n c h and bound a l g o r i t h m has been d e v e l o p e d t o s o l v e

medium
size
assembly
sequencing
problems.
For
large
scale
p r o b l e m s , t h e h e u r i s t i c w h i c h i s u s e d t o f i n d t h e upper bound has

b e e n employed t o f i n d a good sequence s c h e d u l e .
Results of
c o m p u t a t i o n a l e x p e r i m e n t s h a s shown t h a t t h e performance o f t h e
h e u r i s t i c i s b e t t e r t h a n t h a t o f t h e e x i s t i n g ones.
When p r o d u c t s
h a v e d i f f e r e n t p a r t r e q u i r e m e n t s , t h e h e u r i s t i c h a s been m o d i f i e d
to
solve
the
sequencing
problem
with
different
objective
f u n c t i o n s , t h e one proposed b y M i l t e n b u r g and Sinnamon (1989) and

the
one
proposed by K o t a n i
(1982).
162
Extensive
computational
e x p e r i m e n t s have been conducted t o e v a l u a t e t h e performance o f t h e

modified
h e u r i s t i c i n each case.
R e s u l t s have r e v e a l e d t h a t i n
e a c h c a s e , t h e m o d i f i e d h e u r i s t i c performs b e t t e r t h a n t h e methods
proposed i n the l i t e r a t u r e *
When t h e usage g o a l i s n o t the o n l y g o a l t o be c o n s i d e r e d , t h e

usage-goal problem h a s been m o d i f i e d t o t h e j o i n t - g o a l problem.
For
production
systems
with
similar
part
requirements,
the
h e u r i s t i c developed f o r t h e u s a g e - g o a l problem h a s been m o d i f i e d

to
solve
the
joint-goal
problem.
Results
of
computational
e x p e r i m e n t s have shown t h a t t h e m o d i f i e d h e u r i s t i c performs b e t t e r

than
the
existing heuristics.
d i f f e r e n t p a r t requirements
For
production
systems
with
it has been shown that the heuristic
developed for the usage-goal problem can also be used to solve the
joint-goal problem.
163
CHAPTER 4
ASSEMBLY MANPOWER PLANNING PROBLEM
4.1 Introduction
A s u c c e s s f u l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f a J I T p r o d u c t i o n system r e q u i r e s
t h e p r o d u c t i o n t o be p r o m p t l y a d a p t a b l e t o demand changes.
means
for
adapting
production
p r o d u c t i o n smoothing.
to
variable
demand i s
The
called
As mentioned i n C h a p t e r 1, t h e r e a r e two
p h a s e s i n p r o d u c t i o n smoothing w h i c h e n a b l e a p r o d u c t i o n system t o
a d a p t t o v a r i a b l e demand.
Based on monthly s a l e s f o r e c a s t ,
d e t a i l e d m o n t h l y p r o d u c t i o n p l a n i s d e t e r m i n e d and f r o m the p l a n
t h e d a i l y average p r o d u c t i o n q u a n t i t y o f e a c h p r o d u c t i s s e t .
the
next
phase,
after
the
revision
of
the
In
smoothed d a i l y
p r o d u c t i o n s c h e d u l e u s i n g t h e most u p - t o - d a t e f o r e c a s t , t h e n e x t
s t e p i n p r o d u c t i o n smoothing i s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e d a i l y
schedule.
sequence
The sequence s c h e d u l e s p e c i f i e s t h e o r d e r o f l a u n c h i n g
v a r i o u s p r o d u c t s i n t o t h e f i n a l assembly l i n e .
The sequence i s
t i m e d s o t h a t one p r o d u c t i s assembled d u r i n g each c y c l e .
S i n c e t h e sequence s c h e d u l e o b t a i n e d b y s o l v i n g t h e assembly
s e q u e n c i n g problem may v a r y f r o m day t o day, t h e w o r k l o a d o f e a c h
a s s e m b l y s t a t i o n i n each day may a l s o f l u c t u a t e i n response t o t h e
changes i n t h e sequence s c h e d u l e .
A s i n c r e a s i n g t h e number o f
w o r k e r s i n a s t a t i o n reduces t h e assembly t i m e r e q u i r e d i n t h a t
station
and
using
overtime
lengthens
164
the
duration
between
s u c c e s s i v e l a u n c h i n g s , i n each day i t may be n e c e s s a r y t o a d j u s t

t h e manpower i n each s t a t i o n and use o v e r t i m e i n o r d e r t o meet t h e
w o r k l o a d requirement o f t h e sequence s c h e d u l e .
I n t h e l i t e r a t u r e on mixed-model assembly 1 in.es, K i I b r i d g e and

Wester
(1963)
defined
the
assembly lines and proposed
sequencing
two
problem i n
mixedmodel
launching systems, namely, the
variable-launch rate and the fixed-launch rate systems, of which

only the latter appears to be practicable.
research
papers,
Macaskill
(1972,
published
to
including
1973),
study
assembly lines.
the
those
Dar-El
line
the
Thompoulos
and
Cother
balancing
(1967,
(1975),
problem
of
1970),
have
been
mixed-model
Recently, the research on mixed-model assembly
lines has also been directed

finding
by
Since then a number of
sequence
toward developing algorithms for
schedule
(Okamura
and
Yamashina
1979,
Miltenburg 1989, Miltenburg and Sinnamon 1989, and Miltenburg et

al.
1990).
However,
the
problem
of
adjusting
the
assembly
workforce in each station and using overtime to meet the workload

requirement of the sequence schedule has so far not been treated.
In this chapter, the assembly manpower planning problem, i.e.

the problem of determining the optimal number of assembly workers
in each station and the optimal amount of overtime, is studied.
The problem is formulated as an integer program which minimizes
the
sum
of workforce adjustment
cost
and
overtime cost.
The
properties of the integer program are then examined in detail.

With these properties, an efficient algorithm is developed for
165
s o l v i n g t h e problem o p t i m a l l y .
4 . 2 Mathematical model
T h e r e a r e many p o s s i b l e f o r m s o f a mixedmode1 assembly line.

The following presents a picture of the mixed-model assembly line
under consideration.
There are J manual assembly stations in the
line linked by a conveyor belt moving at a constant speed Vc.
The
products to be assembled on the line are denoted by i (i=l,..,n).

The distance L between successive products on the line is constant
as the time interval between successive launchings is constant.
It is assumed that each station is manned by at least one operator
and
if
there are more than one operator working
in a station,
their respective tasks should not interfere in any way with each
other either physically or technologically.
Increasing the number
of operators in an assembly station would decrease the assembly

time required in that station but up to a certain limit.
Each
operator, moving downstream along the line, performs his task and
returns upstream at a constant speed Vo to catch the next product.
The operators must perform their tasks within their stations.
It is assumed that a suitable mixed-model line balancing has

already been achieved and that the conveyor belt speed and the
length
of
station, )
have been determined.
The
walking distance of an operator from a workcompleting p o i n t t o

the next work-starting point,
w, i s c o n s t a n t and i s g i v e n b y
166
VoL
(i
o p e r a t o r ' s speed x d i s t a n c e between s u c c e s s i v e products>

relative velocity
Vc+Vo
p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e o p e r a t o r need not w a i t f o r t h e n e x t p r o d u c t a t
the w o r k - s t a r t i n g p o i n t o f that product.
F i g u r e 4 . 1 (adapted f r o m Okamura and Yamashina 1979) shows a n

example
of
the
products are
operator
launched i n t o
point
movement
diagram a t
station
the s t a t i o n according t o
when
a given
Y; and z j a r e t h e r e s p e c t i v e w o r k - s t a r t i n g
and w o r k - c o m p l e t i n g p o i n t
sequence s c h e d u l e a t s t a t i o n j .
of
the
i t h product i n
the
S t a r t i n g f r o m p o s i t i o n Y; , t h e
o p e r a t o r , moving downstream, f i n i s h e s h i s t a s k on t h e i t h p r o d u c t
a t p o s i t i o n Z ; and r e t u r n s upstream t o p o s i t i o n
next product.
t o c a t c h the
T h i s working p a t t e r n i s repeated u n t i l a l l the
p r o d u c t s have been assembled.
Figure 4.1 Operator movement diagram a t s t a t i o n j
Time
Distance from the o r i g i n a t s t a t i o n j
167
I n t h e subsequent a n a l y s i s o f t h e assembly manpower p l a n n i n g

p r o b l e m , t h e f o l l o w i n g n o t a t i o n s a r e used.
di
demand o f p r o d u c t i i n the p l a n n i n g h o r i z o n
t o t a l production quantity of f i n a l
products i n
the
planning horizon
amount o f o v e r t i m e used i n t h e assembly l i n e
total
number
of
units
of
product
produced a f t e r
assembling the f i r s t k products

number o f w o r k e r s i n s t a t i o n j
minimum number o f workers r e q u i r e d i n s t a t i o n j
maximum number o f workers t h a t c a n work i n s t a t i o n j
For
given
sequence
schedule,
and
(distance
between
s u c c e s s i v e products on t h e l i n e ) ,
T i j (m^)
assembly t i m e o f p r o d u c t i w i t h
workers w o r k i n g I n
station j
k
(m , L )
j
d i s t a n c e o f the w o r k - s t a r t i n g p o i n t o f the k t h product

from the o r i g i n w i t h
workers i n s t a t i o n
and
d i s t a n c e L between s u c c e s s i v e p r o d u c t s o n t h e l i n e
Zj(m ,L)
k j
distance
of
the
work-completing p o i n t
product from the o r i g i n w i t h
of
the
w o r k e r s i n s t a t i o n j and
d i s t a n c e L between s u c c e s s i v e p r o d u c t s o n t h e l i n e
168
k th
I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t K = [ d i and t h a t , f o r k {1,. .,30,
if product i is assembled at sequence position k

otherwise
Without the loss of generality, it is assumed that the workstarting point of the first product in the sequence schedule is at
the origin in all the stations, i.e. Y^(m^L) = 0 for all j
During the assembly of the k th product, the forward
displacement travelled by the operator is
V c J]
- X ^
) .
After the completion of the assembly operation, the operator will

return
upstream
displacement,
w,
to
catch
another
product.
not
greater
than
is
If
the
the
backward
distance
of
the
work-completing point of the k th product from the origin then the

displacement between the (k+l)th and k th work-starting points of
station j is equal to Ajk which is the difference of the forward
displacement
and
the
backward
operator for the k th product.
Ajk = V c
Since
- X ^
displacement
travelled
by
the
Thus, in this case,
) - w
the minimum value of Y^(in^L)
169
is equal
to
zero,
it
is
o b v i o u s t h a t i f Y^m
L ) + Ajk ^ 0 t h e n Y J
K
J
(m , L ) = Y j ( m , L )
k+l j
k j
A j k ;
the distance o f
otherwise,
Y^fm^L)
= 0.
w o r k - s t a r t i n g p o i n t o f the
Hence,
+
the
(k+l)th product from the o r i g i n i n
station J,
k + ( m j L ) = m a x < 0 ^ ( m ^ L ) + Ajk}
k = I,..,K-1
and when expressing in terms of Ajh, h = l..k
J
Y
k+1(1TVL)
K
= M A X { 0
,M
A X
k = 1..K-1
Ajh}
l^sSk h=s
The above expression can be written more explicitly as follows
(k-l)w
Tij(m ) X
Y, j (m , L )
T i j ( m) (
- Xk"r} - (r-l)w
T i j ( m ) (X1""1 - Xk""
Once Y^(m , L ) i s computed f o r a l l k {2,..jk}, the distance of

k j
the work-completing point of the k th product from the origin,
Z J (m ,L), can easily be determined.
k j
As a matter of fact, Z j (m ,L)

k j
is equal to the sum of the distance of the work-starting point of

the k th product from
the origin and
the forward displacement
travelled during the k th assembly operation, i.e.
170
and Z^(m L ) can be e x p r e s s e d more e x p l i c i t l y a s f o l l o w s :
i
j
a
V c Y TijCm ) X
(m ,L) = max -
Vc
Ti j
(m )
- (k-l)w
(X1^
- (r-1 )w
k = 1,. . , K
ii
L
V c IT u b ( X ^
- X
'
It is assumed that due to physical limitations, assembly time

of products and overtime used in the assembly line can be varied
only within certain ranges and their ranges are:
Tij
To
^Tij
i = 1, ..,11 and j = 1 , . . , J
To To
where Ti j , T i j ,
To and To a r e g i v e n c o n s t a n t s .
I t i s obvious t h a t
t o t a l d a i l y production quantity *
Hence, L and w a r e d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o To and t h e ranges o f L and

w are:
(4.1}
where L , L , w and w a r e c o n s t a n t s f o r g i v e n To and To.
In
order
to
facilitate
the
presentation
of
mathematical
a n a l y s i s the following notations are necessary.
Cf*
variable overtime overhead cost, excluding the overtime

labour cost, per unit increase of L
C;
overtime labour cost in station j per unit increase of L
Cj (m^)
cost of having
assembly workers in station j
It is obvious that Cj(m^) is non-decreasing in
As shown in
equation (4.2), the amount of overtime, To, is directly related to

L;
thus,
adjustment
and
factor
Cf
can
K/Vc
be
by
found
the
easily
overtime
by
multiplying
labour
cost
per
the
unit
overtime and the variable overtime overhead cost per unit overtime
in
station
respectively.
Let
be
the
distance
between
successive products on the assembly line without using overtime.

For
a given sequence
schedule,
the
problem is formulated as follows:
172
assembly manpower planning
Problem (P)
j
M i n i m i z e F ( L ) = J (Cj(m ) + ( L - [ ) C 0 m ) + ( L - L ) C f
j
j
j
j=i
s.t.
^
J = 1 , . . , J and k = 1, . . ,K
(C4.1)
L ^ L ^ L
m
(C4.2)
{m . . . ,m }
j =1" ,J
(C4.3)
In the objective function of Problem (P), Cj(m^) and (L-L)C

are the respective regular and overtime labour cost in station j
and (L-L)Cf is the variable overtime overhead cost of the assembly
line.
The first constraint ensures that the sequence schedule is
feasible while the last two constraints specify the feasibility

range of decision variables L and
For a fixed value of L
Problem (P) can be decomposed into J sub-problems with sub-problem

j having the following structure:
Problem (Pj)
Minimize
Cj(m ) + (L-L)C^
i=i
k l,..
<m ,. . ,111 >
(C4.5)
173
In
the
above
problem,
constraint
(C4.4)
is
obtained
by
i n equation (4.1)
i n t o c o n s t r a i n t (C4.1).
I t i s w o r t h w h i l e t o n o t e t h a t t h e number
o f c o n s t r a i n t s i n Problems
(P) and ( P j ) i s p r o p o r t i o n a l t o K 2 .
Hence, f o r p r a c t i c a l p r o b l e m s , s u c h a l a r g e number o f c o n s t r a i n t s
n o r m a l l y r e q u i r e s a s i g n i f i c a n t amount o f c o m p u t a t i o n a l e f f o r t t o
solve
these
computational
two
integer
effort i n
programs.
solving
In
order
Problems
(P)
to
reduce
the
and
(Pj),
the
p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e s e two p r o b l e m s need t o i n v e s t i g a t e d i n d e t a i l .
4 . 3 System A n a l y s i s
F o r a g i v e n d i s t a n c e between s u c c e s s i v e p r o d u c t s o n t h e l i n e
the effect of increasing the number of workers in a station on the
displacement
of work-completing
points
is
investigated
in
the
following proposition.
Proposition 4.1
If m
< q then Z j ( m L ) ^ Z j ( q , L ) f o r a l l k {1, - . K}

k j
k
Proof
(4.3)
TijCm^) 2 Tij(q)
174
From e q u a t i o n ( 4 . 1 ) and i n e q u a l i t y ( 4 . 3 ) , i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t
nyL) ^ Z ^ q , L )
for all k {1,. .,K>.
Corollary 4.1
If m
< q and
(m L ) ^
j
then ZjqL) < $j.

k
If the distance between successive products on the line, L, is

increased, the minimum number of assembly workers required
in a
station as well as the displacements of work-completing points may

change.
The relationship between L and
the minimum number of
workers required in each station is investigated in the following

proposition.
Proposition 4.2
Let
(L) be the minlmuni number of assembly workers required in
station
j for
a given L,
i.e.
the minimum value of m
satisfies constraints (C4.4) and (C4.5).
[[],
then
(L2)
that
If L2 > Li, Li and Lz
(Li) for all j {1,.. , J>.
Proof:
From the definition of
(L2),
(L2) is the minimum
{m ,. . ,ni }, that satisfies the following inequality:
175
Vc
i"*1
For
L2
> Li,
suppose
=l , . . , k
and k = 1 , . . , K
(L2)
> n^(Li).
Since
L2
(4.4)
> Li, i t i s
obvious that
Vc I TijCm ( L i ) ) ( X ^
1
i =1
s Vc J
r = 1
Hence
Vc + Vo
V c + Vo
(from t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f m . ( L i ) )
(Li)
contradicting
also
the
fact
satisfies
that
satisfies inequality (4.4).
inequality
m (L2)
i
Therefore,
is
the
(Li) >
(4,4)
minimiM
and
m
thus
which
(L2).
The relationship between L and displacements of work-completing

points is examined in the following proposition.
Proposition 4.3
If L2 > Li, Li and L2 [ , ] , then l) (m ,L2) ^ Z J (m ,Li) for all

k j
k i
k
and for all j {1,..,J}.
Proof:
Let
and w b e the walking distances of an operator, from a
176
work-completing p o i n t t o
the next w o r k - s t a r t i n g p o i n t without
w a i t i n g a t the work-starting point,
when t h e d i s t a n c e between
s u c c e s s i v e p r o d u c t s a r e L i and L2 r e s p e c t i v e l y .
S i n c e L2 > L i and
the walking distance i s equal t o
o p e r a t o r s speed x d i s t a n c e between s u c c e s s i v e p r o d u c t s
relative velocity
it
is obvious that w 2 >
and hence
it
can be deduced from
equation (4.1) that <(11^,L2) ^ Z^Cm^Li).
Thus, the proposition
is true.
After investigating the above relationships, the properties of

the objective functions of Problems
Since
is non-decreasing
(P) and
in
, it
(Pj) are examined.

is obvious that
objective function of Problem (Pj) is increasing inm .

is easy
to solve Problem
optimal solution to
difficult
as
there
it.
are
(Pj) because
altogether
Hence, it
(L) is obviously
However, solving Problem

j ^
H (m
=
j i
the
the
(P) is more
m )
possible
combinations of workers working in the line and each combination

may
lead
to
constraint
Problem
different
(C4.1).
(P).
Thus,
minimum
value
of
that
satisfies
For a given L, m^CL) is the optimal

the objective value of Problem
to
(P)
is a
function of L.
In order to reduce the amount of computational
effort
to
required
solve Problem
objective function of Problem
(P),
the
properties
of
the
(P), F(L), need to be studied in
detail. The following two propositions characterize the properties
177
of F(L).
S u p p o s e L i and L2
[a,p),
Li < L2,
and a and
(
3
[[,]
rn^L,) = m^CL") for all j e {1,. . , J> and for all L, and
If
L"
[ex,), and m^(Li) : m ^ O ) + 1 for some j then F(Li) < F(L2) and
F(L3) > F O ) for some La [a,(5).
Proof:
For Li and L2
= ( L " )
[(x/3), Li < L2, and a and p [[,], if m.(L
for all j e {1, . . , J> and for all L, and L" [a,then
f r o m t h e f a c t s t h a t m^(Li) = m^L2) f o r a l l j {1,.. , J}, and Li <

L2 it can be shown that
F(L2) - F(Li) =
(L2-Li)C^^)
+ (L2-LI)Cf
> 0
I f m^CLi) = mÔ) + 1 t h e n
For
La
) = mÔ) + 1 f o r a l l L , [a9p).
[a,p), since Cj (m^ (L)) is non-increasing in L,
obvious that
Cj (m^ CLs)) C j (mÔ ) ) .
Thus,
j
F(L3)
~F O )
E (CjCm ( L a ) )
~Cj(mO))
+ (L3^)C
j=i
+
(L3-L)C +
(L3-p)Cf
J
>
Y (L3-JS)C; m ^ O )
+ (L3-L)C +
178
CL3-p)Cf
it
is
When L a approaches t o
> 0 , i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t F ( L 3 ) - F O ) > 0 when L3 = /3.
Thus, t h e
p r o p o s i t i o n i s proved.
From P r o p o s i t i o n ( 4 . 4 ) , w i t h i n t h e i n t e r v a l [ a ^ ) , F ( L ) i s a
s t r i c t l y increasing function.
When L
= jSfunction F(L)
discontinuous and F O ) < F O - 6 ) for some small positive S.

F(L)
is
minimiiins.
piecewise
increasing
Let A a set
function
with
of* points in intGFvail
Is
Hence,
multiple
local
[L., L,] and for each
element of A, say a, there exists a corresponding e > 0 such that

for all 6 ( 0 e ) ( a ) + 1 =
(a-5) for some j {1,. . , J>, and
- 3 = m^Ca-e) and m ^ a + S ) = m ^ a ) for all j.
From Proposition
(4.4it c a n b e shown t h a t F(<x-6) > F(ae), F(a+6) > F(a) and

F(a) < F(a-6i) for some
8i
(0,c.
Therefore, a
minimum and A is the set of local minimums.
is a
For each element of
set A, say a, there exists a corresponding e > 0 such that

1 =
local
(a-8) for all 5 e (0,e) and for at least one j
Ca) +
. ., J>.
Therefore, the cardinality of set A, which is equal to the total

j
A
number o f l o c a l minimums, i s a t most e q u a l t o J] (m - m ) .
J
i. =. i j
I n o r d e r t o f i n d t h e g l o b a l minimum, t h e element i n s e t A w i t h
t h e s m a l l e s t o b j e c t i v e v a l u e h a s t o be s e a r c h e d .
I n conducting
t h e s e a r c h f o r t h e g l o b a l minimum, i f t h e o b j e c t i v e v a l u e o f t h e
b e s t l o c a l minimum f o u n d s o f a r i s n o t g r e a t e r t h a n a l o w e r bound
o f t h e o b j e c t i v e v a l u e o f t h e i n t e r v a l t o be searched, the s e a r c h
p r o c e s s c a n b e t e r m i n a t e d a n d t h e b e s t l o c a l minimum f o u n d i s
179
actually
the global
minimum.
This
termination condition i s
p r e s e n t e d and p r o v e d i n t h e p r o p o s i t i o n b e l o w .
Proposition 4.5
Let F(Li), L i
interval [L,L2).
[L,L2), be
in the
If
j
F(Li)
the minimum objective value
+ (L2-L)C inj (L)] + (L2-L)Cf
(4.5)
then F(Li) is the global minimum in the interval [[,].
Proof
For La
[L2,L],
it is obvious that La ^ L2 , m (La)

^
j
and CjCm^CLs)) 2 Cj(m^CL)).
>
m ()
j
Hence, for all La [L2,]
F(L3) =
^ [Cj(in (La)) + (L3-L)C0 m (L3)] + (L3-L)Cf

j
j=i
j j
J
I [CjCm ()) + (L2-[)C: m ()] + (L2-DCf.

j
j
j
j=i
j
^
If E [Cj(m ()) + (L2-L)C m (L)] + (L2-L)Cf
j
j
j=i
F(Li) for all La tL2,L].
the interval
F(Li) then F(L3)
Hence, F(Li) is the global minimum in
[!!,.
180
W i t h t h e p r o p e r t i e s examined i n t h e above, e f f i c i e n t a l g o r i t h m s
f o r s o l v i n g Problems (P) and ( P j ) a r e developed i n t h e f o l l o w i n g
section.
4 . 4 S o l u t i o n algorithms
I n order t o f a c i l i t a t e the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the algorithms, the

f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n s a r e necessary.
( a ) Sequence p o s i t i o n k i s s a i d t o be a s a d d l e I n s t a t i o n j i f
Vc E T i j ( m HX^" 1
J
i=l
i=i
(b) Sequence p o s i t i o n k i s s a i d t o be a peak i n s t a t i o n j i f

n
Vc J] T u ( m ) (X^ - X^"1) > w and Vc J] T i j ( m )(5^+1 j

1
i=i
i=i
^ w.
( c ) Sequence p o s i t i o n k i s s a i d t o be a r e g e n e r a t i o n p o i n t i n
s t a t i o n j i f Y j (in , L ) = 0 .
k
(d) The s e t o f sequence p o s i t i o n s f r o m p o s i t i o n s q t o r i s s a i d t o

be a mountain i n s t a t i o n j i f q and r a r e c o n s e c u t i v e s a d d l e s
i n stationj .
F o r g i v e n L and
I (m^L)
i n stationj ,
number o f i n f e a s i b l e mountains ( i . e . number o f mountains

v i o l a t i n g c o n s t r a i n t (C4.4) o f Problem ( P j ) )
Qrfm^L)
s e t o f sequence p o s i t i o n s v i o l a t i n g c o n s t r a i n t (C4.4) o f
Problem ( P j ) i n t h e r t h i n f e a s i b l e mountain
181
rr(m^,L)
r e g e n e r a t i o n p o i n t o f t h e r t h i n f e a s i b l e mountain w h i c h
i s e q u a l t o max{s|s < t h e peak o f t h e r t h i n f e a s i b l e
mountain and
belongs t o
the
set
of
regeneration
points}
For given L,
and sequence s c h e d u l e ,
t h e s e t o f sequence
p o s i t i o n s v i o l a t i n g c o n s t r a i n t (C4.4) o f P r o b l e m ( P j ) , i . e . u n i o n
o f Qr(m^,L) f o r r = 1, . . , I (m^L), c a n be d e t e r m i n e d .
q workers i n s t a t i o n j
and q i s g r e a t e r t h a n
from
that
Corollary
(4.1)
only
the
then i t f o l l o w s
feasibility
p o s i t i o n k , where k QrCm^L) and r =
I f there are
of
sequence
1, . . , I (m^L), has to be
checked in order to check the feasibility of q to Problem (Pj).

This property is incorporated in the following bisection search
algorithm by which the minimum number of assembly workers required
in each station for a given L is determined.
Algorithm 4A
Step 0
Initialize the station number under consideration by setting j

=1.
Step 1
Set the lower bound of
Di, equal to
Set the upper bound of
, D2, equal to
182
Set m = Di.
j
If
s a t i s f i e s c o n s t r a i n t s (C4.4) and (C4.5) t h e n

g o t o S t e p 4;
else
f i n d t h e s e t o f i n f e a s i b l e sequence p o s i t i o n s Q(L) where
Q ( L = union of QrCm^L), r = 1, .I
,L);
end if.
Step 2
Find the next value of
to be tested by setting
smallest integer which is greater than or equal to
=the
^ ^2.
If nij = D2 (I.e. D2 = Di + 1) then goto Step 4.
Step 3
If the newly found m
is feasible, i.e.
(mL) s
j
k Q(L), then
set D2 =
else
s e t Di =
f i n d Qr(ia^L) I (m^L) , rr(m^,L) and QCL)

end i f .
Goto S t e p 2 .
183
for a l l
Step 4
I f t h e minimum number o f w o r k e r s r e q u i r e d i n each s t a t i o n h a s

been found, i . e . when j = J , t h e n
stop
else
consider the next station by setting j = j + 1;
goto Step 1
end if.
Step
of
initializes
Algorithm
the
station
4A
is an
number
initialization
under
step
consideration.
which
Before
carrying out the search process, the lower bound and the upper
bound of
nij are first set to appropriate values in step 1,
feasibility of the lower bound of
is then tested.
If
The
it is
feasible, the search procedure will stop as the lower bound is

equal to the minimum number of workers required.
Otherwise, the
set of infeasible sequence positions is determined.

the next value of
In step 2,
to be tested is computed and the feasibility
of this value is checked in step 3.
If this value is feasible
then the upper bound is updated; otherwise, the lower bound is

revised.
until
the
The search process continues by repeating steps 2 and 3

minimum
is
found.
The minimum
numbers
of workers
required in other assembly stations are determined by repeating

steps 1, 2 and 3.
In step 3, the number of times that the condition Z^Cm L) ^
184
h a s t o be t e s t e d , i n t h e w o r s t c a s e , i s e q u a l t o K .
For s t a t i o n
J> t h e number o f i t e r a t i o n s t h a t s t e p s 2 and 3 a r e r e p e a t e d i s

equal
to
log(m^
m^)/log2.
j
^
a l g o r i t h m i s o f 0 ( K J] l o g ( m
i
j
Hence,
the
the
JS ) ) .
j
A l g o r i t h m 4A f i n d s t h e minimum v a l u e o f
when L i s f i x e d .
complexity o f
f o r each s t a t i o n
S i n c e t h e o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n o f Problem ( P j ) i s
s t r i c t l y increasing I n
i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t A l g o r i t h m 4A s o l v e s
Problem (Pj) optimally.
A s p r o v e d i n s e c t i o n 4 . 3 L is a local
minimum
if there exists an e > 0 such that for all d (0e),
m^(L) + 1 = m^(L-6) for some j {1,. . , J}, and m^(L-a) = m.(L-e)

and
(L+5) =
(L) for all
j.
Thus, for a given
i t
b e d e d u c e d f r o m P r o p o s i t i o n ( 4 . 4 ) t h a t t h e minimum v a l u e o f
which s a t i s f i e s constraint
(P).
can
L
( C 4 . 4 ) i s a l o c a l minimum o f P r o b l e m
I n f i n d i n g t h e minimum v a l u e o f L t h a t s a t i s f i e s c o n s t r a i n t
( C 4 . 4 ) , t h e i n e q u a l i t y i n t h e c o n s t r a i n t h a s t o b e s o l v e d K(K+1 ) / 2
times.
T h e r e f o r e , t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f f i n d i n g t h e minimum v a l u e o f
2
L i s o f 0 ( K ) , and hence a s i g n i f i c a n t amount o f c o m p u t a t i o n a l

e f f o r t i s required i f K i s large.
I n the following, an e f f i c i e n t
m o d i f i e d b i s e c t i o n a l g o r i t h m i s d e v e l o p e d f o r f i n d i n g t h e minimum
d i s t a n c e r e q u i r e d between s u c c e s s i v e p r o d u c t s o n t h e l i n e w i t h a
given
which s a t i s f i e s
constraint
d i s t a n c e i s d e n o t e d b y L j (m^).
185
(C4.4).
This
minimum
A l g o r i t h m 4B
Step 0
S e t t h e lower bound o f LjCm^), D i , e q u a l t o L .
S e t t h e upper bound o f Lj(m^), D2, e q u a l t o L .
I n i t i a l l y , s e t A j = A j = L and t h e s e t o f i n f e a s i b l e sequence
p o s i t i o n s , Q(Aj), equal t o
Step 1
F o r a l l k Q(Xj), find the number of infeasible mountains, the

regeneration point of each infeasible mountain and the set of
sequence
positions
in
each
infeasible
I (mÂj) > 3rr(m^,Xj) and Qr(in^
, r = 1,..,
mountain,
I(in^,Xj).
Set Q(Xj) = union of QrCm^,Aj), r = 1,..,1(m^,Xj).
If Q(Xj) is not an empty set then goto Step 2.
If
reduced) then
stop;
else
goto Step 3;
end i f .
186
i.e.
find
Step 2
S e t D i = A j and Aj = Xj.
F i n d a n e s t i m a t e o f t h e maximum i n c r e a s e i n X j , A i , s u c h t h a t
X j + A i ^ Lj(m^), i . e . f i n d A i where
A i = max{[2^(m X j )
Vo[k-r(k,Xj)]
Q(Xj)l and
J
3r(k:,Aj) is the regeneration point of the mountain containing

sequence position k when L = Xj.
If Z^(in^ ,Xj+Ai)j f o r a l l k Q(Aj) then

set Lj(m^) = Aj + Ai;
stop;
else
set Di = Aj + Ai;
if D2 - Di ^ pre - specif ied accuracy tolerance, , then stop;
, T
D1+D2
set j
=~ 2 ~ J
end i f .
G o t o S t e p 1.
Step 3
I f A j = L ( t h e minimum f e a s i b l e d i s t a n c e ) t h e n s t o p .
S e t D2 = X j .
187
F i n d a n e s t i m a t e o f t h e minimum d e c r e a s e i n A j , A2, s u c h t h a t
X j - A2
=m
i . e . f i n d A2 where
{ C^ -
Vo[k~r(k,Aj)]
j j ) is the regeneration point of the mountain containing

sequence position k when L = Aj.
If Z^(m^,Aj-A2) 5 j f o r a l l k Q(Aj) then

set LjCm^) = Xj - A2
stop
else
set Di = max{Xj - A2, Di}
if D2 - Di ^ A then stop
, D 1 + D 2
set Aj =
end if.
Goto Step 1.
Step 0 of Algorithm 4B is an initialization step which assigns

appropriate
initial
values
to
the
lower
and
upper
bounds
of
Lj(m^), and initializes the set of infeasible sequence positions.

The feasibility of the lower bound to constraint CC4.4) is checked
in step 1.
If it is feasible, the algorithm terminates; else, the
set of infeasible sequence positions is detenained.
In step 2
the current distance between successive products on the line Xj,

is increased.
An estimate of the maximum increase in Xj, M , such
that Xj + Ai s Lj(m^) Is determined.
188
Suppose sequence position k
i s
Z
infeasible
then
the
amount o f
infeasibility i s
equal
to
k^mj
d i s t a n c e o f an operator from a work-completing p o i n t t o the next

work-starting point i s equal t o
VL+Ai)
Vc+Vo
i.e.
'
operators speed x distance between successive products

relative velocity
p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e o p e r a t o r need n o t w a i t f o r t h e n e x t p r o d u c t a t
the work-starting point of
that product.
displacement
the
travelled
by
operator
o p e r a t i o n w i l l i n c r e a s e b y a t most
A l V o
Thus,
after
t h e backward
each
assembly
A f t e r increasing Xj by
Vc+Vo
A i , i f t h e s e t o f t h e r e g e n e r a t i o n p o i n t s o f i n f e a s i b l e mountains
remains
unchanged t h e n t h e w o r k - c o m p l e t i n g p o i n t o f
p r o d u c t w i l l s h i f t backward b y [ k - y ( k , X j ) ] A
l V o
the
k th
where 7 ( k , X j ) i s
Vc+Vo
the
regeneration point o f
p o s i t i o n k when L
j
Ya (mj)
j
may
= Aj.
be
the
infeasible
mountain c o n t a i n i n g
However, a f t e r i n c r e a s i n g X j b y A i ,
equal
to
zero
{yCk, Aj), r(k,Xj)+1, .. ,k} and hence
for
some
[k-ytk,Xj) 3A l V o
is an upper
Vc+Vo
bound on the backward shift of the work-completing point of the

k th product.
For
the
sequence schedule
to be feasible, the
necessary condition is: the upper bound on the backward shift of

the work-completing point of the k th product should be greater
than or equal
estimate of
to
the amount of infeasibility.
the maximum
increase
189
in
Aj,
Ai,
Hence, a good
is
equal
to
the
maximum
of
[2^(m
_Vc+Vo
Votk-yCkJj)]
Xj) -
for
all
infeasible
position k Q(Xj).
It is obvious that Ai is a lower bound for
the maximum
in Aj such that the sequence schedule
feasible.
increase
is
In finding Ai, it is not necessary to consider all the
sequence positions because only sequence positions belonging to

Q(j) a r e i n f e a s i b l e .
I f a l l t h e i n f e a s i b l e sequence p o s i t i o n s
become f e a s i b l e b y I n c r e a s i n g Xj t o Xj + A i , t h e n LjCm^) i s e q u a l
t o Aj + Ai.
O t h e r w i s e , t h e l o w e r bound f o r LjCm^) i s s e t t o Xj +
i and if the stopping condition is not met, a new value of Xj is

determined.
This value of Aj is then tested in step 1 again.
In step 3, an estimate of the minimum decrease in Xj, A2, such

that Aj - A2 ^ LjCuij) is computed.
For an infeasible distance
between successive products on the line, Xj, the set of infeasible

sequence positions, Q(Aj), has already been determined in step 1.
Since Aj is greater than Xj, it can be deduced from Proposition
(4.3) that decreasing Aj will first render the sequence positions
in set Q(Xj) infeasible.
Hence, only the sequence positions in
Q(Aj) need to be considered when computing 2.
I f X j i s decreased
b y A2 t h e n t h e backward d i s p l a c e m e n t t r a v e l l e d b y t h e o p e r a t o r
a f t e r a s s e m b l i n g e a c h p r o d u c t w i l l d e c r e a s e b y a t most
^2Vq ( i . e .
Vc+Vo
w w i l l d e c r e a s e b y a t most
^ ^).
Suppose when decreasing Aj to
Vc+Vo
Aj,
the regeneration point of
the mountain containing sequence
position k remains unchanged, then the work-completing point of

the
k th product will
shift
forward by
a
A2V0
[k-rCk,Aj)]
where
Vc+Vo
Aj)
Is
the
regeneration point
190
of
the
infeasible
mountain
c o n t a i n i n g p o s i t i o n k when L = X j .
t o Aj-A2
(Xj-A2 > A j ) ,
However, a f t e r d e c r e a s i n g A j
t h e r e g e n e r a t i o n p o i n t o f t h e moxintain
c o n t a i n i n g sequence p o s i t i o n k may change and become s m a l l e r and

>
A2Vo
hence [k-yCk^j) ]
Vc+Vo
is a lower bound on the forward shift of
the work-completing point of the k th product.
For the sequence
schedule to be feasible, the necessary condition
is the lower
bound on forward shift of the work-completing point of the k th

product should be less than or equal
to
the amount
of
slack.
Thus, the minimum decrease in Aj is not greater than A2 which is

equal to the minimum of
QUj).
in Aj.
Vc+Vo
f^j - Z j (m ,Aj)]
for all k e
k
J
Vo[k-r(k,Aj)]
Therefore, A2 is an upper bound for the minimum decrease

If all the sequence positions remain feasible when Aj is
decreased to Xj - Az, then
is equal to Xj A2.
Otherwise,
a new lower bound for LjCm^) is computed and if the interval of

uncertainty is greater than pre-specif ied one, a new value for Aj
is calculated.
This value is then tested in step 1.
After carrying out steps 2 and 3 of Algorithm 4B, the interval

of uncertainty is reduced at least by half.
of
iterations that steps
1
LjLs
=log-rlog2
A
~
If L-L = 10
1, 2 and 3 are repeated

and A = 10
required is less than 40.

computations
required
is
Therefore, the number

Is equal
to
, the number of iterations
In steps 1, 2 and 3, the niMber of

of
order K.
Hence,
the worst
case
-L
complexity of the algorithm is of 0(K l o g .
Algorithms 4A and 4B presented in the above are the essential

building
blocks
of
the
solution
191
algorithm
to
Problem
(PJ.
Algorithm
4B
finds
the
minimum
distance
required
s u c c e s s i v e p r o d u c t s on t h e l i n e f o r a g i v e n
between
I t c a n be deduced
from P r o p o s i t i o n (4.2) t h a t i f the a c t u a l distance, L , i s j u s t

less
than the
minimum f o u n d b y A l g o r i t h m 4B,
has
t o be
i n c r e a s e d b y one s o t h a t t h e sequence s c h e d u l e i s f e a s i b l e t o
stationj .
T h e r e f o r e , A l g o r i t h m 4B a c t u a l l y f i n d s a l o c a l minimuni
o f P r o b l e m ( P ) , i . e . a n element o f s e t A .
c a n be d e t e r m i n e d f o r a l l j
U s i n g A l g o r i t h m 4B,
e { 1 , . . , J>.
S i n c e LjCm^) i s
t h e minimum d i s t a n c e between s u c c e s s i v e p r o d u c t s on t h e l i n e s o
t h a t t h e sequence s c h e d u l e i s f e a s i b l e t o s t a t i o n j , i t i s o b v i o u s
t h a t t h e minimujii d i s t a n c e r e q u i r e d between s u c c e s s i v e p r o d u c t s o n
t h e l i n e , L , i s e q u a l t o max{L> L i ( i n i ) , . . .
Thus,
L j (m^) f o r a l l j and i t f o l l o w s f r o m P r o p o s i t i o n ( 4 . 2 ) t h a t m^(L)
(Lj(m^)) = m . T h e r e f o r e , t h e maximum v a l u e o f
(L).
Since
i s equal t o
( L ) i s t h e minimum number o f w o r k e r s r e q u i r e d i n
s t a t i o n j f o r t h e sequence s c h e d u l e t o b e f e a s i b l e , t h e mlnimiim
v a l u e o f nij i s e q u a l t o
CL).
I n t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n , i t has
b e e n shown t h a t t h e t o t a l number o f l o c a l minimums i s much l e s s

t h a n t h e t o t a l nuinber o f p o s s i b l e c o m b i n a t i o n s c o n s t i t u t i n g a
l o c a l minimum.
I t c a n be deduced f r o m P r o p o s i t i o n ( 4 , 4 ) t h a t f o r
each value o f
minimum of F(L).
, j
{1,..J>, there is a corresponding local
In finding the global minimumthe simplest way
is to determine and compare the local minimums corresponding to

different possible values of
{1,.., J>.
reduce the number of computations required

minimiuii, an efficient method
is developed
to find
In order
to
the global
for determining the
occurrence of the next local minimum when increasing the distance
192
between s u c c e s s i v e
products.
The
number o f
comparisons
f u r t h e r be c u t down by making use o f P r o p o s i t i o n ( 4 . 5 ) .
can
I f the
b e s t l o c a l minimum w i t h i n t h e i n t e r v a l c o n s i d e r e d so f a r s a t i s f i e s
t h e c o n d i t i o n i n P r o p o s i t i o n ( 4 . 5 ) , t h i s l o c a l miniumm i s a l s o t h e
g l o b a l minimum.
I n t e g r a t i n g the method o f f i n d i n g t h e l o c a l
minimums w i t h A l g o r i t h m s 4A and 4B, a n e f f i c i e n t a l g o r i t h m i s

d e v e l o p e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g t o s o l v e Problem (P) o p t i m a l l y .
A l g o r i t h m 4C
Step 1
Determine Ljfm^) f o r a l l j {1,..,J> using Algorithm 4B.
Find the minimum distance between successive products on the

line, i.e. find L where L = max{[, Li(m
Find
( L ) and
)}
( L ) f o r a l l j e { 1 , . . , J> u s i n g A l g o r i t h m 4A.
The b e s t s o l u t i o n f o u n d so f a r ,
i n i t i a l values, i . e . set
{m^,..
i s set t o the
(L) f o r a l l j {1,..,J} and X
=L.
If
(L) =
(L) for all j {1,..,J} then stop as the optimal
solution has already been found.
Set the current value of

of workers required,
equal to the maxiiaiim number
(L), for all j {1,..,J}.
193
T e n t a t i v e l y decrease the number o f w o r k e r s i n each s t a t i o n b y

one i f p o s s i b l e , and f i n d t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g minimum d i s t a n c e
r e q u i r e d between s u c c e s s i v e p r o d u c t s on t h e l i n e i n e a c h c a s e ,
i . e . set 5
= max { - 1 m ^ L ) } and find Lj(i ) using Algorithm
4B (with L in step 0 of 4B replaced by L) for all j c {1,.. j}

F o r j {1, } i f *
(i.e.
in^ c a n b e decreased b y o n e )
then
set Xj = max{Lj(m^) ,L>
else
set A j -
oo
to
indicate
that
cannot
be decreased
any
further
end if.
Step 2
Find j
j
where j
is the value of j (j = 1, . . J) which minimizes
(Aj, i s t h e d i s t a n c e where t h e n e x t l o c a l minimum w i l l
occur).
I f Xy =
o ( a l l l o c a l minimums have been checked) t h e n
stop;
else
s e t t h e c u r r e n t d i s t a n c e between s u c c e s s i v e p r o d u c t s o n t h e
l i n e . A, equal t o
a n d 5= S1;
end if.
194
Step 3
I f F(X)
< F ( X ) , i . e . (X~A)Cf
-A-L)Cj
- C j ( i ) +U-[)C0 m
j
J i
<I Idim)
j
j=i
], then update the minimum in the interval
by setting A = X and
[L,X]
= m f o r all j e {1,..,j}.
I f (A-A)Cf ^ J [Cj(mJ ) - Cj(mJ ( L ) ) + (A~L)C 0 m j=i

j j
(A-L)C 0 m ()
J i
(the condition of Proposition (4.5) is satisfied) then stop.
If
- 1
station j, ,
is
less than
the minimum number
of workers
in
(L), then
set Xj* = a to indicate station jneed not be considered in

subsequent iterations;
else
find Lj' (in^-1) using Algorithm 4B
(with L in step 0 of 4B
replaced by L)
s e t Xj^ = L j ' (m^-1)
end if.
Goto Step 2.
In Step 1 of Algorithm 4Cthe minimum of L, L, and the minimum

and maximum values of
maximum value.
corresponding
are computed,
When decreasing
minimum
distance
is initially set to its

(j {1,,., J>) by one, the
required
between
successive
products on the line
(i.e.
the distance which a local minimuM
occurrs) is computed.
Next when increasing the distance between
195
s u c c e s s i v e p r o d u c t s , t h e d i s t a n c e a t w h i c h t h e n e x t l o c a l minimum
o c c u r r s i s determined I n S t e p 2.
Since Aj ( j =
local
the next l o c a l
minimums o f
Problem
(P),
are the
minimum t o be
checked c a n be determined e a s i l y by f i n d i n g t h e s m a l l e s t X j .
Step
3 t e s t s whether t h e newly found l o c a l minimum i s b e t t e r t h a n t h e

b e s t s o l u t i o n found so f a r and whether i t s a t i s f i e s t h e c o n d i t i o n
o f Proposition (4.5).
U s i n g t h e argument o f s e c t i o n 4 . 3 , i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t t h e r e a r e
J
a t most
(m ( L ) - m ( L ) ) l o c a l minimums.
J
J
F o r each v a l u e o f m ,
L j C n ^ h a s to be determined using Algorithm 4B.
Therefore, the
complexity of Algorithm 4C is of CWK log-
4 . 5 Numerical example
numerical
example
is
solved
below
to
computational aspect of the above algorithms.
illustrate
the
In this example,
there are three products with demands di = 3, d2 = 1 and da = 1 to

be assembled on two-station assembly line (J = 2) according to the
sequence {1,2,1,3,1}.
The lengths of stations 1 and 2 are 18 and
21 units repectively, i.e.
#i = 18 and #2 = 21.
number
and
of workers required
the maximum number
The minimum
of workers
needed i n s t a t i o n 1 a r e 1 and 2 r e s p e c t i v e l y , i . e .
2.
i
I n s t a t i o n 2,
= 1 and
= 3.
The assembly time of product
(i = 1,2,3) required in station j
196
= 1 and
(j = 1,2with
workers,
Tij(m ) , i s given as follows
T u ( m
J =
) =J
Ti2(m ) =
T22(m ) = ,
3 0
' ^ 131( m ) =
T33(m
)
W i t h o u t o v e r t i m e , t h e d i s t a n c e between s u c c e s i v e p r o d u c t s on t h e
lineL,
is
equal
to
16
units with
distance, L, is equal to 22 units.
overtime,
the
maximum
The variable overtime overhead
cost, excluding the overtime labour cost, per unit increase of the
succesive distance between products
(L),
Cf,
is equal
to f 100.
The overtime labour cost in stations 1 and 2 per unit increase of

L are $20 and $30 respectively, i.e. C 0 = 20 and 0 = 30.
1
2
cost of having m
and m workers are equal

2
to
10m
The
and 20m
respectively, i.e. C (m ) = 10m and C (m ) = ZOm

1 1
1
2 2
2
The above problem is solved by Algorithm 4C and the details of

computation are as follows:
In
Step
of
Algorithm
4C,
Li(2)
is
determined
using
Algorithm 4B
Step 1 of 4B
Di = 16, D2 = 22, Ai = Xi = 16 and

Q(16) = {1,..,5}
Step 2 of 4B
3ri(2,16) = 1, Qi2,16) = {3}
Step 3 of 4B
Ai = 0.5 and 2^(2,16+0.5) ^ 18 for all k

Q(2,16), Li(2) = 16.5 and Algorithm 4B stops.
Similarly, using Algorithm 4B, Lz(3) found is equal to 16.
197
Hence,
L = max{16,Li(2),L2(3)> = 16.5.
N e x t , t h e minimum and maximum v a l u e s o f

A l g o r i t h m 4A.
2.
a r e determined u s i n g
^ ( 1 6 . 5 ) = 2 , m (22) = 1, m ( 1 6 . 5 ) = 3 and
1
The i n i t i a l s o l u t i o n is
= 2,
= 3, and X = 16.5.
corresponding objective value, F(16.5), is equal to 195.

~
_
2 , = 3 , Xi = 666/32 and X2 = 21.5.
In Step 2 of Algorithm 4C, it is found that j, = 1.

to 666/32 and m
In
Step
1080.625 and
The
Set m =
i
A is set
= 1.
of
the
Algorithm
stopping
4C,
it
is
found
that
criterion is satisfied.
F (666/32)=
Hence,
the
optimal solution is m i = 2, m 2 = 3 and L = 16.5
In this chapter, the assembly manpower planning problem, i.e.

the problem of determining the optimal number of workers required
in each station and
workload
requirement
the
of
amount
the
of
overtime used
sequence
schedule,
mixed-model assembly line has been studied.
to meet
in
the
JIT
Since the sequence
schedule found by solving the assembly sequencing problem may vary

from day to day, the number of workers in each station may need to
be adjusted and overtime may have to be used in order to meet the
workload of the daily sequence schedule.
198
The assembly manpower
p l a n n i n g problem has been f o r m u l a t e d a s an i n t e g e r program w h i c h

m i n i m i z e s t h e sum o f w o r k f o r c e adjustment c o s t and o v e r t i m e c o s t .
The p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e i n t e g e r program has been examined i n d e t a i l .
These p r o p e r t i e s have been summarized i n t o s e v e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s .
The
propositions
have
been
used
to
develop
polynomial
time-bounded a l g o r i t h m t o s o l v e t h e i n t e g e r program o p t i m a l l y .
Computation o f t h e a l g o r i t h m has been demonstrated by a n u m e r i c a l
example.
199
CHAPTER 5
KANBAN ASSIGNMENT PROBLEM
51 Introduction
The Kanban system is a multi-stage production scheduling and

inventory control system which aims at holding the inventories of
various raw materials and work-in-process to a minimum.
attractive
features
of
the
Kanban
system
are
The most
its
quick
responsiveness to disruptions in a manufacturing line through its

automatic feedback mecha.nism, its tendency to identify probl6niatic
areas,
and
its
simplicity
that
makes
it
operational
without
requiring a large and complex information system.
As mentioned in Chapter 1, daily production smoothing of the

JIT production system is achieved through the use of the Kanban
system and an effective assembly sequence schedule.
Once the
sequence schedule is determined, the production of a multi-stage

production system is controlled by the Kanban system.
The Kanban
system is effective in cutting down work-in-process inventory and

in productivity improvement.
It was reported that Toyota had an
inventory turnover of 50 to 100 times while inventory turnover of

major U.S. companies was 10 to 20 times (Sugimori et al. 1977
Rice and Yoshikawa 1982).
Given the degree of Japanese success
with the JIT production system with Kanbans for production and
inventory
control,
it
is
natural
for
manufacturers
in
other
countries to explore the possibility of using the Kanban system in
200
order t o achieve s i m i l a r success.
The
operating
procedures
of
the
Kanban
system
are
well
d e s c r i b e d by S u g i m o r i e t a l . (1977), K i m u r a and T e r a d a (1981) and

Monden
(1981a,bc).
In
this section,
brief
the mechanism of the Kanban system is presented.

Japanese
language,
production,
means
delivery
or
card
purchase
or
It
A
of
"Kanban" in the
tag.
order.
description
serves
container
as
holding
full-container of parts should have a Kanban attached to it.
The
Kanban system described by Figure 1.1 of Chapter 1 is considered

again to illustrate the mechanism of the system.
Using the Items
stored at the inventory point of the immediate predecessor, the

production process at stage n, P n , produces its own items to fill
a container.
Once the container is full a Kanban is attached to
it and the container is sent to the inventory point of stage n,

0n.
When the contents of a full container in 0 n begins to be used
in the production process of the immediate successor of stage n t

the Kanban originally attached to the container is detached and
put into a Kanban collection box.
all
the
Kanbans
detached
At the end of each time period,
in 0 n
collected and sent back to P n .
during
the
time
period
are
These freed Kanbans will act as
production orders for process P n .
When
operating
the
Kanban
system,
the
Kanban
assignnent
problem, namely the problem of determining the number of Kanbans

to be issued to each production stage, has to be solved.
companies
attempt iiig
deterministic
to
capacitated
implement
production
201
the
Kanban
system
systea
witli
For
in
dedicated
p r o d u c t i o n l i n e s , t h e model proposed b y B i t r a n and Chang (1987)

c a n be used t o f i n d a s u i t a b l e number o f Kanbans c i r c u l a t i n g I n
t h e system.
doctoral
B i t r a n and Chang*s model i s t h e outcome o f Chang*s
research c a r r i e d out a t
MIT.
A linear
progranuning
h e u r i s t i c was proposed b y B i t r a n and Chang (1987) t o s o l v e t h e

Kanban assignment problem when t h e c o n t a i n e r usage number
(the
number o f f u l l c o n t a i n e r s o f an i t e m r e q u i r e d t o make a c o n t a i n e r
o f i t s immediate s u c c e s s o r ) and t h e i n i t i a l i n v e n t o r y l e v e l o f
each stage s a t i s f y c e r t a i n conditions.
I n t h i s chapter,
t h e i n t e g e r programming model proposed b y
B i t r a n and Chang (1987) i s p r e s e n t e d and a n a l y s e d .

that
due
to
the
I t i s found
large
computational
requirement
and
the
r e s t r i c t i o n s on container
usage numbers
and i n i t i a l i n v e n t o r y
l e v e l s , t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f B i t r a n and Chang's l i n e a r programming

h e u r i s t i c i s severely limited.
needed
to
solve
their
Hence, a more e f f i c i e n t method i s
integer
program.
By
modifying
the
c o n s t r a i n t s e t o f B i t r a n and Chang's model, two i n t e g e r progras

a r e obtained.
The p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e two i n t e g e r programs a r e
investigated i n detail.
U s i n g t h e s e p r o p e r t i e s , a n e f f i c i e n t and
e f f e c t i v e h e u r i s t i c i s developed t o s o l v e t h e Kanban assignment

p r o b l e m a s r e p r e s e n t e d b y B i t r a n and C h a n g ' s model w i t h o u t making
any r e s t r i c t i v e a s s u m p t i o n on c o n t a i n e r usage numbers and i n i t i a l
inventory levels.
Coinputationatl e x p e r i m e n t s a r e c a r r i e d out t o
e v a l u a t e t h e performance o f t h e h e u r i s t i c .
The r e s u l t s show t h a t
i n t e r m s o f computing t i m e and s o l u t i o n q u a l i t y , t h e h e u r i s t i c
performs
better
than B i t r a n
and
heuristic.
202
Chains
linear
programming
5.2 Mathematical model
T h i s s e c t i o n d e a l s w i t h t h e model proposed b y B i t r a n and Chang

(1987).
A b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e model i s p r e s e n t e d i n t h e
following.
The model i s proposed f o r a m u l t i - s t a g e d e t e r m i n i s t i c
c a p a c i t a t e d assembly s t r u c t u r e p r o d u c t i o n s e t t i n g w i t h each s t a g e
p r o d u c i n g one type o f i t e m .
F o r t h e Kanban system d e s c r i b e d b y
F i g u r e 1 . 1 , supposing t h a t the d e l i v e r y o f a f u l l c o n t a i n e r and

i t s a t t a c h e d w i t h d r a w a l KanTban from t h e outbound i n v e n t o r y p o i n t
o f s t a g e n , n , to the inbound inventory point of stage n-1, I11"1,
is
viewed
as
another
production process.
By
extending
this
argument to the whole production system, there would be only one

inventory point between any pair of consecutive processes.
With
this arrangement, no distinction between production Kanbans and

withdrawal Kanbans
is needed.
In practice,
the
nature
of
process will indicate the kind of Kanban involved.
There
are
N+l
stages
in
the
production
system.
Let
{0,1,.. ,N} index the stages with the notation that

stage
succeeds
stage
Stage 0
is
operation and includes operation P 0 only.
the
i f
final
assembly
For every stage n
{1,..,10, there are one production process P n and an immediately

inventory point O n .
succeeding
final stage
(stage 0) is given and must be met exactly.
number of Kanbans circulating

unaltered
by
A production schedule for
Management
in each stage
during
the
planning
production quota at each stage n

effective
demand,
imposes
limit
203
is assumed
horizon.
the
The
to be
The
as determined by the
on
the
maximum
production
q u a n t i t y o f stage n .
Hence, once t h e p r o d u c t i o n quota i s reached,
a l l the detached Kanbans w i l l not t r i g g e r any f u r t h e r p r o d u c t i o n

and w i l l be d r a i n e d away from the system a t
planning horizon.
the end o f
the
S i n c e each stage produces o n l y one item, a n
i t e m i s denoted by the index o f the stage pro ducing i t and hence,

i t e m n i s produced a t stage n .
I n the p r o d u c t i o n system, each
i t e m has o n l y one immediate s u c c e s s o r .
I n t h i s chapter,
[2]
denotes t h e s m a l l e s t i n t e g e r which i s g r e a t e r than o r equal t o Z

and
t o Z.
Throughout t h e whole chapter, s t a g e number (item number)
and p e r i o d number a r e denoted by n and t r e s p e c t i v e l y .

the s e t o f non-negative integers.
U denotes
I n p r e s e n t i n g the mathematical
model, t h e f o l l o w i n g parameters and v a r i a b l e s a r e needed.
Parameters
number o f u n i t s o f
item n i n a f u l l container, i . e .
c o n t a i n e r c a p a c i t y ; 0 n {1,2,..>; (n = 0,1,..,N).
production
capacity,
in
terms
of
the
containers of item n, of P n in period
nimber
t;
of
N
I
full
(n =
1,,N; t = 1,,T).
s(n)
immediately succeeding stage of stage n (n = 1,..^N).
p(n)
set
n, s (i
of
immediately preceding
stages
of
stage n
(n =
0,1,..,N-1)
number of units of item n which are required to make one
unit of item s(n) e n , s ( ) {1,2,,.} (n = l f .. ,N).
204
number o f f u l l c o n t a i n e r s o f i t e m n a v a i l a b l e i n 0 n a t t h e
end o f p e r i o d 0;
N
I (n =
nuinber of units of item n remaining in a partially filled

container, whose Kanban has been detached, in 0 n at the
{0,1,. ,0n-i} (n
end of period 0;
number o f p e r i o d s r e q u i r e d t o produce one f u l l c o n t a i n e r

o f item n i n P n and make i t a v a i l a b l e i n 0 n , tan {0,1,.. >
(n =
number o f p e r i o d s r e q u i r e d t o t r a n s m i t detached Kanbans

from 0 n t o P n ,
{1,2,..) (n =
production requirement
in terms of
the number
of full
containers of item 0 (i.e. the final product), of stage 0

in period t; X: IN.
Q
production quota
or
effective
number
of full
containers of
Max{0,
f(e n,s(n) e s(n) /0 n )Q s(n) -
demand
in
terms
of
item n, which equals

- W^/e11 -
the
to
J Xn]>; Q n
r=l-Wn
I
N Cn =
Q 0 is defined as
Variables (n = 1,. . ,N and t =
number
of detached
Y X0.
1*)
Kanbans
of
item
n which respectively
trigger the production of a full container in P n in period t.

number of Kanbans of item n which are detached from their
associated containers in 0 n in period t.
205
number o f d e t a c h e d Kanbans o f i t e m n w h i c h a r e a v a i l a b l e i n
P
at
the
end o f
period
and have
not
t r i g g e r e d any
production yet.
number o f f u l l c o n t a i n e r s o f i t e m n w h i c h a r e a v a i l a b l e i n 0
a t t h e end o f p e r i o d t .
number o f u n i t s o f
item n remaining i n p a r t i a l l y f i l l e d
c o n t a i n e r , whose Kanban has been d e t a c h e d , i n 0 n a t t h e end

of period t .
number o f d e t a c h e d Kanbans o f i t e m n w h i c h a r e i n j e c t e d i n t o
P n b y management a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e p l a n n i n g h o r i z o n .
I n a d d i t i o n and <Xn> are the vectors used

o
. . , if} and {X^, X^, . . , X^} respectively.
to denote {U1,
o*
<X> = {<X >, <X 2 >,
..,<5^>} stands for a production vector with NT X-type variables.
Using
the
notations
defined
in
the
above,
the
constraints
of a deterministic capacitated Kanban system are as follows
206
mm'
min
[(0k
t-i
kp(n)
WY
t-1+ Wt-1+ e k
X1"
)/(<
t-
0 )J
n=l .,N;
t=l,
(C5.4)
k p(0); t=l,T
= 1
t = 1
Y : _e
V X n = l , . . , N ;
(C5.6}
n=l,..,N
Constraint
(C5.7)
(C5.1) states
that
the
total
number
of Kanbans
available at the beginning of period t in stage n is equal to the

sum
of
the
number
of
production during period

Kanbans
at
the
end
of
detached
t and
period
Kanbans
which
have
triggered
the number of unused

t.
Constraint
(C5.2)
detached
is
the
inventory balance equation of stage n in period t in terms of full

container.
(C5.33
,T
n=l,..,N
~e k , 0 e 0 x t
+0
Constraint (C5.3) indicates that the number of full
containers produced by production process P n is determined by the

number of detached Kanbans available, the production capacity, the
207
a v a i l a b l e i n v e n t o r i e s i n t h e immediate p r e c e d i n g s t a g e s and t h e
r e m a i n i n g p r o d u c t i o n quota.
C o n s t r a i n t (C5.4) ensures t h a t t h e
p r o d u c t i o n schedule o f t h e f i n a l assembly o p e r a t i o n can be c a r r i e d

out exactly.
C o n s t r a i n t (C5.5) determines t h e number o f Kanbans
d e t a c h e d from f u l l c o n t a i n e r s i n i n v e n t o r y p o i n t 0 n d u r i n g p e r i o d
t.
C o n s t r a i n t (C5.6) i s t h e i n v e n t o r y b a l a n c e e q u a t i o n f o r t h e
p a r t i a l l y f i l l e d container i n inventory point 0n.

constraint indicates that
The l a s t
must be a nonnega11ve integer.
With the above constraints, the Kanban assignment problem
is
described mathematically as follows:
Problem (M)
n
y cn[\f
Minimize
n=l
o
0
+
^
+
0
Xn + 1 - l/0n]
^
r
r = l-{i)n
s.t. constraints (C5.1)-(C5.7)
where (f1 is the accumulated value of one full container of item n.

The cost objective of Problem (M) represents an upper bound on the
value tied up In inventory in the system at any point in time and
can also be interpreted as minimizing the weighted combination of
the number of Kanbans in circulation.
Problem (M) is a complex integer problem.

in
more
operational
form,
the
constraints will greatly increase.
208
number
When it is expressed
of
variables
and
The key problem to be solved
i s t o f i n d t h e number o f Kanbans t o be i n j e c t e d a t each s t a g e and

hence, t h e management i s i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e s o l u t i o n v a l u e s o f
n = 1, . . ,N, o n l y .
Therefore, o n l y p a r t o f the s o l u t i o n , i . e .
p a r t i a l s o l u t i o n , t o Problem (M) I s what t h e management wants.
In
the following discussion, a p a r t i a l solution i s said to s a t i s f y a

s e t o f c o n s t r a i n t s i f t h e r e e x i s t s a complement t o i t such t h a t
t h e whole s o l u t i o n , i . e . t h e p a r t i a l s o l u t i o n t o g e t h e r w i t h the
complement, s a t i s f i e s a l l the c o n s t r a i n t s .
, ,
let
r.n, s (n)
n, s(n)^s(n) /rtn
/0
represent
F o r n {1,..,10,
the
number
of
full
containers of item n required to make a container of item s(n},

i.e.
the container usage number of
min{l/0n for n = 1, . . ,N} s 1.
item n.
Also
let 0 < e <
It has been shown by Bitran and
Chang (1987) that the optimal partial solution U of Problem CM)

can be obtained by solving the following optimization problem:
Problem (MO)
Minimize
w n /e n + v n +
J]
X: + l -
i/e
- E n s(n ) I X s (n)
un - 2 x n + E n , s ( n ) E x:(n) - wVa11 + 1 - e
2o
t=l,
n=l
,N;
T
(C5.8)
,N;
(C5.93
{0,1,. . ,Bn}
n=l,..,N; t=l.T
and constraint (C5.7)
209
CCS.10)
Theorem 5.1 ( B i t r a n and Chang 1987)

P r ob lem (M) i s f e a s i b l e i f and o n l y i f Problem (MO) i s f e a s i b l e .
The two problems have the same s e t o f f e a s i b l e p a r t i a l s o l u t i o n s
<Uo> ( U - {UUq, . . , U o >), the same set of optimal solutions
and the same optimal value.
Problem
(MO)
is much simpler
easier to be solved.
than Problem
From Theorem
(M) and
is also
(5.1), the required decision
variables U> can be obtained by solving Problem (MO) instead of

solving Problem
(M) directly.
Under certain assumptions on the
initial inventory level of each item, Bitran and Chang (1987) have
proposed
linear
solution to Problem
programming
heuristic
to
find
feasible
(MO) when En,s(ri) is equal to an integer for
all n {1,. . ,N} or the inverse of En,s(n) is equal to an integer

for all n {1,..N>.
In their
there are 2NT constraints and

program.
linear programming heuristic,
(NT+N) variables
Thus, for most practical problems,
in
the
the size
linear
of
the
linear program is very large and hence a significant amount of

computational effort is required to solve the linear program.
Due
to
and
computational
initial
inventory
requirement
levels,
and
the
restrictions
applicability
of
on
their
linear
programming heuristic is limited.
In the following section. Problem (MO) is analysed in detail by

the author of this thesis.
Problem
By modifying the constraint set of
(MO), two new problems are obtained.
The properties of
the two new problems are investigated and these properties are
210
summarized i n s e v e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s .
These p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e u s e f u l
f o r d e v e l o p i n g t h e h e u r i s t i c t h a t f i n d s a f e a s i b l e t o P r o b l e m
o
(M).
5 . 3 System Analysis
B e f o r e s o l v i n g P r o b l e m (MO), i t i s w o r t h w h i l e t o check whether

t h e problem has f e a s i b l e s o l u t i o n s o r n o t .
F o r t h e problem t o be
f e a s i b l e , t h e maximum p r o d u c t i o n q u a n t i t y o f t h e f i n a l assembly a t
e a c h p e r i o d s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n o r e q u a l t o t h e demand.
Problem
(MO),
assembly a t
the
maximum p r o d u c t i o n q u a n t i t y
of
In
the f i n a l
e a c h p e r i o d c a n be d e t e r m i n e d u s i n g t h e
maximiim
p r o d u c t i o n v e c t o r d e f i n e d a s below
Definition 5.1
The production vector, <R n > = {R^,
maximum
production
vector
of
item
..,R;}, is said to be the

n
if,
for
production vector of item n of ProblemMO) (<^>)
any
t
E &
H ^
r=l
f o ra l l t
From
the
feasible
r=l
2--c<)n,. . ,T}.
above
definition,
the
maximum
production
vector
specifies the production of item n to be carried out as mich as

possible in each period.
With every stage producing as much a s
possible, the maximum production quantity in each stage at each
211
p e r i o d c a n be d e t e r m i n e d u s i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o p o s i t i o n .
Proposition 5.1
The
maximum p r o d u c t i o n v e c t o r ,
<R>
{R1 <R2>>
,<RN>>,
of
Problem (MO) is given by the following set of equations
..,0} and n g {1,.. ,N>
for t
^
for t {1,..,T} and n
min
m p (n)
m i m
v + v/VeVE111
r = 1 -Ct>m
for t U , . . ,!>
and n ^ $
E Rn >
where # is the set of stages without immediate predecessor.
Proof
Since the production decisions made in period t (t =
1-0)
c a n n o t be changed i n t h e c u r r e n t p l a n n i n g h o r i z o n , t h e maximum
production quantity o f item n
(n = 1,..,N) a t p e r i o d t
(t
. . , 0 ) i s e q u a l t o X11 ,i . e . R n = X11 .
^
I f s t a g e n h a s no immediate p r e d e c e s s o r , t h e maximum p r o d u c t i o n
q u a n t i t y o f stage n a t period t , R : , i s equal t o f o r t
{1,..,T}.
<X n >,
Hence, for any feasible production vector of item n,
t
t
^ R11 2
^ X11 for all t
r
-..,T>.
212
When
stage
has
immediate
predecessors,
f e a s i b l e p r o d u c t i o n v e c t o r <X>, suppose
J R ^
r=1
{1,
and for all m p(n).
ix
given
Y X for all t
r=l
that
t-CJm
m i n
mp(n)
11
Since vector <X> satisfies
constraints (C5.8) and (C5.10), It is obvious
for
Ie[
+
r = l-a)m
v
+
m i m
(5.1}
xE
t
t C t ) n i
S i n c e
r=l - W m
r=l-Wm
inequality (5.1) becomes
min [ J ]
+ V + Wffi/0m]/Em,:
m p (n) I r = 1 - (Jm
IX 1 1
min.
(5.2)
t-1
With r
= min/ min {
^mp (n)
+ V m + Wffi/0,n]/Em,n - Y g n | } ,A
r
r = l-a>m
j
r =i
r
from inequality (5.2), it is obvious that
^ R^.
Suppose
9
t
^ R11
r=l
t = 1,.. , t* ~1, t, ^ 2.
r=l
t in inequality (5.2) that
213
It follows from replacing t by
min
ix 1 1
mim
v + \r/Qm]/Emtn
ip ( n )
r = 1 CJm
x11 +
Since
E ^
r=l
Therefore,
J] X11 , it is obvious that

r=l
E
r=l
E ^ f o r all t {l-c<)n,2-a)n.. ,T}.
Repeating
r=l
the argument for all other items, the proposition can easily be
proved .
Since <R> is the maximum production vector of Problem (MO), <R>

must satisfy the condition stated in the proposition below.
214
F o r n {1,.
and t {T-a)n,T-G)n+l" , T } V R11 > n n .

r
Proof:
Suppose <X> is a feasible production vector of Problem
(MO).
Since vector < ^ > satisfies constraint (C5.8), it is obvious that,

f o r t {T-a)n, T-t)n+l, . . ,T},
I xrn ^ Ens(n) Y, Xs(n) - own/en - 0f
r =1
If
J]
=l
Y > X11
r =l-(an
a Qs(ri) then the above inequality implies
J X11 a En3(n)^s (n)
W n /0 n
=1 -6
From the definition of Q n and the fact that
[ X11 is an integer,
r=l
it can be deduced from the above inequality that
EX11 ^ Qn
Thus,
if
(n)
3(n)
then
Y, X11
for
all
.. ,T>.
for
[ X = Q0 the above argument implies
Since
all
{1,.. N>
215
and
for
all
{ T - w n , T - t o + l , ,T}.
Therefore, it can be deduced from Proposition
(5.1) that, for t e
. . ,T>,
From Theorem (5.1), Problems (M) and (MO) should have the same
set
of feasible partial
feasibility
of
Problem
solution vector
(M)
feasibility of Problem (MO).
can
be
<Uo>.
checked
Therefore,
by
testing
the
the
In the following proposition, it is
proved that if Problem (MO) is feasible, vector <R> is a feasible

partial solution to Problem (MO).
Proposition 5.3
Suppose Problem
(MO)
is feasible.
<R>
is a
feasible partial
solution to it.
Proof
Suppose <X>
Since
t
J] X11 ^
r=l
is a feasible production vector to Probleit
(MO),
t
J] R11 for all t {1,.. ,1} and vector <X> satisfies
r=l
constraint set (C5.8) it is obvious that, for n p(0),
216
Therefore, vector
<R > s a t i s f i e s i n e q u a l i t y ( 5 . 3 ) f o r n p(o).
For n
which i s not l e s s than
r=l
Hence,
t-0n
r=l
vector
(C5.9).
=
f o r
{<Uo>,
<R>}
satisfies
t = 1,..,1.
constraints
(C5.7)
and
From P r o p o s i t i o n ( 5 . 1 ) , f o r t {1,..,T>, if n g $ then

On the other hand, If n ^ $ then
R t = min-J min
{ [ I
^ m p (n)
w^/e m ]/E m ' n -
r = l -(Jm
Hence, for all n U , ..,10, 0 ^
r=i
> , f
and R n is an integer.
For n ,
E R11 r
r= l
r"1 +
r
r = l -0)m
J]
+ W^/0m]/Em,n
0
for all m
p (r n ) .
Therefore, <R> satisfies constraints (C5.8) and (C5.10).

the proposition is proved.
Hence
From the proof of Proposition (5.3), if vector <Rn> satisfies

inequality (5.3) for all n p(0), vector <R> is always a feasible
partial solution to Problem (MO).
Therefore, a simple feasibility
test
check
for
inequality
Problem
(5.3) or
(MO)
not
is
to
whether
for
all n p(0).
<Rn>
satisfies
This feasibility
condition is necessary and sufficient in the sense that for all n

p(0), vector
<R > satisfies inequality
Problem (MO) is feasible.
(5.3) if and only
if
This feasibility test is summarized in
the following corollary.
Corollary 5.1
Problem (MO) is feasible if and only if
w^/e11 +
J]
- En0 ZX
r = 1 -Ct>n
r =1
f o r a l l t {1,. . ,T> and for all n p(0).
In Problem
(M), the cumulative production quantity of Item n

t
(n = 1, . . ,N) from period 1 to period t
J X n is
(t = 1,.. ,T)
r= 1
l e s s t h a n o r e q u a l t o Qn,
From d e f i n i t i o n o f v e c t o r <R>,
r
t
T Xn s
r=l
r=l
J] R n .
r
I f these two c o n s t r a i n t s on
J] X n a r e i n c l u d e d i n Problem
r=l
(MO), t h e f o l l o w i n g problem i s obtained.
218
Problem (Ml)
N
Minimize
J] Cn[U^ +
*
r

1
X n + 1 - 1/Q n ]
+ [
c o n s t r a i n t s (C5.7), ( C 5 . 8 ) , ( C 5 . 9 ) , (C5.10) and
where
R n = min{ J] R n , Qn>.
r=l
r=l
S i n c e Qn i s t h e d e s i r e d t o t a l p r o d u c t i o n q u a n t i t y o f i t e m n ,
v e c t o r <Rn> i s t h e p r o d u c t i o n v e c t o r c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o the case
t h a t s t a g e n produces a t o t a l amount o f Q n u n i t s o f i t e m n a s
e a r l y as possible.
F o r a f e a s i b l e Problem ( M l ) , i t i s proved i n
t h e f o l l o w i n g t h a t i f t h e p r o d u c t i o n v e c t o r o f i t e m n , X n > , is
feasible to its successors and is not greater than its maximum,
<H n >, it is always feasible to Problem (Ml).
219
Proposition 5.4
Suppose Problem (Ml) i s f e a s i b l e and t h e p r o d u c t i o n v e c t o r s o f
successors o f item n are f e a s i b l e .
I n t e g r a l v e c t o r <^> i s a
f e a s i b l e p a r t i a l s o l u t i o n o f Problem ( M l ) i f X 1 1 s a t i s f i e s the
following inequalities for t {1,..,T>:
Proof
Suppose the production vectors of the successors of item n are
feasible and vector < ^ > satisfies the above inequalities.
be the smallest non-negative integer which Is not less than
E
X 1r1
11
l^ x s r{ n ) + wVe
- 1 +
0
for all t
Thus, <X n > is feasible to Its immediate successor.
Since
JR
= 1
R +
+ vr/0m]/Effi,n
r=l- W m
220
Let
the inequality that
r=l
U ,
= min { JR n ,(f} for all t
r=l
r = 1
..,17 implies, for all m p(n),
E
r = 1
Hence,
Z X ^
} + V + w V e +
V
0
0
r=i-^r
^/effi
P(n)*
i s
It
I ^ ] / E m ^ for all m
r=i-ca m r
obvious that, for all m e p(n) and t <1,.. ,T>,
there exists vector < ^ > such that
r=1
r=1
X s ^
and
r=1
^Y
V
r
r=l
O+
+W
O
>
Z )r]/E
r
r=l-Wm
'n .
b e c a u s e <Rm> i s o b v i o u s l y a v e c t o r t h a t s a t i s f i e s t h e above t h r e e
inequalities.
L e t U be the smallest non-negative integer which
is not less than
t
^ X - E^ 11 [ X11 + w V e - 1 + e
0
r=l r
r=l r
for all t {1,.. ,T>.
Thus, for all m p(n), there exists < ^ > which is feasible to
<^>.
Repeating the argument for all other predecessors of item
n , i t i s obvious t h a t there e x i s t f e a s i b l e production v e c t o r s o f

p r e d e c e s s o r s o f i t e m n and t h e r e f o r e , <Xn> i s a f e a s i b l e p a r t i a l
s o l u t i o n o f Problem ( M l ) .
When e x a m i n i n g Problems (MO) and ( M l ) c a r e f u l l y , i t i s f o u n d t h a t

t h e s e two problems have t h e same s e t o f f e a s i b l e p a r t i a l s o l u t i o n s

a n dh e n c e
t h e
same s e t o f o p t i m a l p a r t i a l s o l u t i o n s 
Proposition 5.5
Problem (MO) is feasible if and only if Problem (Ml) is feasible.
The two problems have the same set of feasible partial solutions
Uthe same set of" optimal solutionsUand the same optimal
value.
Proof
Suppose vector {<Uo>, <X>} is a feasible solution to Problem
(Ml).
It is obvious that vector {<Uo>, <X>} is also a feasible
solution to Problem (MO).
Suppose vector
(MO).
is a
feasible solution
Construct <X> as follows:
2-a)n,.. ,0>, X : = min{5^ , Q n > and
for t
X11 = min{
t
{<11^, <X>}
^
r=l
, Qny -
t-i
mini
r
r=l
222
Q n } for t {2,.. ,T>.
to
Problem
I t f o l l o w s from t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f <X> t h a t , f o r t {1,..,17,
=
r=l
, Qn>
min{ E F
r=l
From Definition C5.1), it is obvious that

r=l
v r11 and hence

r=l
the above equation implies
Qn} =
< min{ E r ,
^=1
r= 1
Therefore, vector
I Rn .
p=1
<X>
satisfies constraint
(C5.ll).
From
the
definition of Q , it is easy to derive that
W^/0n +
+ Qn +
- En>s(n)Qs(n) > 0 .
^
r = l -Cc)n
The definition of <X> implies
\Q/Qn +
I Xs(n)
r = l -Ct>n
= ^ / e
+ min{
r=1
J
r=l-Wn
-^Sin}min{ Ir
r= l
( n )
r=lWn
, Qs(n)}
Since vector <X> satisfies constraint (C5.8), it can be deduced

from inequality (5.4) that
223
(5.4)
+ <
+ m
- E
r = l - Wn
s ( n
W E
ry
r = l -a)nr
Qs(n)> > 0
r=lr
Hence, <X> satisfies constraint (C5.8).
From the definition of e (0 < e < inin{l/0n for n = 1
), it
is clear that
Hence,
W n /0 n e
+ E n,s(n) s(n)
Qn-
(5.5}
The d e f i n i t i o n o f <X> i m p l i e s
U: 0
J ,
r=l r
+ En,s(ll) I
r=l
= u " - min{ 1 F , Q n }
O
r
Since vector
Xs(n) + 1 W W
- e
QsCn>>
1 - ^/011
0
{, <X>> s a t i s f i e s c o n s t r a i n t ( C 5 . 9 ) , i t c a n b e

o
deduced from i n e q u a l i t y (5.5) t h a t
if
224
Thus, v e c t o r
{U <X>} satisfies constraint
(C5.9).
From the
construction of <X>,
I X n , Qn>
r=l
It
is
-Q
obvious
V T s
r=l
if Q n >
= 0
that
I T
r=l
otherwise
(C5.10).
^
It
and
Is trivial
hence,
vector
<X>
to show that 

o
satisfies
constraint
(C5.7).
Therefore,
vector
{U <X>>
satisfies constraints (C5.7)-(C5.10) and h e n c e U i s a feasible

partial solution to Problem
(Ml).
Summing the above proof, the
two problems have the same set of feasible partial solutionsU

thus, the proposition is proved.
From Theorem (5.1) and Proposition (5.5, Problems (M) and (Ml)
have the same set of feasible partial solutions <Uo>.
Therefore*
the optimal partial solutionUof Problem (M) can be found by

solving Problem (Ml).
of Problem
In the subsequent analysis, the properties
(Ml) are analysed
in detail.
These properties are
useful for developing a heuristic that finds a feasible <Uo> to

Problem (Ml).
225
I n o r d e r t o p r e s e n t Problem
(Ml) i n
more
compact
and p n a r e u s e d t o denote \ t / B n + V11
parameters <
0
a n d
form,
respectively.
^
r=1-0n
I t i s worthwhile t o note t h a t
f o r n {1,..
pn > 0
a
and
t+i ^ a t
With
f o r
the
t ^ {1,2,...}.
newly
introduced
parameters.
Problem
(Ml)
can
be
restated as follows
J] Cn[lf +
^
Minimize
-Ct)n
pn +
X n + 1- l/0n]
r
'
L X
t
J] X11 + E n > s
r=l
^ 0
n=l,..,N; t=l,",T
J] x s ( n )
r=l
n=l,",N;
1=1,..,1
n=l,..,N; t = l T
t
E Xn s l Rn
r=l
Un
r=1
(C5.8)
n=l.N; t=l..T
non-negative integer
n=l,..,N
To facilitate the presentation of the subsequent analysis, all

the items in the production system are classified Into different
226
CCS.9}
(C5.10)
(C5.ll)
(C5.7}
l e v e l s and groups.
Items i n the same group must have t h e same
immediate s u c c e s s o r and items on t h e same l e v e l must have t h e i r

immediate s u c c e s s o r s b e l o n g i n g t o the n e x t l e v e l .
Thus, a l l t h e
immediate s u c c e s s o r s o f the items i n l e v e l i b e l o n g t o l e v e l i1.

T h e r e may be more t h a n one groups i n each l e v e l except t h e f i r s t
level.
The f o l l o w i n g n o t a t i o n s on l e v e l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a r e used
f o r p r e s e n t i n g t h e subsequent mathematica1 a n a l y s i s :
t o t a l nuinber o f l e v e l s i n t h e p r o d u c t i o n system
U i )
s e t o f items i n l e v e l i , i . e . s e t o f i t e m n where n p(m)

and m L(i-l) (i = 1,..,1)
An
example
is
classifications.
system
with
item
used
to
illustrate
the
group
and
level
Suppose there are six items in the production

0
as
the
final
assembly.
The
immediate
successors of items 1 and 2, items 3 and 4, and items 5 and 6 are

item 0, item 1 and item 2 respectively, i.e. s(l) = s(2) = 0 s(3)
= s ( 4 ) = 1 and s(5) = s(6) = 2.
In this example, there are three
levels in the production system (i.e. 1 = 3 with item 0 in level

1 (i.e. L(l) = {0>), items 1 and 2 in level 2 (i.e. L(2) = {1,2)),
and items 3, 4, 5 and 6 in level 3 (i.e. L(3) = {3,4,5,6}).
1 has only one group which contains item 0
to the same group in level 2.
Level
Items 1 and 2 belong
There are two groups in level 3
with items 3 and 4 belonging to one group and
items 5 and 6
belonging to the other group.
With the group and level classifications defined in the above,

the properties of Problem (Ml) are investigated and summarized in
227
the following propositions.

(C5.9) C5.10) and
By m a n i p u l a t i n g c o n s t r a i n t s (C5.8)
(C5.ll) a
lower
bound
production quantity of each item is obtained.
on
the
cumulative
This lower bound is
given in the following proposition.
Proposition 5.6
If
<X>
is a feasible
production
vector
of
Problem
(Ml),
<X
satisfies the following inequalities

for n {1,..,N>, if 1 ^ t ^ T-wn then
max [En>
t^k^T-Wn
EX11
max
max [
J] X n - E n , s ( n ) J
k+Ct)n^q^T r = l
C()n
k+Wn
q+0n
max {
tSk<T
If T -
i (n)
- p - a
=t+i
(5.6)
psin)
r = k + l+6t)nr
k
k+CJn
- y ^ >
^
r
r=t+l
=
2 t then
X11 ^ E n s
(n)
t (n)
X'
(5.7)
Proof:
Suppose <X>
is a feasible production vector of Problem
For n {1,..,N}, let c = s(n).
(C5.8), it is obvious that, for t {1,..,
t+k
y
xr11
^
2
f
t+Cc)n+k
xc
- a11
for
t+Ct)n+k
228
(Ml).
T-a>n>,
(5.8)
S i n c e X
f o r a l l t {1, ..,1), it is obvious that
Hence, for all k {0,
. . .T-t-oto}, inequality
(5.8) Implies
that
It follows from rearranging
the
terms
in
the above
inequality
that, for all k e {0, 1, . .
Thus,
Replacing
t+k
inequality,
it
by
is
on
the
obvious
right
that,
hand
for
side
of
{1,.. ,N>
the
and
above
t
{1,.., T<)n}
E X ^
r=l
max
[E1^
X - ^
r= l
E -
r=t+l
229
(5.9)
Since
<X> s a t i s f i e s c o n s t r a i n t
r =1
Since
r=1
{ 1 , . . i t
is
clear
(C5.8), i t i s obvious t h a t
,
r=lr
that,
for
r= i
^
r
for a l l
{1,..,N}
and
{T-0)11, T-Ct)n+1,. . T } ,
(5.10)
Since vector
<X> s a t i s f i e s c o n s t r a i n t
q
E
o r
{t+ct)n, . . ,T>
and
(C5.9) and
r = t +CJn+1
q
J] p c >
r=t+a)n+ir
{1,..,T-to),
it
is
straightforward to derive that

q
En,C [ I
t + Cc)n
^ ^ E
r = t+C{>n+1
q
] > Enc X X C
r=l
r=l
q + ljjn
(5.11}
Since <X> satisfies constraint (C5.8), it is obvious that
t+uii
E X11
^
r=l
r=l
Xc - oc11
t+CtJn
I t c a n be shown b y a d d i n g t h e above i n e q u a l i t y and i n e q u a l i t y

(5.11) together that
q+^/n
r =l
Since
r =l
t
J] X11
r=l
r=t+Ct)n+l
t+k
J]
r = t+1
t+k
J X11 f o r
r=l
230
^ k
Tt,
the
above
inequality implies that
I t f o l l o w s f r o m r e a r r a n g i n g t h e terms i n t h e above i n e q u a l i t y
t h a t , f o r q {t+a)n+k, ..,1} and k e
=l
X ,
r=l
- En,c J
fI
r = t + a>n + k + l r
Uon _ a n
0
t+Wn+k
r=:t +l
pn
Therefore,
^ . ^
^=1
max { - p n - l/1 - a11

y t
x
0
t+Wn+k
f
O^k^T-t
r=t+l
t+<)n + ksqST r = l
It follows from replacing t+k by k on the right hand side of the

above inequality that, for n {1,.. ,N} and t {1,.. ,T-0n},
T]
^ r
r=l
max {-p
K
tSk^T
(i)n+k
L ^
r=t+l
max
[J - f
Ct)n+k^q^T r=l
i
]}
r=t<)n+k + l
From inequalities (5.9), (5.10) and (5.12), it is obvious that the

proposition is true.
U s i n g t h e above p r o p o s i t i o n ,
found.
a l o w e r bound o f
[ X11 c a n b e
r =l r
B y m a n i p u l a t i n g t h e c o n s t r a i n t s o f Problem (Ml) a g a i n , a n
u p p e r bound o f
r=l
c a n
a l s o be o b t a i n e d .
T h i s upper bound i s
g i v e n i n t h e p r o p o s i t i o n below.
If
<X> i s
a f e a s i b l e production vector o f
s a t i s f i e s the f o l l o w i n g i n e q u a l i t y f o r
Problem
{ 1 , . . ,N}
(Ml),
and
<X>
t
{1,.,!>:
I Rr
p n + U
EX11
+m i n
+
{ I
min E n , s ( n ) [ [ X s ( n )
O^k^t r=k+lr O^qSk-^n
r=l r
k-^/n
+ E ^(n)]>
r = q+1
mim
(5.13)
P n + Uq + min { E
O^k^t r=k+l r
min E n , s ( n ) [ Y S ( n )
O^q^k-^fn
r=q +l r
crî)in
+
min
(o:m + J X)/En
mp(s Cn)) ^
r=l r
:(n)
]>
Proof
Suppose <X> is a feasible production vector of Problem
For n {1,..
let c = s(n).
CCS. 11), it is obvious
(Ml).
that, for all n {1,.. ,M> and all t
232
Z Xn ^
5.14)
Since <X> satisfies constraint (C5.9) and
J ^
r=t-k+i r
for
-k+1
0 ^ k ^ t and t { 1 , . . i t is obvious that
Enc
=t-k+1
r=l
Ex 1 1
=t-k+l
x 11 .
t-lpn-k
-l/Tn-k
Since
JX
r=1
I f
r = q+l
L \
r=l
for
{ 0 , 1 , . . , t-i/m-k},
the
above inequality implies that, for q {0,1,. . ,t-^n-k} and k

{0,1,..t},
t
i
q
E n , c l E X: +
r = t. k+1
r=1
t-^n-k
i ^r] ^
r^ q + l
t
i xn
r=1
Therefore,
Rif +
min {
min E n , c [ E X: +
0 k t r ^ t -k+1
0 q ~ t 0n-k
r=1
t-^n-k
E > I X"
r=(|+l
r=l
It follows from replacing t-k by k on the left hand side of the

and t {1,
above inequality that, for n
-iffn
p n + if +
min {
O^k^t r = k + l
min d
o^q^k-^n
233
X:
r=l
E P cr ] > ^ Ex
=q+l
r=l
(5.15)
Since
<X> s a t i s f i e s c o n s t r a i n t (C5.9), i t can be shown t h a t ,
for n
and t {1,..
( 5
_n
Since
t
+
r=l
r=k+l
k- 0 n
and
r=l
I Pr
r=q+l
1 6 )
k-l/fn
E Xr
r=l
E r X c f or t
r = 1
k 0 and k-0n
i f - J x11
p n ]/E n , <
(5.17)
Exc
=k + l
S i n c e <X> s a t i s f i e s c o n s t r a i n t (C5.8), i t can be shown t h a t , f o r m

p(c)
It can be shown by adding the above inequality and inequality

(5.17)
together
and
rearranging
the
terms
that,
for
{ 0 , 1 , . . yk-ipn} and k {0,1,.., t>,
t
p
+E
r=k+l
k-lpn
+
q-0)m
n , c
I[
+
r = 0 +l r
( aJ" +
^
r=l
t
2
r=l
Thus, for n e {1,..N} and t {1,..,T},
+ i f + m i n {E
k-^n
mie
n
O ^ k ^ t r=k+l
o5q^k-^n
H
+ min (am +
m p (c)
r=q+l
wiu
Sm
I X ^ f }
^
r=l
234
J^
^
r=l
5.18)
From i n e q u a l i t i e s
(5.14 (5.15) and
(5.18), it is obvious that
the proposition is true.
Propositions (5.6) and (5.7) give the lower and upper bounds of
feasible
t
E
in Problem (Ml).
In inequalities (5.6) and (5.7}
r=l
of" Proposition (5.6), It is found that the lower bound depends on

t
r = 1
s (n)
r=l
knowing the exact p r o d u c t i o n v e c t o r o f item s ( n ) ,
t
Y X s ( n ) terms
r =l
i n i n e q u a l i t i e s ( 5 . 6 ) and ( 5 . 7 ) a r e r e p l a c e d b y i t s lower bounds.

W i t h t h e s e r e p l a c e m e n t s i n i n e q u a l i t i e s ( 5 . 6 ) and ( 5 . 7 ) , t h e lower
bound o f c u m u l a t i v e p r o d u c t i o n q u a n t i t y o f i t e m n ( n {0,1,.. ,M>)
up to period t
(t {1, 2,. . ,!>) is equal to H(n,t) which
is
defined as follows:
F(0,t) = H(0t)
(5.191
max [En s (n) H(s(n) ,k)

t+Wn^kiST
r=t+i
r i
f o r t<T-
15.20)
F(n,t)
maxtE n , s < n > H(s(n) > T) - a , 0 ]
235
f o r t^T"
HlcLX {U
0
t^k^T
G(n,t)
k+a)l
+ max [H(n,q+
k + C<)n^q2ST
E
r=t+l
3:
r-n, s (n)
=k+i)n+l
s(n) ]>
(5.21)
H(n,t) = max [F(n,t), G(n,t)]
For
the
sake
of
(5.22)
completeness
in
defining
F(n,t),
G(nt)
and
H(n,t), let
H(n,t) = H(n,T)
for all t > T
(5
and
t
V X11
F(n,t) = H(nt) =
for t s 0.
It is shown in the following proposition that H(n, t) is a lower

bound of
t
r X11 in Problem (Ml).
r=l
Proposition 5.8
For n {1,.. ,N} and t {1,.. ,T>, H(n t) is a lower bound of
feasible
The
t
V X11 In Problem (Ml).
r=l
details
of
the
proof
of
Proposition
Appendix B section B. 1.
236
(5.8) are
shown
in
23
S i n c e H(n, t ) i s a l o w e r bound o f
i n Problem ( M l ) , t h e
r =1
p r o p e r t i e s o f F(nt) G(n,t) and H(n,t) are worth investigating.

These properties are given in the proposition below.
Proposition 5.9
For all n 6 <0,1,..,N> and t { 1 , F ( n , t ) ,
G(n,t) and
have the following properties
(1) 0 ^ F(n,t) s F(n,t+1) and 0 < HCn,t) < H(n,t+1)

(2) F(n,t+1) s F(n,t) + ^
HCn,t+1) < H ( n , t ) +
The d e t a i l s o f
G(n,t+1) s GCn,!) +p n
t + 1
t+i
and
t+i
the proof
of Proposition
(5.9)
are
shown i n
Appendix B s e c t i o n B . 2 .
A f t e r i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e l o w e r bound o f
T X11
r=l
i n P r o b l e m ( M l ) , t h e upper bound o f
J] X11 i m p l i e d b y i n e q u a l i t y
r=l
( 5 . 1 3 ) i s examined i n d e t a i l .
J] X s ( n ) and
bound depends o n
r=l
I n i n e q u a l i t y ( 5 . 1 3 ) , t h e upper
[ X11.
r=l
upper bound for

t
[ x s ( n ) and
r=l
I n o r d e r t o determine a n
Y X11 without knowing the exact production vector

r=l
<X>,
its upper bound.
J]
r=l
terms in inequality (5.13) are replaced by
With these replacements in inequality (5.13)
the upper bound of cumulative production quantity of item n
237
Cn
{ 0 , 1 , . N } ) up to period t
(t
= 1, .. ,T) is equal to M(n,t) which
is defined as follows:
M(0,t)
C5.24)
ER 1 1
k-l/ln
I ^ 1 min E n , c [ M ( c > q ) + [ f } }
+ U ; + min{
O^k^t r=k+1
M(n, t ) = min^
O^q<k-0n
r=q+l
5.25)
p
+ U +m i n { [ +
0 k S t
r =k + i
min
Enc [[
Q^q^k-lpn
-"\pT
r
r =q+ l
+ m i n (a m + M(ni,q-wm) ) / E m , c ] }
mp(c)
where c = s(n).
For the sake of completeness in defining M(n,t
M(nt) = 0 for all t ^ 0.
(5.26)
It is shown in the following proposition that M(n f t) is an upper

bound of
t
y X11 in Problem (Ml).
r=l
Proposition 5.10
For n {0,1, . . ,N> and t {1,..,17, M(n, t) is an upper bound of
feasible
t
J] X11 in Problem (Ml).
r=l
The
details
of
the proof
of
Proposition
Appendix B section B-3-
238
(5.10) are
shown
in
When examining M ( n , t ) c a r e f u l l y , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t
the properties of M(n,t) are s i m i l a r to that o f H(n,t).
Proposition 5.11
F o r n {0,..,N} and t {0,1,. ,T-1>M(n,t) has the following
properties
(1) M(n,t+1) > M(n,t) > 0
M(n,t+1) < M ( n , t ) + p n
t+i
The d e t a i l s o f
the proof of Proposition
(5.11)
are
shown i n
Appendix B s e c t i o n B . 4 .
From P r o p o s i t i o n s
(5.8)
and
p r o d u c t i o n v e c t o r o f P r o b l e m (Ml)
{ 1 , . . ,T}, M(n,t)
t
2 I X11 F ( n , t ) .
r
(5.10)if
<X>
is
feasible
then for n {1,,. ,N} and t

When further investigating the
properties of feasible production vectors of Problem (Ml) it is

found that the production vectors have the property stated in the
proposition below.
Proposition 5.12
If <X> is a feasible production vector of Problem (Ml) then, for
all n {1,.. ,N} and for all t {T-(t>n,T-cjn+l,.. ,T},
239
t
J] X11 = Q n .
Proof:
Suppose <X> i s a f e a s i b l e p r o d u c t i o n v e c t o r o f Problem ( M l ) .
Since
<X> i s a n i n t e g r a l v e c t o r s a t i s f i e s c o n s t r a i n t ( C 5 . 8 ) , i t
c a n be shown t h a t , f o r t {T-to,T-o>n+i, . . ,T>,
If
X^ ( n ) = Q s(n> then, for t
r=l
{T-6)n,T-wn+1,
. . ,T},
(n)
Z X11
(from the d e f i n i t i o n o f Q n )
Since
<X>
satisfies
constraint
can easily be deduced that if
(C5.ll),
T
J]X
r=L
i.e.
r=l
( n ) = Q s ( n ) then
n
r s Q ,
J] X 11 = Q
r=l
it
for
t {T-Wn, T-ct)n+l,. . , T},
The fact
that
r=i
{1,..,N} and
for
all
= Q 0 implies, for all
J]
r
{T-tto,T-tt)n+l,.. ,T}
t 11
T Xr = Qn.
However, even with

(5.9), (5.11) and
(Ml) directly.
the properties examined
in Propositions
(5-12 it is still difficult to solve Problem
Therefore, instead of dealing with Problem (Ml), a
240
s l i g h t l y modified version o f
Problem
c o n s i d e r e d i n the subsequent a n a l y s i s .
(Ml),
Problem
(M2), i s
Problem (M2) s t a t e d i n t h e
b e l o w i s o b t a i n e d b y r e l a x i n g c o n s t r a i n t (C5.10).
Problem (M2)
Minimize
N
J] C n [ l f +
n=l
0
Y Xn + 1 - i/en]
r = l -ij>n
s . t . c o n s t r a i n t s ( C 5 . 7 ) , ( C 5 . 8 ) , ( C 5 . 9 ) , ( C 5 . l l ) and
(CSJO,)
I t i s o b v i o u s t h a t f e a s i b l e s o l u t i o n s o f Problem (Ml) a r e a l s o
f e a s i b l e t o Problem CM2).
feasible
solution
of
T h e r e f o r e , i t i s expected t h a t a good
Problem
(M2)
can
provide
some
useful
i n f o r m a t i o n t o c o n s t r u c t a good f e a s i b l e s o l u t i o n o f Problem ( M l ) .
E v e n though Problem (M2) i s s t i l l a mixed i n t e g e r l i n e a r program
and i s d i f f i c u l t t o be s o l v e d o p t i m a l l y . Problem (M2) has some
n i c e p r o p e r t i e s t h a t Problem (Ml) does n o t h a s .
These p r o p e r t i e s
a r e u s e f u l f o r d e v e l o p i n g a n e f f i c i e n t h e u r i s t i c procedure t h a t
s o l v e s Problem (M2).
found,
based
Once a f e a s i b l e s o l u t i o n o f Problem (M2) i s
a f e a s i b l e s o l u t i o n o f Problem (Ml) c a n be c o n s t r u c t e d
on
the
solution of
Problem
(M2).
In
the
following
p r o p o s i t i o n s , t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f Problem (M2) a r e i n v e s t i g a t e d i n
detail.
I n t h e a n a l y s i s o f Problem ( M l ) , P r o p o s i t i o n ( 5 . 4 ) s t a t e s t h a t
f o r g i v e n f e a s i b l e production vectors o f items belonging t o l e v e l
i - 1 ( i > 2 ) , v e c t o r <^>,
n L(i),
241
is a feasible production
vector of
item
satisfied.
n i n Problem
(Ml) i f
c e r t a i n conditions are
I n t h e below, s i m i l a r p r o p e r t y i s a l s o o b t a i n e d f o r
P r o b l e m (M2).
Pr o pos i t i on 5.13
F o r g i v e n f e a s i b l e p r o d u c t i o n v e c t o r s o f items belonging t o l e v e l
i - 1 ( i ^ 2), vector
<Xn>>
n L(i),
Is a feasible production
vector of item n in Problem (M2) ifX 11 satisfies the following

inequalities:
<
- Ens(n) I x; ( n ) > 0
r=l
+
0 $
t
Z
r=l
f o r
r=l
r=l
t
l Rnr
r=l
for t
E n ' s ( n ) t / n x sr( n ) 0
for t {1,
r=l
t {1,..tT> and
for t e {1,..,1}.
Proof:
For given feasible production vectors of
level i-1
a feasible integer
to
(i ^ 2) > suppose vector < ^ > , n L(i), satisfies the
inequalities stated In the proposition.
items belonging
+ if - 2 +
Since there always exists
satisfying the inequality that
^ xs(n) ^ 0
for t 6 { 1 , . .
,T},
S i n c e <^> s a t i s f i e s t h e above i n e q u a l i t y and t h e i n e q u a l i t i e s

stated i n
the proposition, i t i s
obvious
that
that
<Xn> i s
f e a s i b l e t o i t s immediate s u c c e s s o r .
I t f o l l o w s f r o m t h e d e f i n i t i o n s o f v e c t o r <R> and Q n t h a t , f o r
a l l m
"=1
r=l -(Jm
(5.27)
and
Qm ^ E f ' V -
Since
t
J xn ^
r
r=1
v _ vf/e1" -
y x"
r=l^ r
(5.28)
t
t
IR n = min{ T Rn , Q
^ r
^
r=l r
r=1
} for
all
{1,. .. ,T},
it can be shown from inequalities (5.27) and (5.28) that, for all
m p(n),
I X n s [min{
=1 r
r=l
R , Q m } + V + W m /e m +
r
11
y X^/E
^ r=l-Wm
r
Hence, for all m p(n),
y x11 ^ [ V m R m + ^ +
^=1 r
r=l^ -CJmr
It follows from the definition of R that 0 ^

{1, ..,1}.
for all t
Let if be the smallest non-negative integer which is
243
not l e s s than E
r=1
+ p
for a l l
{1,..,1}.
Hence, for all m p(n) and all t {1,..,T>, there always exists
vector <X m > such that
J]2 0
r=l
+u^ -
+
r=l
^ 0
for t {1,..,T>
r=l
0 ^ x1^ ^
for t {1,.. ,T> and
i^
r=l
for t {1,..,T>
r=l
for t {1,..,T}.
r=l
because <Rm> is obviously a vector that satisfies the above four

inequalities.
Therefore, vector < ^ > is feasible to its immediate
successor and its immediate predecessors.

for
all
other
predecessors
of
item
Repeating the argument
n,
the
proposition
can
easily be proved.
When examining
J] X11
the properties of
r=l
in Problem
(Ml),
it
has been shown in Propositions (5,8) and (5.10) that if <X> is a

t
feasible
production vector
of
Problem
(Ml),
M(n, t) ^
J] X11
r=l
H(n, t) for all n U,..,N} and t {1,. T}.
I n the f o l l o w i n g
two p r o p o s i t i o n s , i t i s shown t h a t t h e above i n e q u a l i t y s t i l l

h o l d s i f <X> i s a f e a s i b l e p r o d u c t i o n v e c t o r o f P r o b l e m (M2).
244
Proposition 5.14
F o r n U N } and t U..T>H(n,t) is a lower bound of
t
feasible J] X11 in Problem (M2).
r=l
The proof of the proposition is similar to that of Proposition

(5.8).
Proposition 5.15
For n { 1 a n d t {1,. . , T}, M(n, t) Is an upper bound of
feasible
t
^ X11 in Problem (M2).
r=l
The proof of the proposition is similar to that of Proposition

(5.10)
After showing H(nt) and M(n,t) are the respective lower and
t
upper bounds for
[ X11 in Problem (M2), the property of the lower

r=l
bound H(n,t) is further investigated in the following proposition.
Proposition 5.16
For a given feasible production vector <Xa> of item a in Problem
(M2),
suppose M(a,t) and H(at) are set
to
t
[ ?
r=i
f o r a11
{1, . . ,T>. H(c,t)c p(a), is the minimum emulative production

quantity of item c up to period t in Problem (M2).
245
Proof:
Suppose M(at) and H(a,t) are set to feasible
T ^
r=l
(M2) for all t
r=l
= H(c,t) -
for t
I t i s evident from from P r o p o s i t i o n (5.9) t h a t
{1 T}.
If
Let ^
of Problem
<
f o r
r=l
some t {1,..T} then for any feasible <XC>
of Problem (M2),
t _
s :
r=l
feasible solution.
r=l
Thus, Problem (M2) has no
r=l
Therefore,
It follows from the definition of H(c,t-wc) that
H(c, t-wc) a E c,a H(a,t) <
Since
t-Wc
[ X a = H(a, t) and
r=l
Y
r=1
= H(c, t-wc), the above inequality
implies that
t-Ct)c
J X 0
r=l
2E c , a Y X a - a c .
r=l
X S is a feasible production vector of item a in Problem

implies there exists feasible <XC> such that
246
(M2)
t
r=l
r=l
It is evident from Proposition (5.14) that
JX c >
r=l
y x c and hence
r=l
the above inequality implies that
t-lpc
r=l
Therefore,
r=l
<X >
satisfies
all
the
inequalities
stated
in
Proposition (5.13) and hence is a feasible production vector of

item c in Problem (M2).
As shown in Proposition (5.14),

*
t
VT
r=l
is
r
^ X c in Problem
also a lower bound of feasible
r=l
(M2) thus, the
proposition is true.
The
above
proposition
shows
that
H(n,t)
is
feasible
production vector of item n if MCs(n), t) and H(s(n), t) are set to

t
Y, X
r=1
In the following, it is shown that M(n, t) can also be a
feasible production vector of item n in Problem

condition
is
satisfied.
If
(M2) if certain
<X> denotes the vector formed by
taking difference of successive H(n, t) and M(n, t-1), i.e.
= M(n,t) - M(n, t-1)
for n
and t {1,. . ,T},
then from the properties of M(n,t) given in Proposition (5.11), it
247
c a n b e shown t h a t
0 ^ x'1 = M(n, t ) - M(n, t - 1 ) 
t
E ^
t
I Rnt ,
satisfies constraints
f o r a
that
(CS.ICT) and
(C5.ll).
Since
ll n e {1,.,N} and for all t {1,..,T>, <xn>
r=l
also satisfies constraint

non-negative
integer
(C5.8).
which
If
is
not
is set to the smallest

less
V X11
than
r=l
E n,s ( n )E
r=i
+ Pn for a l l
{1,. . ,T>
then <Xn>
satisfies
constraint (C5.9).
Hence, for appropriate values of U n , <Xn> can

o
be a feasible production vector of item n to Problem (M2).

f o l l o w i n g p r o p o s i t i o n , i t i s shown t h a t i f X
In the
g (n)
> i s a feasible
p r o d u c t i o n v e c t o r o f i t e m s ( n ) t o Problem (M2) t h e n t h e e x p r e s s i o n
o f M(nt) given in equation (5.25) can be simplified.
Proposition 5.17
If <XC> is a feasible production vector of item c in Problem (M2)
then for all n e p(c),
TRn
M(n,t) = minl/1 + min{
J pr
O ^ k ^ t r=k+l
248
min E n,c [M(c,q)

o^q^k-^r
k-^n
E
Pc]>
^
=q+l
Proof:
For m
< 1 >
P(c)
, T K
"
+ M ( m , q - t o ) ] / ^ c for some q
, suppose M(c,q) >
S i n C eM ( C
- i K
r=l
't h e
above
inequality implies
that
~ ^
e x ; < O .
(5.29)
From Proposition (5.13), it is obvious that
for
r= 1
10
x to be a feasible production vector of item m to Problem (M2).

Thus, inequality (5.29) implies that
am +
q
I X
r=l
- f
E f
^
r=l
< 0 .
Hence, constraint (C5.8) is violated and this contradicts the fact

that
(M2).
<X > i s a f e a s i b l e p r o d u c t i o n v e c t o r o f i t e m c i n Problem

Therefore,
M ( c , t ) ^ [a^ + M(in,
f o r a l l t and f o r a l l m p(c).
definition
simplified.
term
is
of
M(n, t)
given
Using the above inequality, the

in
equation
(5.25)
can
then
be
On the right hand side of equation (5.25), the middle
always not greater
than the bottom
term.
Thus,
the
definition of M(n,t) given in equation (5.25) can be simplified as

follows
249
M(n,t)
ERr
minx
if
min-f
E P : + min E f , : [ m c , q +)
r=k+l
pc]>
U s i n g t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f M(nt) and HCn,t) investigated In the

above, the condition for the existence of a feasible production
vector of an item
in Problem
(M2) can be derived.
In Problem
(M2), for a given feasible production vector of an item, it can be

proved
that
feasible
production
predecessors always exist
vectors
of
its
immediate
if the simple condition given in the
proposition below is satisfied.
Proposition 5.18
For a given production vector < ^ > of
suppose M(a, t) and H(a, t) are set to
item a in Problem
t
T ^
r=l r
(M2),
for all t {1,..,T}.
There exists a feasible production vector of item c, c p(a), to

Problem (M2) if M(c,t)
2
F(c,t) for all t {1,..,T}.
Proof:
For a given feasible <X a > of Problem (M2), suppose M(a,t) and
H(a, t) are set to
t
T X a for all t {1, .. ,T}.
r
r=l
X c = M(c,t
250
For c p(a), let
i t i s O b v i o u s t h a t o s xtc ,
a l l
I t f o l l o w s
from the definition of M(c,t) given in equation (5.25) that
Z X c = M(c,t) ^
r=l
I Rc
r=l
and
= M(c,t) ^ p c + U c + E c , a
I
r = 1
It
J ^
r=l
is evident from
the definition of F(c,t) that, for
F(c, t-wc) 2 EcaH(a,t) -
Since
J] ^
F(c,t-a)c)
= H(a, t), the above inequality implies that
a
E c , a
y Xa - ac .
r
If M(c, t-wc) t FCc, t-wc) for all t {1..T} then
Y] X
= M ( c , t-o)c)
^ F(c, t-Ct)c)
Therefore,
<X >
satisfies
all
the
inequalities
stated
in
P r o p o s i t i o n (5 .1 3 ) and hence i t i s a f e a s i b l e p r o d u c t i o n v e c t o r o f
i t e m c t o Problem (M2).
Hence, t h e p r o p o s i t i o n i s proved.
The above p r o p o s i t i o n c a n f u r t h e r be g e n e r a l i z e d .
For a given
f e a s i b l e production vector o f item a, f e a s i b l e production vectors

o f t h e immediate p r e d e c e s s o r s o f i t e m c , c p(a) alv/ays exist if
the condition stated in the following proposition is satisfied.
Proposition 5.19
For a given feasible production vector <X a > of item a in Problem
t
(M2),
suppose M(atand H(a, t) are set
to
Y X a for all
r=l
{1, . .,T}.
There
exists
feasible
production
vectors
immediate predecessors of item c, c p ( a ) t o Problem
of
t e
the
(M2) if
M(m,t) F(mt) for all m p(c) and for all t {1,..,T>.
The
details
of
the
proof
of
Proposition
Appendix B section B.5.
252
(5.19) are given
in
A s shown i n P r o p o s i t i o n ( 5 . 1 8 ) , f o r a g i v e n f e a s i b l e <Xa>, i f
the i n e q u a l i t y that
M(ct) ^ F(ct)
for c p(a) and for all t e {1,.. ^t}.
(5.30
is true then there always exists a feasible production vector of

item c to Problem (M2).
If M(at) and H ( a , t ) are set to
Vx
r = lr
for all t {1,..,T}, it is evident from the definitions of Mct)

and
F(c, t)
constant.
that
M(ct)
function
of
Hence, for appropriate values of
w i l l be s a t i s f i e d .
The minimum
t h e minimum f e a s i b l e
X c >.
is
and
F(c,t)
is a
i n e q u a l i t y (5.30)
s a t i s f y i n g i n e q u a l i t y (5.30) i s
t h a t ensures the e x i s t e n c e o f a f e a s i b l e
Similarly, it follows from Proposition (5.19) that for a
given feasible <X > and a feasible

feasible
M(m, t)
(c p(a)), the minimum
can be obtained by solving the following inequality
2 F(m, t)
for m e p(c) and for all t {1,.. ,T>.
(5.31)
In order to solve inequalities (5.30) and (5.31) more efficiently,

the
expression for M(n,t) given
modified.
in equation
(5.25) has
to
The modified expressions are given in the next
propositions.
Z53
be
two
F o r n {1,..,N}, let
c = s(n),
# n = P
C) -
{n>
( S e to
f the
iêdiate predecessors of item c
excluding item n),

j
(^n+Wn) + cjn
l"tl^n+6)n
"
(the smallest integer which is greater than or
equal to -7-^~
^n+Wn
cx + M(m, t-CJm)
= m i n
mn
E' C
and
N(n,t) = min j J ] + E n , c min

[
0 k t
- - ^r = k + l
0<q<k-^n
For given
where m
+ min
r
r=q+l
{ M ( c q) {i
I ;\n
and t {1,. . J } , then
Sn(0,t)
+ p n + Sn(l,t)
M(nt)
(5.32)
= min,
cr^(U^ + p n ) + SnCcr n ,t)
where
Sn(0,t)
Rn
f
Sn(lt) = min.
Sn(jyt)
N(n,t)
t
k-în
min{
E + min [ E n , c ^ /3;
0 t r=k+l O^q^k-^n
r=q + l
t
= m i n
{
n ,
fXj+0n<k2t r=k+l
+ Sn ( 0 , q-Ct)n ) ] }
k-lfjn
[En,CE
+ a11 + Sn(
fl^q^k-lfJn r=q+l
+ m i n
254
] >,
Proof
I t f o l l o w s from t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f M ( n , t ) g i v e n I n e q u a t i o n
(5.25 that
M(n, t) = min-
p n + +N ( n , t )
(5.33)
P
+min {
EP
m i n [Enc ^ pc
O^q^k-lpn
r=k +l
r=q + ir
+ a11 + M(n,q-ct)n) ] }
It is worthwhile to note that the maximum value of q-cjn in the

bottom tcrin
of* equation (5.33) is equal to tcjn^n which, is less
than or equal to zero if t ^ 0n+a)n.
Since M(n, j) = 0 for j ^ 0,
it can be shown from the above equation that for t = 1 , . . ,^fn+a)n,
M(n,t) = mini S n ( 0 , t )
V pn +
+ Sn(l,t)
where
SnCO,t)
R"
N(n,t)
Sn (1, t) = min-
min{
O^k^t
r=k+l
k-^n
p c + OC1 + Sn(0,q-to)]}
+ min [En
osqsk'ihn r=q + l
Thus, the proposition is true for t = 1,.., a)n+^n.
255
Assuming that
the proposition i s true f o r t

For t = t
= 1,..,
t ' - l where t >
to^n+i.
it can be deduced from equation (5.33) that
511(0,0 = [ R n
and
N(n,t)
S n (l, t= min
min{
0kt, * r = k+1
min[En,c E pc
0~cj~k l/fn r=q +1
Sn(0,q-Wn)]>.
In the bottom term of equation (5.33), it is obvious that q-to <

k-wn-^n t* -Wn-0n.
Since
v e r i f i e d t h a t q~a)n < t* .
G)n * 0 o r 0n ^ 0 , i t c a n e a s i l y be
As t h e p r o p o s i t i o n i s t r u e f o r t ^ t* - 1 ,
Sn (0, q-CJn)
U n + p n + Sn (1, q-6)n )
M ( n , q-wn) = min.
(5.34)
(U n + p n ) + Sn ((T11
-0)n
,q_Ct)n)
I n t h e above e q u a t i o n , M(n,q-a>n) w i l l has ( j - 1 ) (p n + U^) term when
<r n
q-Wn
0n+Wn
( j - 2 ) (^n+6t)n}.
256
The above i n e q u a l i t y i m p l i e s t h a t
(j""2) itpn+Uki)
(5.35
and
(j-1) (0n+a)n),
(5.36)
Hence, M(n,q-6)n) will has the term (j-l)(pn + if1) if

inequalities
o
(5.35) and (5.36) are true.
Therefore, It can be deduced from
equations (5.33) and (5.34) that
.Sn(0t
sn{l9v
M(n, t, )
= min.
(5.37}
n
j(U^ + p ) + Snil.V )
where for j
S n U f )
=
min {
/i^+^n<k^t' r = k+l
k-^fn
m m
[En'c I
|5C +
(Xn + Sn(j-l,qa)n)]>.
r=q+l
Since the maximum value of q-a)n is t* -^n-a)n it can be shown that

the maximum value of j in equation (5.37) is [ V
fV"!
1
,
=
n+Wn
(rn .
^n+a)n + 1 =
Therefore, the proposition is true for t = t,
a n d h e n c e i s t r u e f o r a l l t {1,.. ,T>.
257
Using equation
(5.32) g i v e n i n the
above p r o p o s i t i o n ,
the
r e s m t o f P r o p o s i t i o n ( 5 . 1 9 ) c a n be r e w r i t t e n i n t h e f o l l o w i n g
corollary.
C o r o l l a r y 5.2
I n
P r o b l e m (M2)
and
f o r a
given feasible
f e a s i b l e production vector o f item a

U
(c
p(a)),
there
exists
feasible
production vectors for all the predecessors of item c if
max { max [ F ( n , t ) : S n U " 0 n i i

n
1
jj
1 <f <T 1 < ^ <rr
^
for all n p(c).
Proof:
From Proposition (5.20), it is obtained that
Sn(0,t)
+ p n + Sn(l,t)
M(n, t) = min-
crn(Un + p n ) + Sn (tr11 ,t)
Hence, the inequality that M(n,t) ^ F(n, t) is true for all t

{1,.. ,1} and for all n p(c) if and only if
258
Sn(0t)
+ P n + SnCl,t)
^
min
t Fin.t)
+ P n ) + Sn(<rn ,t)
\f ^
0
max {
max [
F ( n , t )
i^tst i^j^<r
t
i s true f o r a l l n e p(c).
If
0
:^ ) . _
I
J / ,
If
^
l^t^T
f o r a l l n p(c), it follows from Proposition (5.19) that there

exists feasible production vectors for all
item c to Problem (M2).
the predecessors of
Hence, the corollary is proved.
259
5 . 4 S o l u t i o n method
<Xa>, i t has been
F o r a g i v e n production vector of item a,

shown i n P r o p o s i t i o n ( 5 . 1 7 ) t h a t
M(ct) = miiv
k-^c
min {
O^k^t
I n t h e above e q u a t i o n , i f
5] g + min [E
r = k + i r 0^q^k-l/*c
M(a,q)]>
r
r=q + 1
i s i n c r e a s e d b y one t h e n M(c, t ) w i l l
i n c r e a s e b y a t most one.
I t c a n be deduced f r o m t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f
N(nt)
p(c)that
and
Sn(j,t),
functions
of U:
and
0
increased
by
one.
will
increase
Therefore,
the
by
N(n,t)
and
Sn(jt)
most E n , c
at
minimum
value
are
if U c is
o
of
[f which
o
satisfies inequality (5.38) can be decreased by at most E n , c if U c

o
is increased by one.
Since the accumulated value of one container
of item c C c , is not less than the sum of the accumulated values

of its immediate predecessors used to produce one container of
item c, it is obvious that C c ^
J] f
C11.
Hence, in order to
np(c)
minimize the objective function of Problem
(M2),
it is unlikely
that U c should be increased by one in order to reduce

o
Therefore, once
to solve Problems (Ml) and

determined
by
is determined, it is not worthwhile to increase
U c in order to reduce U n .
o
o
are
Thus, a level by level approach is used

(M2).
For all c LCi), < X > and U
before determiningX > and
L(i+1).
Suppose the production vectors of items In levels 1 to i-1 are

fixed.
When finding a feasible <X >, c L(I), to Problem (Ml),
260
f e a s i b l e U o and <
(n e p ( c ) ) t o Problem (M2) a r e f i r s t o b t a i n e d
These v a l u e s o f U c and i f a r e used

o
o
t o a p p r o x i m a t e t h e minimum v a l u e s o f
and i f i n Problem (Ml)
by s o l v i n g i n e q u a l i t y (5.38).
when f i n d i n g a f e a s i b l e p r o d u c t i o n v e c t o r o f i t e m c t o Problem
(Ml).
Once t h e f e a s i b l e p r o d u c t i o n v e c t o r o f i t e m c t o Problem
( M l ) i s f o u n d , t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g minimum v a l u e o f U c r e q u i r e d t o
s a t i s f y the i n e q u a l i t y that
t
E X ^ +E E c > a
r=l
+u : -
f o r a l l t {1,
directly.
can be determined by solving the inequality
">
The
t-Wc
0
r=1
procedures
vector of item c and
of
finding
to Problem
the
feasible production
(Ml) are described below in
a greater detail.
For a given feasible production vector of item a to Problem

(Ml),
it
has been shown
in
feasible integral value of

smallest
max {
non-negative
max [ F ( c > t )
Corollary
(5.2)
that
the minimum
(c e p(a)) to Problem (M2) is the
integer
which
: S c ( J , t ) - pc]}.
is
not
less
than
With this value of
,
0
there always exists a feasible production vector of Item c to

Problem (M2).
When using Corollary
(5.2) to find a feasible
to Problem
(M2), Sn( j, t) has to be determined first for all j {1,..
and
for
the
all
{1,.. ,!>.
However,
it
can
be
shown
from
definition of Sn(j,t) that the value of Sn(j,t) depends on the
261
v a l u e o f N(nt) which in turn depends on the value of M(m,q-w)

where q
=
t - . I f M ( c , t ) i s assumed t o be n o t g r e a t e r t h a n A n
( d e f i n e d i n P r o p o s i t i o n (5.20)) f o r a l l
{1,..,T} then the
definition of N(n,t) implies that
min
Thus, Sn(j,t) and hence M(n,t) are independent of M(m,q-a)in) and

therefore, under the above assumption, for all n p(c), if can be
determined independently by s o l v i n g i n e q u a l i t y (5.38).
But w i t h
t h e s e v a l u e s o f \ f , t h e above a s s u m p t i o n may n o t be v a l i d , i . e .
M ( c , t ) may b e g r e a t e r t h a n
greater than
check
if M(c,t) is
for some t {1,. . ,T}, then it is necessary to
whether
(5.19) that
f o r some t {1,.. ,T>.
the
feasibility
guarantees
the
condition
existence
of
stated
in Proposition
a feasible production
vector of item n is still satisfied, i.e. to check whether M(n, t)

is still not less than F(n,t) for all t {1,..,1}.
If M(n, t) < F(n, t) for some t, it can be shown from Corollary

(5.2) that j (U^ + p n ) + Sn(j, t) < Fn,t) for some j {1,..,cr^>.
Denote the set of item n, n p(c), such that M(n, t) < F(n, t) for
some t
{1,..,1} by
i;(c).
In order
to ensure that Mfn, t) >
F(nf t) for all t e {1,..,17, from Corollary (5.2), it is obvious

that for some n i;(c),
has to be increased until j(U^ + p n ) +
Sn( j, t) > F(n, t) for all j {1,..
and for all t {1,.. T}.
It follows from equation (5.32) that when if is increased, MCn,!)

increases and hence A ,
increase.
and
Thus, after increasing if ,
262
m e p(c), may also

may increase for
some m d( C ) and for some t, which means the required increase in

U
oi
no r d e rt o
satisfy the inequality that
t may be reduced.
a
F(m,t) for all
Therefore, for n i;(c), different order of
increasing if may result in different magnitude of the required

increase in U n .
o
Even
though
increasing
the
problem
of
finding
the
used
items
order
of
can be formulated as an integer program, it is too
time-consuming to solve the integer program.

of increasing
optimal
Therefore, the order
is determined heuristically.
The heuristic rule
is that the order of increasing the number of Kanbans of

in v(c)
is in the ascending order
value per container.

will be
increased
of
item's accumulated
Thus, for n and m y(c), if Cn < (f then U n

o
such
that
j(lf + p n ) + Sn(j, t) > F(n,t) is
satisfied for all j e {1,.. ,cr^} and for all t {1,.. ,1} before
increasing U. The intuitive explanation is that for n and m e
tKc), increasing U: with small C n early in the adjustment process
is likely to reduce the magnitude of increment in
late
in the process because
increase f o r
some
after
with large C
=
a
n
d hence M(m,t ) a r e l i k e l y t o
the
increase o f
if1.
o
Once
if1 i s
o
d e t e r m i n e d f o r a l l n pCc), M(n, t) can be computed easily by

using equation (5.25).
With feasible U c and if (c L(i) and n e L(i+1)) to Problem

o
o
(M2) found in the above and a feasible integral production vector
<X a > of item a, a = s(c), an integral production vector of item c
can be determined using the following procedures.
fixed, it is obvious that the bounds on
263
t
J]
Since <Xa> is
, M(ct) and F(c,t
c a n be t i g h t e n e d by r e p l a c i n g M ( a , t ) and H ( a , t ) by
in the
r
e q u a t i o n s f o r M ( c , t ) and F ( c , t ) .
W i t h these replacements, t h e
c u m u l a t i v e production q u a n t i t y o f item c i s t e n t a t i v e l y s e t t o
t _
y xc f t
[ w h i c h i s t h e maximum non-negative i n t e g r a l v a l u e o f
r =l
L
r =l
= I , . .,1 1 ) t h a t s a t i s f i e s t h e f o l l o w i n g i n e q u a l i t i e s :
t-l/lc
x c + E c , a 5 : x a ^ 0,
+ M(n, t-wn) E n > c JX c
IR c
s 0
(5.39)
for all n p(c)
(5.40)
a I X c and
(5.41}
> 0,
(5.42)
The first inequalities states that the maximum feasible cumulative

production quantity of item c is limited by the maximum cumulative
number of Kanbans available.
The next inequality guarantees that
the consumption of item n in producing item c is not greater than

the maximum amount of item n available.
a
feasibility condition of <XC>
feasible
production
inequality
is
the
production vectors
(Ml),
it
production
is
vectors
capacity
of
obvious
vector
of
(5.39)-(5.42) because
of
Inequality (5.41) is just
to guarantee
its
predecessors.
constraint
items belonging
that
item
there
c
the existence
on
to
always
which
<XC>.
level
The
For
of
last
given
i-1 of Problem
exists
satisfies
an
integral
inequalities
= 0 for all t 6 {1,..,T> is an obvious
integral solution.
264
The i n t e g r a l p r o d u c t i o n v e c t o r o f i t e m c , <^>, d e t e r m i n e d i n
t h e ab ove s a t i s f i e s t h e f i r s t and t h e l a s t i n e q x i a l i t i e s s t a t e d i n
P r o p o s i t i o n (5.4).
I t c a n be shown f r o m t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f H ( c , t )
that
H(ct)
t+Ct)c
2
E c , a
y Xa - ac
r
t+0>c
Hence, if
t
I Xc
^
r
r=l
2 H(c,t)
(5.43)
then the second inequality of Proposition (5.4) is also satisfied.

In
order
to
guarantee
that
the
production
vector
of
item
satisfies inequality (5.43), the cumulative production quantity of

t
item
c up
to
period
is
nonnegative i n t e g r a l v a l u e o f
set
to
T X c which
"
r
r=l
is
the
maximum
t
[ ^X c ( t = 1 , . . , T ) t h a t s a t i s f i e s
r =l
the following inequalities:
[ X :
It
2 f H(c,t) ] and
is worthwhile
to note that there always exists an integral
265
W h i C h S a t i S f i e S t h e a b o v e
a l W a y S
& S 0 l U t i 0 nt 0 t h e
I n e q u a l i t i e s as
Indeed,
<RC>
determined i n the above
s a t i s f i e s a l l t h e i n e q u a l i t i e s o f P r o p o s i t i o n ( 5 . 4 ) and thus i s
f e a s i b l e p r o d u c t i o n v e c t o r o f i t e m c t o Problem ( M l ) .
t
W i t h ^ I X determined in the above,
is set
to the minimum
nonnegative integral value of U c such that
,
r=l
t e { 1
, . . ,
T }
r=l
Thus, vector { < X C satisfies the following inequalities for

all t {1,..,T}
t-Wc
E Xrc
r = li
=
2 Ec>a
t
y rx a - a c
t
r = l,
t -yDc
+ p
+ E
c , a
r=l
t
t
^
I X
r=l
^
r=l
L X c and
r=l
Hence, vector {U^, <X >} is feasible to its immediate successor.

Repeating
the procedures for
all
other
items
in
level
i,
the
production vector as well as the number of Kanbans of all the

items in level i can be determined.
t
c
Since Y Xrc and U 0
determined
r=l
in the above are integral values, the procedures can actually find
a
feasible
solution
to
Problem
266
(Ml).
The
above
solution
p r o c e d u r e s a r e summarized i n t h e f o l l o w i n g h e u r i s t i c .
Heuristic 5
Step 0
I n i t i a l i z e t h e l e v e l number by s e t t i n g i = 1
S e t M(0,t ) = H(0, t ) = J] X f o r a l l t {1, ..,T}
Step 1
For all c L(i),
find Sc(j,t) (j { 0 , . . } ) and F(ct) for all t {1,.,T>
determine
which
is
greater than or equal to
the
smallest
non-negative
max { max [ F ( c , t ) :
integer
d e t e r m i n e H ( c , t ) and M C c , t ) f o r a l l t .
S e t i = i+1.
I f i > I ( t h e t o t a l number o f l e v e l s i n t h e system) t h e n

f o r a l l c L(I), find <XC> and
using Step 3;
else
initialize the group number in level i by setting j = 1;
end if.
267
c., ^
Step 2
L e t c = t h e immediate s u c c e s s o r o f group j i n l e v e l i .
F o r a l l n p(c),
set
= a for all t;
find Sn(j,t) (j = 0 ,.., cr^) and F(nt) for all t

find U which is the smallest integer greater than or equal to
max { max [ F ( n , t ) : Sn(jt) p n ] } ;
l i t T i<j<cr^
^
find HCn, t) and
If M(c,t) >
for all t.
for some t {1,..,1} then
find vie), the set of item n
(n p(c)) such that j(U^ + p n ) +
Sn(jt) < F (n, t) for some j {1,. . , (r^} and for some t
r a n k t)(c) i n t h e a s c e n d i n g o r d e r o f Cn
let m be the first element of ranked i;(c), find U such that
o
j
+ pm) + Sm(j,t) ^ FCm, t) for all j e {1,. . ,tr> and for
all t;
update M(nit) for all t, a n d a n d Sn(j,t) for all n e v(c)
and for all t;
set i;(c) = u(c) - {m> and repeat the procedure of finding
which satisfies j (U^ + p m ) + Sm( j, t) ^ F(m, t) for all j
{1, . . ,cr1^} and for all t until i;(cis equal to an empty set;
end if.
Find H(n,t) for all n p(c) and for all t.
268
Step 3
For
all
.T}find I T
which
is
the
maximum
r=l
I X c that satisfies
non-negative integral value of
r=1
p c+
r
M
+
<
=1
r =1
- Enc X : > 0
fora l l n
p(c),
r=l
t
IH
, r
r=l
Find
t
E X c and
^
r=l
J] X r which is the maximum non-negative integral value of
r=l
t
J] X c that satisfies
r=l
r=l
r=l
t
Z X: 2H(c,t) ] and
r=l
Find U c such that U c
Set M(c,t) = H(c,t)
for all t.
for all t.
269
Step 4
C o n s i d e r t h e n e x t group i n l e v e l i by incrementing j t o j
If j
1.
> t h e number o f groups i n l e v e l i g o t o s t e p 1 e l s e goto
step 2.
I n s t e p s 1 and 2 o f H e u r i s t i c 5, f e a s i b l e
(M2) a r e f o u n d .
U
ot
o P r o b l e m (M1)
W i t h these v a l u e s o f
and i f t o Problem
and i f , f e a s i b l e <XC> and
a r e determined i n s t e p 3.
I t i s worthwhile t o
n o t e t h a t f o r any r e a l v a l u e o f E n , s C n ) , H e u r i s t i c 5 can be used

t o f i n d a f e a s i b l e s o l u t i o n t o Problem ( M l ) .
I n the f o l l o w i n g ,
example 4 o f B i t r a n and Chang (1987) i s used t o i l l u s t r a t e the

computational aspect o f the h e u r i s t i c .
5.5 Numerical example
T h e r e a r e t h r e e p l a n n i n g p e r i o d s (T = 3 ) i n t h e Kanban assignment
p r o b l e m o f a f o u r - l e v e l s e r i a l p r o d u c t i o n system.
The demand f o r
t h e f i n a l assembly o c c u r r s a t p e r i o d 3 o n l y and 2 u n i t s a r e
r e q u i r e d a t t h a t p e r i o d ; t h u s , X ; = 0,
= 0 and
= 2.
Since
t h e r e i s o n l y one i t e m i n each l e v e l , the t o t a l number o f stages

e x c l u d i n g t h e f i n a l assembly stage i s e q u a l t o t h r e e
(N = 3 ) .
S t a g e 0 i s t h e f i n a l assembly stage which i s t h e p r e c e d i n g s t a g e

o f s t a g e 1.
P a r t s f l o w from s t a g e 3 t o s t a g e 2 t h e n t o stage 1.
S i n c e s t a g e n produces i t e m n o n l y , i t i s obvious t h a t s ( 3 ) = 2,
s(2)
= 1, s ( l ) = 0.
The number o f u n i t s o f items 1,
270
2 and 3
r e q U l r ei n
P r 0 d U C i n g0 n e
2 and 5 respectively, i . e .
production
capacity
of
o f
t h e i r immediate s u c c e s s o r s a r e 1,
3 2
e
each
= 5
stage
2,1
1,0
- Z, e
at
each period
=
is
,
1.
The
infinite
except the production capacity of stage 3 at period 3 which is

zero, i.e.
0.
= for n . <1,2,3} and for t
{1,2,3} except ^
The accumulated value per container of items 1 2 and 3 Ire
$15, 6 and $1 respectively, i.e. C 1 = 15C 2 = 6 and C 3 = 1.
The
container size at each stage is equal to 1 and hence 0 n = 1 for n
{1
2 3} .
T h e
Production lead-time and
the initial
inventory
level of all the items are equal to zero, i.e. to = V11 = w n = 0

0
0
for n {1,2,3}, whereas the Kanban delivery lead-time of each
stage is one period
(i/jn = 1 for n e U,2,3>).
The Kanban assignment problem of the above production system is

solve by Heuristic 5 and the details of the computation are as
follows
Step 1 gives
Si(0,l) = 2, Si (0,2) = 2, Si (0,3) = 2, Si (1,1) = 0Si(l,2) = 0,
Si(l,3) = 0, Si(2,2) = 0, Si(23) = 0, Si(3,3) = 0.
F(ll) = 0, F(l2) = 0, F(l,3) = 2.
= 2, M(l,2) = 2M(l,3) = 2.
= 0, H(l,2) = 0H(l,3) = 2.
Step 2 gives
82(0,1) = 452(0,2) = 4, 52(0,3) = 4, S2(l,l) = 0, S2(L,2) = 4
82(1,3) = 4, S2(2,2) = 0, 82(2,3) = 4, 82(3,3) = 0.
F ( 2 , l ) = 0, F ( 2 , 2 ) = 0, F ( 2 , 3 ) = 4.
M ( 2 , l ) = 2M(2,2) = 4, M(3,3) = 4.
H(2,l) = 0 H(2,2) = 2, HC3,3) = 4.
Step 3 gives
1
[ X
= 1,
r=l
E X
r=:l
= 2,
r
J] X1 = 2 and U 1 = 2.
=1
Step 1 gives
S2(0l) = 4, S2(0,2) = 4, 52(0,3) = 482(1,1) = 032(1,2) = 2,
S2(l,3) = 4, S2(292) = 0, 82(2,3) = 2S2(3,3) = 0.
F(2,l) = 2, F(2,2) = 4, F(2 t 3) = 4.
M(2,1) = 2, M(2,2) = 4, M(2,3) = 4.

11(2,1) : 2H(2,2) : 4H(2,3) = 4.
Step 2 gives
S3(0l) = 20, 53(0,2) = 2053(0,3) = 20, 53(1,1) = 0 , 83(1,2)=
10, 83(1,3) = 10, 33(2,2) = 0, S3(2,3) = 053(3,3) = 0.
F(3,l) = 10, F(3,2) = 20 F(33) = 20.
U 3 = 10.
0
M(3,l) = 10, M(3,2) = 20, M(3,3) = 20.
H(3,l) = 10, H(3,2) : 20, H(3,3) = 20.
Step 3 gives
1
E X 2 = 2
r
2
3
JX 2 = 4, I X
= 4 and U = 2.
0
272
Step 1 gives
S 3 ( 0 > 1 )
= 2 0
S3(0
2) =
20
^3(0,3) = 20, 83(1,1) = 0, S3(l,2)=
10, S3(l,3) = 10, 83(2,2) = 0, 83(2,3) = 0, 83(3,3) = 0.

F(3,l) = 10, F(32) = 20, F(33) = 20.
U 3 = 10.
o
J]
r=l
- 10,
E x r = 20,
r=l
J] X 3 = 20 and U 3 = 10.
r = 1
The objective value of the solution found by Bitran and Chang s

linear programming heuristic
is 62 which is 19.2% greater than
that found by Heuristic 5.
As a matter of fact, the solution
found by Heuristic 5 is the optimal solution.
Now let
= 200 while the other parameters remain unchanged.
The solution found by Heuristic 5 is as follows
XJ = 6 7 X 1 = 6 7 , X 1 = 6 6 ,
= 134, X : = 134, X; = 132,

1
= 1330X 3 = 670, X 3 = 0,
2
U = 2 0 0 U 2 = 134 and U 3 = 1330.

o
o
o
The objective values of the solution found by Heuristic 5 and

Bitran and Chang* s linear programming heuristic are 5134 and 5144
respectively.
It is found that the solution found by Heuristic 5
is optimal.
273
5-6 Performance evaluation
H e u r i s t i c 5 d e s c r i b e d i n the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n was programmed i n

FORTRAN.
I t s performance was evaluated on a s e t o f 432 randomly
generated
problems.
Three
different
assembly
systems
were
considered.
5.3.
System A i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a s m a l l number o f l e v e l s (3
levels).
levels)
System B i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a l a r g e number o f l e v e l s (8
and system C by an intermediate
levels).
number o f l e v e l s
(5
A l l the t h r e e systems have 15 p r o d u c t i o n stages, i . e .
M
different
levels
of
mean
c o m p u t a t i o n a l experiments.
demand
were
considered
in
the
Demand i n each p l a n n i n g p e r i o d was
assumed t o f o l l o w a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n w i t h mean demand D and

s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n 0.5D.
The p r o d u c t i o n c a p a c i t y o f stage n i n
e a c h p e r i o d was n o r m a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d w i t h mean 0.2Q n and standard

deviation
0.05Q n
where
Qn,
defined i n
Section
5.3,
is
the
e f f e c t i v e demand i n terms o f the number o f f u l l c o n t a i n e r s o f item

n.
F o r each assembly system, twelve t e s t problems were generated
f o r e a c h demand l e v e l .
I n the t e s t problems, i t was assumed t h a t
f o r a l l stagesthe production lead time was equal to zero and the

Kanban delivery lead time was equal to one period (i.e.
=
1 for all n).
The
linear program
t)n = 0 and
in Bitran and Chang's
linear programming heuristic proposed in Bitran and Chang (1987)

was
solved
by
the
linear
programming
package IMSL.
274
subroutine
in
computer
Figure 5.1 Assembly system A
Figure 5.2 Assembly system B
14
275
Figure 5.3 Assembly system C
14
Let
ZH and
ZB denote the o b j e c t i v e v a l u e s o f the s o l u t i o n s
f o u n d b y H e u r i s t i c 5 and B i t r a n and Chang's l i n e a r programming

h e u r i s t i c respectively.
TH and TB a r e t h e r e s p e c t i v e CPU time i n
s e c o n d s r e q u i r e d t o f i n d the s o l u t i o n s by H e u r i s t i c 5 and B i t r a n
and
Chang* s l i n e a r programming h e u r i s t i c .
computational
results
of
the
test
multiple-containers-for-one-container
i n t e g e r f o r a l l n ) a r e summarized.
276
I n Table 5 . 1 ,
problems f o r
(E n > s ( n ) i s
the
the
case o f
a non-negative
Table 5 . 1
Computational r e s u l t s f o r multi-containers-for-one-
container mode o f production
Assembly
system
Average
demand
2B - ZH
2H
*1
min
0 0
mean
max
0.0
1.5
4.3
10
0.0
1.0
1.8
20
0.7
0.8
0.9
50
0.2
0.3
0.5
100
0.0
0.0
0.0
500
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
8.4
10
0.0
1.6
4.5
20
0.1
0.8
1.3
50
-0.1
0.2
1.1
100
0.0
0.0
0.0
500
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.4
10
0.0
1.0
2.6
20
0.6
0.8
1.0
50
-0.1
0.3
0.7
100
0.0
0.0
0.0
500
0.0
0.0
0.0
Table 5.2 summarizes the computational results for the onecontainer-for-multiple-containers

negative integer for all n).
277
mode
(1/E
is
non-
Table 5 . 2
Computational r e s u l t s f o r one-container-for-multiple-
c o n t a i n e r s mode of production
Assembly
system
Average
demand
ZB - ZH
~ 2 H ~ * 100
min
mean
max
17.3
21.3
10
11.4
18.3
20
8.7
11.1
50
6.6
8.2
100
2.5
4.5
500
0.0
0.0
3.3
19.5
27.8
10
1.7
15.3
19.7
20
1.1
11.5
15.3
50
0.3
2.3
14.5
27.1
10
3.1
12.3
21.3
20
2.2
9.6
11.7
50
0.1
5.8
6.7
100
0.0
2.0
3.1
500
0.0
0.0
0.0
100
500
The c o m p u t a t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s o f H e u r i s t i c
C h a n g ' s l i n e a r programming h e u r i s t i c f o r a l l t e s t problems a r e
summarized i n t h e f o l l o w i n g t a b l e .
278
Table 5 . 3 Computational requirements f o r fifteen-stage problems
Assembly
system
1FH
TB
min
mean
max
min
mean
max
0.05
0 ..06
0.07
39.1
44.6
51.9
0.06
0,07
0.09
53.6
57.7
65.4
0.05
0,.06
0.07
50.8
55.3
63.8
I n o r d e r t o i n v e s t i g a t e the s e n s i t i v i t y o f the computational

requirement
to
computational
the
problem
experiment
was
size,
an
carried
additional
out.
In this
set
of
set
of
e x p e r i m e n t s , N was s e t t o f i v e , i . e . o n l y t h e f i n a l assembly stage

and
the f i r s t f i v e
production stages
(stages
0 to
5)
were
c o n s i d e r e d and t h e r e m a i n i n g t e n p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e s (stages 6 t o
15) i n systems
A,
B and
C were d e l e t e d .
The computational
r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h i s s e t o f experiments a r e summarized i n the

following table.
Table 5 . 4
Assembly
system
Computational requirements f o r five-stage problems
TB
TH
min
mean
max
min
mean
0.01
0.01
0.02
3.6
4.1
4.9
0.01
0.02
0.03
5.7
7.8
9.4
0.01
0.01
0.03
4.4
6.4
8.1
279
max
The
performance
of
Heuristic
5 is
characterized i n
the
f o l l o w i n g observations
(a) The
solution obtained
by
Heuristic 5
is
superior
to
that
obtained by Bitran and Chang's linear programming heuristic in

majority
of
the
test problems.
In
the
one~container-for-
multiple-containers mode, the mean deviation is 8.0% and the

maximum deviation is 27.1%..
In the multiple-containers-for-
one-container mode, the mean deviation is 0.6% and the maximum

deviation
is 8.4%.
Out
of 432 test problems, Bitran and
Chang* s linear programming heuristic outperforms Heuristic 5

in only three test problems, and In those three problems th
differences in objective values are all less than 0.13%.
(b) The difference between the objective values found by Heuristic
5
and
Bitran
and
decreases when
the
Chang's
average
linear
demand
programming
level
heuristic
increases.
As a
matter of fact, the number of test problems that Bitran and

Chang's
linear
programming
heuristic
solves
optimally
increases as the average demand level increases.

(c) The computational requirement of Heuristic 5 is much smaller
than that of Bitran and Chang's linear programming heuristic.
As shown in Tables 5.3 and 5.4, the computer times required to
solve five-stage and fifteen-stage Kanban assignment problems
by Bitran and Chang1 s linear programming are on the average
480 and 1752 times longer than the respective times required
by
Heuristic
5.
The
difference
in
the
coniputat ional
requirements of the two methods becomes larger as the problem

size increases.
280
I n
t h i S
Chapter>
t h e
Kanba
assignment
problem
of
d e t e r m i n i s t i c c a p a c i t a t e d m u l t i - s t a g e assembly system has been

studied.
I t has been found t h a t the i n t e g e r programming model
p r o p o s e d b y B i t r a n and Chang (1987) i s one o f the most r e a l i s t i c

d e t e r m i n i s t i c Kanban assignment models r e p o r t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e .
However, because o f t h e i n h e r e n t complexity o f a m u l t i - s t a g e J U
p r o d u c t i o n system, i t has been found t h a t B i t r a n and Chang's
linear
programming h e u r i s t i c r e q u i r e s
a significant
amount
c o m p u t a t i o n a l e f f o r t i f t h e s c a l e o f t h e problem. I s l a r g e .
large
computational
application
of
assumptions
on
inventory
level
requirement
their
the
model.
hamper
Moreover,
container
of each
may
usstg
the
some
nuniber
item must be made
and
so
of
Such a
practical
restrictive
the
initial
that Bitran and
Chang's linear programming heuristic can be applied to solve the

Kanban
assignment
problem.
Thus,
the
applicability
linear programming heuristic is severely limited.
of
their
Through detail
analysis of Bitran and Chang* s model, some useful properties of

the
model
summarized
have
been
derived
and
these
in several propositions.
properties
Using
have
the results of
been
the
propositions, a heuristic has been developed to solve the Kanban

assignment
problem
without
making
initial
inventory
conducted
to
as
any
represented by Bitran and
assumption
levels.
evaluate
on
container
Computational
the performance
results have demonstrated
of
Chang's model
usage numbers
and
experiments have been

the heuristic.
The
that the computational requirement of
281
t h e h e u r i s t i c i s much s m a l l e r than t h a t o f B i t r a n and Chang* s

l i n e a r programming h e u r i s t i c and the q u a l i t y o f s o l u t i o n o b t a i n e d
b y t h e h e u r i s t i c i s a l s o b e t t e r than t h a t o b t a i n e d by B i t r a n and
Chang's h e u r i s t i c .
282
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK
I n t h i s r e s e a r c h , an attempt has been made t o study two main

a s p e c t s o f t h e J I T p r o d u c t i o n system, namely p r o d u c t i o n smoothing
b y s e q u e n c i n g f i n a l a s s e m b l i e s and the Kanban system.
The main
p u r p o s e o f t h i s r e s e a r c h has been concerned w i t h t h e a n a l y s i s f o r

manufacturing
companies
which
p r o d u c t i o n by
implementing the
are
aiming
Kanban
m u l t i - s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n and a d o p t i n g the
at
achieving
system f o r
JIT
controlling
sequence schedule f o r
f i n a l a s s e m b l y sequencing.
I n t h i s t h e s i s , concepts r e l a t e d t o the J I T p r o d u c t i o n system

have b e e n r e v i e w e d e x t e n s i v e l y .
I t has been noted t h a t p r o d u c t i o n
s m o o t h i n g i s t h e most important p r e r e q u i s i t e o f the J I T p r o d u c t i o n

system.
I n o r d e r t o produce the necessary items i n the necessary
q u a n t i t i e s a t t h e n e c e s s a r y times, a p r o d u c t i o n l i n e i s no longer
c o m m i t t e d t o m a n u f a c t u r i n g a s i n g l e product i n l a r g e l o t s i z e s .
I n s t e a d , a s i n g l e l i n e must produce a v a r i e t y o f products each day
i n small l o t sizes.
Thus, a mixed-model assembly l i n e w i t h s m a l l
lot
one
production i s
production.
of
In controlling
the
distinctive
features
the p r o d u c t i o n o f
of
JIT
mixed-model
a s s e m b l y l i n e , t h e assembly sequencing problem, i . e . the problem

o f d e t e r m i n i n g t h e sequence schedule which s p e c i f i e s the sequence
o f i n t r o d u c i n g v a r i o u s p r o d u c t s i n t o the f i n a l p r o d u c t i o n stage o f
a mixed-model assembly l i n e , has t o be s o l v e d .
283
For production
s t a g e s P r e c e d i n g t o the f i n a l assembly l i n e , p r o d u c t i o n of these
s t a g e s a r e c o n t r o l l e d by the Kanban system.
I n o p e r a t i n g the
Kanban system, the Kanban assignment problem, i . e . the problem o f

d e t e r m i n i n g t h e number o f Kanbans t o be i s s u e d t o each p r o d u c t i o n
s t a g e , h a s t o be s o l v e d .
The two problems mentioned i n the above,
namely t h e assembly sequencing problem and the Kanban assignment

problem,
are
the
important
operational
control
problems
e n c o u n t e r e d i n implementing t h e J I T p r o d u c t i o n system.
V a r i o u s p u b l i c a t i o n s r e l a t e d t o the p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h have been

r e v i e w e d and t h e prominent f e a t u r e s and r e s u l t s o f i n d i v i d u a l
s t u d i e s have a l s o "been h i g h l i g h t e d .
I n the l i t e r a t u r e on tb. JIT
production
amount
carried
system.
solving
system,
out
to
study
substantial
the
operational
of
research has
control problems
of
been
the
It has been found that the solution methods proposed for

the
assembly
sequencing
problem
tend
to
worsen with
increasing number of products or parts in a production system, and

the computational requirements of the solution methods are quite
significant for practical problems.
It has also been noticed that
the assembly manpower planning problem, the problem of determining

the optimal strategy of adjusting the number of workers in each
assembly station and using overtime in order to meet the workload
requirement of a given sequence schedule, has so far not been
treated.
Furthermore, it has been found that most of the Kanban
assignment models reported in the literature are not realistic and

most of the algorithms developed are computationally tractable for
small scale problems only.
284
Because
of
the
inherent
complexity
of
multi-stage
JIT
p r o d u c t i o n system, i t has been found t h a t most s o l u t i o n methods

d e v e l o p e d s o f a r r e q u i r e a s i g n i f i c a n t amount o f c o m p u t a t i o n a l
effort i f
the scale of
t h e problem i s l a r g e .
Such a l a r g e
c o m p u t a t i o n a l requirement may hamper t h e p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f

t h e xisting models.
This research has been siiincci at two aspects:
developing efficient and effective algorithms for solving existing

representative models and building a model which supplements the
existing models on practical application.
In
the
JIT
production
system,
the
dispatching
of
daily
production is achieved through the use of a pull system controlled

by Kanbans and
the sequence schedule.
In order
to
level
the
workload in each production process, a good sequence schedule is

needed.
In this thesis, the assembly sequencing problem has been
extensively analysed for mixed-model assembly lines with different

goals
of
control,
requirements.
usage goal
and
under different
characteristics
of part
The goals considered in this research include the
(i.e.
the goal of keeping a constant usage rate for
every part or sub-assembly used in the line) and the loading goal
(i.e. the goal of levelling the workload on each station on the
line).
The characteristics include products with similar part
requirements and products with different part requirements.
When
products have similar part requirements and only the usage goal is
considered, the properties of the optimal sequence schedule have
been derived.
It has been found that for a sequence schedule to
be optimal, the cumulative production quantity and the reiuainlng
285
p r o d u c t i o n q u o t a o f each p r o d u c t a t each sequence p o s i t i o n must

satisfy
number
properties
of
of
the
conditions.
optimal
Apart
sequence
from
schedule,
deriving
the
efficient
and
e f f e c t i v e p r o c e d u r e s have a l s o been developed f o r f i n d i n g t h e

t i g h t u p p e r and lower bounds f o r t h e u s a g e - g o a l problem.
With the
properties
bounding
of
procedures,
the
optimal
solution
and
the
a n e f f i c i e n t b r a n c h and bound a l g o r i t h m has
developed
to
determine
the
optimal
sequence
C o m p u t a t i o n a l t e s t s have been c a r r i e d out

e f f i c i e n c y o f the algorithm.
can s o l v e
tight
the
to
I t has been found t h a t t h e a l g o r i t h m
assembly sequencing problem o p t i m a l l y w i t h i n a
bound
schedule.
that
the
schedule.
demonstrate t h e
r e a s o n a b l e amount o f time f o r medium s i z e problems.
upper
been
has
For solving
the h e u r i s t i c which i s used t o f i n d t h e
been
employed t o
determine
good
sequence
The r e s u l t s o f c o m p u t a t i o n a l experiments have shown

heuristic
M i l t e n b u r g (1989).
performs
better
than
those
proposed
by
The a n a l y s i s has t h e n been extended t o c o v e r
t h e c a s e when p r o d u c t s have d i f f e r e n t p a r t r e q u i r e m e n t s .
The
h e u r i s t i c d e v e l o p e d f o r p r o d u c t s w i t h s i m i l a r p a r t requirements
h a s b e e n m o d i f i e d t o f i n d t h e sequence schedule i n t h i s c a s e .
C o m p u t a t i o n a l experiments have been c a r r i e d out t o e v a l u a t e t h e
performance o f the modified h e u r i s t i c .
The r e s u l t s have shown
t h a t t h e m o d i f i e d h e u r i s t i c performs b e t t e r t h a n t h o s e developed
b y M i l t e n b u r g and Sinnamon (1989).
The h e u r i s t i c proposed f o r
p r o d u c t s w i t h d i f f e r e n t r e q u i r e m e n t s has a l s o been m o d i f i e d t o
solve
the
assembly
sequencing
considered i n Toyota's
problem
goal-chasing
286
with
method.
the
objective
The r e s u l t s o f
computational
experiments
solution quality,
have
demonstrated t h a t i n
terms
of
t h e m o d i f i e d h e u r i s t i c performs s i g n i f i c a n t l y
b e t t e r t h a n t h e g o a l - c h a s i n g method.
The
previous
analysis
has
been
extended
to
analyse
the
j o i n t - g o a l p r o b l e m , t h e problem t h a t c o n s i d e r s b o t h t h e usage g o a l
and t h e l o a d i n g g o a l .
F o r p r o d u c t i o n systems w i t h s i m i l a r p a r t
r e q u i r e m e n t s , t h e h e u r i s t i c developed f o r t h e u s a g e - g o a l problem
has
been m o d i f i e d
computational
to
solve
the
joint-goal
problem.
Again,
e x p e r i m e n t s have been conducted t o e v a l u a t e t h e
performance o f the modified h e u r i s t i c .
The r e s u l t s have shown
t h a t t h e m o d i f i e d h e u r i s t i c g i v e s a b e t t e r performance t h a n the
h e u r i s t i c s p r o p o s e d by M i l t e n b u r g e t a l .
(1990).
Finally, for
p r o d u c t i o n systems w i t h d i f f e r e n t p a r t requirements, i t has been

shown t h a t t h e h e u r i s t i c developed f o r t h e u s a g e - g o a l problem can
a l s o be u s e d t o s o l v e t h e j o i n t - g o a l problem.
I n the l i t e r a t u r e ,
t h e r e s e a r c h done on t h e c o n t r o l o f
mixed-model assembly l i n e has been c e n t r e d o n f i n d i n g sequence

schedules
to
achieve
characteristics of
different
part
goals,
requirements.
and
The
under
assembly
different
manpower
p l a n n i n g p r o b l e m , a r i s i n g f r o m a d o p t i n g a g i v e n sequence schedule,
h a s s o f a r n o t been t r e a t e d .
v a r i e s f r o m day t o day,
station w i l l
I f t h e sequence schedule found
the d a i l y workload o f
a l s o f l u c t u a t e i n corresponding
each assembly
manner.
Since
i n c r e a s i n g t h e number o f w o r k e r s i n a s t a t i o n reduces t h e assembly

t i m e r e q u i r e d i n t h a t s t a t i o n and u s i n g o v e r t i m e l e n g t h e n s t h e
287
duration
between
successive
launchings
of
products
into
an
a s s e m b l y l i n e , i n each day i t may t h e r e f o r e be n e c e s s a r y t o a d j u s t

t h e manpower i n each s t a t i o n and/or use o v e r t i m e i n o r d e r t o meet
t h e w o r k l o a d requirement o f the sequence s c h e d u l e found.
I n the
d a i l y p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s , an i n t e g e r program has been f o r m u l a t e d t o

d e t e r m i n e t h e o p t i m a l number o f assembly workers i n each assembly
s t a t i o n and t h e o p t i m a l amount o f overtime w h i c h m i n i m i z e s t h e sum
o f w o r k f o r c e adjustment c o s t and overtime c o s t i n meeting t h e
w o r k l o a d requirement o f t h e sequence s c h e d u l e .
The behaviour o f
t h e o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n w i t h respective t o the d e c i s i o n v a r i a b l e s
has been s t u d i e d i n d e t a i l .
I t has been found t h a t t h e o b j e c t i v e
f u n c t i o n i s a piecewise increasing function w i t h multiple l o c a l

minimums.
F o r a g i v e n d i s t a n c e between s u c c e s s i v e p r o d u c t s on the
l i n e , i t h a s been f o u n d t h a t t h e i n t e g e r programming problem can

be decomposed i n t o a number o f s m a l l e r sub-problems which can be
s o l v e d independently.
The p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e i n t e g e r programming
p r o b l e m and t h e sub-problems have been i n v e s t i g a t e d .
I t has been
f o u n d t h a t when i n c r e a s i n g t h e number o f workers i n a s t a t i o n , t h e

displacements o f
non-increasing;
work-completing p o i n t s o f
and
when
increasing
the
e a c h assembly a r e
distance
between
s u c c e s s i v e p r o d u c t s on t h e l i n e , t h e minimuni number o f workers

r e q u i r e d i n each s t a t i o n i s non-increasing.
When s e a r c h i n g th
global minimum, a simple termination condition has been derived.

Based on these properties, a polynomial time-bounded algorithm has
been developed for solving the integer program optimally.
In operating the Kanban system, a suitable nuinber of Kanbans
288
h a s t o be i s s u e d t o each p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e i n o r d e r t o c o n t r o l t h e
i n t e r a c t i o n between p r o d u c t i o n i n v e n t o r y l e v e l s , and t h i s number
i s k e p t unchanged throughout the p l a n n i n g h o r i z o n .
Kanbans
issued t o
a p r o d u c t i o n stage
imposes
The number o f
a l i m i t on t h e
maximum amount o f i n v e n t o r y t h a t can p o s s i b l y be accumulated a t

that stage.
T h e r e f o r e , the Kanban assignment problem i s one o f
t h e i m p o r t a n t o p e r a t i o n c o n t r o l problems o f Kanban systems.

t h i s t h e s i s , t h e problem has been s t u d i e d i n d e t a i l .
In
I t has been
f o u n d t h a t t h e i n t e g e r programming model proposed by B i t r a n and

Chang
(1987) i s one o f the most r e a l i s t i c d e t e r m i n i s t i c Kanban
a s s i g n m e n t models r e p o r t e d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e .
However, i t has
b e e n n o t e d t h a t due t o t h e l a r g e computational requirement, and

t h e a s s u m p t i o n s made on t h e c o n t a i n e r usage number and t h e i n i t i a l
i n v e n t o r y l e v e l o f each i t e m ,
t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f B i t r a n and
Chang* s l i n e a r programming h e u r i s t i c i s s e v e r e l y l i m i t e d .
Through
d e t a i l a n a l y s i s o f B i t r a n and Chang's model, some m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f

t h e model have been, made.
An i n t e g e r program has been o b t a i n e d b y
a d d i n g a n e x t r a c o n s t r a i n t on t h e c u m u l a t i v e p r o d u c t i o n q u a n t i t y
o f each item.
I t has been shown t h a t t h e i n t e g e r program and
B i t r a n and Chang' s i n t e g e r program have t h e same s e t o f f e a s i b l e

solutions.
solved.
However,
the
i n t e g e r program i s d i f f i c u l t t o
be
Thus, t h e i n t e g e r program has been m o d i f i e d b y r e l a x i n g
t h e i n t e g r a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t on t h e p r o d u c t i o n q u a n t i t y o f e a c h
item.
The upper and lower bounds on t h e c u m u l a t i v e p r o d u c t i o n
q u a n t i t y have been d e r i v e d and used t o determine t h e number o f

Kanbans t o be i s s u e d a t each s t a g e w h i c h i s f e a s i b l e t o t h e
m o d i f i e d i n t e g e r program.
Based on t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e m o d i f i e d
289
i n t e g e r program,
a h e u r i s t i c has been developed t o s o l v e t h e
Kanban assignment problem a s r e p r e s e n t e d b y
B i t r a n and Chang's
model w i t h o u t making any assumption on c o n t a i n e r usage numbers and

initial
Computational experiments have been
c o n d u c t e d t o e v a l u a t e t h e performance o f
the h e u r i s t i c .
The
r e s u l t s have demonstrated t h a t the c o m p u t a t i o n a l requirement o f

t h e h e u r i s t i c i s much s m a l l e r than t h a t o f B i t r a n and Chang's
l i n e a r programming h e u r i s t i c and t h e q u a l i t y o f s o l u t i o n o b t a i n e d
b y t h e h e u r i s t i c i s a l s o b e t t e r than t h a t o b t a i n e d by B i t r a n and
Chang's h e u r i s t i c .
I t i s important t o n o t e t h a t , u n l i k e B i t r a n
and C h a n g ' s l i n e a r programming h e u r i s t i c ,
t h e h e u r i s t i c c a n be
u s e d t o s o l v e t h e Kanban assignment problem w i t h o u t making any

r e s t r i c t i v e assumption on c o n t a i n e r usage
numbers and i n i t i a l
inventory levels.
The assembly manpower p l a n n i n g model d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s t h e s i s

d e t e r m i n e s t h e o p t i m a l s t r a t e g y o f a d j u s t i n g t h e number o f w o r k e r s
i n e a c h assembly s t a t i o n and u s i n g o v e r t i m e .
The model assumes
t h a t t h e adjustment on t h e number o f w o r k e r s i n each s t a t i o n i s

made o n l y a t t h e s t a r t o f each w o r k i n g day.
S i n c e t h e work
c o n t e n t o f each s t a t i o n may v a r y f r o m t i m e t o time w i t h i n e a c h

d a y , i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t h a t t h e adjustment o n t h e number o f w o r k e r s
i n e a c h s t a t i o n s h o u l d be c a r r i e d out i n response t o t h e h o u r l y
v a r i a t i o n o f work c o n t e n t .
When t h e work c o n t e n t o f a s t a t i o n i n
a p a r t i c u l a r p e r i o d i s s m a l l , some o f t h e workers w o r k i n g i n t h a t
s t a t i o n c a n be t r a n s f e r r e d t o o t h e r b o t t l e n e c k s t a t i o n s and t h u s
a c h i e v i n g t h e J I T p h i l o s o p h y o f u s i n g a minimum number o f w o r k e r s
290
t o assemble a product.
F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed t o d e v e l o p a
m a t h e m a t i c a l model t h a t d e t e r m i n e s t h e t i m i n g and t h e amount o f

w o r k f o r c e a d j u s t m e n t s made i n each s t a t i o n t h r o u g h o u t t h e d a i l y
o p e r a t i o n p e r i o d i n o r d e r t o meet t h e w o r k l o a d r e q u i r e m e n t o f a
g i v e n sequence s c h e d u l e .
The a n a y l s i s o f t h e Kanban system p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s t h e s i s h a s

b e e n c a r r i e d o u t under t h e assumption t h a t e a c h s t a g e p r o d u c e s
o n l y one k i n d o f i t e m .
T h i s a s s u m p t i o n i s v a l i d when d e d i c a t e d
p r o d u c t i o n l i n e s a r e u s e d t o produce i n d i v i d u a l p r o d u c t s .
I n some
c a s e s , a mixed-model p r o d u c t i o n l i n e i s u s e d i n s t e a d o f d e d i c a t e d
production
lines.
In
mixed-model
production
line,
some
p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e s p r o d u c e more t h a n one k i n d o f i t e m and u s u a l l y

p r o d u c t s w i t h s i m i l a r p a r t r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e produced i n t h e l i n e .
S i n c e i n d i v i d u a l p r o d u c t s u s u a l l y have s i m i l a r p a r t r e q u i r e m e n t s ,
o n l y a f e w p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e s produce more t h a n one k i n d o f i t e m .
F o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e , i t e m s produced i n a s i n g l e p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e
a r e aggregated a s a s i n g l e item.
I n t h i s case, the h e u r i s t i c
d e v e l o p e d I n C h a p t e r 5 c a n p r o v i d e a good a p p r o x i m a t e s o l u t i o n t o
t h e Kanban assignment p r o b l e m o f s u c h a mixed-model p r o d u c t i o n
line.
However, when p r o d u c t s produced i n a mixed-model p r o d u c t i o n
l i n e have s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t p a r t requirements, B i t r a n and

Changs model
needed
is not
applicable.
to develop algorithm
Hence,
for solving
further
research
is
the Kanban assignment
problem of a mixed-model production line producing products with

different part requirements.
291
The Kanban assignment model a n a l y s e d i n t h i s t h e s i s r e p r e s e n t s

a n a s s e m b l y - t y p e p r o d u c t i o n system, i n w h i c h each s t a g e has o n l y
one immediate s u c c e s s o r b u t can have many immediate p r e d e c e s s o r s .
However,
manufacturing
companies
may
have
a distribution-type
p r o d u c t i o n s e t t i n g , i n w h i c h each s t a g e has o n l y one immediate

p r e d e c e s s o r b u t c a n have many immediate s u c c e s s o r s o r may have a
production setting with a mixture of assembly and distribution.
The concept of Just-in-time production can still be applied
these production settings.
to
It will be interesting and meaningful
to analyse the Kanban system under these production settings.
292
APPENDIX A
A. 1 Comments on the paper by Kim (1985)
In
Kim s
study,
It
has
been
shown
that
the
respective
p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f t h e inbound i n v e n t o r y l e v e l and t h e
p r o d u c t i o n q u a n t i t y o f stage n, f o r a l l
nonnegative
integral
values of m, satisfy the equations
Pr{I n = m> = Pr{Q(LnT) = M-m>
(A.l)
P H P n ( T ) = m} = P H Q ( T ) : m}
(A.2)
where I n is the inbound inventory of stage n in containers, M is

the maximum
inbound inventory level
of stage n and equal
to a
constant number, L n is the withdrawal processing time of stage n

in
periods, Q(LnT)
is
the
quantity
of
final
product
consumed
during interval L n T and P n (T) is the production quantity of stage

n during Interval T.
It is obvious that
Q(L n T) = 0(0,1) + Q(T,2T) + . . + Q( [Ln-l]T,LnT)
where
Q([i-l]T,iT)
is
the
quantity
of
final
during interval [i-l]T and iT, i = 1,..,L .

variance of the random variable X.
product
consumed
Let V{X} denote the
Under Kim s assumption of
stationary and independent stochastic final product demand, it is
293
obvious that
V{Q(L T) } = V{Q(0,T) > + V{Q(T>2T) > + . . +
V{Q( [L 11 -!
and
V { Q ( [ i - l ] T , i T ) } = V{Q(T)} f o r a l l i .
Hence,
V{Q(L n T)> = L n V{Q(T)}
I t f o l l o w s from e q u a t i o n ( A . l ) t h a t the random v a r i a b l e s I n and

M - Q(L n T) have the i d e n t i c a l p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n .
Hence,
V{I n > = V{M - Q(L n T)> = V{Q(LnT)> : L ^ Q d ) }
(A.3)
I t c a n be v e r i f i e d from e q u a t i o n (A.2) t h a t
V{P n (T)} = V{Q(T)}
U.4)
U s i n g t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f i n v e n t o r y and p r o d u c t i o n a m p l i f i c a t i o n
r a t i o s g i v e n i n Kimura and Terada (1981), i t can be shown f r o m
e q u a t i o n s (A.3) and (A.4) t h a t , f o r stage n ,
n
_
V{I }
Tn
t h e inbound i n v e n t o r y a m p l i f i c a t i o n r a t i o v { Q ( T ) }
294
and
the production amplification r a t i o -
^P (T)}
ViP^T)}
_ V{Q(T)}
=1.
w h i c h a r e t h e same as those found by Kimura and Terada (1981).
The inbound i n v e n t o r y a m p l i f i c a t i o n r a t i o o b t a i n e d i n t h e above

supports
Kimura
and
Terada* s
w i t h d r a w a l p r o c e s s i n g time,
But
finding
that
the
longer
the
the l a r g e the a m p l i f i c a t i o n r a t i o .
t h e r a t i o found c o n t r a d i c t s t h e c o n c l u s i o n g i v e n b y K i m
(1985).
I t i s o b v i o u s t h a t the w i t h d r a w a l p r o c e s s i n g time has a
d e f i n i t e impact on t h e inbound i n v e n t o r y l e v e l .
withdrawal
processing
inventory level.
time,
the
more
The s h o r t e r t h e
stable i s
the
inbo\md
T h e r e f o r e , K i m ' s c o n c l u s i o n on the f l u c t u a t i o n
o f inbound i n v e n t o r y l e v e l i s i n c o r r e c t i n t h a t t h e f l u c t u a t i o n o f
i n v e n t o r y i s a m p l i f i e d and propagated t o t h e p r e c e d i n g s t a g e s .
295
A. 2 Comments on the paper by Miyazaki et a l . (1988)
I n Miyazakis
collections, R,
delivery
model,
the
duration
is a constant.
lead-time,
L,
is
between
adjacent
It has been assumed
constant
and
less
than
Kanban
that
R.
the
The
assumption implies that the duration between adjacent deliveries

is also constant and equal
between
to R.
Let term k be the duration
(k-l) th and k th deliveries.
If
is the inventory
level at start of term k, it is obvious that for k ^ 2,
-Rd + Q
k-1
where
number
(A.5)
^ is the production quantity In term k-1 (equal to the

of
Kanbans
collections)
and
freed
is
between
equal
to
the
(k-1) th
and
quantity
delivered
beginning of term k, and d is the demand rate.
k tli
For k
Kanban
at
the
2
2, the
consumption quantity during (k-1) th and k th Kanban col lections

is equal to Rd.
But the consumption quantity up to the moment of
the first Kanban collection is (R-L)d.
Assuming that there is no
partially filled container at the start of
term 1 i t is not
difficult to derive that

Rd - Ld
and
(A.6)
Rd
where
for
is the number of units of

k
partially filled container at the
296
inventory remaining
moment
of
k th
in a
Kanban
collection,
u is
the container c a p a c i t y
and
Z denotes
the
smallest integer greater than or equal to Z.
It can be shown from equation (A.5) by summing from k = 2 to n

(n ^ 2 ) that
(nl)Rd + [ Q
(A.7)
For n ^ 2, the total production quantity of the first n-1 orders

is equal to
n-l
J] Q
cl= l k
and the total demand in full containers from the
start of term 1 to the moment of the (n-1) th Kanban collection is

equal
to
(n-l)Rj
p r o d u c t i o n , the t o t a l production q u a n t i t y o f the f i r s t n - 1 orders

must b e e x a c t l y e q u a l t o t h e t o t a l consumption q u a n t i t y up t o t h e
moment o f t h e (n-1) t h Kanban c o l l e c t i o n .
T h e r e f o r e , f o r n ^ 2
(A.8)
(n-l)Rd
F o r n
> 2 i t can be shown f r o m e q u a t i o n s ( A . 7 ) and ( A . 8 ) t h a t
(n-l)Rd
"(n-DRd _ L d
297
(A.9)
Since
( n - l ) R d - Ld
( n - D R d - Ld'
(n-l)Rd - Ld
i t c a n be shown from e q u a t i o n (A.9) t h a t
Ld
- Ld
(A.10}
which implies that
Ld ^
I ^ I
- Ld
(A.11)
where I i s the average i n v e n t o r y l e v e l .
The r e s t r i c t i o n t h a t t h e
minimum i n v e n t o r y l e v e l s h o u l d never be l e s s than t h e s a f e t y s t o c k

level I
requires
(A.12)
for a l l n ^ 2
- Rd
O b v i o u s l y , i t i s e v i d e n t from i n e q u a l i t i e s (A. 10) and (A. 12) t h a t

i f I
- L d - IM I
o
then - R d I
n
o
Therefore, a sufficient
condition for the restriction to be satisfied Is:
= Nu
(A.13)
5 I + (R+L)d.
where N is the number of Kanbans issued to the station.
When u is small compared with I
298
- Ld,
it can be shown from
i n e q u a l i t i e s (A. 10) and (A.11) t h a t I

Hence,
it can be seen from inequality
- L d and I
[ Ld
1
(A. 12) that the smallest
value of In is I0 + Rd and hence,
I = 1 + Rd.
(A.14)
In Miyazaki, s model, the objective is to find R that minimizes

the total operation cost per unit of time, C, which is defined as:
C = Cs I + Co/R
where Cs and Co are the unit holding cost per unit of time and the
cost of a withdrawal respectively.
When the container capacity is
relatively small, it follows from equation (A. 14) that
C = Cs (I
+ R d ) + Co/R
Thus, Miyazakis model reduces to a simple periodic review system

with review cycle length R equal to
and with order quantity
restricted to multiples of container capacity.
When container
inequality
Hence,
the
compared with
- Ld,
From inequality (A. 13), it Is obvious that
+ (R+L)d
minimum
I 0 + (R+L)d 1
u
is small
(A. 13) can be used to determine the minimum number of
Kanbans required.
I
capacity u
number
of
Kanbans
required i s
equal
to
This formula has more or less the same form as
that used at Toyota.
299
S i n c e 0 ^ u - l , from equation
Q k i s either equal to []u( o r
s m a l l and u i s r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e ,
l e v e l i s considerably large.
(A. 6), it is obvious that

l)u.
When d i s r e l a t i v e l y
the f l u c t u a t i o n i n production
Moreover, K i m u r a and Tera d a (1981)
h a v e p o i n t e d out t h a t l a r g e c o n t a i n e r s i z e o r l o n g d e l i v e r y l e a d
time
amplifies
the
preceding stages.
transmission o f
production f l u c t u a t i o n t o
T h e r e f o r e , even when t h e f i n a l p r o d u c t demand
r a t e i s f a i r l y c o n s t a n t , t h e assumption o f c o n s t a n t p a r t demand
r a t e i s u n l i k e l y t o be a good one f o r a m u l t i - s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n
system w i t h r e l a t i v e l y large container s i z e o r r e l a t i v e l y long
d e l i v e r y l e a d time.
300
APPENDIX B
B. 1 Proof of Proposition (5.8)
Suppose
<X> i s a f e a s i b l e p r o d u c t i o n v e c t o r o f P r o b l e m ( M l ) .
t
The i n e q u a l i t y t h a t
[ X11
r=l
s H(n,t) for all n {1,. . ,N} and for
all t e {1,..,1} is proved in the following by induction.
For
item n belonging to level 1i.e. n L(l) and hence n = 0, HCn,t)

defined in equation (5.19) gives H(n,t) =
t
Y X0 .
r=X
Therefore, the
t
J] X11 i s t r u e f o r n L C D and for all t
inequality that H(n, t )
r=i
{1,
Assuming that the inequality that HCn, t) ^
J]
r=i
is true for
r
all t {1,. . ,T} and for all n L(j) j = 1,.., i 1 where i

t
2.
For n L(i*), suppose
J Xr11 < H(n, t) for some t.
r=l
{1,.. ,1-1}, be the largest t such that
t
J]
Let t, t
and let c
r=l
r s(xi).
It. is easy to show that t, inust exist.
(C5.8),
Since vector <X>
It is obvious that, for t e il-con,
TCJn+l
E X
r =l
2: f
r
E :
r=l
1)
301
Since
2
H(c,T)
r=l
2
0
for
L(i*~l),
it
follows
from
inequality (B.l) that
x
E Xn
2
max{En,cH(c,T) a11T , 0 }
r=l "
=H(n,T).
T
Y
Since
(from e q u a t i o n s ( 5 . 2 0 ) , (5.21) and ( 5 . 2 2 ) )

t'
J]
^ H ( n , T ) and
r=l
r=l
< H(n, t* ) , i t I s o b v i o u s t h a t t
must belong to {1,..,T-1>.
From equation (5.22), H(n,t' ) can either be equal to F(n,t) or

G(n, t* ).
In the following, the proofs for these two cases are
presented:
Case
(1)
when
H(n, t' )
F(n, t' ) >
t*
J X11 ,
r-1
if
t*
{T-to,
T-oki+l, . . ,T-1> then it can be shown from equation (5.20) that
H(n,t) = F(n,t)
==max{En,cH(c,T) - a; ,0}
E Xc
Since
r=l
a
H(c,T), the inequality that max{EncH(c,T) - oc; ,0}
>
tf
T
11
T x
implies max{E
n,c
JX
- <
,0} >
E n ' c E X cr - < T > Ex 1 1
r= l
r = lr
302
or
Hence,
either
constraint
(C5.8)
or
(C5.10)
is
violated.
T h e r e f o r e , when t e {T-wn, T-wn+1,. . ,T-1>, it is evident that
) ^
t'
E Xn .
If t ^ T-a>n-l then equation (5.20) implies
max [Enc H(c,k) F(n, t, ) = max.t'+Wn^k^T
I f F ( n , t , ) = 0 then
- J]]
r^'+l
t'
E ^
= 0 >
. Thus,
<X> v i o l a t e s
r=l
constraint
(C5.10).
t
that HCn, t' ) > E ^
If
T h e r e f o r e , i f F i n . V ) = 0, t h e I n e q u a l i t y
cannot be true.
max
[En,c H(c,k) ' \
then
r=t,+1
F(n,t
E n , cm d ) - ( -
where k, {t,+wn, . T}.
(B.2)
Since
r=t+1
Y X c i n e q u a l i t y (B.2) i m p l i e s
303
and H t c . k , )
F(ntV)
r=l r
Jc* r=t'+1 r
When H ( n , t* ) = F ( n , t ' ) >
V X11 , i t c a n be shown f r o m t h e above
r=lr
inequality that
k1
E n,c d
r=l
k* -0)n
E>
r=l
o.
Thus, constraint (C5.8) is violated.

H(n,t' ) >
Case
Hence, the inequality that
t,
J X n cannot be true in this case.
(2) when HCn,!') = G(ii,t>
5 i t follows from
the
r=l
definition of G(n,tgiven in equation (5.21) that
G(n t ) = -U0 - p J
where
k,
k y+0)n
e { t \ . ^T}
V+.n^n >t,,
and
- E
r = t +i
q,
.,
- _ hat
F r o m t h e f a c t ft h a t
HCruq'+Ô _ rî^+OJn+l
E
Since
+a>n,",T}.
the d e f i n i t i o n of t ,
k,
r
implies" I V
q+=
^ H(n^
r=l
^

>
T a and
E r
+
r=k+a)n+i
Yc
r=ic,+wii+i
it can be obtained that
Ic,
n
rfn
tM) - -if
P ' k'+C^n_
G(n,t
U - P
r
E , +^Ê
304
q, +0n
+
r=
q,
+<)n+r1
Hence,
when H(nt,) =
G(nt,) >
the
r=l
above
inequality
implies
E x : < _u: - (p n -
r=1
r t , +
- En,e
i^k^+Wn+l 1 ^
r=X
It can be shown from rearranging and simplifying the terms in the

above inequality that
k'
> u n + pn + an
0
k'+Un
q+0n
+ Lr x11 - L r
r=l
k,
+
k^+Wn
r=l
x11 +Enc
f X:
r-k' +a)n+ir
q* +^n
k* +(<)n.
11
n , c- J EX11
J X c + f
^
r
][ X
q*
The above inequality implies either
oc1
k'+Wn
k'
k* +0>n
+ E x 1 1 - En,c [ Xc < 0
^
r
r=l
^
r=l
or
q'+^n
i/1 + Hpn - U r
0
r=l
q,
x11 + En,c
y xc < o.
u
. r
r=l
Thus, either constraint (C5.8) or (C5.9) is violated.
Hence, the
inequality that H(n, t' ) > E c a n n o t be true in this case.
From the above two cases, the inequality that HCn, t ) >
305
S ^
c a n n o t be t r u e .
that
R e p e a t i n g the argument f o r o t h e r v a l u e s o f t s u c h
J] X n < H(n, t ) , i t can be proved e a s i l y t h a t H(n,t ) ^
r=l
i s t r u e f o r a l l t {1,.. ,1} and for all n L(i ).

proposition is proved by induction.
306
E ^
r=1
Hence, the
B . 2 Proof of Proposition (5.9)
I t i s o b v i o u s t h a t p r o p e r t i e s (1) and (2) a r e t r u e f o r n = 0 .

F o r n {1,. .,N}, let c = s(n).
It is evident from the definition
of F(n,t) given in equation (5.20) that
max
[En,cH(c,k)
t+Wn+12k^T
maxx
F(n,t)
-J #
P:
r=t+2
f o r t < T-
E n , c H(c,t+a)n)
max[E n c H(c,T) - oC > 0]
for t
For t < T-wn, it follows from the definition of F(n,t+1) that

if
max
[E
t+0)n+l^k^t
n,c
H(c,k) ^ \
k Ct)n
' E
p=t +2
then
k-Wn
F(nt+1) =
max
[ E
t+Wn+l^kiST
otherwise, F(n,t+1) = 0.
n , c
H ( c , k ) - - E ;
r=t+2
Thus,
307
CB.3)
max
[EcH(c,k) - a11 - T
t + C<)n+ l^k^T
max-
^r=tp+r]2
n
- 0p
fF(n,t+l) - ^ 4
= max^
t+i
Therefore, equation (B.3) can be rewritten as follows:
max
F(n,t)
F(n, t + 1 ) -
E n > c H(c,t+(Jn) - a
t+Wn
max[EncH(c,T) - ( 0 ]
f o r t < T-
(B.4)
f o r t ^ T-to
F r o m e q u a t i o n ( B . 4 ) , i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t , f o r t < T-
F ( n , t ) t F(n,t+1) - P
t+i
a n d , f o r t T-wn,
F ( n , t ) = F(n,t+1)
2
F(n,t+1)
t+i
Thus , f o r a l l t {1,. T},
F(n,t)
I t i s
(B.5)
t+i
2
F(n,t+1) - ^
evident from the definition of G(n,t) given In equation
(5.21) that
308
max { - U
T+I<K<T
G ( n , t ) = max.
k+CJn
=t +2
+ max [H(n,q+^n) - E n , c f p c ]>

k +(<)nq2ST
r = k +Jn+1
t+1
m a x [H(n,q+^n) - En>i
t+^n^q^T
P ]
r=t+{an+l
Thus,
GCn,t+1) - p
G(n,t)
t+i
max.
t+CJn
max [H(n,q+ E n , c 0]
t+U)n^q^T
(B.6)
r=t+tt)n+lr
It follows from equation (B.6) that
G(n,t)
2
G ( n , t + 1 ) -
B.7)
It can be shown from equations (B.5) and (B.7) and the definition
of H(n,t) that
/F(n,t)
H ( n , t ) = maxx
/F(n,t+1)
=HCn,t+1) - ^
-Pt+1
Hence, property (2) of the proposition is true.
From the equation (B.4), it can easily be verified that F(n,t)
309
>0 for all n {1, . . ,N} and t e -(1,..,1}.

it
Since HCn, t) ^ F(n, t ),
is obvious that H(n, t ) 0 f o r a l l n
and
{1,..,T>.
From the definitions of F(n, t) and H(n, t), property1) of t h e

proposition is obviously true for n = 0.
Assuming that property
(1) is true for all items in level i (i.e. for all n LCi)), I =
1, 2,..,
below
i* where i*
that
F(n, t+1)
2
F(n, t)
is
true
for
LCi +1)
by
considering the four cases of equation (B.4)
Case (1)
when F(n,t) = m a x [ E n c H ( c , T ) - , 0 ] ,
-Wn.
it
is obvious that
T h e r e f o r e , F ( n , t ) = m a x [ E n , c H ( c , T ) - 0 ] = F(n, t+1).
Case (2)
when F(n,t) = 0, it is obvious that F(n,t)= 0 ^
F(n,t+1).
Case (3)
when
F(n,t)
ENcH(C,t
_
<+Wn
prrty
(1)
of
the
proposition is true for c L(i.) implies H(c,t+6>n) ^

o
and the definition of <
ltw i
implies
hence
E n c H(c,t+a)n+:L)-
21 F C n , t )
It is evident from equation (B.4) that
310
^
p = i -x)n
a n d
F(nt+1) > En,cH(c,t+(on+l) - cc11

t^ F(n,t).
Case (4)
when F(n,t) = F(n,t+1) - ^
it
is obvious
that F(n,t) s
F(n,t+1).
Therefore, from the above four cases of equation (B.4), F(n,t)
^ F(n, t+1) for n L(i*+1).
Hence, F(n, t) ^ F(n, t+1) for all n
{1.N} and t e { 1 , . . , T > .
The p r o p e r t y t h a t H ( n , t ) s H(n,t+1) i s p r o v e d a s f o l l o w s If ojn

T it can be deduced from equation (5.21) that G(n,t) < 0 for t
{1,..,1}.
Hence, F(n, t)
2
0 > G(n, t) for t {1,.. ,T>.
From
equation (5.20), it is obvious that, for t {1,.. ,T>, HCn,t ) =

F(n,t) = max[En,cH(c,T) -
, 0] = HCn, t+1).
Therefore, H(n,t) s
H(n,t+1) for t {1,..,T>.
On the other hand,
if
ton s T-1, the property that H(n, t) ^
H(n, t+1) for t {1,. . ,T> is proved in the following by induction.

It can be shown from the definition of G(nt) that
Gfn, t) < 0
Thus, F(n,t)
for t > T-^n.
2
=
0 > G(n,t) for all t > T-wn.
Hence, H ( n , t ) :
F(n, t) = F(n,T-wn) = max[En,cH(c,T) - oc; 0] for t > T-ojn.
When
t = Tt)n, It can be verified from the definition of GCn, t) that
311
G(n,T~a)n) =
max { - U n - p n - a11
0
k+6>n
T-WdcST
Tu p n
r = T-Ct)n+l
q
+ max [H(n,q+0n) - E n , c J ] } ,
k+Wnq^ST
Since a11 = a11

T
and
k+a>n
r=k+C(>n+l
for k > T-wn,
^ 0 for r
pn > 0
^ 0, the above equation becomes
G(nT-a)n) = -U^ - p n- +
H(n,T+0n).
From the definition of H(nt), it is clear that H(n, t) = H(n,T3

for all t
2 T.
Hence,
G(n,T--(*>n) = -U^ - p n -
+ H(n,T).
If a)n = 0 then
_ pn -
G(n,T) =
H(n,T)
and since U n ^ 0, a11 0 and p n > 0the above equation implies

0
G(n,T) < H(n,T).
O n the other hand, if * 0 t h e n H ( n , t ) = F(n,T-a)n) f o r a l l t >

T-wn a n d h e n c e .
G(n,T-wn) =
- P n - ^ + F(n,T-un)
< F (n T-con).
312
(B.8)
Summing up t h e above arguments, i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t G(n,T-a)n)

F ( n , T~(Jn) = H(n,T-wn) and hence, H ( n , t ) = F ( n , t ) f o r t
21 T-wn.
When H(n,T-(t)n-l) = FCn, T - w n - l ) , t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f F ( n , T - ^ n - l )

implies
HCn, T - w n - l ) = F ( n , T-ct>n-l)
H(c,T)inax<
H(c,T-l)
From t h e f a c t s t h a t H ( c , T )
-0)n
2 H(c,T-l) (because c L(i )), 0^

0 , i t c a n b e shown
and p n
(because T-1 ^ m )
that
H(n,T-a)n-l) ^ max[En,cH(c,T) - <
When
H(n,T-a)n-l)
, 0] = H(n,T-.
G(n,T-o>n-l),
i t
can
be
verified
from
e q u a t i o n (B.6) t h a t
H ( n , T-Wn1) = G(n, T-wnl)

T>1
max-
max [HCn.q+^n)
T-l^q^T
G(n,T-a>n) - pl
From equation (B.8), the above equation becomes
313
En,c E ^ c ]
-p
HCn, T con-1) = max-
+ max [ H ( n q + - E n , c J p c ]
r
T-l^qSX
r=T
a
^" T
-C c n + H ( n ' T + ^ )
Hence,
+ H(n,Tn-1)
H(n,T-6c>n-l) = -U^ - p11 + max-
-E
^
Since 0n ^ 1 and a)n

and
n , c
+ H(n,T+^n)
CB.9)
+ H(nT+0n)
n
T-u/n
2
0it is obvious that T + i p n - l ^ l - i ^
H(n, T+^n) = H(n, T+\pn-l) = H(n,T-wn).
It
Is evident
from
equation (B.9) that
Htn, T-wn-l) = G(n, T-Ct)n-1) < HCn, T-wn).
Hence,
when
H(n, T-c<)n-l)
F (n, T-can-l)
G(n,T-wn-l),
HCn^T-wn-l)
HCn,T-wn).
H(n,t+1) for t
or
when
HCn, T-Ci>n-1)
Therefore,
H(nt)
s
t T-o)n~l.
Assuming that H(n, t) ^ H(n, t+1) for t = t +1,.., T - 1 t

T-o>n-2.
For t = t'
2
1, if H(n,t= FCr^t,) then
11(11,1 ) = F(ii,t)
< F(n,t+1)
s H(n,t+1).
Hence, HCn,!')
=
s H O ^ t ' + l i s true when H(nt= Fin.V ).
314
In the
f o l l o w i n g , i t i s shown t h a t HCn, t* ) ^ HCn, t* +1) i s a l s o t r u e when

H(nt) = G(nt).
If HCn,t* ) = G(n,tthen it follows from equation (B.6) that

either
gin.v
) = GCn.t^l) - pn
t+i
or
0(11,1,) = -if - p n u
, + max [ H ( n q + - E n , c ?
pc].
t +u)n
^
r
t* +Ct)n^q^T
r=t9 +0n+l
Claim (1): I f m n , t = GCr^t, ) = gin.v+1)
- pn%
then H(nt^
v+i
The proof of the claim is as follows:

When G(n, t' ) = G(n, t' +1) -
H(nt) =
+1
, it is obvious that
^ GCn^'+l)
^ Ein.V+l).
Hence, the claim is true.
Claim (2): If HKiut, ) = GCi^t, ) and

Gfn,
) = -if - p n - a11,
+ max [ H ( r v q + - E n , c ,[
o
t +a)n t+(<>n<q<T
r=t +Ct)n+l
then H(n,t*) ^ H(n,t'+1).
315
The p r o o f o f t h e c l a i m i s a s f o l l o w s :
When H C n , t ' ) = G ( n , t ' ) and
G i n . V ) = - 1 / - p n a"
+ max [H(n,q+^n) - E n , c f
t* +Ct)n^q^T
j3c]
it is obvious that
-if P
max [H(n,q+
t* +Wn+l^q=ST
Gin, t= max-
HCn, t*
Since
the
+a)n+l
En'c I ]
r^t' +Ct3n+1
definitions
and
of
implies a
, t h e above e q u a t i o n becomes
+ max [H(n,q+^n)
t * +Cc)n+ l^q^T
-if
E E n ) C
En,c
r=t+6t)n+2
G(n,t)
+Ci)n+1
(B.10)
HCn, t* +Wn+^n)
-if
In equation (B.10), when
G(n,t,) =
H(n, t +C)n+^n),
since u)n ^ 0 and ipn ^ 1, it is obvious that t' +(an+0n

HCn^'+wn+^n+l) 2 HCn,t'+0)11+^). Thus, in this case,
316
and hence
G(n,t= -U^ - p n - \ > + 0 ) n + 1 + HCn^^+to+^n)

- p n - <, +a)n+i
-G(n,t'+l)
M^V^n^L)
(from equation CB.10))
^ H(n,t+1).
In equation (B.10) when
GCr^t,) = -U^ - p n - ^ ) + ^ + 1 + max [H(n,q+

t ^Wn + liSq^T
- E
En,c I
r-V+0>n-i-2T
it is obvious that
G(n t* ) ^
- pn - an
+ max [H(n,q+i/rn) - Enc Y
^]
^+(^+1
^
r
t' +<>n + l^q^T
r=t' +6Jn+2
^ G(n,t* +1)
(from equation (B.6))
^ Ein9V+l).
From claims (1) and

It
(2), if H(n, t' ) =G
follows from
) and when
all t {1,.. ,T}.
H(n,t+1) for all t.
the
then HCn, t' ) ^
above proofs when H(xi,t')=
) = Gin.V ) that
^ H(n,t+1) for
Therefore, for all n LCi +1), H(n,t) ^

317
B . 3 Proof of Proposition (5.10}
Suppose <X> i s a f e a s i b l e p r o d u c t i o n v e c t o r w i t h
for
some m and f o r
some t .
Let
for at least one m p(c).

inequality
following
t
T x"
r = lr
>
by
that
t,
J] X
r=i r
11
contradiction
im* e
t) for some t
and l e t t be the smallest t such that
{1T},
the
r^= l r
c be t h e s m a l l e s t
{1,.. ,N}) such that for some m pCm* ),
t
r = lr
F x"1 >
Suppose item n, n p(c)satisfies

> M(n, t* ).
that
the
It
is
inequality
proved
that
in
the
J] X11
>
r = lr
H(h,t*) cannot be true.
It follows from
the definition of M(n,t) given
in equation
(5.25) that
(B.ll)
M(n,t) = min
where
=p
1
+i f
0
t
+ min{
E p n + min
o^k^t r=k+ir
and
318
n,c
k-
[M(c,q) + I ]},
r-q+l
=p
t
+ min{ E +
O^k^t r = k+ir
min E n , c [ I f
0^q^k-l//n
r=q + l
+ min (am + MCm^q-wm) ) / ^ ^ ] >.

mp(c) 1
In proving the inequality that M(n, t* ) <
Y ^
r=l r
cannot be true,
the following three cases of equation (B.ll) are considered.
Case (1)
when
t*
Jr
r=l
it
t*
t*
y x11 > M ^ t , ) =
r=l r
^=1
is obvious that
thus violating constraint (C5.ll).

t'
M(n, t' ) < Y ^
r
cannot
Therefore, the inequality that
be true.
r=i
Case (2)
whenMCn^t')
= , ,
r=l
y x n > p n + if + min{
0
r^1 r
t
= p + if +
0
r=k+i
min Enc[M(c,q+ l
r = q +1
SqSk
j n
k+
)+ E
r
r=kî
where k'
implies
r=q,+1
and q,
319
a.
.Im
+ En,c
r r=k
r=k'+ir
>
IK
^k'+l
s
e
1
T
x
p
t
iy
1
a
u
.Ir
r O
I n 1
>
0.
i
,
0
.
+>
,
q
E
>
^ n e q
^
e
h
t
(0,ve
e
c
n
1
s
J] X11 > p n + if +
r=l
and ^
+1
r=l
and hence,
k,
k-
J] X11 > p n + U11 + E n , c
J] X c
Thus, c o n s t r a i n t (C5.9) i s v i o l a t e d .
Therefore, the i n e q u a l i t y
t*
t h a t M(n, t* ) < J] X11
r cannot be t r u e i n t h i s c a s e .
r=i
Case (3)
when MKn.t= C
t*
> E
> M(ntimplies
X n > p n + U11 + min{

0
1r
f min (a
inp C c )q
h if
0
where
t
r=k+i
E r +
min
o^q^k-lfjn
+ MCm,q-wm) )/E^
t,
kf -ipn
n
n c
;C(3 + E {
E <
rsk'+ir
rsq'+1
Ic,
k-^n
r=q + l
E n , c [ J] f
]}
[ab + M(bqib)]/Ebc}
and b denotes
n c
item m, m p(c), which minimizes
In
inequality
(B.12),
Since
it
is
obvious
E ,
that q ,
1, i t i s o b v i o u s t h a tq , ,
320
^ kf
< t , a n d hence
(B.12)

the definition of t, implies
c
j * Ct)b
Xb .
r=l r
-wb) >
Therefore
inequality CB.12) becomes
n
n
n
^ X1 r > ^ + ^ +
=
t n
E^r
Since
r=k>+l
En,C<
t
^
r = k+l
q-wb
b c
i Xb]/E
, }.
r
I P + [ab,q+
r=q,+l
r=1
k-
E P ^
r=q' +1
and
I Xc ,
r-q^+l r
the
above
inequality implies
k,
0
> p
- E^C
r=l
k * -l/Jn
+
n c
E , {
E x
r-1
q
c
^ Ix
r=l
+
r
q-CtH>
b
[a ,+
q
l xVEb,c>;
r=l r
thus, either
or
q'
q* -6t)b
J] X: + [ , + i x V E b , c < 0,
Hence, either constraint (C5.8) or constraint (C5.9) is violated.

Therefore, the inequality that M(n, t' ) <
From
cases
M(n, t* ),
the
(1),
(2and
inequality
(3) for
t'
][
all
cannot be true.
possible
values
t,
that M(n, t') < [ c a n n o t be
r=l
of
true.
Repeating the argument for other values of m and t such that

MCm, t) <
t
J] X , the proposition can be proved easily.
321
B.4
Proof o f Proposition (5.11)
F o r n {1,..,N} and t {0, 1,..,1-1), let c - sin).
t
min{
O^k^t r = k+ir
k-^n
min E n,c [M(c,q) + [
0^q^k-\{Jn
r=q+ l r
and
t
U + inin{
o
osk^t r=k+l
k-lpn
min E n , c [ J
0^q^k-l//n
r=q + l
m m (a
mpC c) q
+ M(m,q-a)m) ) / ^ 0 ] >.
It can be verified from the definition of M(n,t) given in equation

(5.25) that
R"
M(n,t) = min
From the above definition of
, it can easily be shown that
t+1
min{
f + roin E
O^k^t r = k+ir
t+i
if
min.
n,c
min {E
^q^t-^n+l
k-lpn
[M(c>q}+ J ] >
r=q+l
t-V^n+l
[M(c,q) + j ]
r=q+l
Hence,
322
! + p
t+i
h+i
min.
t-^n+1
min {E , [M(c,q) E p c 3>

r
r=q+l
O^q^t-^n+l
if
From t h e above e q u a t i o n , i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t
-3 n
<
t+i s t
+ e
t+i
I t i s evident from the d e f i n i t i o n s o f
T R
and
R x ^t+1
that
mirH
and
t-Wb+l ^
t+i
inin{ m i n
, c > .
bp(n)
Thus
m m
-Jb+l
[E
Rb
L
L
b p (n)
mm.
Rn+
mm-
t+i
323
\ t+1]/Eh'n - I
(B.13)
From t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f i t can easily be verified that
+ min{
Y, P
O^k^t r=k+l
k-0n
min E n , c [ E f
r=q + l
OSqSk-0n
+ min (am + M(m,q-wm))/Em,c]}

mp(c)
mir>
t+i
+ u0n
t-\pn+l
min E n , c [ I
.
O^q^t-1/111+1
r =q+ l
t+1
+ m i n (a m + M(m,q-a)in) ) / E m , c ]
mp(c) 9
c
mimi
t+1
hU: +
0
t-0n+l
min E n , cI [
o^q^t-^n+1
r=q+l
h min (am + M(m,q-ci)in) )/Em> ]

q
mp(c)
It is evident from the above equation that
^ y
+ p
Hence,
324
(B.14)
M(n, t+1) = min-
Thusproperty (2) of the proposition is true.
In proving property (1) of the proposition, the results of the

following four claims are useful.
Claim (1)
M(n, 1)
0 for all n {0, ..
The proof of the claim is as follows

For n belonging
to level 1
obvious that M(n, 1) =

For n L(i), i
(n = 0),
i.e. n L(l),
it
is
= 0. Therefore, it is true for n L(l).

2
2, when Mfn, 1) =
it is obvious that
M(n,l)
min-
325
since
0 and Q n
2 0,
When M(n, 1) =
, i t i s evident t h a t
M(n, 1) = minmin {E
02q^l^n
In equation (B.15),
(B.15)
1-011
fM(c,q) + I f ] }
r=q + l
it is obvious that q < 1-^n s 0 and hence,

Since p n > 0, U11 > 0 and 8 n > 0 for r
o
i
M(c,q) = 0 (because q ^ 0).
{1,..,T>, equation (B.15) implies
M ( n , l ) = 0.
When M ( n , l )=
, the definition
Dn + U n +
0
M(n, 1) = min- p n + U n +
o
min
of <
implies
{ min (am + M(m,q-cjm))~}

a
0Sq^-|/rn m p ( c )
min E n
,
q^q^l-lpn
_mf c
lET
1-^n
i
i
(B.16)
=q+1
+ min (am + M(m, q-c*>m) )/E

mp(c ) q
Since \pn ^ 1} it is obvious that
+U
+p
min
E11
{ min (a + M(m,q-wm))
O ^ q ^ - ^ n m G p (c) ^
326
I n t h e b o t t o m t e r m o n t h e r i g h t s i d e o f e q u a t i o n (B. 16), q
and hence cjwm 0 and M(ni,q""Cc>m) = 0.
+
min E
O^q^l -l/jn
Thus, M(n, 1)
n,c
+ min
^ 1 n
Therefore,
+ M(in,q-wm)
m p (c)
2
= 0 when M(n,1 ) : .
Summing up the proofs for M(nl) = R ? a n d
y , H(n, 1) ^ 0
fora l l n
Claim (2)
For t {0,1,.. ,T-1>, suppose M(c, t+1) ^ M(c, t).

t+i
Y R n or e n
L
t+1
If M(n, t+1)==
then M(n, t+1) M ( n , t ) .
C o n s i d e r i n g t h e bottom term o n t h e r i g h t hand s i d e o f e q u a t i o n
( B . 1 3 ) , i t c a n be shown t h a t
327
+ Uo +
t~^n+l
m i n { E n , c [M( C > q) + [
O^q^t-^n+l
min
p
+ U n + E n , c min
]}
r
r = q+l
-l/ln
PC ]
[M(c,q)
- \jjti
r=q + l
M(c,t-^n+l)
min
[M(c,q)
0^q<t-^n
if1 + En min.
t-lf/n
I # ]
^n+l
r=q+l
M(C,t-0n)
u n + En
min
m m -
t-0n
[M(c,q) + J p c ]
O^qSt-^n
r=:q + l
M(C,t-^n)
p n + U: + En,c
min
[M(c,q) +
O^q^t-lpn
t-lfln
J]
r=q + l
Therefore, in equation (B.13), if
t+i
or If
-0n+l
Cn
t+i
= p n + if +
min {E n>c [M(cq)

^ ^
,
osq^t-l/jn+l
= q+l
then
(B.17)
From t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f
T
R n , it is obvious that
328
and hence
E Rn ^ E H n
(B.18)
T h e r e f o r e , when
M(n, t+1) = miiv
t+i
TR"
i t c a n be shown f r o m i n e q u a l i t i e s (B. 17) and (B. 18) t h a t
t+i
M(n, t+1) = min"t+i
= M ( n , t)
Hence, the claim Is true.
329
C l a i m (3)
F o r n {1,. N} and t
{0,1, . . ,1-1},
if M(n,t+1) : r t + 1 then
M(n,t+1) s
The proof of the claim is as follows:

I t c a n be shown f r o m e q u a t i o n CB.14) t h a t
+C
U r -
U
min
m m
O ^ q ^ t -l/'n
r=q+ l
f min (am +
)/E m,c ]
{B.19)
Enc
inp ( c ) ^
When M(n,t+1) : ^
+ 1
mm
0
[am .
+ MCm,
t-i/jn+x
mp(c)
t h e f o l l o w i n g t h a t M(n, t+1)
i t i s proved i n
cases o f equation (B.19).
> M ( n , t ) by considering three p o s s i b l e
Case (1)
when /
t+i
<
M(n,t+1) = <
+ 1
+ 1
t.+i
, it is obvious that
M(n,t).
Case (2)
when r
= Pn
t + 1
[ K
"ou +
+ min
(a
r=q + l
)/^]} + ^
ffip(c)
330
-i ,
H ( n , t+1) = p n +
min { E n , c [
O^q^t -iffn
+ min
r=q + l
r=q+l
(am + MCm^q-ato) )/^ f C ] >
inp ( c )
rc
t'lpn
min {En,c[ I p c
+ min
O^q^t-0n
(a + M(mq-wm)V f ] }
mp(c)
2
= P
|SC
the definition of y11)
2
=
C a s e (3)
when r11
t*fl
= pn + U n +
0
Fn,c
, rJDl, c
m p { c ) ET^
claim is proved by induction.

for all m p(c).
[am ,
+ MCm, t-^n+l~o)m)] } t
t-wn+l
min {
From claim (1), M(m 1) 2

0 = M(m0)
Assuming that MCm, t)
1, 2,..,11 where t ^ 1.
2
M(m, t-1) is true for t =
For t = t' +1, let a be the item that
satisfies the following inequality
[a"1
pjl, c
+ M(in, t* -^n+l-Ctto)]
> _[aa
a,c
t-0n+l
+ Mfa^'-^n+l-wa)]
for all m p(c)
Thus,
+1
the
= Fp n + U11 + - [ a a , . , + HCa^'-^n+l-oJa)]
0 Ea,c
331
As
1 and > 0 f o r a l l n U,..,N>,
it is obvious that
t,-n+l-(Ja tand hence
Mfa, t'-^n+l-wa)
Since a^^n+i
it can be shown that
MCn.t'+l) = yn
t * +1
+ U
t,
hi
< , _
H(a,t^^+lâ)]
^ToK^n
(from t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f
)
t,
^ M(n,t,).
Thus, t h e i n e q u a l i t y t h a t M(n, t* +1) ^ M(n,t ' ) i s t r u e f o r t =

a n d hence t h e i n e q u a l i t y i s t r u e f o r a l l t {1,. . ,T}.
+1
From cases
(1), (2) and (3), the claim is true.
Property (1) is now proved by induction.
It is obvious that
M(nt+1) M ( n , t ) f o r n = 0 and f o r a l l t {1,..,T-1>.
Assuming
that, for all t {1,.. ,T-1>, M(n, t+1) M(n, t ) f o r a l l n LCi)

*
(L(i) is the set of items in level i) 1 = 1
where i
t+i
1.
For n L(i*+1), when M(n,t+1) =
or ^
+ l
or
from
r=l
claims (2) and (3), M(nt+1)

for n
From claim (1), M(n,l)
{0,1,.. N} and hence, M(n t+1) ^
property (1) is proved by induction.

proved.
332
CL
2
= 0
TMs
Hence, the proposition is
B . 5 P r o o f o f P r o p o s i t i o n (5.19)
Suppose M ( a , t ) and H(at) are set to feasible
T
r=l
(M2) for t {1,..,1}.
of Problem
Since <Xa> is a feasible production vector
of item a, there always exists a feasible production vector <XC>

<XC> is a feasible production vector implies
of item c, c e p(a).
that
MCc,t) ^
V X c ^ HCc,t)
r
(from Propositions (5.14) and (5.15))
and
Set
E ^ =
r=i r
Ex
for all m e p(c) and initially set
c
r
r=1
H(c,t) for all
Y xc
r=l
if
{1,. "}
2
=
With these values of [ a n d

r=l
for all m p(c) and for all
then it is obvious that, for all m p(c),
J] X : =
-=1
> ^ c E(c 9 t+u>m) - o ^ + ( f r o m t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f

t+Wm
r=l
333
I t f o l l o w s f r o m t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f MCm,t) and P r o p o s i t i o n (5.11

that
E Hm ^
^
J X
and
Therefore, if MCm,t) H(in,t) f o r a l l m p(c) and for all t

{1, ..T>
thenXsatisfies
all
the
inequalities
stated
in
Proposition (5.13) except the inequality that
p m + if -
[ X1" + f
/x
2
0
(B.20)
Since H(c,t) is a feasible cumulative production quantity of item

c up to period t, if inequality (B.20) is satisfied for all t e
t
{1,.. ,1} when
^ X c = H(c,t) then from Proposition (5.13),Xis

r=i
a feasible production vector of item m.

is violated when
t
V Xc =
^ r
r=l
But, if Inequality CB.20)
it is proved in the following by
contradiction that there always exists a feasible
t
(Z
r=l
r=l
not
necessarily equal to H(c,t) for all t {1,., ,T}) such that

satisfies inccjuality (B. 20) for all t {1.. ,T} and for all m
p(c).
For m p(c), let
334
t -\pn
r=l
^
B
t ^
r=l
t-i/to
r=X
r =l
I t f o l l o w s f r o m t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f H(m, t-a)m-|//n) t h a t
^ E ^ H C c , t-0n) - a m
H(m,
t-
S i n c e H(c t*-0n) ^
t-lpn
J]
t-Wm-lfjn
[
and
r=l
^ H(m, t-cjm^n), the above
r=l
inequality implies A i,
t ,
2
0 for all m p(c).
r
If B
> 0
t-0ro
i . e . i n e q u a l i t y ( B . 2 0 ) i s s a t i s f i e d , f o r a l l m p(c) and for all

t
{1,. . ,T>
then from Proposition ( 5 . 1 3 ) X i s a feasible
production vector of item m to Problem (M2).
When B m . < 0
is proved
in
the
for some m p(c) and for some t {1,. . ,T}, it

following
that
there always exists feasible
t-l/Jn
V X c (not necessarily equal to
n) f o r a l l t ) s u c h t h a t
r =l
Bm ,
0 for a l l
{1, .. ,T>
and
for
all m
e p(c).
Tlie
following two claims are vital to the subsequent proof and are
proved first.
Claim 1
t-0n
If A m
= 0 for some m p(c) and
t-^n-d
t-lpn
Xc :
r =t - 0 n - d + l
for some d 6 {0,1,.., t^n> then
335
E
r=t
The p r o o f o f t h e c l a i m i s a s f o l l o w s
Suppose
b" , < 0
t-U/n
< 0 for some n p(c).

and
t - iftn
J]
Xc =
The facts that
t - \jfn
E
implies
t
r
r = t - ^ n - d +1
,
r
r = t -^ln-d +1
t -Win-^n-d
T-on, c
t-y/n-d
Am ,
x)
+
r=l
,
_n, <
)C)
t-V^n
( B. 21)
r = t-\&n-d+1
B u t , the d e f i n i t i o n o f M ( n , t ) g i v e n i n equation (5.25) i m p l i e s
t
,
r=X
t (Jml/i'iid
W
E
r=t-^n-d+1
ET
E +
r=l
<
Thus, inequality (B.21) contradicts the above inequality implied

by the definition of M(n, t).
c a n n o t be t r u e .
Hence, the inequality that
Therefore, the c l a i m i s t r u e .
Claim 2
I f
Am ,
J]
t-0m
0 for all
p(c)
and
Xc
for some d {0,1,.., t-^m> then
r =t-^m-d+l
p(c).
336
Mfc,
2 0 for all
t
Suppose 3
r=l
for all t
it follows from the definition of Mfm,t)
given in equation (5.25) that
EX"1 + ^c[
if O
But,
the
r=l
/3C + M(c,t^m-d] 2 0.
(B.22)
,
r
r=t-^m-d+l
inequality that B m .
< 0 and
the fact
that
i -0111
Y 5
t-lfka
: i m p l y
MCc,t-^n-d) +
r = t-y^m-d+l
-(p m +i f
01
t-0m
r =1
p c + M(c,t--d)
r ~ t - ^ m - d +1
Thus, inequality (B.22) contradicts the above inequalitythe
inequality that B m .
t
< 0 cannot be true.
Hence,
Therefore, the
claim is true.
When B m , < 0
that B m
B, ^
< 0
<
for some m pic), let t be the smallest t such
for some m p(c) and n be the smallest m such that
0.
From
the
definition
of
can
be
t-0n
increased
increase i n
by
continuously
increasing
i s possible or
337
]
[
until
no
further
r =l
^ 0 , i . e . x m t i l one o f
t h e f o l l o w i n g c a s e s happen
Case
(1) F o r
0,
t'
for*
some
p(c)
and
- l/jn-d+l
(2) For d = 0, A , ^
M (c, t
I K
I
X
=t' -{pn-d + l
Case
\-0n-d
,,
2
0 for all m p(c) and
t' -l/Jn
[
jSc.
-d)+
r = t * -l/rn-d+1
:* -^n-d
Case (3) F o r d = 0
t * -0n-d-l
B
v-\pn > A
for all m p(c) and B n ,
Case (4) A, .
2
0 for all m p(c) and B n ,
From claims (1) and (2), if case (1) or case (2) happens then
Bn
a 0 and hence inequality (B.20) is satisfied for t = t'.
If case
satisfied
(4) happens,
for
it
t.
is obvious
If
f u r t h e r be i n c r e a s e d b y i n c r e a s i n g
that
case
(3)
inequality
happens,
(B.20) is
Bn. .
t,-0n
t-n-1
V X c u n t i l c a s e (4) happens
r=l
o r one o f c a s e s ( 1 ) , (2) and (3) i s t r u e f o r d = 1.

happens o r when c a s e (1) o r c a s e (2) i s t r u e f o r
When c a s e
<
1 = 1, B n , .
t'
and hence I n e q u a l i t y (B.20) i s s a t i s f i e d f o r t = t
(3) is true for d {0,1,. .,
increased by increasing
Whenever
can further be
^ X: and the inequality that
338
=
2 0
Therefore,
the only
case that B n , is less than 0 is case (3)
J
t, -ijln
case
can
0 i s t r u e u n l e s s case
However,
t,
n
J] X c =
^
case
(3)
(3) i s t r u e f o r a l l d <0,1, ..,
is
true for
all
{0,1,..
implies
t * -\&n
E /3 and B n
t*
( p n+ - i x
J i, c
. < 0 and hence

-lf)n
p"
(B.23}
But, the definition of M(n,t' ) given in equation (5.25) implies
Bc
-(pn +
E ,'
=
2 0.
11
It
is
obvious
inequality
that
and
inequality
hence
{0,1,. . t* -^n}.
case
(3)
(B.23)
cannot
Thus, either case
contradicts
be
true
(1) or case
must happen for some d {0,1,-.y V -ipn}.
that B n
0.
for
all
0 for a l l m
Summing up t h e above p r o o f , t h e i n e q u a l i t y
t
j]
, d {0,1,.., t* -^n>, if
r-l
for k
t"
X: ,
J {1, ,k}, has to be
r=l
t * -^n+j
in
order
that
t * -0n+j- 1
J]
r=l
{1,.. ,k>.
The adjustment
all
tf -^n+j
is done by setting
X: =
t
.i
{1,. " k } .
r=l
r=l
for a l l
>
r=l
2 1, then
adjusted
(2) or case (4)
t,
After increasing
r=l
=
2 0 i s true.
t, -Ipn+k
^ xc
above
If one of these three
cases happens, from the above argument,

p(c) and B n ,
the
Since
339
0,
t, -l^fn
E xr
r=l
t *
t ' -^n+j
^< ,
<
and
t ' -ipn
X C
r
I K a f t e r the
adjustment, i t i s obvious that
A, ,
t
K ,
t,
ET
E X:
<
r=l
r=l
-(am, .
1
E",
+ , -0n+ j
Thus, with the new value of
x"1)
r
.
t' -^n+j
r xc
^
t* -0n+j
J] X c , the inequality that
-Win-^n+j
i* -if/n+j
i s s t i l l true.
t-n+j
x"1) -
E xc
Therefore, a f t e r the adjustment. A :
a l l m p(c) and for all j {1,..,k}.
Repeating the argument in proving A , ^ ^ 0 and

other values of m such that
such that B m
= 0 for
< 0 and for other values of t
< 0 i t can be easily shown that inequality (B.20)
is satisfied for all m p(c) and for all t {1,

. *}
Hence,
from Proposition (5.13), <X m > is a feasible production vector of

item m in Problem (M2).
Thus, the proposition is proved.
340
REFERENCES
A f e n t a k i s , P . , G a v i s h B . > and K a r m a r k a r , U . , " C o m p u t a t i o n a l l y

e f f i c i e n t o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n s t o the l o t - s i z i n g problem i n
m u l t i s t a g e asse mb l y s y s t e m s " , Management S c i e n c e 30 (1984),
222-239
A g g r a w a l , S . C . , " A r e v i e w o f c u r r e n t i n v e n t o r y t h e o r y and i t s
a p p l i c a t i o n " , I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f Production Research
12 (1974), 443-482
A s h b u r n , A . , T o y o t a ' s famous Ohno system, A m e r i c a n M a c h i n i s t , J u l y
1977, M c G r a w - H i l l
B a r d , J . F . > and Go 1 a n y , B . , " D e t e r m i n i n g t h e number o f Kanbans i n
m u l t i - p r o d u c t m u l t i - s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n system", I n t e r n a t i o n a l
J o u r n a l o f P r o d u c t i o n R e s e a r c h 29 (1991), 881-895
B i t r a n , G.R. and Chang, L., "A mathematical programming approach
to a deterministic Kanban system". Management Science 33
(1987), 427-441
Buffa, E.S., and Taubert W.H,, Production-Inventory Systems
Planning and Control, Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Homewood,
Illinois, 1972
Chilean, A., Economies and Management of Inventories, Elsevier
Science Publishers, Amsterdam, and Academiai Kiado, Budapest,
1982
Chikan, A., New Results in Inventory Research, Elsevier Science
Publishers, Amsterdam, and Academiai Kiado, Budapest, 1984
Chikan, A., Inventory in Theory and Practice, Elsevier Science
Publishers, Amsterdam, and Academiai Kiado, Budapest, 1986
Clark, A.J., "An informal survey of multi-echelon inventory
theory", Naval Research Logistic Quarterly 19 (1972), 621-650
Cooper, C., "The Japanese connection: imitate or emulate?",
Production and Inventory Management 26 (1984), 114-125
Crawford, K.M., Blackstone, J.H., and Cox, J.F.,"A study of JIT
implementation and operating problems", International Journal
of Production Research 26 (1988), 1561-1568
Crowston, W.B., and Wagner, H.M., "Dynamic lot size models for
multi-stage assembly systems", Management Science 20 (1973)
14-21
341
Cusumano, M . A . ,
"Manufacturing innovation: lessons from the
Japanese a u t o i n d u s t r y " , S l o a n Management R ev i ew 30 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ,
29-39
D a r - E l , E . M . , and C o t h e r , R.F "Assembly l i n e s e q u e n c i n g f o r
model m i x i n g " , I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f P r o d u c t i o n R e s e a r c h
13 (1975), 463-477
D a v i s , W . J . , a n d S t u b i t z , S . J . , " C o n f i g u r i n g a Kanban s y s t em u s i n g
a d i s c r e t e o p t i m i z a t i o n o f m u l t i p l e s t o c h a s t i c responses",
I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f P r o d u c t i o n R e s e a r c h 25 (1987)
721-740
De
Bodt, M.A., Gelders, L.F., and Van Wassenhove, L.F,,

"Lot-sizing under dynamic demand conditions: A review",
Engineering Costs and Production Economics 8 (1984), 165-187
Deleersynder, J.L., Hodgson, T.J., Muller H. and 0*Grady, P.J.,

"Kanban controlled pull system: An analytic approach",
Management Science 35 (1989), 1079-1091
Dixon, P.S., and Silver, E.A., "A heuristic solution procedure for
the multi-item, single-level, limited capacity, lot-sizing
problem", Journal of Operations Management (1981), 23-29
Ebrahimpour, M. and Fathi, B.H., "Dynamic simulation of a Kanban
production
inventory system",
International Journal
of
Operations and Production Management 5 (1985), 5-14
Finch, B.J., and Cox, J.F., "An examination of Just-in-time
management for the small manufacturer: With an illustration"
International Journal of Production Research 24 (1986),
329-342
Fisher, M.L., "Lagrangean relaxation method for solving integer
programming problems", Management Science 27 (1981), 1-18
Fortuin, L., "A survey of literature on reordering of safety stock
items for production inventories", International Journal of
Production Research 15 (1977), 87-105
Garfinkel, R.S. and Newhauser, G.L.,
Wiley & Sons, 1972
Integer Programming, John
Gavish, B., "On obtaining the 'best, multipliers for a lagrangean

relaxation for integer programming", Computer and Operations
Research 5 (1978), 55-71
Gavish, B. 1 Topological design of centralized computer networks
formulation and algorithms", Networks 12 (1982), 355-377
Geoffrion, A., "Lagrangean Relaxation for Integer Programming",
Mathematical Programming Study 2 North Holland, Amsterdam,
1974, 82-114
342
G e t t e l - R i e h l , K . , and K l e i n e r , B . H . , " L e s s o n s f r o m t h e J a p a n e s e
a u t o m o t i v e i n d u s t r y " , I n d u s t r i a l Management and D a t a Systems
(1987), 3 - 6
G o l h a r , D . Y . , and Stamm, C . L . , "The j u s t - i n - t i m e p h i l o s o p h y : a
l i t e r a t u r e review", International Journal o f Production
R e s e a r c h 29 (1991), 657-676
Goyal, S . K . ,
a n d Gunasekaran, A . ,
"Multi-stage productioni n v e n t o r y s y s t e m s " , European J o u r n a l o f O p e r a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h
46 (1990), 1-20
G r a v e l , M. , and P r i c e , W.L. , " U s i n g t h e Kanban i n a j o b shop

e n v i r o n m e n t , I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f P r o d u c t i o n R e s e a r c h 26
(1988), 1105-1118
G r e o f l i n , H. , L u s s , H. , Rosenwein, M . B . , and Wahls, E . T . , " F i n a l
assembly
sequencing
for
Just-in-time
manufacturing",
I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f P r o d u c t i o n R e s e a r c h 27 1989), 199213
Gupta, Y.P., and Gupta, M.C., "A system dynamics model for a
multi- stage multi-line dual card JIT Kanban system",
International Journal of Production Research 27 (1989)
309-352
Hall, R.W. , Zero Inventories, Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1983
Held, M. , and Karp, R.M., "The travelling salesman problem and
minimum spanning trees. Part II", Mathematical Programming 1
(1971), 6-25
Held, MWolfe, P . , a n d Crowder, H . D . , " V a l i d a t i o n o f s u b g r a d i e n t
o p t i m i z a t i o n " , M a t h e m a t i c a l Programming, 6 (1974), 62-88
Huang, P . Y . , R e e s , L . P . , and T a y l o r I I I , B.W., " A s i m u l a t i o n
a n a l y s i s o f t h e Japanese J u s t - i n - t i m e t e c h n i q u e ( w i t h
Kanbans) f o r a m u l t i - l i n e , m u l t i s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n system",
D e c i s i o n S c i e n c e s 14 (1983), 326-344
Im,
J.H " L e s s o n s
f r o m Japanese p r o d u c t i o n
management"
Production and Inventory Management 30 (1988), 25-29
Japanese Management Association, Kanban Just-in-time at Toyota,

Productivity Press, Stamford, CT, 1985
Kanet, J.J. 1 Inventory planning at Black and Decker", Production
and Inventory Management 19 (1984)
Kanet, J.J. , "MRP 96: Time to rethink manufacturing logistics",
Production and Inventory Management Journal, 29 (1988), 57-61
Karmarkar, U.S., and Kerke, S."Batching Policy in Kanban
systems", Journal of Manufacturing Systems 8 (1988), 317-328
343
K i I b r i d g e , M. , and W e b s t e r , L . , "The a s s e m b l y l i n e m o d e l - m i x
sequencing problem", Proceedings o f the T h i r d I n t e r n a t i o n a l
C o n f e r e n c e o n O p e r a t i o n s R e s e a r c h , O l s o , 1963 ( P a r i s : E n g l i s h
Universities Press).
Kim, T . M . ,
Just-in-time manufacturing system: A periodic pull
system", International Journal of Production Research 23
(1985), 553-562
Kimura, 0. and Terada, H., "Design and analysis of pull system, a
method of multi-stage production control", International
Journal of Production Research 19 (1981) 241-253
Koenigsberg E. "Production lines and internal
review", Management Science 5 (1956), 410-433
storage:
Kotani, S. , "On the sequencing problem of the mixed-model line",

Japan
Operations
Research
Society
Spring
Conference
Proceedings, 1982, 149-150
Lee, L.C., "Parametric appraisal of the JIT system", International
Journal of Production Research 25 (1987), 1415-1429
Lee, S.M.f and Ebrahimpour, M., "Just-in-time production system:
Some requirements for implementation", International Journal
of Operations and Production Management 4 (1984), 3-15
LI, A., and Co,. H.C. , "A dynamic programming model for the Kanban
assignment problem in a multi-stage multi-period production
system", International Journal of Production Research 29
(1991), 1-16
Love, S., "A facilities in series model with nested schedules",
MacaskillJ.L. "Production-line balances for mixed-model lines",
Macaskill, J.L., "Computer simulation for mixed-model production
lines", Management Science 20 (1973), 341-348
Manoochehri, G.H., "Improving productivity with the just-in-time
system", Journal of Systems Management 36 (1985) 23-26
Miltenburg, J. , "Level schedules for mixed-model assembly lines
in Just-in-time production systems". Management Science 35
(1989), 192-207
Miltenburg, J. , and Sinnamon, G., "Scheduling mixed-model multilevel Just-in-time production systems". International Journal
of Production Research 27 (1989) 1487-1507
Miltenburg, J., Steiner, G., and Yeomans, S., u k dynamic
programming algorithm for scheduling mixed-model. Just-intime production systems", Mathematical Computation Modelling
13 (1990), 57-66
344
M i y a z a k i , S . , O h t a H, , and N i s h i y a m a , N. , "The o p t i m a l o p e r a t i o n
p l a n n i n g o f Kanbans t o m i n i m i z e t h e t o t a l o p e r a t i o n c o s t " ,
I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f P r o d u c t i o n R e s e a r c h 26 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , 16051611
Monden, Y . , "What makes t h e T o y o t a P r o d u c t i o n System r e a l l y
t i c k ? " , I n d u s t r i a l E n g i n e e r i n g J a n u a r y (1981a), 3 6 - 4 6
Monden, Y . , "Smoothed p r o d u c t i o n l e t T o y o t a a d a p t t o demand
changes and r e d u c e i n v e n t o r y " , I n d u s t r i a l E n g i n e e r i n g A u g u s t
(1981b), 4 2 - 5 0
Monden, Y . , "How T o y o t a s h o r t e n e d s u p p l y l o t p r o d u c t i o n time
waiting time and conveyance time?", Industrial Engineering
September (1981c), 22-30
Monden, Y. Toyota Production System, Norcross, Georgia: Institute
of Industrial Engineers Press, 1983
Monden, Y., Apply just-in-time - the American/Japanese experience,
Atlanta Industrial Engineering Press, 198
Musselwhite, W. C.,
"The
just-in-time production challenge1',
Training and Development Journal 41 (1987), 27-29
Okamura, K., and Yamashina, H. , "A heuristic algorithm for the
assembly line model-mix sequencing problem to minimize the
risk of stopping the conveyor", International Journal of
Orlicky, J., Material
York,1975
Requirements
Planning,
McGraw-Hill,
New
Philipoom, P.R. , Rees, L.P., Talyor III, B.W., and Huang, P.Y.,
"An investigation of the factors influencing the number of
Kanbans required in the implementation of the JIT technique
with Kanbans", International Journal of Production Research
25 (1987) 457-472
Philipoom, P.R., Rees L.P. Talyor III, B.W., and Huang, P-Y., "A
mathematical programming approach for determining workcentre
lotsizes in a Just-in-time system with signal Kanbans",
International Journal of Production Research 28 (1990), 1-15
Rees, L.P.> Philipoom, P.R., Taylor III, B.W., and Huang, P.Y.,
"Dynamically adjusting the number of Kanbans in a Just-in
-time production system using estimated values of leadtime",
H E Transactions 19 (1987), 199-207
Rice, J.W. , and Yoshikawa, T. , "A comparison of Kanban and MRP
concepts
for
the
control
of
repetitive manufacturing
systems", Production and Inventory Management 1982 1-14
345
Richmond, L . E . , a n d B l a c k s t o n e , J . H . , " J u s t - i n - t i m e i n t h e
p l a s t i c s processing" I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f P r o d u c t i o n
R e s e a r c h 26 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , 2 7 - 3 4
S a k u r i , M. , and Huang, P . Y . , " J a p a n ' s p r o d u c t i v i t y g r o w t h : A
m a n a g e r i a l and a c c o u n t i n g a n a l y s i s " , I n d u s t r i a l Management 26
(1984), 11-18
S a r k e r , B . R . , a n d H a r r i s , R . D . , "The e f f e c t o f i m b a l a n c e i n a
Just-in-time
production
system:
A
simulation
study",
I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f P r o d u c t i o n R e s e a r c h 26 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , 1 - 1 8
Schonberger, R . J . ,
"Some o b s e r v a t i o n s o n t h e a d v a n t a g e s and
implementation i s s u e s o f J u s t - i n - t i m e production systems",
J o u r n a l o f O p e r a t i o n s Management 3 (1982), 1 - 1 1
Schonberger, R . J . , " A p p l i c a t i o n s o f s i n g l e - c a r d
Kanban", I n t e r f a c e s 13 (1983), 5 6 - 6 7
and d u a l - c a r d
S i l v e r , A . , " O p e r a t i o n s R e s e a r c h i n i n v e n t o r y management: A r e v i e w
a n d c r i t i q u e " , O p e r a t i o n s R e s e a r c h 29 (1981), 628-645
S o h a l , A . S . , K e l l e r , A . Z . , and Fouad, R . H . , 11A r e v i e w
literature relating to JIT",
International Journal
O p e r a t i o n s a n d P r o d u c t i o n Management 9 (1988), 15-25
of
of
S u g i m o r i , Y . , K u s u n o k i , K . , Cho, F . , and Uchikawa, S . , " T o y o t a

p r o d u c t i o n s y s t e m and Kanban system: M a t e r i a l i z a t i o n o f
J u s t - i n - t i m e a n d r e s p e c t - f o r - h u m a n system", I n t e r n a t i o n a l
J o u r n a l o f P r o d u c t i o n R e s e a r c h , 15, 6 , 1977, 553-564
S u z a k i , K . "Work-in-process management: an illustrated guide to
productivity
improvement",
Production
and
Inventory
Management 26 (1985),101-110
Thompoulos, N.T., "Line balancing-sequencing for
assembly", Management Science 14 (1967), B59-B75
mixed-model
Thompoulos, N.T., "Mixed-model line balancing with smoothed

station assignments", Management Science 16 (1970) 593-603
Treleven, M. , "A review of the dual resource constrained system
research", H E Transactions 21 (1989), 279-287
Vickery, S.K. and Markland, R.e., "Multi-stage lot-sizing in a
serial
production
system".
International
Journal
of
Villeda, R. , Dudek, R. , and Smith, M.L., "Increasing the
production rate of a just-in-time production system with
variable
operation
times"
International
Journal
of
Production Research 26 (1988 1749-1768
Wagner, H.M., and Whitin, T.M., "Dynamic version of the economic
lot size model", Management Science 5 (1958), 89-96
346
Wheelwright,
S.C.,
"Japan
where
operations r e a l l y
s t r a t e g i c " , H a r v a r d B u s i n e s s R e v i e w 59 (1981)> 6 7 - 7 4
are
Z a n g w i l l , W . I . , "A d e t e r m i n i s t i c m u l t i - p r o d u c t m u l t i - f a c i l i t y
p r o d u c t i o n and i n v e n t o r y m o d e l " , O p e r a t i o n s R e s e a r c h 14
( 1 9 6 6 ) , 486-508
Z a n g w i l l , W . I . , " A b a c k l o g g i n g model a n d a m u l t i - e c h e l o n model o f
a dynamic economic l o t s i z e p r o d u c t i o n system a network
approach", Management Science 15 (1969 506-527
347

Kanban

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Kanban

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Title

Assembly sequencing and Kanban assignment algorithms for

The author retains all proprietary rights, (such as patent rights)

Department o f I n d u s t r i a l and M a n u f a c t u r i n g Systems E n g i n e e r i n g

submitted by Ng Wing Cheong f o r the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

t h i s research i s t o formulate c o n t r o l p o l i c i e s f o r J I T production.

f i n a l a s s e m b l y sequence and t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g manpower p l a n , and

t o produce o n l y t h e necessary p r o d u c t s i n t h e necessary q u a n t i t y

the analysis also

includes l e v e l l i n g the workload o f

R e s u l t s obtained i n a l l cases i n d i c a t e t h a t the h e u r i s t i c s are

experiments a r e used t o i l l u s t r a t e the performance o f t h e

The r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d show t h a t t h e new method i s i n d e e d

Outline o f the Thesis

Assembly Sequencing Problem

3 . 2 . 2 . 6 Toyotas Goal-chasing Method

Production Systems with Similar Part

3.3.1.1 Solution Method

3.3.1.2 Performance Evaluation

Production Systems with Different Part

Assembly Manpower Planning Problem

i t e m s and Kanbans between two p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e s

Computational requirements f o r f i v e - s t a g e problems

M u l t i - s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n systems a r e i n essence t h e most commonly

procured from outside suppliers these materials and parts are

transformed into end products.

Some or all items (raw materials,

intermediate products in various stages and end products) can be

Two complementary processes, production planning and production

Production planning is concerned with 'the

necessary for future production while production control deals

implementation of a predetermined production plan or

policy and the control of all aspects of production according to

because decisions made during

planning often determine the nature of control.

during the c o n t r o l process, i n turn, influence f u t u r e planning.

i n v o l v e the manufacture i n batches o f t e n generated by o r d e r s f o r

P r o d u c t i o n d e c i s i o n s a r e mainly concerned w i t h the determination

R e p e t i t i v e systems i n v o l v e the manufacturing o f t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y

r e p e t i t i v e systems i n c l u d e h i g h demand assembled p r o d u c t s s u c h a s

production process i s then c o n t r o l l e d through the b u i l d - u p o r

p a r t s f o r r e p l e n i s h i n g t o the exact q u a n t i t i e s withdrawn.

T h i s information i s provided o n l y t o the operator a t

issuing lengthy production orders to each stage.

can be envisaged as pipelines connecting the production stations

The system synchronizes the material movements

between production stations.

In a very simple manner, the removal

multi-stage production systems are of

Controlling a push system requires the determination

of a master production schedule which specifies how many units of

The information provided on

quantities, i n consistent with the production capacity o f

T h i r d l y , t h e number o f machines o n t h e shop f l o o r i s

l i m i t e d , and t h e machines p e r f o r m d i f f e r e n t o p e r a t i o n s and t h e y

p r e c e d i n g s t a g e ; a machine may have b r o k e n down; p r o p e r t o o l i n g

However, p e o p l e on t h e p r o d u c t i o n l i n e have been so

inventory instead o f being tackled.

o b j e c t i v e s o f s u c h p u l l systems a r e ( K i m u r a and T e r a d a 1981): t o

System i s a p u l l system designed t o a c h i e v e these o b j e c t i v e s .

12 Toyota Production System

The Toyota Production System was developed and promoted by the

is now being adopted by