Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.

M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 1

Design Of Integrated Manufacturing Planning,
Scheduling And Control Svstems. A New Framework For
Automation
M.A.S. MonIared
masmonIared alzahra.ac.ir
School oI Engineering
Alzahra University,
Vanak St., Tehran, 1993891176, Iran
Tel: 009821 827 6745
Fax: 009821 804 1469
J. B. Yang
jian-bo.yangmanchester.ac.uk
Decision Sciences & Operations Management Group
Manchester Business School (East)
PO Box 88
The University oI Manchester
Manchester M60 1QD, UK
Tel: 44 161 200 3427
Fax: 44 161 200 3505
Abstract: Automation and integration oI manuIacturing planning, scheduling and control
Iunctions have Ior long been targeted in Computer Integrated ManuIacturing (CIM) and
ArtiIicial Intelligence (AI) approaches. Current systems, however, are human based and they
can only be characterised as Decision Support Systems (DSS) rather than automated systems.
Global competition and the needs Ior improved responsiveness, particularly in low-volume
high-variety manuIacturing industries, necessitate Iurther integration and automationin
planning, scheduling and control Iunctions. We consider that to achieve automation concepts
and techniques Irom Operations Research (OR), Control Theory (CT), and Computer Science
(CS) should be integrated, enriched and uniIied to provide a platIorm Ior automation. This
paper presents a Iresh perspective Ior understanding design issues involved and proposes a
new Iramework Ior automation and integration oI planning, scheduling and control Iunctions.
A Iully automated Ilow shop production system is presented to illustrate the applicability oI
the new Iramework.
Key Words: Manufacturing, Planning, Scheduling, Control, Automation.
1. Introduction
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 2
Competitive Iorces in manuIacturing systems, and in particular automated, Ilexible
and computer integrated manuIacturing systems, have put great pressure on various aspects oI
the total enterprise oI a manuIacturing system. Just In Time (JIT), Total Quality Management
(TQM), and Computer Integrated ManuIacturing (CIM) are the dominant philosophies that
have been developed and evolved to address such enterprise issues (see e.g. |Askin 1993| and
|Akturk 2001| ) .
Activities in the pre-production, production, and post-production phases oI a
manuIacturing enterprise have been revolutionised in past decades, where automation has
become the cornerstone oI all such activities. Automation in the production stage, in
particular, encourages improvements in throughput rate, quality, and Ilexibility to meet the
ever-increasing trends oI customer satisIaction, higher quality demands, and most importantly,
more responsive systems.
The automation oI product design, process design, and planning, scheduling and
control (that are the major activities in the production stage) is becoming increasingly
signiIicant, and novel approaches that can lead towards that automation are oI immediate need
where such approaches must be able to emulate human inIormation processing capabilities and
to work under conditions oI uncertainties, non-linearities and dynamics.
The need Ior developing new integrated planning, scheduling and control system does
not, however, imply that the conventional approaches that have been developed during the last
Iew decades, such as the rich literature oI production planning, scheduling and control
problems researched in OR and production management, are invalid. On the contrary, new
integrated, uniIied and automated systems can take the best advantage oI the available
techniques.
Based upon the reality oI the manuIacturing shop Iloor, it is pertinent to say that
automation, within the Iramework oI the traditionally accepted conventional approaches to
planning, scheduling and control has not been possible (see e.g. |Zimmermann 1988|,
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 3
|McKay 1988| , |Hsu 1994|, |Bodington 1995| , |Sun 1999| and |Kogan 2000| ). This is in
spite oI more than 5 decades oI research and development by diIIerent communities.
The purpose oI this paper is to contribute to the development oI more rigorous
Iramework and methodology Ior the design oI integrated and automated planning, scheduling
and control systems. To this aim the paper is organized as Iollows. In Section 2 recent
developments in literature are considered. Section 3 proposes preliminaries Ior the new
Iramework by deIining planning, scheduling and control Iunctions. Section 4 analyses the
nature oI planning, scheduling and control Iunctions in a sense oI triplex decision making,
optimisation and control problem. In Section 4 the platIorm Ior design is investigated and a 3-
layer structure Ior implementation is proposed. A case study is presented in Section 5 and
conclusions are drawn in Section 6.
2. Related Literature
About a decade ago Gershwin |1994| declared that "manuIacturing scientists have not
settled on an agreed upon set oI models, in the same way that physicists, mechanical
engineers and biological scientists have. In some ways this area is like an 18
th
century science
that is practiced with 20
th
century technology. Modern sciences and engineering Iields have
passed through the systematic data collection and model-building oI the 19
th
century and
manuIacturing must also pass through that phase". It can be imagined that situation is worse
when building automated and integrated planning, scheduling and control systems is oI
immediate concern. This is because to achieve automation adopting systematic methodology is
vitally important. In this Section we review relevant literature to see the current developments.
The development oI Irameworks and architectures Ior planning, scheduling and
control systems has been an active area oI research Ior at least twenty years. Works reported in
literature are immense but there are only Iew works that addresses the integration and
automation in a uniIied Iashion as considered here.
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 4
Wu |2000,2001| , based on the results Irom extensive analysis oI the relevant
methodologies and techniques available and data gathered through industrial practice, argues
that in order to develop the manuIacturing science a conceptual Iramework is essential. He
proposed a Iramework called MSM, i.e. Manufacturing Svstem Management. This Iramework
consists oI three main Iunctionals as: Manufacturing Strategv Analvsis (MSA), Manufacturing
Svstem Design (MSD) and Manufacturing Operations Management (MOM). The emphasis put
Iorward by Wu is with respect to top level Iunctional MSA and its implications on MSD and
MOM. This is where, in this paper, we address development oI a new Iramework Ior planning,
scheduling and control Iunctions that concern low level Iunctional MOMand its implications
on MSD and MSA, a reverse direction adopted by Wu.
Even Ior process industries that is less complex than high-variaety, low volume
discrete manuIacturing systems, Shobrys and White |2000| discussed that current planning,
scheduling and control Iunctions can not work together in an automated and integrated
Iashion. The decisions made by the planning, scheduling, and control Iunctions have a large
economic impact on process industry operations estimated to be as high as ten dollars per ton
oI Ieed Ior many plants. The current process industry environment places even more oI a
premium on eIIective execution oI these Iunctions. In spite oI the incentives, or maybe
because oI them, there exists signiIicant disagreement about the proper organi:ation and
integration oI these Iunctions, indeed even which decisions are properly considered by the
planning, scheduling or control business process. Advances in data capture and conditioning,
sophisticated analytical techniques, and high perIormance computing environments have
provided improved support Ior all three Iunctions. High-speed communications can transIer
inIormation and data almost without limits. Yet, maintaining consistency among the decisions
continues to be diIIicult with real economic consequences.
ASPEN (Automated Scheduling and Planning ENvironment) was developed Ior NASA
applications as a reusable, conIigurable, generic planning/scheduling application Iramework |Fukunaga
1997|. ASPEN is currently being utilized in the development oI an automated planner/scheduler Ior
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 5
commanding the New Millennium EO-1 satellite and a naval communications satellite, as well as a
scheduler Ior the ground maintenance Ior the Reusable Launch Vehicle and a design analysis tool Ior the
Pluto Express spacecraIt. ASPEN works with two AI based scheduling techniques, namely constructive
and repair-based algorithms. Constructive algorithms incrementally construct a valid schedule, ensuring
that at every step, the partial schedule constructed so Iar is valid. Repair-based algorithms generate a
possibly invalid complete schedule using either random or greedy techniques. Then, at every iteration,
the scheduled is analyzed, and repair heuristics that attempt to eliminate conIlicts in the schedule are
iteratively applied until a valid schedule is Iound. The search algorithms that have been implemented
include: Iorward dispatch, a greedy, constructive algorithm; a constructive, backtracking algorithm; and
a iterative repair based algorithm |Fukunaga 1997|.
It is clear that ASPEN as explained above can be considered as a real time scheduling system.
This system is automated and in this sense is relevant to our research. However, the work does not
contain a complex hierarchy oI planning, scheduling and control Iunctions which concernsour Iocus.
Practical aspects oI inIormation system design and implementation has been
investigated by Gong and Hsieh |1997| Ior a distributed control architecture at shopIloor level.
The inIormation system has the responsibilities oI data collection, data management, and message
passing or communications.
Artiba and AghezzaI |1997| developed a n architecture oI a multi-model based system
Ior production planning and scheduling. It integrates expert systems, discrete event simulation,
optimization algorithms and heuristics to support decision making Ior complex production
planning and scheduling problems. A chemical plant which produces herbicides Irom process
industry has been presented to illustrate the method. Once the aggregate plan is produced, the
scheduling level is then tackled. Here again some oI the multi-model Iunctionalities are
employed using diIIerent models (MILP, heuristics, rules, . . ). This loop is repeated until the
Iinal result is satisIying or a Iixed number oI iterations is reached. The tools used to solve this
case are C , SLAM II and MicrosoIt Excell. It takes about 5 minutes to get a solution on a
PC 486/66. The object- oriented approach is used Ior data modelling. The multi-model
approach is very promising Ior the solution oI complex manuIacturing problems.
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 6
Devedzic and.Radovic|1999| developed a Iramework Ior building Intelligent ManuIacturing
Systems (IMS). IMS contain soItware components using such techniques as expert systems, Iuzzy logic,
neural networks, and machine learning. The number, the kind, and the complexity oI intelligent
components oI an IMS can vary a lot Irom one system to another, and the components themselves can be
combined in many ways, depending on the application. Here again the emphasis is on soItware
development similar to other cases reviewed above.
SYROCO, (French abbreviated Ior Reactive System Driven by Objectives) is a
reactive shopIloor control system based on a multi-agent platIorm that has been developed by
Roy and Anciaux |2001| . The emphasis in this work is on soItware design. To our interest is
the proposition they envisaged that a structure, which is hierarchical for control and
centrali:ed for decision-making, is a viable approach Ior shop-Iloor control. In Section 3 we
discuss this proposition and propose an alternative approach.
Another important development is the emergence oI Manufacturing Execution
Svstem (MES). In the paradigm oI a manuIacturing automation hierarchy, MES is located in
the middle where Enterprise Resources Planning (ERP) system is located above and
Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) system is located below. SCADA
provides decision makings and control throughout the Iactory and controls Distributed Control
Systems (DCS) and Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC).
Meanwhile, the term MES describe planning, scheduling and control Iunctions in an
automated environment which is exactly what we are interested to discuss in this paper.
However, some researchers and practitioners have suggested MES in the context oI process
industries ( see |MESA 1997| , |TATA 2000| ) , which is diIIerent Irom our emphasis that is on
high variety, low volume discrete manuIacturing systems such as FMSs.
Among researchers in MES, however, Choi and Kim |2002| extended the term to
cover FMS planning, scheduling and control Iunctions. They derived an architecture Ior two
linear type FMS. The emphasis oI this research was Iocused on the development oI object-
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 7
oriented models Ior the semantic behaviour and not the syntactic behaviour oI the MES
components.
From the literature considered above it is clear that the design oI automated and
integrated planning, scheduling and control systems is still in an early stage oI development. In
this paper, we examine the Iollowing questions: What are the key issues, similarities, and
diIIerences Ior planning, scheduling and control Iunctions? What are the roadblocks in
achieving the integration that seems technically Ieasible?
In particular, the purpose oI this paper is to advance manuIacturing science by
considering the Iollowing basic issues:
1. Development oI a generic terminology,
2. Development oI a uniIied Iramework Ior treatment oI planning, scheduling and
control Iunctions in an integrated and automated Iashion,
3. Development oI a generic disturbing events in Iactory automation,
4. Development oI a case study to illustrate the workability oI the new Iramework.
These developments have signiIicant Iinancial implications as well as implications with
regard to technology selection, inIrastructure design, and staIIing requirements.They are
considered in the Iollowing Sections.
3.0 Prelimiaries of the new framework
3.1 Needs for universal terminologv
Researchers and practitioners address a wide range oI issues and discuss these issues
in varying terminology. The variability in terminology makes it diIIicult to understand the
results; the breadth oI issues makes it diIIicult to use these results. We provide examples in
Table 1 oI the variability in terminology with respect to planning, scheduling and control
Iunctions. It is common that MRP II, Ior instance, in views oI one researcher is called "
manuIacturing control system" by another researcher |Little 2000|. One important reason is
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 8
that researchers Irom diIIerent disciplines are contributing to the Iield as illustrated in Table
1.
Although the need Ior a standardized terminology in the Iield has long been
recognized, but lack oI universally accepted terminology is itselI a signal oI immaturity oI
Iield oI manuIacturing science. While some work in these areas has been done, neither a
terminology nor a Iramework has been universally accepted ( see Mejabi |1997| and |Senehi
1998|).
Table 1: Ad-hoc Status oI ManuIacturing Science and Issues Ior a New Framework
What the Domain
oI Interest is Called
in Literature?
planning, scheduling, shopIloor control, dispatching, lot
sizing, routeing, sequencing, scheduling and control, decision
making, real-time scheduling, control policy, dynamic
scheduling, manuIacturing control, production control,
inventory planning and control, control based scheduling,
material requirement planning (MRP), manuIacturing
resources planning (MRP II)enterprise resources planning
(ERP), manuIacturing execution system (MES).
Who Contributes to
ManuIacturing
Sience?
Operational Research, Computer Science, Control Theory,
Industrial Engineering, Production Management, Systems
Engineering.
To address the pressing need Ior integration oI enterprises Ior enhanced perIormance,
a Iramework Ior manuIacturing planning, scheduling and control systems is important and will
be presented in this paper.
3.2 Terminologv definitions
Definition 1: By manufacturing we simply mean methods and machines that are integrated to
produce products. Analysis, design and management oI manuIacturing systems have diIIerent
levels. According to Wu|2001| 3 levels can be recognized: manuIacturing strategic analysis
(MSA), manuIacturing system design (MSD) and manuIacturing operations management
(MOM). Senehi |1998| deIines these 3 levels as business modelling, organization/ technical
structure, and operation oI a manuIacturing Iacility.
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 9
Definition 2: By integration we mean diIIerent modules oI diIIerent nature are linked to
perIorm new purposes.
Integration involves the coordination and harmonization oI the activities which go on in
any system. The ultimate goal oI integration is to improve the overall perIormance oI systems
by linking local activities with the overall goals oI a system. In this sense, integration is
nothing more than an attempt at global optimization. The prerequisites Ior achieving system
integration are twoIolds: decision making and control that need to be integrated |Mejabi
1997|.
Definition 3: By automation we mean any activity that is perIormed by a machine or an
algorithm with no human involvement |MonIared 1997|.
Usually terms such as architectures, structures and Irameworks are used in literature
almost interchangeably. Same is the case with terms such as planning, scheduling and control.
We will make a distinction.
Definition 4: By architecture we mean a set oI rules that deIines 1) a uniIied structure
consisting oI constituent parts and 2) the connections that establish how those parts Iit and
work together |Senehi 1998|.
Definition 5: By structure we mean how embodying components oI a system is linked and
conIigured. Structure may be modular, decentralized, centralized and hierarchical |Gong
1997|.
Definition 6: A framework is an identiIication oI issues related to a speciIic domain or how
inIormation must be organized to serve a speciIic purpose |Senehi 1998|. For example,
Zachman`s Iramework Ior information svstems architecture (ISA) provides a systematic
taxonomy oI concepts Ior relating things in the world to the representations in the computer.
Note that we have used the term architecture to reIer to a description oI the design and
structure oI a system and the term framework to reIer to a structure external to an architecture,
which organizes inIormation about the architecture and the application oI the architecture in
the same way was suggested by Senehi |1998|.
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 10
Definition 7: The manufacturing operations management is deIined as a task oI converting
customer needs into products, as illustrated in Figure 1, upon physical manuIacturing setting.
Figure 1: Manufacturing Operations Management (MOM).
This deIinition is simple and most popular among both practitioners and scientists
(also called production management, production operations management). However, what is
considered as "a task" in this deIinition is oIten complex and diIIicult to describe. The task
can oIten be divided into three major Iunctions, i.e., 1) product design, 2) process design and
3) production planning, scheduling and control (see also |Wu 2001| Ior an alternative deIinition
where major Iunctions are deIined as design, implementation, operations and monitoring needed to
regulate and optimize a manuIacturing system through its liIe cycle).
Product design is the task oI converting customer needs into a product design; process
design is the task oI mapping the product design on machines, and the task oI production
planning, scheduling and control entails activities needed to produce the physical products.
The latter which is oI interest to this paper could includes order placement process, material
procurement, inventory control, computer programming, tooling, machine operations,
inspections, maintenance and transportation. The tasks oI production planning, scheduling
and control need Iurther clariIications.
3.3 Functions differentiation using time hori:on and uncertaintv measure
The development oI planning, scheduling and control system, itselI, is very complex
since it involves many interlinked activities spans Irom raw material ordering processes down
to the production shop Iloor and eventually to the Iinished good warehouse. It should be
considered, however, that the complexity oI a PSC system is case speciIic. For example, a PSC
ManuIacturing
Operations Management
Customer
Needs
Products
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 11
system can be reduced to a single rule, such as: Produce iI I(t)s I(min), Stop iI I(t)> I(max);
where I(min) is the inventory saIety level, and I(max) is the inventory ceiling level.
We start by deIining a control Iunction and then move to deIinition oI scheduling and
planning Iunctions. The reason is then explained.
Definition 8: A (real time) control svstem is a system where relevant state variables are
continuously sensed and errors due to disturbances are computed to be used Ior the
modiIication oI the input variables, and hence to achieve the desired output levels.
Definition 9: From theoretical point oI view, a planning or a scheduling problem is an
optimisation problem (or a resource allocation problem) where jobs are allocated over time to
machines (or resources) within the range oI availability and while some measures oI
perIormance are optimised. However, practically speaking, planning Iunctions have longer
time horizons than scheduling Iunctions. This is what makes our deIinition diIIerent Irom
literature as will be elaborated Iurther in the Iollowing.
In DeIinition 9, both planning and scheduling are considered synonymous. This is
acceptable in the sense oI OR which looks at them in the context oI optimisation (or resource
allocation), whatever the resources might be (e.g., time, machine, labour).
Zweben in his book |1994| deIines planning as the selection and sequencing oI
Iunctions such that they achieve one or more goals and satisIy a set oI domain constraints and
scheduling selects among alternative plans and assigns resources and times Ior each activity so
that the assignments obey the temporal restrictions between activities and the capacity
limitations oI a set oI shared resources. However, in order to provide a means Ior the better
understanding oI the nature oI the problems associated with production Iunctions, Iiner
classiIication is useIul. We do this by introducing two measures oI time and uncertainty to
make a distinction between planning and scheduling Iunctions.
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 12
Figure 2: Planning, Scheduling, and Control..
As in Figure 2, time is used as an index oI diIIerentiation between planning,
scheduling, and control. Planning is concerned with the analysis and modelling oI Iunctions,
which looks at a long time horizon ahead, whereas scheduling is concerned with the analysis
and modelling oI Iunctions which looks at a short time horizon ahead. Control is concerned
with the analysis and modelling oI immediate actions in real time.
Planning, thereIore, is regarded to the right hand side oI the Figure 2 and its nature is
more oI decision making problem, whereas scheduling is regarded in the middle oI Figure 2
and its nature is more oI optimi:ation problem, and control is regarded to the leIt hand side oI
the chart depicted in Figure 2 .
The above spectrum oI long term to short term remains meaningIul Ior any
production setting, but the time scale is diIIerent Irom one to another. For the high tech make-
to-order industries, week may deIine long term time scale, hour deIine the middle term time
scale and second deIine the short term time scale. In this case, week- Iunctions are considered
planning Iunctions; hour-Iunctions are considered scheduling Iunctions and second-Iunctions
are considered control Iunctions.
On the other hand, Ior make-to-stock industries, vear may deIine the long term time
scale, monthdeIines the middle term time scale and dav may deIine the short term time scale.
CONTROL SCHEDULING PLANNING
FUNCTIONS FUNCTIONS FUNCTIONS
Short Term Middle Term Long Term
Small Medium Large
Time Horizon
Uncertainty
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 13
Here year- Iunctions are considered planning Iunctions; month-Iunctions are considered
scheduling Iunctions and day-Iunctions are considered control Iunctions.
In reality year, month and day are not crisp time scales but Iuzzy time scales or Iuzzy
sets. For example a year- activity may have a 10- months time scale, a month-activity may have
20- days time scale and a day-activity may have 20- hours time scale. Hence, a 10- months
activity is a Iuzzy year activity to some degrees, a 20- days time scale is a Iuzzy month activity
to some extents and a 20- hours time scale is a Iuzzy day activity to a certain degree.
In this respect the concepts oI planning Iunctions, scheduling Iunctions and control
Iunctions are Ilexible. What diIIerentiates, however, between planning, s cheduling and control
Iunctions are still the time scale, despite the Iact that it is a Iuzzy time scale. ThereIore, time
indexing simpliIies the way Iunctions can be recognized, classiIied and hence treated.
As in Figure 2, uncertainty is also used as another index oI diIIerentiation between
planning, scheduling, and control. Both indexes are counterpart towards each other where as
the timing increases Irom shorter to longer, the uncertainty degrees associated with the
Iunctions also increases Irom smaller to larger. Here, the control Iunctions are more certain
than the scheduling and planning Iunctions. As Ior design purpose, it is expected that the
control Iunctions are less trouble making than those oI scheduling and planning Iunctions.
Hence, the development oI planning Iunctions in an automated way should be more diIIicult
than those oI scheduling and control Iunctions. These concepts are Iurther explained in
Section 4 where the 3-layer structure Ior planning, scheduling and control Iunctions is
discussed.
What is meant by PSC system as illustrated above can Iurther be clariIied by
theoretical re-examination oI two important concepts: static scheduling versus dynamic
scheduling.
4.0 Tandem optimisation -control problems: static versus dynamic
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 14
In the DeIinition 9 above, both planning and control Iunctions were deIined as
optimisation Iunctions that are in the sense oI traditional Operations Research. In the
DeIinition 8 control Iunctions were deIined as real time goal seeking Ieedback control
mechanisms that are in the sense oI traditional control theory. However, planning, scheduling
and control Iunctions have a dual nature oI both optimization and control. This can Iurther be
explained iI planning, scheduling and control Iunctions are regarded as dynamic scheduling
against static scheduling as are considered in this Section.
The term dynamic scheduling (DS) has been used in the literature to diIIerentiate
those scheduling systems which accommodate some Iorm oI dynamics Irom those which do
not (e.g., static scheduling (SS)). Since the introduction oI DS, however, SS has become
`unIashionable`, and people tend not to consider or classiIy their work under static scheduling
models. For instance, stochastic scheduling (e.g., queuing) models have been considered as
dynamic scheduling models (see e.g., |Suresh 1993|) since they address time related random
variables (such as job arrivals, or processing time).
Considering stochastic systems as dynamic systems, however, diIIers Irom what is
practised in control theory, where a dynamic system can be deterministic (i.e., non-stochastic)
and stochastic. Thus, in current literature, the term DS is conIusing and it is Ior this reason that
in this research the term PSC system has been adopted instead oI DS to emphasize on the
whole spectrum oI planning, scheduling and control Iunctions needed in production operations
management. It is, however, impractical to by-pass the bulk oI the literature which is available
under the name oI dynamic scheduling merely because their deIinition is not straightIorward.
In the Iollowing Section we deIine dvnamic scheduling and its distinguishing characteristics.
This is undertaken by theoretical re-examination oI planning, scheduling and control concepts
Irom Operations Research and Control Theory perspectives.
3.1 Definition of dvnamic scheduling
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 15
Definition 10: A dynamic scheduling (DS) system is a control system (as deIined in
DeIinition 3) where Ieedbacks are activated when disturbing events, as deIined in the set oIO,
take place to enIorce a revision on the current schedule. The Iollowing properties must hold:
1) revision time must be either prompt or with some delay ( where in this case the delay must
be shorter than the next review period oI the control algorithm); 2) the occurrence time oI an
event must be unpredictable (or random); 3) ignoring the event must degrade the optimality
criterion oI the scheduling system (whatever this criteria would be); 4) the revision must serve
to adjust the current schedule to the disturbing event (i.e., the necessary condition), and
compensate Ior the disturbing event as much as possible (i.e., the suIIicient condition).
The reasons Ior adopting DS as a control system with the above properties considered
in DeIinition 4 are elaborated in the Iollowing. Firstly, literature in dynamic scheduling reIers
to two major areas: - analvses, and management (or real time control), where the latter is oI
particular interest to the present work.
The Iirst area is when analysis oI a production system is considered. The results oI
such an analysis are used to enhance the understanding oI the production system, and to assist
the design and improvement oI the current system. For example, Conway |1967| discussed a
job-shop scheduling problem under stochastic processing times. He derived equations Ior the
expected value oI Ilow time, and also gave an expression Ior the expected value oI the
contribution oI a job to the expected value oI the mean-Ilow time. The dominant part oI the
literature under queuing theory is related to this type oI modelling approach.
The second area, which is oI interest to this research, is when DS is reIerred to models
developed Ior the management (or control) oI a production system. The results of this class of
dvnamic scheduling svstem are algorithms for real time control of a production svstem.
The second distinctive point in the deIinition oI DS as in DeIinition 4 is that
scheduling, by its deIinition (i.e., DeIinition 2) is a time related activity, so that the term
dvnamic seems not to be suggested to accommodate such an obvious Iact (using dynamics to
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 16
stress the time element may be the case with gain scheduling in control theory where changing
gain in time is the principal concern).
ThereIore the term dvnamic in DS must reIer to the presence oI disturbances in the
system (similar names used in literature Ior disturbance includes perturbation, dynamics,
changes, instability, uncertainty, and variability).
The third point regarding the deIinition oI DS as in DeIinition 4 is associated with the
Iact that revision oI the current schedule must be perIormed within a certain amount oI time.
This is because even Ior so called static scheduling (SS), there is a given review period where
the current schedule is revised (i.e., the perIormance oI the system in the last period is
evaluated and new schedule is determined) as illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Review Periods in Static Scheduling- where T0, T1, T2 denote review times, and t
denotes the time interval between two consecutive review periods (or sampling time in control
theory) which is a Iixed number such as shiIt, day, or week.
ThereIore there will be no diIIerence between a static scheduling system and a
dynamic scheduling system iI the revision is leIt until the next review period. A DS, thereIore,
must react promptly to the disturbing events. This is the critical (or necessary) condition Ior a
scheduling system to be considered as a DS, as illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Review Periods in Dynamic Scheduling- where T0, T1, T2, T3 denote review
times, and ti denote the time interval between two consecutive review periods (or sampling
time in control theory) which is a random variable.
The Iourth point regarding the deIinition adopted in DS as in DeIinition 4 is associated
with the occurrence time oI the disturbing events. The occurrence time must be unpredictable
Scheduling
Time Horizon
T0 T1 T2
t t
Scheduling
Time Horizon
T0 T1 T2
t0 t1
t2
T3
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 17
(or random), otherwise the event can be scheduled in advance and so it cannot be considered a
disturbing event at all.
The IiIth point in adopting DeIinition 4 is associated with the Iact that the nature oI
the events in O (which is the set oI disturbing events) must really disturb the system and hence
degrade the perIormance. Otherwise the occurrence oI an event which does not aIIect the
system perIormance is irrelevant.
Finally, another point regarding the deIinition oI DS in DeIinition 4 is related to the
necessary and the suIIicient conditions oI a schedule revision, that is, a revision must be
applied to adjust the current schedule Ior the continuation oI operations (e.g., by changes in
machine loading), and perhaps taking Iurther actions to compensate Ior the change (e.g., re-
routing, to assign another machine which can perIorm the suspended operations).
3.2 The Gap between static and dvnamic scheduling
Now that the deIinition oI the dynamic scheduling has been established as given in
DeIinition 4, the Iollowing observation regarding the boundary between static scheduling and
dynamic scheduling is conjectured: as the aggregated review period interval (t or sampling
time) is reduced, the nature of the static scheduling (SS) problem approaches the nature of a
dvnamic scheduling (DS) problem Here svstem is responsive enough to changes on shop floor.
But this can not monotonicallv continues since there is a threshold of to above which svstem
become unstable and non optimal.
The Iormal statement oI the conjecture is as Iollows:
Limit , Ps (t)-Pd (t), s c , iI t to or when ,t - to , s o,
Where,
Ps (t): the expected value oI the perIormance oI the static scheduling Ior a given t over a
considerable length oI time,
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 18
Pd (t): the expected value oI the perIormance oI the dynamic scheduling over a considerable
length oI time;
t: the aggregated review period adopted in a scheduling system;
tO: the optimum aggregated review period;
c: a constant deIining the acceptable error;and
o: a constant deIining the acceptable error.
The basic assumption is that there is an aggregated optimum review period time
denoted by to that Ps (t) illustrate identical perIormance as Pd (t). Here the gap between two
systems is disappeared and dynamic scheduling and static scheduling become identical.
Moving away Irom to degrade the system perIormance as illustrated in Figure 5.
In Iact Ps (t) and Pd (t) moves in opposite direction. This is because immediate
reactions to every change that occurs on shop Iloor generate instability and hence leaves no
room Ior optimization.
Figure 5: The PerIormance oI the Static versus Dynamic Scheduling.
The question oI how to Iind to is a diIIicult question to answer, although very
important. This demands Iurther investigations by manuIacturing scientists, Operations
Researchers and control theorists. It is understood that the discussion made in this Section is
more oI speculative nature rather than solid sciences. It is expected that this analysis can
encourage critical and creative thinking that leads to solid theories.
to
Pd (t)
t
Ps (t)
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 19
Having established the deIinition oI dynamical scheduling (or control algorithm), the
Iollowing section develops design platIorm and design structure within which the task oI
planning, scheduling and control Iunctions can be implemented.
4. Platform and Structure for PSC Design
4.1 The Platform
The area oI automated planning, scheduling and control system touches upon various
theoretical and practical issues which can not be investigated and handled within a single
discipline. So Iar diIIerent disciplines have contributed to this area as illustrated in Table 1.
Operational Researchers (OR) and Production Operations Management (POM) scientists have
the longest tradition oI research in the Iield oI production planning and scheduling. They have
contributed signiIicant scientiIic eIIorts, and produced a rich and mature literature on
production planning and scheduling problems. They have explored the Iield by using various
Iorms oI mathematical programming techniques, such as integer programming, mixed integer
programming, and dvnamic programming (see e.g. |Roger 1994| ). However, this line oI
research suIIers Irom not taking into account the various types oI uncertainties that exist in
real world situations and as Iound in practical manuIacturing problems, such as variations in
demand, breakdown oI machines, variations in processing time, shuIIling in order priorities,
changes in product routings, interruptions by new orders, etc. These diIIiculties have since
been recognised by more recent researchers, but have yet to be addressed.
Extensive research endeavours have been directed toward developing new techniques
such as queuing techniques, where stochastic properties can be included to express a more
realistic modelling approach (e.g., see |Jackson 1963| , |Shantikumar 1981|). The results oI
these works have not yet provided any signiIicant improvements in Iilling the gap between the
theory and the practice oI manuIacturing planning, scheduling and control problems ( see e.g.,
|McKay 1998|).
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 20
Further techniques Iavoured by OR/POM include discrete-event simulation (see Ior
example |Askin 1993|). This has been used in the Iield oI planning, scheduling and control
activities, where the technique is capable oI representing any degree oI complexity required by
the system designer, and Ior this reason, simulation has been successIully applied in many
circumstances (e.g., see |Grant 1987|). However, simulation may not be an eIIective tool in an
automated environment unless it is supervised by an expert system.
Researchers in the ArtiIicial Intelligence community have also become interested in
the problem oI planning, scheduling and control. They have suggested that human reasoning
capabilities and human expertise could be built into a program (i.e., an expert svstem) that
supposedly could replace the human scheduler (see e.g. |Trentesaux 2000| ). The argument Ior
an AI approach is that AI can include human expertise, whereas mathematical programming
approaches are based on a rigid and static structure which is not capable oI representing
human knowledge |Kusiak 1990| .
Experience has shown that the application oI expert system technology in
manuIacturing systems has been able to enhance the capabilities oI the human scheduler,
where, Ior example, the expert system has been very useIul in training a novice human
scheduler or to improve the human scheduler in handling complex scheduling tasks ( see e.g.,
|Artiba 1997|, |Fukunaga 1997| ).
Through all these developments within the OR/POM and AI paradigms, the human
scheduler has remained the constant element oI planning, scheduling and control practices. To
date, there is no record known to the authors oI an actual manuIacturing system where an
automated/computerised system has been successIully implemented which can replace totally
the human element. In Iact some researchers proposed CHIM, i.e., computer human integrated
manuIacturing instead oI CIM |Sun 1999|.
It is considered that the emerging problems cannot be carried out in the context oI
static scheduling models developed in Operations Research (OR), and neither can they be
handled with current control techniques developed in Control Theory (CT). Nevertheless, both
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 21
disciplines provide the most competent platIorms and expertise Ior handling the duality oI
optimisation and real time control problems in manuIacturing systems.
The design platIorm proposed in this paper is an integrated multidisciplinary
approach, where concepts and techniques Irom diIIerent disciplines are integrated together Ior
the purpose oI designing PSC systems. This implies that the new theories and models related
to PSC problems are considered to be developed within these two major disciplines. This is
supported by a recent survey conducted by the authors |MonIared 1996| where most experts
in the Iield considered the integration oI OR and CT as a proIitable and necessary step toward
building automated systems. s ee also |Gershwin 1986| , | Ho 1989| , | Akella 1990|.
The design platIorm that has been adopted in this research has been characterised in
Figure 3. At the top layer, three major disciplines are engaged. They are OR, CS and CT
where OR stands Ior Operations Research, CS stands Ior Computer Science and CT stands Ior
Control Theory. It must be noted, however, that OR and CT are theoretically important Ior the
development oI PSC systems, but that CS is practically important Ior realization and
implementation oI these systems (see |Gong 1997| , |Suarez1998|, |Devedzic 1999|, |Roy 2001|,
|TATA 2002|).
At the second layer oI Figure 6, major approaches in OR, CS and CT are engaged to
support the platIorm. Examples are: Optimization approaches, ArtiIicial Intelligence
approaches, Fuzzy Logic and Neural Network approaches. These approaches should be used in
addition to more classical approaches such as mathematical programming and combinatorics
in OR, programming techniques in CS and Ieedback control systems in CT. At the third layer
oI Figure 6 some illustrative techniques are exempliIied.
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 22
Figure 6: An Illustration oI Design PlatIorm.
For example, Ior optimisation techniques such as Tabu Search (TS), Simulated
annealing (SA), Genetics Algorithm (GA) and Mix Integer Linear Programming (MILP) can
be mentioned. For artiIicial intelligence, Expert System (ES) can be mentioned. For Iuzzy
logic and neural networks techniques such as Fuzzy Control (FC), Fuzzy Linear Programming
(FLP), Propagation network (BP) and HopIield-Tank network (HT) can be mentioned.
Gershwin |1986| has been a pioneer in considering integrated OR and CT approaches.
However, his developments is applicable Ior large volume, low diversity (or repetitive)
production systems, whose production line can be considered as a continuous Ilow; hence
diIIerential equations adopted in classical control theory can be developed to drive the
controllers (see also |Gershwin 1989, 1994, 1999| , |Bai 1994|, |Brandimarte 1995| , |Haouba
1999| , |Kogan 2000| ).
The design platIorm proposed here concerns low-volume high-variety production
systems whose dynamics could only be treated in the Iramework oI Discrete Event Dynamical
Systems (DEDS) which is a Iresh area oI research (see Ior example |Ho 1989|). DEDS can
Design PlatIorm
Operations
Research
Control
Theory
Computer
Science
Fuzzy Logic and
Neural Networks
FC FLP BP HT
Optimization
Techniques
SA GA TS
ArtiIicial
Intelligence
ES
1st Layer:
Supporting
Disciplines
2nd Layer:
Major
Approaches
3rd Layer:
Technique
MILP
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 23
hardly be described by diIIerential equations. Hence, new methodologies must be developed to
model event based dynamical systems such as production systems.
The integrated approach has gathered momentums in recent years. A short review oI
researches undertaken in this line is reported in Table 2.
Table 2: Integrated Approach Adopted in Literature
Disciplines Subject Authors
1 OR, CT Scheduling and Control System Gershwin 1989]
2 OR, NN Neural Dispatcher Cho 1993]
3 OR, CT, CS Game-theoretic control Leon 1994]
4 OR, CT Manufacturing Control Algorithm Monfared 1997]
5 OR, CT Fuzzy Adaptive Scheduling and
Control
Monfared 2000]
6 OR, CT Control-Based Algorithms for
Scheduling
Kogan 2000]
7 OR, CT Integrated Scheduling and Control Akturk 2001]
8 CT, CS Feedback-Feed forward Scheduling of
Control Task
Cervin 2001]
9 OR, CT Feedback Control Real-time
Scheduler
Lu 2001]
10 OR, CT FMS Control Using Neural Network Abdelhameed
2002]
11 OR, CT Interactive DSS for On-line Process
Control
Kumar 2002]
4.2 The Structure
There are basically three Iorms
1
oI structuring planning, scheduling and control
systems: centrali:ed, hierarchical, and heterarchical (also called distributed or cooperative).
The centralized structure employs a centralized computer to manage and maintain the records
oI all planning, scheduling and control Iunctions. Machines execute the commands released
Irom the centralized computer and then Ieed back the execution results.
In a hierarchical structure which might be strict or loose, there is a master/slave
relationship between two adjacent levels oI systems. In strict sense, peer communication
between controllers at the same levels is not allowed. Within the hierarchy oI systems, a
superior sees only its immediate subordinates and not the subordinates oI its subordinates.
This concept gives each system a certain control authority within its realm.
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 24
Basically, loose hierarchical structure is similar to a strict hierarchical structure,
except that it allows peer communication. With this Ieature, the system structure has a loose
master/ slave relationship between system levels. A superior is responsible Ior initiating a
sequence oI activities. The subordinates are able to cooperate to complete these activities in
sequence.
A heterarchical structure which is also called a distributed or cooperative structure
pursues the Iull local autonomy and a cooperative approach to global decision making. There
are no master/slave relationships between system components. Cooperation between
components is implemented via a negotiation and bidding procedure to accomplish tasks. The
heterarchical control architecture increases Ilexibility in operations at the price oI higher
communication burden.
Meanwhile we consider that planning, scheduling and control Iunctions using the
deIinition put Iorward in Section 3 can neither be structured in centralized Iorm nor in
distributed Iorm. This is due to inherent hierarchy existed in P, S and C Iunctions. A PSC
system is composed oI planning, scheduling and control algorithms that is well integrated and
that work in harmony in a time scale based hierarchical way. It can thereIore be considered as
a collection oI mechanisms Ior treating system dynamics or disturbances. To treat a single
disturbance, control theory has proposed a Ieedback control loop, as illustrated in Figure 7,
where the input to the controller is the desired schedule, and the controller supervises the shop
Iloor machinery system. When a disturbance occurs, an error signal Ieeds back Irom the shop
Iloor to the controller and then the controller perIorms the necessary changes to make sure that
the shop Iloor is back in order.
Figure 7: Control Loop Architecture.
1
Adopted Irom Gong and Hsieh (1997)
Products
Controller, C Shop Floor, SF
Error Signal
Schedule
Control
Vector
Shop Floor Disturbances, O1
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 25
A more general architecture Ior a PSC system is illustrated in Figure 8, where at the
lower level the controller (i.e., C in Figure 8) is in direct contact with shop Iloor physical
systems such as machine centres, robots, and AGV`s, and controls these against disturbing
events, O1. At the middle layer, the scheduler (i.e., S in Figure 8) deals with order related
events, O2. Finally at the higher layer oI the hierarchy, a planner (i.e., P in Figure 8) monitors
long term disturbing events, O3.
Figure 8: A General 3-layer PSC Structure- where SF denotes shop Iloor, C denotes
controller, S denotes scheduler, P denotes planner, and O1, O2, and O3 denote the disturbing
events corresponding to SF, S and P respectively. Every one oI the P, S, and C may consist oI
complex interactive sub elements.
Two distinct Ieatures oI this PSC structure are that 1) the Irequency oI events
increases in value as one approaches the lower level; 2) the lower layer control mechanism is
governed to some extent by the output oI the higher layers. The 3-layer structure considered
above is a general overview oI the PSC system needed in an automated environment. The
planner deals with structural or long term changes (or disturbances), the scheduler deals with
order changes (or middle term disturbances), and the controller deals with shop Iloor (or short
term) disturbances.
The structure considered in Figure 8 has been proposed to serve as a general
architecture Ior design oI an automated PSC system (partly similar structures have also been
suggested in literature; see Ior example |Ishii 1991|). The proposed 3-layer PSC structure
resembles partially the human nervous system organisation Ior controlling body movements
C SF
O1
S
O2
O3
P
Lower Layer
Middle Layer
Higher Layer
Products
Orders
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 26
(see |MonIared 1995| , |Ghez 1991|). However, this structure should be considered as a
starting point in the design oI a PSC system since the number oI layers and the interaction
within them are generally design Iactors that should be optimised Ior a particular case ( Ior an
interesting work on practical aspects oI shopIloor inIormation system design and
implementation see |Gong 1997| where the inIormation system has the responsibilities oI data
collection, data management, and message passing or communications).
4.3 Classification of disturbing events
Section 4 dealt with the design oI a 3-layer control structure to be adopted to handle
planning, scheduling, and control Iunctions oI a PSC. Since these Iunctions are activated on
certain times, they could simply be considered as control events (or disturbing events). These
events, when activated, disturb the system, and consequently enIorce a new trajectory
planning.
The sources oI such disturbing events could be attributed with all three phases oI
production management systems including product design, process design, and production
control as illustrated in Table 3. This Table also evaluates the importance oI these events
within high tech low-volume high-variety production systems. Technological enhancement in
quality assurance has leIt less room Ior disturbance associated with lack oI knowledge about
the property and quality oI the material. Disturbance due to labour is also insigniIicant because
oI the tendency in eliminating direct labour work in such systems.
Table 3: Sources oI Disturbance in PSC
Sources oI Disturbance Importance
1 Product Design, Process Design Very Critical
2 Material Quality/Shipments Non-Critical
3 Machinery Unavailability Very Critical
4 Labour Absenteeism/ Variability in Quality
or Performance
Non-Critical
5 Order Arrival Very Critical
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 27
Research and development oI a PSC system is mainly involved with items 1, 3, and 5
in Table 3. For better understanding oI these disturbances, it is useIul to see, in more detail,
what types oI events may be causing the disturbance on the shop Iloor.
Table 4: Examples oI Disturbances: Control (O1), Scheduling (O2) and Planning (O3)
Control
Disturbing Events
(O1)
Scheduling
Disturbing Events
(O2)
Planning
Disturbing Events
(O3)
material late arrival, operation delay
(e.g., soItware problem), varying processing
time, quality rejection, resource deadlock/
blockage, tool non- availabile, process routeing
not ready, machine load instruction not ready,
utility (e.g., electricity, gas, steam, water) not
supplied, machine breakdown
new job arrival,
change in due date,
change in priority,
change in quantity ,
change in product
design, change in
process required
changes in job
arrival pattern , shiIt
in total demand,
change in quality
expectation , change
in product mix,
change in market
share, introduction
oI substitute
product
Note: some items listed in Tables 4 have been adopted Irom Table 1 in |Suresh 1993|.
The disturbances presented as in Table 4 are classiIied into three categories, i.e., shop
Iloor related or control disturbances, order related or scheduling disturbances, and structural
related or planning disturbances (Iiner or coarser classiIication can also be considered
depending upon the case), based on the triplex taxonomy oI planning, scheduling, and control
Iunctions as suggested in Figure 8.
These disturbances are each diIIerent in nature. A machine breakdown, Ior example, is
random in nature and accepts no policy making and regulation. A job arrival disturbance, on
the other hand, is also random in nature but accepts policy making and regulation (e.g.,
negotiation on due date can regulate the disturbing impact that a new order can have). On the
other hand, the signiIicance or bearing one disturbing event may has on the control system
perIormance also needs to be considered in design stage. ThereIore, a machine break-down
may halt the whole system such as in case oI automated Ilow line production system and the
mechanism to deal with this is simply to inIorm the maintenance crew. On the contrary, a
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 28
broken-down machine in a job-shop production system may need to activate re-optimisation
procedure to Iind an alternative routing Ior aIIected orders. It is then evident that the design oI
a PSC system to handle disturbing events is case speciIic and hence must be designed and
optimized Ior a given production system ( see also |TATA 2002|).
5. Case study
In this Section a Iully automated Ilow shop production system is considered to
illustrate the Iramework developed in this paper with respect to automation and integration oI
planning, scheduling and control Iunctions. In this case queuing theory Irom traditional OR is
integrated with a novel Iuzzy predictive control system to automate scheduling and control
Iunctions oI a batch production manuIacturing system.
5.1 Svstem configuration
A Iully automated Ilow shop production system (or cell) is illustrated in Figure 9. This
cell is Iormed by connecting nine machines as Iollows: three robots Ior loading and unloading
tasks, one conveyor belt Ior handling incoming parts, three rotary spiral racks Ior storing parts,
one heat treatment machine Ior strengthening the physical properties oI the parts through a
heat treatment operation, and one automatic guided vehicle (AGV) Ior handling Iinished parts.
Figure 9: A Fully Automated Flow Shop.
Loading
Bay
Unloading
Bay
Conveyor
Belt
Pick & Place
Robot (PPR)
Working
Rotary Spiral
Rack (RSR)
Heat
Treatment
Oven (HTO)
Loading
Unloading
Robot (LUR)
AGV
Part Unloading
Robot (PUR)
Stand-By
Rotary Spiral
Rack
Old Rotary
Spiral Rack
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 29
The working logic oI the system is that parts arrive randomly at the Loading Bay, and
then the Pick & Place Robot (PPR) is activated to pick and place the parts onto the Conveyor
Belt. As the parts reached the end oI the Conveyor Belt, they will automatically Ieed into the
working Rotary Spiral Rack (RSR) which stores the parts. The Working RSR is moved to the
Heat Treatment Oven when the oven is Iree and suIIicient parts have been collected.
In order to allow a new batch to be processed, the Iollowing sequences are taken. The
old batch sitting in the Heat Treatment Oven will be taken out using the Loading/Unloading
Robot (LUR) and located next to the Part Unloading Robot (PUR). The LUR then moves the
Working RSR situated in Iront oI the Conveyor Belt to the oven. The LUR also moves the
Stand-By RSR to the Iront oI Conveyor Belt. In the meantime the PUR unloads the old batch`s
parts into the AGV.
AIter all parts have been unloaded into AGV, two actions are activated. The Iirst is the
activation oI the AGV to move the parts to the Unloading Bay and return back Ior the next
operation. The second action is taken by the LUR to move the emptied Old RSR to the stand-
by position. All machines are oI on/oII type but the Conveyor Belt is on all the time during the
production. The time required Ior perIorming all operations is Iixed except Ior the HTO
processing time and the part unloading time. These two operations are random variables
because oI the random nature oI the number oI parts in a batch. It is the randomness that
makes this dynamic system diIIerent Irom the so-called conventional automated systems.
5.2 A stochastic scheduling and c ontrol svstem
The production system described in Figure 9 can be simpliIied as a queuing system
where parts arrive randomly, accumulate in a queue and then receive service by a single
server. Since the parts are served in a batch wise Iashion, this queuing system is classiIied as a
batch service queuing process (or single batch production system).
Tremendous eIIorts have been put into the analysis and control oI the above single-
stage, single-product production (or service) systems. Batch service system was originally
modelled by Deb & SerIozo (1973) by using dynamic programming and stochastic queuing
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 30
system theory Irom the Iield oI Operations Research. Deb & SerIozo proved that there is an
optimal scheduling policy which trades oII between holding cost and operational cost. The
policy is that a batch oI parts (or customers) will be produced (or served) iI and only iI the
number oI parts (or customers) reaches or exceeds a certain threshold, denoted by Q. The
single batch processing system provides a simple and straightIorward production scheduling
and control system. However, the design oI such a system is Iull oI challenge, as will be
discussed in the Iollowing.
In a single batch production system, such as a heat treatment oven, parts arrive
dynamically in accordance with a certain distribution (e.g. Poisson). The parts are collected as
a batch until the number oI parts becomes equal to or larger than a threshold. The processing
time changes with a certain distribution (e.g. negative exponential). Such a single batch
processing system can also be Iound in a transportation svstem, in the Iorm oI a shuttle bus
service between an airport terminal and a remote parking lot (or a transit bus station). In either
case, iI the parts (or passengers) arrive deterministically, an optimally scheduled service might
be the best policy. Deb & SerIozo showed that at any given time when there are parts (or
passengers) waiting in the system, a certain scheduling policy. In other words, a batch oI X
parts is processed iI and only iI X exceeds a threshold optimal Q. The working logic oI the
system is demonstrated in the Iollowing Figure 10.
Figure 10: An Illustration oI the Working System.
1
Optimal Q
Part Arrivals
Xi (t)
Parts in Queue
Xi (t)
Control
Signal, ,
Machine
Status,
Time, t
Time, t
Time, t
Time, t
1
0
1
0
Batch No.
2 3
1
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 31
5.3 The Computation of the optimal Q
The threshold policy is general and applicable to any single batch processing system.
This is based on the calculation oI an expected continuously discounted cost Iunction over an
inIinite length oI time, J
o
(Q, X), or an average cost per unit over an inIinite length oI time,
i.e. J(Q) (see Deb & SerIozo (1973) Ior detail). The computational method Ior an optimal
policyhas also been developed by Deb & SerIozo (1973) when certain conditions hold.
The validity oI the above procedure Ior calculating the optimal policy is subject to two
assumptions, one oI which is that the system dynamics is stationary (i.e. the mean value, the
standard deviation and the type oI the distribution are Iixed). The second assumption is that
the system dynamics associated with the inter-arrival times and processing times can both be
represented by exponential distributions.
5.4 A New 2-level scheduling and control svstem
For a simple non-stationary system with a Iixed distribution but a variable mean
arrival value , the calculation procedure can be repeated to obtain the corresponding control
limit Q*, as illustrated in Figure 11. To cope with such parameter dynamics, an adaptive
procedure is developed to perceive the changes oI continuously and then adjust Q* on-line
accordingly.

Figure 11: versus Q*.
The model as shown in Figure 12 concentrates on the design oI a 2-level scheduling
and control system, where a new scheduling module is added to the original control module

Q*
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 32
developed by Deb & SerIozo (1973). This module is used to implement the adaptive procedure
Ior calculating Q* by detecting the changes oI .
The scheduling and control system adopted here is a Iorward system in the sense that
no Ieedback is maintained between the controller and the scheduling module. This is in
accordance with the nature oI the problem, where the scheduler` attempts to Iind the optimal
scheduling policy based on the inIormation acquired Irom the order data streams to be used by
the controller`.
Figure 12: Structure Ior Optimizing Scheduling and Control System.
5.5 Mathematical structure
The proposed optimisation scheduling module can be considered as an autonomous
input-output Iunction whose input is the stream oI parts (or passengers), i.e., X(t), and whose
output is the optimal policy, i.e. Q(t), as illustrated in Figure 13. The sub-Iunctions Iollowing
the blocks in Figure 13 are described by the mathematical equations as Iollows.
Figure 13: A Fuzzy Predictive SchedulingSystem .
Control
Signal, ,
Optimal Policy,
Q (t)
Scheduling
Module (S)
Control
Module (C)
Heat
Treatment
Oven (SF)
Orders
X (t)
Total Number oI
parts waiting Ior
Operation, X (t)
Machine Status,
(1)
X (t)
(t)
(2)
l (t)
(3)
(4) (5)
M (t)
Q
f

e (t)
Q (t)
t
q
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 33
It can be written that,
) /( ) ( ) (
1
1

=
=

i
t
t k
i
t t k X t
i
i
(1)


t t
l t e e t n
n n
n n
( ) ( ) ( ) =

= =

1
0 0
(2)

t t l t l t e A = ( ) ( ) ( q (3)
M(t)f(l(t), e(t))Poisson(
f
,l(t));J1,2,..e (t)) (4)
Q (t) g ( Q M t
f

, ( ) ) } ( , ( ))} ( , ( ))}
( ) ( )
Q Poisson l t Poisson l t
f
f
f
e t
f
f
e t

= =

1 1
(5)
The above mathematical equations describe the dynamic behaviour oI the system.
Equation (1) represents a moving average Ior the incoming parts, within the batches oI i-1 and
i, and Equation (2) represents an exponential Iiltering oI the incoming arrival rate over a long
period (t). The reason Ior adopting an exponential weighted average is that it gives higher
weight to recent data. This helps to reIresh the population parameter Iaster, which is an
advantage in an intelligent system.
Equation (3) illustrates an integral value e(t) that is the uncertainty band (or the error
signal) which corresponds to the diIIerence oI the long-term arrival rate, l(t). When no
changes are detected in the arrival pattern oI incoming parts, the error signal in equation (3) is
equal to zero. This implies that the initial control limit value is optimal. However, iI ,e(t),~0,
then changes in Q are detected using the Iuzzy Iunction given by equation (4), which results in
a new control limit value, as calculated by equation (5). The Iuzzy Iunction mentioned above
is a Iuzzy set containing e(t) Poisson probability Iunctions each belongs to the set to some
extent. As the learning proceeds, the Iuzzy set becomes non-Iuzzy eventually, i.e. a given
Poisson distribution with certain .
The Procedure developed Ior automated scheduling and control system as illustrated above uses
the real time data generated by stochastic part arrivals, X(t) and provides optimal schedulingpolicy, Q(t)
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 34
in order to automatically control the physical system. The results oI the implementation oI this algorithm
are reported in |MonIared and Steiner 2000|.
It must be noted that the integrated and automated system reported in this Section contained
only scheduling and control modules with respect to our proposed PSC general structure illustrated in
Figure 8. Within the Iramework oI our speciIic manuIacturing problem an upper layer can be added to
integrate planning module, i.e. when stochastic Irequency distribution oI part arrivals is itselI uncertain.
Further development to include this Ieature is under development |MonIared and Yang 2003|.
6.0 Conclusion
In this paper a new Iramework Ior design oI automated planning, scheduling and
control systems was proposed to respond to the emerging needs oI a new generation oI
manuIacturing systems. The new Iramework uses concepts mainly Irom Operational Research
and Control Engineering to produce a design platIorm Ior automation. The most important
results oI the new Iramework can be encapsulated in the Iollowing assertions:
1) A uniIying Iramework Ior deIining and treating planning, scheduling and control Iunctions
was proposed in Section 3 using two time index and uncertainty index. In this Iramework,
disputes regarding static scheduling versus dynamic scheduling were addressed;
2) It was evaluated in Section 4 that a PSC system is a collection oI mechanisms structured in
layers Ior handling disturbances whose universe oI discourse must be deIined. In addition a
classiIication was presented to categorise disturbing events in accordance to three major
planning, scheduling and control Iunctions; and
3) The automated scheduling and control system developed in Section 5 incorporates concepts
and techniques Irom queuing theory, Iuzzy theory, and control theory in an integrated and
uniIied approach as was envisaged in Section 4.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to the prominent researchers in
areas oI Production Management, Operations Research, and Control Theory who kindly
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 35
responded to our Iield survey about the Iuture oI planning, scheduling and control in high tech
industries. They provided us in their Ieedbacks valuable insights and encouraging comments
that paved the way Ior the development oI the automation Iramework reported in this paper.
REFERENCES
Abdelhameed, M.M., Tolbah F.A. (2002), Design and Implementation oI a Flexible
ManuIacturing Control System Using Neural Network, Int. J. Flexible ManuIacturing
Systems, 14: ( 3), 263- 279, Jul y.

Akella, R. (1990), Guest Editorial, IEEE Trans. on Robotics And Automation, vol . 6, no. 6, pp
605- 607.
Akturk, M.S., Ozkan, S. (2001) , Integrated Scheduling and Tool Management in
Flexible ManuIacturing Systems, Int. J . Production Research, 39: ( 12) 2697- 2722, Aug .
Artiba, A., Aghezzaf, E. H. (1997), An architecture oI a multi-model system Ior planning and
scheduling, I nt. J. Computer Integrated ManuIacturing , Vol. 10, N o. 5, 380+ 393.
Askin R.G., Standridge, C.R. (1993), Modelling And Analysis oI ManuIacturing Systems,
John Wiley & Sons.
Bai, S.X., Gershwin, S.B. (1994), Scheduling ManuIacturing Systems with Work-In-
Process Inventory Control: Multiple-Part-tTpe Systems, Int. J. Production Research., vol.
32, no. 2, pp 365- 385.
Bodington, C. E., (1995), Planning, Scheduling, and Control Integration in the Process
Industries, McGraw-Hill Inc.
Brandimarte, P., Ukoviche, W., Villa, A. (1995), Continuous Flow Models Ior Batch
ManuIacturing: A Basis Ior a Hierarchical Approach, Int. J. Production Resear ch., vol. 33, no.
6, pp 1635- 1660.
Bunce, P. (1988) , CAM-I Intelligent ManuIacturing Program: Accomplishments and Plans,
Proceedings oI Production Planning and Control InIormation Exchange between CAM-I and
ESPRIT Projects, 25th May, Munich, West Germany, p- 88- IMMP-01.
Cervin, A., Eker, 1., Bernhardsson, B., Karl-Erik !rzn (2002), Feedback-Feed Iorward Scheduling oI
Control Tasks, Real-Time Systems, 23:1.
Cho, H. (1993), An Intelligent Workstation Controller Ior Computer Integrated
ManuIacturing, PhD dissertation, University oI Michigan, Ann Arbour.
Choi, B. K. , Kim, B. H. (2002), MES (manuIacturing execution system) architecture Ior
FMS compatible to ERP (enterprise planning system), Int. J. Computer Integrated
ManuIacturing, Vol. 15, N o. 3, 274284.
Conway, R. W., Maxwell, W. L., Miller, L. (1967), Theory oI Scheduling, Addison-Wesley:
NY.
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 36
Devedzic, V, Radovic, D.(1999), A Framework Ior Building Intelligent ManuIacturing Systems, IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C - Applications and Reviews, Vol.29, No.3,
August 1999, pp. 402-419.
Fukunaga, A.S., Rabideau, G., Chien, S., Yan, D.(1997 ), ASPEN: A Framework Ior
Automated Planning and Scheduling oI SpacecraIt Control and Operations, In Proc. Int.
Symposium on AI, Robotics and Automation in Space (i-SAIRAS), Tokyo, Japan.
Gershwin, S.B., Hildebrandt, R.R., Suri, R., Mitter, S.K. (1986), A Control Perspective on
Recent Trends in ManuIacturing Systems, Proceedings oI the IEEE, vol. 77, no.1. pp 3-6.

Gershwin, S.B. (1989), Hierarchical Flow Control: A Framework Ior Scheduling and
Planning Discrete Events in ManuIacturing Systems, Proceeding oI The IEEE, vol. 77, no .1,
pp 195- 209, January .
Gershwin, S. B . (1994), ManuIacturing Systems Engineering, Prentice Hall, 1994.
Gershwin, S. B. (1999), Design and Operations oI ManuIacturing Systems- The Control-Point
Policy, IIE Transactions on Design and ManuIacturing, Special Issue on Decentralized Control
oI manuIacturing Systems.
Gong, D.C., Hsieh, Y.W. (1997), Conceptual design oI a shop Iloor control inIormation
system, I nt. J. Computer Integrated ManuIacturing, Vol. 10, N o. 1-4, 4+ 16.
Grant, H. (1987) , Controlling the Shop Floor, CIM Technology, November.
Haouba, A. , Xie, X. (1999) , Flow control oI multi-leve l assembly systems, Int. J. Computer
Integrated ManuIacturing, Vol. 12, N o. 1, 84+ 95.
Ho, Y.C (1989), Dynamics oI Discrete Event Systems, Proceedings oI the IEEE, vol.77, no .1,
pp3-6.
Hsu, C., Lester, G., Spooner, D, Rubenstein, A. (1994), Adaptive Integrated
ManuIacturing Enterprises: InIormation Technology Ior the Next Decade, IEEE Trans. on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 24( 5).
Ishii, N., Talavage, 1.1. (1991), A Transient-based Real-time Scheduling Algorithm in FMS,
Int. J . Production Research, vol . 29, no. 12, pp 2501- 2520.
1ackson, 1.R., ( 1963), Job Shop-like Queuing Systems, Management Science, 10 (131).
Kogan, K., Khmelnitsky, E. (2000), Scheduling: Control-Based Theory and Polynomial-
Time Algorithms, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Volume 43.
Kusiak, A. (1990) , Intelligent ManuIacturing Systems , Prentice-Hall Int.
Kumar, R.A., 1aikumar, R. (2002) , An Interactive Decision Support System Ior On-line
Process Control, Euro. J. Operational Research, 138: ( 3), 554- 568, May 1.
Leon, V.1., Wu, S.D., Storer, R.H. (1994), A Game-theoretic Control Approach Ior Job
Shops in the presence oI Disruptions, Int. J. Production Research., vol. 32, no . 6, pp 1451-
1476.
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 37
Little, D., Rollins, R., Peck, M., and Porter, 1.K. (2000), Integrated planning and scheduling
in the engineer-to-order sector, Int. J. Computer Integrated ManuIacturing, Vol. 13, N o. 6,
545554.
Lu, C. (2001), Feedback Control Real-Time Scheduling, PhD Thesis, Department oI
Computer Science & Electrical Engineering, University oI Virginia.
Mckay, K. N., Safayeni, R.R., Buzacott, 1.A., (1988), Job-shop Scheduling Theory:
What Is Relevant?, InterIaces 18 (84).
ME1ABI, O.O., SINGH, N. (1997), A Iramework Ior enterprise-wide integration, Int. J.
Computer Integrated ManuIacturing, 1997, V ol. 10, N o. 1-4, 212+ 220.
MESA ( 1997), MES explained: a high level vision. White Paper 6, ManuIacturing Execution
Systems Association, Pittsburgh, PA.
Monfared, M.A.S., Steiner, S.1. (1995), Intelligent ManuIacturing Systems: A Case in
Production Control, IMechE ConIerence Transactions 1995-3 , London, pp 115- 121.
Monfared, M.A.S., Yang, 1.B., Steiner, S.1. (1996), Field Survey From Experts: A
Perspective on Automation oI Scheduling and Control Activities, Technical Report,
School oI ManuIacturing and Mechanical Engineering, the University oI Birmingham,
Birmingham, England.
Monfared, M.A.S. (1997), A Study oI Control Algorithms Ior Some Classes oI
Intelligent ManuIacturing Systems, PhD Dissertation, School oI ManuIacturing and
Mechanical Engineering, the University oI Birmingham, UK.
Monfared, M.A.S., Steiner, S.1. (2000), Fuzzy Adaptive Scheduling and Control
Systems, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, No.115, pp.231- 246.
Monfared, M.A. S., Yang, 1. B. (2004), Design oI an Intelligent ManuIacturing Scheduling and Control
System Using Fuzzy Logic: Sensitivity Analysis and Parameter Optimization, Int. J. oI Intelligent and
Fuzzy Systems, Volume 15, No . 2, pp 89 - 104.
Monfared, M.A. S., Yang, 1. B . (2005), Multi Level Intelligent Scheduling and Control
System Ior An Automated Flow Shop ManuIacturing Environment, Int. J. Production
Research, Volume 43, No .1, pp 147- 168.
Prabhu, V.V., Duffie N.A. (1999), Nonlinear Dynamics in Distributed Arrival Time Control
oI Heterarchical ManuIacturing Systems, IEEE Trans. on Control, T7 :( 6), 724- 730, Nov .
Rogers, R.V. and Whites, K.P., (1991), Algebraic Mathematical Programming, and
Models oI the Deterministic Job-Shop Scheduling Problem, IEEE Trans. on Man,
System and Cybernetics 21(3 ) 693- 697.
Roy, D., Anciaux, D. (2001), Shop-Iloor control: a multi-agents approach, Int. J. Computer
Integrated ManuIacturing, Vol. 14, N o. 6, 535544.
Senehi, M. K. , Kramer, T. R. (1998), A Iramework Ior control architectures, Int. J.
Computer Integrated ManuIacturing, 1998, V ol. 11, N o. 4, 347+ 363.
Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and Control.
M.A.S. Monfared/ J.B. Yang 38
Shantikumar, 1. G., Buzacott, 1.A., ( 1981), Open Queuing Network Models oI Dynamic Job
Shops, Int. J. Production Research ., 19(3 ) 255- 266.
Shobrys, D. E., White, D. C. (2003), Planning, Scheduling and Control Systems: Why Can`t
They Work Together, PSE ConIerence; July.
Suarez, O.A., Foronda, 1.A.L., Abreu, F.M. (1998), Standard based Iramework Ior the deve lopment
oI manuIacturing control systems , Int. J. Computer Integrated ManuIacturing, Vol. 11, No. 5, 401 +
415.
Sun, H., Frick, 1. (1999), A shiIt Irom CIM to CHIM, Int. J. Computer Integrated
ManuIacturing, Vol. 12, N o. 5, 461+ 469.
Suresh, V., Chaudhuri, D. (1993), Dynamic Scheduling - A Survey oI Research, Int. J. oI
Production Economics, vol. 32, pp53- 63.
TATA (2004), ManuIacturing Execution Systems, A Concept Note, TATA
CONSULTANCY SERVICES, India.
Trentesaux, D., Pesin, P., Tahan, C. (2000) , Distributed ArtiIicial Intelligence Ior FMS
Scheduling, Control and Design Support, Journal oI Intelligent ManuIacturing, 11:( 6),
573- 589, Dec .
Wu, B.(2000) , ManuIacturing and supply systems management a uniIied Iramework oI
systems design and operation (London: Springer-Verlag).
Wu, B. (2001), Strategy analysis and system design within an overall Iramework oI
manuIacturing system management, Int. J. Computer Integrated ManuIacturing, 2001, V ol. 14,
No. 3, 319341.
Zimmemann, H. 1. (1988), Fuzzy Mathematical Programming, In G.P.Vilaplana, Ed.
Investigacion Operativa Universidal del Parsvasco.
Zweben, M., Fox, M. (1994) , Intelligent Scheduling , Morgan KauImann.