Slides prepared by John Loucks

2002 South-Western/Thomson Learning TM

1 1

Chapter 16

Manufacturing Operations Scheduling

3 4 5 6 7 8 B2 [----------] E5 [-------------P9 [---] D1 [-------X8 ----] C6 [-

Overview

Scheduling Process-Focused Manufacturing Scheduling Product-Focused Manufacturing Computerized Scheduling Systems Wrap-Up: What World-Class Companies Do

Scheduling Process-Focused Manufacturing

Scheduling Decisions
Scheduling at Washburn Guitar, Inc.

Process-Focused Manufacturing

Process-focused factories are often called job shops. A job shops work centers are organized around similar types of equipment or operations. Workers and machines are flexible and can be assigned to and reassigned to many different orders. Job shops are complex to schedule.

Scheduling and Shop-Floor Decisions

Master Production Schedule (MPS) Material Requirements Plan (MRP) Planned Order Releases Report Capacity Requirements Plan (CRP) Work Center Loading and Overtime Plan Product Design and Process Plans OrderProcessing or Routing Plans Assignment of Orders to Work Centers

Day-to-Day Scheduling and Shop-Floor Decisions

7

Pre-production Planning

Design the product in customer order Plan the operations the product must pass through ..... this is the routing plan Work moves between operations on a move ticket

Common Shop Floor Control Activities

The production control department controls and monitors order progress through the shop. Assigns priority to orders Issues dispatching lists Tracks WIP and keeps systems updated Controls input-output between work centers Measures efficiency, utilization, and productivity of shop

Hewlett-Packards Shop-Floor Control System

Work orders Work order scheduling Work order tracking

Capacity requirements planning

Routings and work centers

Shopfloor dispatching

Workin-process control

Labor and equipment requirements

Standard production costs

Prioritized queue lists

Input/ output analysis Slide 10 of 31

Shop Floor Planning and Control

Input-Output Control Gantt Chart Finite and Infinite Loading Forward and Backward Scheduling

11

Input-Output Control

Input-output control identifies problems such as insufficient or excessive capacity or any issues that prevents the order from being completed on time. Input-output control report compares planned and actual input, planned and actual output, and planned and actual WIP in each time period

12

Input-Output Control

Input-output control identifies problems such as insufficient or excessive capacity, bottlenecks or any issues that prevents the order from being completed on time

Input

Work Center

Output

Planned input should never exceed planned output

13

Input-Output Control Report

Week: Planned input: labor-hrs Actual input: labor-hrs Cumulative deviation Planned output: labor-hrs Actual output: labor-hrs Cumulative deviation Planned ending WIP: l-h Actual ending WIP: l-h 70 -1 1 2 3 4

100 50 40 100 50 40 30 80 -50 -60 -70 -90 120 70 50 100 110 50 20 70 -10 -30 -60 -90 50 10 30 0 20 10 20 20
14

Gantt Charts

Gantt charts are useful tools to coordinate jobs through shop; graphical summary of job status and loading of operations

15

Gantt Charts
Work Centers Machining Mon. Tue. Wed. Thu. Fri. Sat.
E C H H F G

Fabrication
Assembly Test

D
C C

E
D

F
E D

Scheduled

Progress

Setup, Maint.
16

Assigning Jobs to Work Centers: How Many Jobs/Day/Work Center

Infinite loading Assigns jobs to work centers without regard to capacity Unless excessive capacity exists, long queues occur Finite loading Uses work center capacity to schedule orders Popular scheduling approach Integral part of CRP

17

Assigning Jobs to Work Centers: Which Job Gets Built First?

Forward scheduling Jobs are given earliest available time slot in operation excessive WIP usually results Backward scheduling Start with promise date and work backward through operations reviewing lead times to determine when a job has to pass through each operation Less WIP but must have accurate lead times

18

Order-Sequencing Problems

Sequencing Rules Criteria for Evaluating Sequencing Rules Comparison of Sequencing Rules Controlling Changeover Costs Minimizing Total Production Time

19

Order-Sequencing Problems

We want to determine the sequence in which we will process a group of waiting orders at a work center. Many different sequencing rules can be followed in setting the priorities among orders. There are numerous criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the sequencing rules.

20

Order-Sequencing Rules

First-Come First-Served (FCFS) Next job to process is the one that arrived first among the waiting jobs Shortest Processing Time (SPT) Next job to process is the one with the shortest processing time among the waiting jobs Earliest Due Date (EDD) Next job to process is the one with the earliest due (promised finished) date among the waiting jobs
21

Order-Sequencing Rules

Least Slack (LS) Next job to process is the one with the least [time to due date minus total remaining processing time] among the waiting jobs Critical Ratio (CR) Next job to process is the one with the least [time to due date divided by total remaining processing time] among the waiting jobs Least Changeover Cost (LCC) Sequence the waiting jobs such that total machine changeover cost is minimized
22

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Sequencing Rules

Average flow time - average amount of time jobs spend in shop Average number of jobs in system Average job lateness - average amount of time jobs completion date exceeds its promised delivery date Changeover cost - total cost of making machine changeovers for group of jobs

23

Experience Says:

First-come-first-served Performs poorly on most evaluation criteria Does give customers a sense of fair play Shortest processing time Performs well on most evaluation criteria But have to watch out for long-processing-time orders getting continuously pushed back Critical ratio Works well on average job lateness criterion May focus too much on jobs that cannot be completed on time, causing others to be late too.

24

Example: Sequencing Rules

Use the FCFS, SPT, and Critical Ratio rules to sequence the five jobs below. Evaluate the rules on the bases of average flow time, average number of jobs in the system, and average job lateness. Job Processing Time Time to Promised Completion A 6 hours 10 hours B 12 16 C 9 8 D 14 14 E 8 7
25

Example: Sequencing Rules

FCFS Rule

A>B>C>D>E

Processing Promised Flow Job Time Completion Time A 6 10 6 B 12 16 18 C 9 8 27 D 14 14 41 E 8 7 49 49 141

Lateness 0 2 19 27 42 90

26

Example: Sequencing Rules

FCFS Rule Performance

Average flow time: 141/5 = 28.2 hours Average number of jobs in the system: 141/49 = 2.88 jobs Average job lateness: 90/5 = 18.0 hours

27

Example: Sequencing Rules

SPT Rule

A>E>C>B>D

Processing Promised Flow Job Time Completion Time A 6 10 6 E 8 7 14 C 9 8 23 B 12 16 35 D 14 14 49 49 127

Lateness 0 7 15 19 35 76
28

Example: Sequencing Rules

SPT Rule Performance

Average flow time: 127/5 = 25.4 hours Average number of jobs in the system: 127/49 = 2.59 jobs Average job lateness: 76/5 = 15.2 hours

29

Example: Sequencing Rules

Critical Ratio Rule

E>C>D>B>A Lateness 1 9 17 27 39 93
30

Processing Promised Flow Job Time Completion Time E (.875) 8 7 8 C (.889) 9 8 17 D (1.00) 14 14 31 B (1.33) 12 16 43 A (1.67) 6 10 49 49 148

Example: Sequencing Rules

Critical Ratio Rule Performance

Average flow time: 148/5 = 29.6 hours Average number of jobs in the system: 148/49 = 3.02 jobs Average job lateness: 93/5 = 18.6 hours

31

Example: Sequencing Rules

Comparison of Rule Performance Average Flow Time 28.2 25.4 29.6 Average Number of Jobs in System 2.88 2.59 3.02 Average Job Lateness 18.0 15.2 18.6

Rule FCFS SPT CR

SPT rule was superior for all 3 performance criteria.

32

Scheduling Decisions
Priority Rules

33

Controlling Changeover Costs

Changeover costs - costs of changing a processing step in a production system over from one job to another Changing machine settings Getting job instructions Changing material Changing tools Usually, jobs should be processed in a sequence that minimizes changeover costs

34

Controlling Changeover Costs

Job Sequencing Heuristic First, select the lowest changeover cost among all changeovers (this establishes the first two jobs in the sequence) The next job to be selected will have the lowest changeover cost among the remaining jobs that follow the previously selected job

35

Example: Minimizing Changeover Costs

Hardtimes Heat Treating Service has 5 jobs waiting to be processed at work center #11. The jobto-job changeover costs are listed below. What should the job sequence be? Jobs That Precede A B C D E A -65 80 50 62 95 -- 69 67 65 Jobs B 92 71 -67 75 That C 85 105 65 -95 Follow D E 125 75 95 105 -36

Example: Minimizing Changeover Costs

Develop a job sequence: A follows D ($50 is the least c.o. cost) C follows A ($92 is the least following c.o. cost) B follows C ($69 is the least following c.o. cost) E follows B (E is the only remaining job)

Job sequence is

DACBE

Total changeover cost = $50 + 92 + 69 + 75 = $286

37

Minimizing Total Production Time

Sequencing n Jobs through Two Work Centers When several jobs must be sequenced through two work centers, we may want to select a sequence that must hold for both work centers Johnsons rule can be used to find the sequence that minimizes the total production time through both work centers

38

Johnsons Rule
1. Select the shortest processing time in either work center 2. If the shortest time is at the first work center, put the job in the first unassigned slot in the schedule. If the shortest time is at the second work center, put the job in the last unassigned slot in the schedule. 3. Eliminate the job assigned in step 2. 4. Repeat steps 1-3, filling the schedule from the front and back, until all jobs have been assigned a slot.
39

Example: Minimizing Total Production Time

It is early Saturday morning and The Finest Detail has five automobiles waiting for detailing service. Each vehicle goes through a thorough exterior wash/wax process and then an interior vacuum/shampoo/polish process. The entire detailing crew must stay until the last vehicle is completed. If the five vehicles are sequenced so that the total processing time is minimized, when can the crew go home. They will start the first vehicle at 7:30 a.m. Time estimates are shown on the next slide.
40

Example: Minimizing Total Production Time

Job
Cadillac Bentley Lexus Porsche Infiniti

Exterior Time (hrs.) 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.5

Interior Time (hrs.) 2.5 2.4 2.2 1.6 1.4

41

Example: Minimizing Total Production Time

Johnsons Rule Least Time 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.1

Job
Infiniti Porsche Lexus Cadillac Bentley

Work Center Interior Interior Exterior Exterior Exterior

Schedule Slot 5th 4th 1st 2nd 3rd

42

Example: Minimizing Total Production Time

1.9 L Idle C L 1.9

3.9 B C 4.1

6.0 P

7.8 I B

9.3 Idle P 9.0

12.0

Exterior
Interior
0

I 10.6 12.0

6.6

It will take from 7:30 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. (not allowing for breaks) to complete the five vehicles.

43

Scheduling Product-Focused Manufacturing

44

Product-Focused Scheduling

Two general types of product-focused production: Batch - large batches of several standardized products produced Continuous - few products produced continuously.... minimal changeovers

45

Scheduling Decisions

If products are produced in batches on the same production lines: How large should production lot size be for each product? When should machine changeovers be scheduled? If products are produced to a delivery schedule: At any point in time, how many products should have passed each operation if time deliveries are to be on schedule?

46

Batch Scheduling
EOQ for Production Lot Size How many units of a single product should be included in each production lot to minimize annual inventory carrying cost and annual machine changeover cost?

47

Example: EOQ for Production Lots

CPC, Inc. produces four standard electronic assemblies on a produce-to-stock basis. The annual demand, setup cost, carrying cost, demand rate, and production rate for each assembly are shown on the next slide. a) What is the economic production lot size for each assembly? b) What percentage of the production lot of power units is being used during its production run? c) For the power unit, how much time will pass between production setups?
48

Example: EOQ for Production Lots

Annual Setup Carry Demand Prod. Demand Cost Cost Rate Rate Power Unit Converter Equalizer Transformer 5,000 $1,200 10,000 600 12,000 1,500 6,000 400 $6 4 10 2 20 40 48 24 200 300 100 50

49

Example: EOQ for Production Lots

Economic Production Lot Sizes

EOQ = (2DS/C[p/(p-d)] EOQ1 = (2(5,000)(1,200)/6[200/(200-20)] 1,490.7 EOQ2 = (2(10,000)(600)/4[300/(300-40)] 1,860.5 EOQ3 = (2(12,000)(1,500)/10[100/(100-48)] 2,631.2 EOQ4 = (2(6,000)(400)/2[50/(50-24)] 2,148.3
50

Example: EOQ for Production Lots

% of Power Units Used During Production d/p = 20/200 = .10 or 10%

Time Between Setups for Power Units EOQ/d = 1,490.7/20 = 74.535 days

51

Batch Scheduling

Limitations of EOQ Production Lot Size Uses annual ballpark estimates of demand and production rates, not the most current estimates Not a comprehensive scheduling technique only considers a single product at a time Multiple products usually share the same scarce production capacity

52

Batch Scheduling

Run-Out Method Attempts to use the total production capacity available to produce just enough of each product so that if all production stops, inventory of each product runs out at the same time

53

Example: Run-Out Method

QuadCycle, Inc. assembles, in batches, four bicycle models on the same assembly line. The production manager must develop an assembly schedule for March. There are 1,000 hours available per month for bicycle assembly work. Using the run-out method and the pertinent data shown on the next slide, develop an assembly schedule for March.

54

Example: Run-Out Method

Assembly March April Inventory Time Forec. Forec. On-Hand Required Demand Demand (Units) (Hr/Unit) (Units) (Units) 100 600 500 200 .3 .2 .6 .1 400 900 1,500 500 400 900 1,500 500

Bicycle
Razer Splicer Tracker HiLander

55

Example: Run-Out Method

Convert inventory and forecast into assembly hours

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Assemb. Invent. Time On-Hand Reqd. Bicycle (Units) (Hr/Unit)

March March Forec. Invent. Forec. Dem. On-Hand Dem. (Units) (Hours) (Hours)

Razer Splicer Tracker HiLander

100 600 500 200

.3 .2 .6 .1
(2) x (4)

400 900 1,500 500

Total

30 120 300 20
470

120 180 900 50

1,250
56

(1) x (2)

Example: Run-Out Method

Compute aggregate run-out time in months Aggregate Run-out Time = = [(Total Inventory On-Hand in Hours) + (Total Assembly Hours Available per Month) - (Marchs Forecasted Demand in Hours)] / (Aprils Forecasted Demand in Hours) = (470 + 1,000 - 1,250)/1,250 = .176 months

57

Example: Run-Out Method

Develop Marchs Production Schedule

(6) (7) (8) (9)

Bicycle
Razer Splicer Tracker HiLander
(3) x .176

Marchs Marchs Desired Desired Assembly Ending End.Inv. Required Time Inventory & Forec. Production Allocated (Units) (Units) (Units) (Hours) 70 158 264 88
(3) + (6)

470 1,058 1,764 588

(7) - (1)

370 458 1,264 388

(8) x (2)

111.0 91.6 758.4 38.8 999.8

58

Computerized Scheduling

Develops detailed schedules for each work center indicating starting and ending times Develops departmental schedules Generates modified schedules as orders move Many packages available.... select one most appropriate for your business

59

Scheduling Decisions
Visual Control Rules at Zytec, Inc.

60

Wrap-Up: World-Class Practice

In process-focused factories: MRP II refined.... promises are met, shop loading is near optimal, costs are low, quality is high In product-focused factories: EOQ for standard parts containers, this sets S, lot sizes are lower, inventories slashed, customer service improved Scheduling is integral part of a computer information system

61

End of Chapter 16

62