Scheduling across the supply chain

Abstract

Work undertaken in collaboration with BPICS, Cincom (UK) Ltd and ICI Engineering supported by funding from the EPSRC (CDP). The project reviewed planning and scheduling procedures in over 30 industrial companies over a two‐year period to establish best practice in shop‐floor scheduling and to identify the key factors for scheduling success. Outlines the research approach briefly to provide a framework for the analysis of scheduling performance by industrial sector and by scheduling tool. This includes a powerful method for the performance measurement of supply‐chain management systems which allows the comparison of effectiveness in different operating environments and when using a variety of scheduling approaches. Important elements of the project were the review and comparison of scheduling performance in conventional MRPII environments (usually a manual activity based on expediting or the use of shop floor control) with that of more recent finite capacity‐based tools and a classification of scheduling approaches. Some clear lessons have been learned. Concludes by presenting these along with an outline of the success factors which underpin effective scheduling performance in the range of best practice companies identified.

Shop floor characteristics influencing the use of advanced planning and scheduling systems

“…data that are fit for use by people or groups who use data (Strong et al 1997) has been highlighted as an important component in the performance of implemented information systems (Jarke et al 2003). According to Little et al (1995), the use of more advanced scheduling tools is likely to produce benefits only if operated in a structured and disciplined manner since these systems relay on a significant volume of detailed and accurate data. APICS (2007) highlights the importance of the collection and validation of data in all planning activities.…”

“…Yet another factor important to consider in the use of more advanced scheduling methods is the quality of data entered into the system. Little et al (1995) stress that before considering the adoption of computerised scheduling tools, a manufacturer should carefully consider whether a suitable data collection capability is in place, providing timely data of sufficient integrity. The phrase 'garbage in, garbage out' has been used since the early days of computing and applies even more today.…”

“…However, from an optimisation point of view, it may be argued that decisions should be centralised as much as possible. According to Little et al (1995), lack of discipline from operators is a major problem; in order to gain benefits from the production, schedule operators should follow the dispatch list in detail. Some APS systems suffer from the so-called 'final-state' problem, meaning that small changes in the status of the shop floor cause major changes in the production schedule (Kreipl and Dickersbach 2008).…”

Implementing manufacturing resource planning in a Greek aerospace company

“…Underpinning the MRP II approach is an accurate future forecast of anticipated demand that is then consumed by actual customer orders. Having made an appraisal of the long‐ and medium‐term demands, the majority of companies produce weekly or daily work‐to‐lists from their computerised systems and pass them to their operational staff to use for local scheduling decisions (Little et al , 1995). The MRP II approach requires substantial data processing capability and can become a very complex series of working procedures.…”

Supply chain scheduling using distributed parallel simulation

“…Supply chain scheduling plays an important role in supply chains (Little et al , 1995). Traditionally, centralised supply chain scheduling has been applied to this purpose.…”