Professional Documents
Culture Documents
13 - Manufacturing Resource Planning: Dr. Ron Tibben-Lembke
13 - Manufacturing Resource Planning: Dr. Ron Tibben-Lembke
Historical Perspective
ERP- Enterprise Resource Planning MRP II Manufacturing Resource Planning mrp material requirements planning
Take future demands, factor in lead times (time phase), compare to on hand, order Determine order size and timing Control and plan purchasing vs. OSWO inventory management
Closed-Loop MRP
Capacity Consideration:
Part routings Calculate loads on each work station See if scheduled load exceeds capacity Lead-time long enough to allow some shuffling to make plan feasible
A method for the effective planning of all resources of a manufacturing company (APICS
def.)
Financial accounting incorporated Sales Operations Planning Simulate capacity requirements of different possible Master Production Schedules
1989, $1.2B MRPII sales in U.S., one third of total software sales
Success?
My computer talks to yours, tells you exactly what I want to order, when You fill out a form, very compressed message sent, viewed as form Software, hardware expensive to implement
Sample Purchase Transaction ST88850*1 BEG*00*NE*00498765**010698 PID*X*08*MC**Large Widget P01**5*DZ*4.55*TD CTT*1 SE*1*1 Transaction Set identifier Beginning of Segment Description of Product Baseline Item Data Transaction Totals End of Segment
XML
XML provides self-describing information. Much easier, faster to implement or modify than EDI. Expected to replace EDI. Standardization through RosettaNet efforts
ERP differences
Material planning Capacity planning Product design Information warehousing
All functions in the entire company operate off of one common set of data Instantaneous updating, visibility
Historical Perspective
User PCs
Application Server(s)
Database Server(s)
ERP Sales
$3.2 B SAP
Fortune survey: 44% reported spending at least 4 times as much on implementation as on software
ERP Challenges
Accuracy of data
Drives entire system Ownership of / responsibility for
ERP Novel?
Goal-like novel Hero learns more about ERP, deciding if it is right for his company Company rushes through installation General introduction to ERP systems, what they do, how different from MRP SAP R/3 screen shots
Why ERP?
Flexibility
High
Low
High
Centralization
Low
ERP Considerations
1. Control: how much centralization, drill-down visibility? 2. Structure: How large & dispersed, how tightly integrated does it need to be? 3. Database: desired structure, accessibility 4. Customization: out/in source, how willing? Ability to modify in real time. Creating in-house experts vs. continued consulting dependence 5. Best practices: how willing to embrace?
Source: Carol A. Ptak ERP: Tools, Techniques and Applications for Integrating the Supply Chain, St. Lucie Press, APICS Series on Resource Management, 1999, p. 252.
How do we
MRP Table
1
Gross Requirements Scheduled receipts (begin) Projected Available Balance (ending) Net Requirements Planned Order Receipts Planned Order Releases
6 units short
2 10
40 10
50
4 54 44 44 4
MRP Table
1
Gross Requirements Scheduled receipts (begin) Projected Available Balance (ending) Net Requirements Planned Order Receipts Planned Order Releases
Order 50 units week earlier
2 10
40 10
50
4 54 44 44 4
6 50 50
Ending Inventory
1
Gross Requirements Scheduled receipts (begin) Projected Available Balance (ending) Net Requirements Planned Order Receipts Planned Order Releases
Ending inventory
2 10
40 10
50
4 54 44 44 4 44
6 50 50
Terminology
Not on-hand (that may be greater) Tells how many will be available (in ATP sense) Only when material has been committed to their production Move to scheduled receipts as late as possible Preserves flexibility
457 Top handle (wood) 1118 Top handle Coupling (steel) 129 Top Handle Bracket (steel) 082 Nail (2)
BOM Explosion
457 Top handle (wood) 1118 Top handle Coupling (steel) 129 Top Handle Bracket (steel) 082 Nail (2)
Net Requirements
Part Description Top handle assy Top handle Nail (2 required) Bracket Assy Top bracket Top coupling Inv 25 22 4 27 15 39 Sch Gross Rec Req -100 25 50 --15 Net Req 75
Net Requirements
Part Description Top handle assy Top handle Nail (2 required) Bracket Assy Top bracket Top coupling Inv 25 22 4 27 15 39
Sch Rec -25 50 --15 Gross Req 100 75 150 75 Net Req 75 28 96 48
457 Top handle (wood) 1118 Top handle Coupling (steel) 129 Top Handle Bracket (steel) 082 Nail (2)
Net Requirements
Part Description Top handle assy Top handle Nail (2 required) Bracket Assy Top bracket Top coupling
Sch Inv 25 22 4 27 15 39 Gross Rec Req -100 25 75 50 150 -75 -48 15 48 Net Req 75 28 96 48 33 --
Timing of Production
13122 Top handle LT = 2 Gross Req Sch receipts Proj. Avail Bal (ending) Net Req Pl Order Rec Pl Order Rel
2 20
4 10
6 7 20 5
9 10 35 10
25 25
5 5 5
13122 Top handle LT = 2 Gross Req Sch receipts Proj. Avail Bal (ending) Net Req Pl Order Rec Pl Order Rel
2 20
4 10
6 7 20 5
9 10 35 10
25 25
0 5 5
0 0 20 20
0 0 35 10 35 10
20
35 10
2 20
4 10
6 7 20 5
9 10 35 10
LT = 2 Gross Req Sch receipts Proj. Avail Bal (ending) Net Req Pl Order Rec Pl Order Rel
2 5
3 25
4 20
5 5
7 8 35 10
10
22 22
LT = 2 Gross Req Sch receipts Proj. Avail Bal (ending) Net Req Pl Order Rec Pl Order Rel
2 5
3 25
4 20
5 5
7 8 35 10
10
22 22 17
LT = 2 Gross Req Sch receipts Proj. Avail Bal (ending) Net Req Pl Order Rec Pl Order Rel
2 5
3 25
4 20
5 5
7 8 35 10
10
22 22 17 42
22 17 17 18 10 18 10 18 10
LT = 1 Lot Size = 50 Gross Req Sch receipts Proj. Avail Bal (ending) Net Req Pl Order Rec Pl Order Rel
1 50 4 54
2 10
4 5 40 10
7 8 70 20
10
LT = 1 Lot Size = 50 Gross Req Sch receipts Proj. Avail Bal (ending) Net Req Pl Order Rec Pl Order Rel
1 50
2 10
4 5 40 10
7 8 70 20
10
4 54 44 44
4 6 50 50
LT = 1 Lot Size = 50 Gross Req Sch receipts Proj. Avail Bal (ending) Net Req Pl Order Rec Pl Order Rel
1 50
2 10
4 5 40 10
7 8 70 20
10
4 54 44 44
44 6 50
26 20
50
LT = 1 Lot Size = 50 Gross Req Sch receipts Proj. Avail Bal (ending) Net Req Pl Order Rec Pl Order Rel
1 50
2 10
4 5 40 10
7 8 70 20
10
4 54 44 44
44 44 24 6 26 50 50
50
LT = 2 Gross Req Sch receipts Proj. Avail Bal (ending) Net Req Pl Order Rec Pl Order Rel 27
10
LT = 2 Gross Req Sch receipts Proj. Avail Bal (ending) Net Req Pl Order Rec Pl Order Rel 27
2 5
10
LT = 2 Gross Req Sch receipts Proj. Avail Bal (ending) Net Req Pl Order Rec Pl Order Rel 27
2 5
4 20
5 5
7 8 35 10
10
LT = 2 Gross Req Sch receipts Proj. Avail Bal (ending) Net Req Pl Order Rec Pl Order Rel 27
2 5
4 20
5 5
7 8 35 10
10
22 22
2 3 3 35 10 35 10
35 10
LT = 1 Gross Req Sch receipts Proj. Avail Bal (ending) Net Req Pl Order Rec Pl Order Rel 15
3 3
5 6 7 35 10
10
LT = 1 Gross Req Sch receipts Proj. Avail Bal (ending) Net Req Pl Order Rec Pl Order Rel
3 3
5 6 7 35 10
10
15 15 15 12 12 23 10 23 10 23 10
LT = 3 Safety Stock = 20 Gross Req Sch receipts Proj. Avail Bal (ending) Net Req Pl Order Rec Pl Order Rel 39
3 3
5 6 35 10
10
LT = 3 Safety Stock = 20 Gross Req Sch receipts Proj. Avail Bal (ending) Net Req Pl Order Rec Pl Order Rel
2 15
3 3
5 6 7 35 10
10
39 39 54 51 51 16 4 4 4
LT = 3 Safety Stock = 20 Gross Req Sch receipts Proj. Avail Bal (ending) Net Req Pl Order Rec Pl Order Rel
2 15
3 3
5 6 7 35 10
10
39 39 54 51 51 20 20 20 20 20 20 4 10 4 4 10 10
Other considerations
Order quantities
MRP Priorities
First:
Get installed, part of ongoing managerial process, get users trained Understand critical linkages with other areas Achieve high levels of data integrity Link MRP with front end, engine, back end
Then:
Determine order quantities more exactly Buffering concepts Nervousness
Ordering Policies
Dependent Demand
Not independent demand Discrete not continuous Lumpy may have surges
Complexity
Reduces costs ordering & holding Anything other than lot-for-lot Increases lumpiness downstream
Assumptions
All requirements must be available at start of period All future requirements must be met, and cant be backordered System operated on periodic basis (e.g. weekly) Requirements properly offset for LTs Parts used uniformly through a period
Example Demands
Economic Order Quantity Periodic Order Quantity Part Period Balancing Wagner Within
Order cost = $300 per order = CP Inventory Carrying cost = $2 / unit/ week = CH Avg Demand = 92.1 / wk = D
Week number Requirements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 10 10 15 20 70 180 250 270 230 40 0 10
EOQ
Minimizes total ordering & holding costs Assumes demand same every period
2CP D ELS CH
Where:
Avg. demand and holding cost need same time units (e.g. per week)
EOQ
1 10 166
2 10
3 15
4 20
5 70
10 40
11 0
12 10
EOQ
Week number Requirements Order Quant Begin Inv Ending Inv 1 10 166 156 146 131 111 41 2 10 3 15 4 20 5 6 7 8 9 10 70 180 250 270 230 40 166 223 270 230 166 27 0 0 0 126 126 116 11 0 12 10
166 156 146 131 111 207 250 270 230 166 126 126
EOQ
Gave good tradeoff between ordering & holding resulted in a lot of leftovers.
Only order enough to get through a certain number of periods no leftovers How many? EOQ / avg. demand
2 10 10 0 5
3 15 35 35 20 28
4 20
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 70 180 250 270 230 40 0 10 250 520 270 10 20 250 180 520 270 270 40 10 10 0 180 0 270 0 40 0 10 0 10 215 90 395 135 155 20 10 5
15
Increase the quantity until holding costs equal the ordering cost
2 10 3 15 4 20 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 70 180 250 270 230 40 0 10
Order 10 holding = 10/2*2 = 10 Order 20 holding = 10 + 10*1.5*2 = $40 Order 35 = 40 + 15*2.5*2 = $115 Order 55 = 115 + 20*3.5*2 = $255 Order 125 = 255 + 70*4.5*2 = $85
2 10 0
3 15 0
4 20 0
Week 5: Order 70: Holding = 10*0.5*2 = $10 Order 250: 10 + 180*1.5*2 = $550 So I could:
Order 250 units, pay $300 in ordering and $540 holding, for a total of $840, Order 70 now, 180 next week, and pay $600 in ordering and $10 + 180*0.5*2=180 in holding = $790 Seems like the second option is best.
When should we place a separate order? If 1.5*$2*D > 300. D>300/3 = 100 Whenever demand is >= 100, we might as well place a separate order. What about week 9? Order 230: holding = 230*0.5*2 = $230 Order 270: = 230 + 40*1.5*2 = $350 Order 280: = 350 + 10*3.5*2 = $420
Wagner-Within
Mathematically optimal Work back from planning period farthest in the future Consider all possibilities:
Order for 5, 4 and 5, 3 and 4, then 5, etc. Uses dynamic programming similar to linear programming
Simulation Experiments