Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/232951369
CITATIONS READS
30 245
2 authors:
All content following this page was uploaded by Erinç Albey on 25 July 2014.
To cite this article: Erinç Albey & Ümit Bilge (2011) A hierarchical approach to FMS planning and
control with simulation-based capacity anticipation, International Journal of Production Research,
49:11, 3319-3342, DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2010.482570
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
International Journal of Production Research
Vol. 49, No. 11, 1 June 2011, 3319–3342
RESEARCH ARTICLE
A hierarchical approach to FMS planning and control with
simulation-based capacity anticipation
Erinç Albey and Ümit Bilge*
1. Introduction
For many production planning and control domains, the hierarchical planning approach is
regarded as more suitable, tractable and practical than a monolithic approach because of
its handling of the inherent set of complex and interrelated decisions with different time
intervals and detail levels. The basic concepts of the hierarchical planning paradigm date
back to Anthony (1965), and an extensive literature has evolved along three main
milestones. The Hierarchical Production Planning (HPP) models, based on Hax and Meal
(1975), offer a pure top-down hierarchy of deterministic optimisation models where the
solution to the higher-level problem constrains the succeeding lower-level problem.
The solution obtained at a higher level based on certain aggregations is disaggregated
in the lower levels. In the hierarchical control approach introduced by Bertrand et al.
(1990), the information flow among levels is not in a single direction and allows the lower
level to improve its objective by negotiating with the higher level concerning acceptable
workloads. The organisational planning hierarchy (OPH) developed by Schneeweiss
(1995), on the other hand, proposes building an anticipation of the lower-level model
within the higher-level model to achieve integration among the hierarchical levels.
artificial neural networks (Rohde 2004), the exponential smoothing method (Selcuk
et al. 2006), clearing functions (Graves 1986, Karmarkar 1989, Hwang and Uzsoy 2005,
Asmundsson et al. 2006) or simulation (Hung and Leachman 1996, Byrne and Bakir 1999,
Kim and Kim 2001, Byrne and Hossain 2005, Venkateswaran and Son 2005) are some of
these approaches. While these models and frameworks have been developed conceptually,
the relatively few performance evaluation results reported are mostly for classical
manufacturing environments (Pahl et al. 2007).
Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMSs) have attracted the attention of manufacturers
in recent decades due to their suitability for today’s highly dynamic and customer-oriented
manufacturing environments. Planning and control problems related to FMSs have
attracted researchers since the late 1970s due to their multi-dimensionality, abundance
and complexity. Over the years, several studies have tried to uncover the dynamics of
such systems by offering definitions, models, and solution approaches. However, most of
these studies usually concentrate on solving the short-term planning problems regard-
ing the FMSs (or FMS set-up problems), and very little effort has been expended to fit
them within a hierarchical framework that integrates aggregate planning, short-term
planning and control. Furthermore, the above circularity syndrome has not yet
been studied in the FMS context, although in a manufacturing environment such as the
one targeted by an FMS, with a large variety of items to be produced using several
shared resources along diverse routings, it is a real challenge to anticipate the effective
capacity.
This study aims to develop a generic approach for the overall production planning and
control activity in an FMS possessing several types of manufacturing flexibility, such as
the product-related and process-related flexibilities as defined by Benjaafar and
Ramakrishnan (1996). The proposed three-level hierarchical framework works in a rolling
horizon environment and uses simulation to anticipate the effective capacity of the FMS
under a given plan, thus offering a closed-loop structure.
This architecture is first implemented as a generic test-bed that allows plugging in
different models and solution methodologies at each level, along with different loop and
feedback mechanisms. Specific models and approaches are then proposed for each level, as
well as a specific mechanism that forces convergence of the simulation-based capacity
anticipation methodology. The proposed FMS planning tool is tested under different
scenarios. The experimental results demonstrate the merits of a hierarchical structure with
capacity anticipation capability.
The basic novelties of the study can be summarised as follows.
International Journal of Production Research 3321
. A new aggregate model specifically developed for an FMS is proposed. The model
recognises tools as critical aggregate resources along with machines, and also
explicitly takes the inherent product-related flexibility (i.e. alternative process
plans) of the FMS into account in utilising the aggregate capacity effectively.
. A new FMS loading model is proposed. The model offers a network-flow
structure to allow handling of alternative process plans as well as the work-in-
process (WIP) so that it can effectively be used in a multi-period planning
environment.
. Using simulation as a planning tool for anticipating the effective capacity in an
FMS context is quite different from a similar approach for the classical
manufacturing domain. The fact that the tool configurations (i.e. loading) of
the machines in an FMS are variable and may change at every anticipation
iteration requires specific attention.
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 17:54 07 May 2014
2. Literature review
2.1 Production planning in FMS
Production planning in a classical manufacturing system is typically modelled as a
two-level hierarchy consisting of an aggregate planning level and a detailed scheduling/
control level (see the review of Venkateswaran and Son (2005)). For an FMS, on the other
hand, the classical hierarchy should be adapted to model the specific features of such a
system. Namely, a medium level to handle the problems that are specifically defined for
FMSs is necessary. The problems in this category are related to the management of the
flexibilities the system possesses. These problems can be called FMS set-up problems, and
they are well defined in the milestone paper of Stecke (1983). The most critical of these are
the selection of parts to be processed simultaneously and the configuration of the FMS for
these parts. The latter, which is referred to as the loading problem in the FMS literature,
covers the allocation of tools and operations to machines. The upper and lower levels in
the hierarchy also need some modifications in the FMS context. The upper level should
incorporate modelling features to represent the inherent flexibility. The lower level should
effectively utilise the flexibility given by the FMS configuration through various
operational control decisions.
While the adaptation of aggregate production models to the FMS context is rather
neglected in the academic literature, set-up problems have received considerable attention.
Most of these studies tackle either a single problem, or a subset of these problems.
3322 E. Albey and Ü. Bilge
However, as noted by Nof et al. (1979), among others, these problems are interdependent.
A few studies, such as those of Denizel and Erenguc (1997), Atlihan et al. (1999), and
Sawik (2004), take a monolithic approach and formulate the integrated FMS set-up
problem as a large mixed-integer/linear programming model. In another line of research,
an integration among the sub-problems is sought, either in a sequential or an iterative
form (Bastos 1988, Co et al. 1990, Chung and Chien 1993, Sodhi et al. 1994, Chandra
1995, Lee et al. 1997, Nayak and Acharya 1998).
Bastos (1988) proposes a short-term planning model consisting of batching, routing
and simulation modules. The first module translates a given weekly plan into a batch of
parts to be assigned to the next work shift by means of an LP model. In the second module
an iterative heuristic is proposed. Although not actually implemented in the study, the role
of the simulation module is to execute the plan and it is not used as an anticipation tool.
Any feedback to a higher planning level that gives the initial weekly plan is not
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 17:54 07 May 2014
mentioned either.
Co et al. (1990) develop a MIP formulation for batching, loading and tool
configuration problems and propose a four-step heuristic solution procedure, which can
be considered as a pure top-down hierarchy for FMS set-up. Nayak and Acharya (1998)
propose another three-step sequential heuristic procedure: (i) part type selection;
(ii) machine loading; and (iii) part type volume determination. The authors consider
maintaining a high routing flexibility as an important issue in part type selection and
reflect several flexibilities in their objective function. These two studies provide a solution
approach for the set-up problems in FMS, and hence can be used in the implementation of
the medium level in the FMS hierarchy.
The short-term production planning (STPP) system proposed by Chung and
Chien (1993) considers due dates, production requirements, process plans and layout
information. They approximately solve the production planning problem using an
iterative approach. The output of STPP is tested by means of real-time scheduling software
(DOPS) in the presence of some manufacturing flexibilities set by STPP. However,
DOPS does not provide any feedback to the STPP in terms of effective capacity or the
feasibility of the production plan provided by STPP. This issue is suggested as a future
study direction.
Lee et al. (1997) consider a multi-period part selection and loading problem by means
of an iterative heuristic. However, the developed model does not allow the carrying of
inventory or backorder to consecutive periods and employs subcontracting in order to
meet unmet demand, thus the periods are independent of each other.
None of the studies discussed above presents a complete hierarchical structure that
covers all planning problems. In that respect, the study of Sodhi et al. (1994) can be
mentioned. The hierarchical structure presented in their study is composed of four levels
operating in a rolling horizon mode. The time scale of the horizon is decreasing proceeding
down the hierarchy. The aggregate level considers machine and material handling
resources and involves inventory, backlogging, production, and subcontracting costs.
Given the production quantities for the first period, level 2 decides on the tool loading for
each sub-period (shift) and allocates the production requirement among the shifts. Level 3
tries to improve on the configuration of the first shift to obtain an FMS with greater
routing flexibility and operation allocations on machines are determined. The final level
corresponds to short-term control of the FMS under given operational control strategies.
Although a rolling horizon structure is sought, the initial condition (i.e. WIP)
representation is neglected in the models.
International Journal of Production Research 3323
In a series of papers, Sawik studies flexible flow shops using the mathematical
programming approach. Sawik (1998) investigates the short-term planning problems for a
flexible assembly system. Given a set of assembly jobs, station workloads are balanced
using a linear relaxation-based heuristic and then, given the task allocation among
stations, assembly plans and routes are selected based on a network-flow model. Sawik
(2004) studies the loading and scheduling of a limited-buffer flexible assembly system with
no backtracking. First, using a monolithic approach, a mixed-integer programming (MIP)
model that tackles the two problems simultaneously to minimise the makespan is
proposed. In the second approach, two separate MIP models are used in a sequential
manner to find a balanced machine loading and a corresponding schedule that minimises
the makespan. Sawik (2006) presents a hierarchical framework for a flexible flow shop and
integer programming formulations for the long-term assignment of customer orders to
planning periods, the short-term task–machine assignment, and, lastly, the scheduling of
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 17:54 07 May 2014
manufacturing domain, they have inspired our study and they will be briefly
discussed below.
Byrne and Bakir (1999) and Byrne and Hossain (2005) use simulation to estimate
machine capacities. Their procedure stops when the first attainable production plan is
obtained. Although the authors experience convergence within a reasonable number of
iterations in their single test problem, convergence cannot be guaranteed in general.
Moreover, the procedure has the risk of stopping with a too low effective capacity
estimate. Hung and Leachman (1996) collect flow time statistics instead of machine
capacities, while simulating a production plan. Iterations continue until flow time
estimates converge. Irdem et al. (2008) study several stopping criteria for the Hung and
Leachman (1996) method and remark that the convergence behaviour of iterative schemes
that utilise LP models is not well understood and problematic in general. Kim and Kim
(2001) update both machine capacities and flow times by collecting relevant statistics
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 17:54 07 May 2014
during simulation, until the output quantities of the simulation results and LP solution
reach agreement. The combined updating mechanism is claimed to perform better than
Byrne and Bakir (1999) in terms of iterations required for convergence and in terms of
number of parts produced. Venkateswaran and Son (2005) present a hybrid simulation-
based hierarchical production planning architecture consisting of system dynamics
components for the aggregate level planning and discrete event simulation components
for shop level scheduling. Feedback control loops are employed at each level to monitor
the performance and update the control parameters based on the cycle time of the
products.
Figure 1. A sample flexible process plan demonstrating operation, sequencing and processing
flexibilities (from Bilge et al. (2008)).
Figure 2. A conceptual framework for hierarchical production planning and control for FMS.
International Journal of Production Research 3327
simulation tool for both simulation models. The models are constructed at each iteration
according to the input generated by DPM, including part release plans, arranged process
plans and selected set of real-time decision rules. After the execution of the plan for one
week, the end-of-period status of the shop floor (i.e. WIP levels, etc.) is fed as the initial
condition to the APM and the horizon is rolled on. The execution of the finalised plan and
feedback to APM can be traced in the outer loop in Figure 2. When using simulation as an
anticipation tool, the model is based on the expected behaviour of the real-world shop floor
system, i.e. expected processing times, breakdown occurrences and repair times for
resources are used. These should be obtained from up-to-date statistics collected from
SFEL. On the other hand, the SFEL and the upper levels should have certain protocols to
deal with situations calling for plan revisions due to events causing substantial variation
within a period. The development of such protocols is outside the scope of this study. Thus,
the outer feedback loop in the current implementation covers only the end-of-period state of
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 17:54 07 May 2014
the SF.
In the rest of this section, particular mathematical models for APM and LM and a
heuristic for DPM are presented. At the end of the section, the effective capacity
anticipation approach is described in detail.
The notation and the LP model for APMM are given below.
Variables
Qijt Amount of part type i produced following route j in period t
TQit Amount of part type i produced in period t (aggregated over routes)
Akt Number of tool type k used in period t
Bit Unsatisfied demand of part type i in period t
Hit Ending inventory of part type i in period t
Sets
PR( i ) Set of process route of part type i
RO( j ) Set of operations for each route j
RT( j, k) Set of operations of route j requiring tool k
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 17:54 07 May 2014
Parameters
bit Backorder cost for part type i in period t
hit Holding cost for part type i for period t
cit Cost of producing part i in period t
dit Demand for part type i in period t
takt Available time of tool k in period t
atk Available number of copies of tool type k
wipi Amount of WIP of part type i at the beginning of period t ¼ 1
lk Tool slot requirement of tool type k
l Total tool magazine capacity of all machines
ptn Unit processing time of operation n
rt Available time of aggregate machine resource in period t
W Number of machines
ek Capacity correction factor for tool type k, to account for finished
operations of the WIP at the beginning of period t ¼ 1
o Capacity correction factor for aggregate machine resource, to
account for finished operations of the WIP at the beginning of
period t ¼ 1
kt Capacity coefficient for tools
t Capacity coefficient for aggregate machine resource
APMM:
T X
X I
min ðcit TQit þ hit Hit þ bit Bit Þ, ð1Þ
t¼1 i¼1
s.t.
X
K
lk Akt l, 8t, ð2Þ
k¼1
X
I X X
Qij1 ptn ðAk1 tak1 þ ek Þk1 , 8k, ð8Þ
i¼1 j2PRðiÞ n2RTð j,kÞ
X
I X X
Qijt ptn ðAkt takt Þkt , 8k, t 4 1, ð9Þ
i¼1 j2PRðiÞ n2RTð j,kÞ
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 17:54 07 May 2014
X
I X X
Qij1 ptn ðWðr1 Þ þ oÞ1 , ð10Þ
i¼1 j2PRðiÞ n2ROð j Þ
X
I X X
Qijt ptn ðW Þðrt Þðt Þ, t 4 1, ð11Þ
i¼1 j2PRðiÞ n2ROð j Þ
obtained from SF. The additional parameter o in constraint set (10) is used for the same
purpose with ek.
whole hierarchy. Since the higher level considers the achievement of the goals of the firm
by minimising the cost for the overall horizon, it is clear that the medium level should aim
at a good fit to upper level plans along with good tool allocation, allowing a smooth flow
of parts in the SF. In that respect, workload balancing can be seen as an appropriate
choice at this level. A nice study on comparing workload balancing objectives is presented
by Kumar and Shanker (2001). The review of Grieco et al. (2001) also reveals that most
studies acknowledge tool magazine capacity and processing time availability on machines
as the most critical resources. Another important remark by Grieco et al. (2001) is that
alternative process plans are totally ignored in available loading models despite the fact
that they could allow better exploitation of the resources in the system. In this respect, the
formulation presented by Guerrero (1999) is a rare example.
In this study a new MIP model for the loading problem that focuses on flexible process
plans and communicates with the upper and lower levels is proposed. The primary
objective of our Loading Mathematical Model (LMM) is achieving a setup that provides
the maximum possible consistency with the production amounts announced by APL. The
APMM determines production quantities for each alternative process plan for each part.
However, rather than forcing the LMM to follow quantities produced for each alternative
process plan, the APMM passes on the aggregated quantity for the part type to LMM.
The idea behind this aggregation is to allow LMM to utilise routing flexibility in such a
way as to optimise its own objective function. As a secondary objective, LMM tries to
balance the workload among machines in order to minimise the possibility of creating
bottlenecks on the SF and benefits from routing flexibility. Since the loading model is a
part of a rolling horizon scheme, the WIP remaining from the previous period in
intermediary stages should be explicitly considered to guarantee that the new shop
configuration allows their production. The proposed LMM is provided below.
Parameters
bi Backorder cost for part type i
qi Amount of part type i required by APMM
qmax Maximum of qi
tw Available time of machine w
tmax Maximum of tw
atk Available number of tool copies of type k
ptn Unit processing time of operation n
International Journal of Production Research 3331
Sets
O Set of all operations
LO(i) Last operations of part type i on its process plan network
FO(i) First operations of part type i on its process plan network
S(n) Set of immediate successors of operation n on the network
P(n) Set of immediate predecessors of operation n on the network
T(n) Set of tools required for processing operation n
LMM:
( ! )
X
I
bi Si Umax
min qmax þ , ð12Þ
i¼1
qi tmax
s.t.
X
K
lk Dkw scw , 8w, ð13Þ
k¼1
X
W
Dkw atk , 8k, ð14Þ
w¼1
X
N
ptn Xnw tw w , 8w, ð16Þ
n¼1
X
W X
Xnw þ wipn ¼ Fnn0 , 8n 2 OnLOðiÞ, ð17Þ
w¼1 n0 2SðnÞ
X X
W
Fnn0 ¼ Xn0 w , 8n0 2 OnFOðiÞ, ð18Þ
n2Pðn0 Þ w¼1
3332 E. Albey and Ü. Bilge
X
N
Umax ptn Xnw , 8w, ð19Þ
n¼1
X X
W
Xnw þ Si ¼ qi , 8i, ð20Þ
n2LOðiÞ w¼1
the workload balance, through a weighted sum. In the first component, the unsatisfied
ratio for the requirement of each part type is weighted by the part’s backlogging cost and
the sum is weighted by the maximum required amount over part types. In order to balance
the workloads assigned to each machine, the second component of the objective function
minimises the scaled workload of the machine with maximum usage. In this manner, the
relative weights of the two criteria are based on problem-specific data and the first
criterion is assigned more weight than the second. This choice of relative weights is verified
through preliminary experimentation. Constraint set (13) ensures that the total slot
requirements of the tools allocated to each machine cannot exceed its total slot capacity.
Constraint set (14) asserts that the number of tool copies that can be mounted on machines
is limited by tool availability. Constraint set (15) ensures that an operation is not allocated
to a machine if the required tools are not mounted. Constraint set (16) ensures that the
total processing time of the operations loaded on a machine cannot exceed the total
available processing time of that machine. The alternative routes for each part type
are represented as a network defined by the sets S(n), P(n), LO(i) and FO(i) as shown in
Figure 3, where nodes are operations and arcs are Fnn0 . Constraint sets (17) and (18) are
network flow constraints that ensure the parts flow through the routes defined in the
network. Constraint (17) asserts that the total production amount of an operation and
the WIP already available at that stage is equal to the outflow of that operation to the
succeeding operations, while in constraint (18) the total inflow to an operation is equated
to the production amount at that stage, ensuring the completion of each part in the system.
Constraint set (19) determines the maximum used machine resource time, which is used in
the objective function in order to balance the workload among machines. Constraint set
(20) is the definition representing the quantity of unsatisfied demand.
Figure 3. An alternative process plan network for a sample part type and constraints (17) and (18)
for n ¼ 3 in LMM.
International Journal of Production Research 3333
reasonably good strategy to follow. An extensive numerical study reports that this strategy
performs better than fixing the loading or changing it at each anticipation iteration.
The results of these experiments are not reported in this paper due to space limitations,
however they can be found in Bilge and Albey (2008).
in its alternative routes. This part routing (PR) is made by means of an on-line PR rule.
While the mathematical model arranges routes by considering the whole period, a PR rule
considers only a local snapshot. If the PR rule totally ignores the results of LMM, then the
global information already created will be wasted. It seems, at first glance, that PR should
directly follow the routing decisions of the model. However, this choice results in a loss of
real-time operational flexibility, reducing the ability to respond to unforeseen events. How
much flexibility should be allowed at the SFEL and how much of it should be fixed at
STPL is an issue that needs to be addressed in defining the FMS planning and control
hierarchy. As a means of addressing this issue we propose regulating the set of eligible
route alternatives over which a PR rule works.
In this study, the Smallest Work in the Next Queue (SWINQ) rule is used as the
PR rule. As the name implies, this rule selects the machine having the minimum workload
on its input buffer among those that can perform the next operation. SWINQ is a widely
used, simple and efficient rule that aims to distribute work to machines in a balanced way
(for more sophisticated PR rules working under alternative routes, see Bilge et al. (2008)).
Depending on the way the eligible set for the PR rule is defined, it is possible to have
different synchronisation levels. In the most relaxed case (SWINQ-0) the eligible set of the
next operation and machine pairs are defined as the whole set of feasible candidates under
the given tool allocation, ignoring route selections suggested by LMM. Thus SWINQ-0
does not pursue any synchronisation among the two levels in terms of PR. We define two
more implementations of SWINQ having different degrees of synchronisation. SWINQ-1
is allowed to use only those alternative operation routes which are used by LMM. This
approach restricts the selection of candidate operations. However, machine selection
among feasible candidates is not restricted, allowing us to utilise full operation flexibility.
SWINQ-2 is the most restricted SWINQ version, forcing full synchronisation in route
selection decisions. In addition to the restriction of candidate operations, machine
selection is also restricted according to the results of LMM. In other words, even if a
machine has the proper tooling for an operation, LMM may prefer not to use it for
balancing reasons, and, subsequently, SWINQ-2 is prohibited to consider such a machine
as an eligible candidate for processing the operation under consideration. However, the
amount of parts to be allocated on each allowed route is still left as an on-line decision.
Our experimentation shows that strategies with synchronisation dominate SWINQ-0
significantly, although the synchronisation versions are not statistically different from each
other. These results, which are omitted here, are reported by Bilge and Albey (2008).
In our anticipation module, each SWINQ version is tested in a separate simulation run
International Journal of Production Research 3335
and the one that gives the smallest makespan is selected as the PR rule to be used during
SF execution of that period.
SS A real number between zero and one indicating step size, used to
speed up Phase 1 when two consecutive ARC values do not differ by
more than SS. Based on preliminary experiments, SS is set to 0.05
CIL The number of allowable Phase 2 iterations. Based on preliminary
experiments, CIL is set to five
ECUP
– Take RTw as input from simulation results.
– If iteration count ¼ 1 and all RTw 5 LLAB, then
Set final ¼ 1 and STOP.
– If all RTw 2 AB (main stopping condition), then
Set final ¼ prev and STOP.
– Otherwise:
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 17:54 07 May 2014
4. Numerical study
A set of numerical experiments is conducted to examine the relative performance
improvement that can be gained via the iterative capacity anticipation described in
Section 3.6. For this purpose, the closed-loop hierarchical production planning system
(A1) shown in Figure 2 is compared with a single-pass hierarchical production planning
system (A0). The basic difference in A0 is that it does not have the capacity anticipation
International Journal of Production Research 3337
module and the inner feedback loop in Figure 2, hence it does not employ any of the
strategies discussed in Section 3.6.
In the test scenarios generated, the properties of the material handling system and
number of machines is held fixed (at six), whereas all the remaining data (i.e. number and
definition of part types, process plans, demand over a five-period planning horizon,
number of tool types, copies and slot requirements) are varied. The data for the test
problems are summarised in Table 1. In each scenario, the total magazine capacity
is determined by controlling the ratio ofPtotal slot requirements of all tool copies to total
magazine capacity using the formula ( k lk atk)/(W)(scw) (Denizel and Erenguc 1997,
Kumar and Shanker 2001). This ratio is referred as the Magazine capacity tightness in
Table 1. While generating the demand data, emphasis is given to creating a varying
workload over the planning periods. In addition, the mix of products and their alternative
process plans are generated in such a way so as to allow manufacturing flexibility. The
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 17:54 07 May 2014
planning horizon). Figures 4 and 5 present the results related to these measures.
The reference line in Figure 4 shows the normalised total demand and the two vertical
bars for each problem show the Satisfied Demand as a percentage of total demand for A1
and A0. On the other hand, the reference line in Figure 5 indicates the Initial Total Cost
obtained by solving APMM for the first time at the beginning with nominal capacity. The
bars indicate the Final Total Cost (incurred upon the complete execution of the rolling
horizon) as a percentage of the Initial Total Cost with each strategy. As revealed by the
figures, A1 outperforms A0 with respect to both performance measures for all problem
instances. The dominance of strategy A1 over A0 is also verified in Table 2, which provides
detailed information including the cost components for these experiments. Column 4 shows
the Satisfied Demand as a percentage of the total demand. Column 10 (Cost Increase)
demonstrates the increase in the Final Total Cost relative to the Initial Total Cost. The last
column presents the ratio of the difference in the Final Total Cost of A1 and A0 to that of A0.
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 17:54 07 May 2014
Figure 5. Final total cost percentages for strategies A0 and A1 compared with the initial total cost.
International Journal of Production Research 3339
5. Conclusion
In contrast to the extensive hierarchical planning literature for conventional manufactur-
ing environments, the literature dealing with this paradigm in the FMS domain is still very
sparse. In spite of the vast amount of research that address FMSs, most of these studies
focus only on short-term planning problems, ignoring their integration with the upper or
lower levels, and do not offer upper and lower-level models that incorporate specific FMS
characteristics, thus failing to provide full hierarchical structures. Moreover, the recent
vigorous stream of research dealing with circularity in planning and capacity anticipation
has not yet turned to FMSs.
In this paper, a complete and closed-loop hierarchical production planning frame-
work designed specifically for flexible manufacturing environments is presented. There are
two main issues emphasised. First, the models proposed at each level represent several
FMS flexibilities explicitly and exploit them as a means of using capacity effectively. It is
also recognised that the integration among levels requires an explicit definition of the level
and the way each type of flexibility will be fixed during a planning/control epoch.
Secondly, a simulation-based effective capacity anticipation approach is developed. The
experimental evaluation of the proposed framework demonstrates that anticipation
considerably improves the quality of planning and reveals the importance of research
in this direction.
The proposed HPPCS-FMS is generic because of its modular and multi-level structure
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 17:54 07 May 2014
that allows plugging in several different models and solution methodologies dealing with
one or more problems embedded in the levels. Obviously, different models and solution
techniques can be suggested depending on the nature of the FMS environment, the level
of modelling detail, the relevant objectives and the time available for solution. Those
included in this study form a complementary set that constitute a complete production
planning system for a reasonable problem context.
The following issues are interesting future research directions to investigate different
facets of the overall FMS production planning problem.
(1) The current study uses simulation as a tool for anticipation. The implementation
of other approaches such as clearing functions in the FMS domain is an open
question.
(2) The current implementation of STPL assumes an FMS working under batching
mode for set-up. STPL can be redesigned for incremental set-up mode, where the
tool configurations are updated upon completion of the production requirements
for each part type. This brings forth a new and interesting hierarchical framework
for the FMS, which requires some changes in LMM as well as the redesign of the
inner and outer loops in Figure 2.
(3) Different and additional types of feedback from SFEL to the planning levels can be
developed. Specifically, in the case of substantial variation from the plan during
execution, re-planning calls might be issued. Similarly, substantial variation in the
demand within a period may require re-planning. The timing or the triggering
events for re-planning calls, the extent of re-planning and the protocols to manage
re-planning should be investigated as a means of coping with uncertainties within
the facility.
(4) DPM in STPL is specifically designed to manage the part release to SF
during a given period. Investigation and integration of more sophisticated
part release policies can further enhance the performance of the hierarchical
system.
Acknowledgement
The work reported in this paper is supported by Bogazici University Research Fund under Grant
No. 05A301.
International Journal of Production Research 3341
References
Anthony, R.N., 1965. Planning and control systems: a framework for analysis. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Askin, R.G. and Goldberg, J.B., 2002. Design and analysis of lean production systems. New York:
Wiley.
Asmundsson, J., Rardin, R., and Uzsoy, R., 2006. Tractable nonlinear production planning models
for semiconductor wafer fabrication facilities. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor
Manufacturing, 19 (1), 95–111.
Atlihan, M.K., Kayaligil, S., and Erkip, N., 1999. A generic model to solve tactical planning
problems in flexible manufacturing systems. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing
Systems, 11 (3), 215–243.
Bastos, J.M., 1988. Batching and routing: Two functions in the operational planning of flexible
manufacturing systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 33 (3), 230–244.
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 17:54 07 May 2014
Benjaafar, S. and Ramakrishnan, R., 1996. Modelling, measurement and evaluation of sequencing
flexibility in manufacturing systems. International Journal of Production Research, 34 (5),
1195–1220.
Bertrand, J.W.M., Wortmann, J.C., and Wijngaard, J., 1990. Production control: a structural and
design oriented approach. New York: Elsevier.
Bilge, U. and Albey, E., 2008. A hierarchical approach to FMS planning and control with capacity
anticipation. Bogazici University, FBE-IE-12/2008-13.
Bilge, U., Firat, M., and Albey, E., 2008. A parametric fuzzy logic approach to dynamic part routing
under full routing flexibility. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 55 (1), 15–33.
Byrne, M.D. and Bakir, M.A., 1999. Production planning using a hybrid simulation-analytical
approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 59 (1–3), 305–311.
Byrne, M. and Hossain, M., 2005. Production planning: an improved hybrid approach. International
Journal of Production Economics, 93/94, 225–229.
Chandra, P., 1995. Production planning model for a flexible manufacturing system. In: A. Raouf
and M. Ben-Daya, eds. Flexible manufacturing systems: recent developments. Netherlands:
Elsevier, 157–171.
Chung, S.H. and Chien, W.L., 1993. Building a short term production planning system for FMS: an
integration viewpoint. Production Planning and Control, 4 (2), 112–127.
Co, H.C., Biermann, J.S., and Chen, S.K., 1990. A methodical approach to the flexible-
manufacturing-system batching, loading and tool configuration problems. International
Journal of Production Research, 28 (12), 2171–2186.
Denizel, M. and Erenguc, S.S., 1997. Exact solution procedures for certain planning problems
in flexible manufacturing systems. Computers and Operations Research, 24 (11),
1043–1055.
Ebadian, M., et al., 2009. Hierarchical production planning and scheduling in make to order
environments: reaching short and reliable delivery dates. International Journal of Production
Research, 47 (20), 5761–5789.
Elmaghraby, S., 1991. Manufacturing capacity and its measurement: a critical evaluation. Computers
and Operations Research, 18 (7), 615–627.
Gonen, M., 2005. BUILD.NET: a graphical application generator for object-oriented software and
sample applications. Thesis (Master’s), Bogazici University.
Graves, S.C., 1986. A tactical planning model for a job shop. Operations Research, 34 (4),
522–533.
Grieco, A., Semeraro, Q., and Tolio, T., 2001. A review of different approaches to the FMS loading
problem. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 13 (4), 361–384.
Guerrero, F., 1999. Machine loading and part type selection in flexible manufacturing systems.
International Journal of Production Research, 37 (6), 1303–1317.
3342 E. Albey and Ü. Bilge
Hax, A.C. and Meal, H.C., 1975. Hierarchical integration of production planning and scheduling;
studies in management sciences. In: M.A. Geisler, ed. Logistics. New York: North Holland-
American Elsevier.
Hung, Y.F. and Leachman, R.C., 1996. A production planning methodology for semiconductor
manufacturing based on iterative simulation and linear programming calculations. IEEE
Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, 9 (2), 257–269.
Hwang, S. and Uzsoy, R., 2005. A single stage multi product dynamic lot sizing model with WIP and
congestion. West Lafayette: Laboratory for Extended Enterprises at Purdue, School of
Industrial Engineering, Purdue University, Technical report.
Irdem, D.F., Kacar, N.B., and Uzsoy, R., 2008. An experimental study of an interative simulation-
optimization algorithm for production planning. In: S.J. Mason, R.R. Hill, L. Mönch,
O. Rose, T. Jefferson and J.W. Fowler, eds. Proceedings of the 2008 winter simulation
conference, 2176–2184.
Karmarkar, U.S., 1989. Capacity loading and release planning with work-in-progress (WIP) and
leadtimes. Journal of Manufacturing and Operations Management, 2, 105–123.
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 17:54 07 May 2014
Kim, B. and Kim, S., 2001. Extended model for a hybrid production planning approach.
International Journal of Production Economics, 73 (2), 165–173.
Kumar, N. and Shanker, K., 2001. Comparing the effectiveness of workload balancing objectives in
FMS loading. International Journal of Production Research, 39 (5), 843–871.
Lee, D.H., et al., 1997. Multi-period part selection and loading problems in flexible manufacturing
systems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 33 (3/4), 541–544.
Nayak, G.K. and Acharya, D., 1998. Part type selection, machine loading and part type volume
determination problems in FMS planning. International Journal of Production Research,
36 (7), 1801–1824.
Nof, S.Y., Barash, M.M., and Solberg, J.J., 1979. Operational control of item flow in versatile
manufacturing systems. International Journal of Production Research, 17 (5), 479–489.
Pahl, J., Voss, S., and Woodruff, D.L., 2007. Production planning with load dependent lead times:
an update of research. Annals of Operations Research, 153 (1), 297–345.
Rohde, J., 2004. Hierarchical supply chain planning using artificial neural networks to anticipate
base-level outcomes. OR Spectrum, 26 (4), 471–492.
Sabuncuoglu, I. and Karapinar, H.Y., 1999. Analysis of order review/release problems in production
systems. International Journal of Production Economics, 62 (3), 259–279.
Sawik, T., 1998. Simultaneous loading, routing, and assembly plan selection in a flexible assembly
system. International Journal of Production Research, 28 (9), 19–29.
Sawik, T., 2004. Loading and Scheduling of a flexible assembly system by mixed integer
programming. European Journal of Operational Research, 154 (1), 1–19.
Sawik, T., 2006. Hierarchical approach to production scheduling in make-to-order assembly.
International Journal of Production Research, 44 (4), 801–830.
Schneeweiss, C., 1995. Hierarchical structures in organisations: a conceptual framework. European
Journal of Operational Research, 86 (1), 4–31.
Selcuk, B., Fransoo, J.C., and Kok, A.G.D., 2006. The effect of updating lead times on the
performance of hierarchical planning systems. International Journal of Production Economics,
104 (2), 427–440.
Sodhi, M., Askin, R.G., and Sen, S., 1994. A hierarchical model for control of flexible
manufacturing systems. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45 (10), 1185–1196.
Stecke, K.E., 1983. Formulation and solution of nonlinear integer production planning problems for
flexible manufacturing systems. Management Science, 29 (3), 273–288.
Venkateswaran, J. and Son, Y.J., 2005. Hybrid system dynamic discrete event simulation-based
architecture for hierarchical production planning. International Journal of Production
Research, 43 (20), 4397–4429.