Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available onlineCIRP
Procedia
Availableatonline
www.sciencedirect.com
00 (2019) 000–000
at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia CIRP 00 (2017)

Procedia 000–000
CIRP 81 (2019) 576–581
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
52nd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
52nd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
An automated packaging planning approach using machine learning
An automated28th
packaging planning
CIRP Design Conference,approach using
May 2018, Nantes, machine learning
France
Dino Knoll *, Daniel Neumeier , Marco Prüglmeier , Gunther Reinhart
a a b a

A newInstitute
methodology
a Dino Knoll
for Machine
a
Tools *, to analyze
andDaniel
Industrial Neumeier the
Management
a
(iwb), functional
, Marco Prüglmeier
Technical University ofand
b
,physical
Munich, Gunther b.architecture
Reinhart
85748 Garching
a
of
Munich, Germany

existing
Instituteproducts
for Machine Toolsfor an assembly
Management (iwb),oriented product family
Garching b.identification
Bayerische Motoren Werke (BMW) AG, 80788 Munich, Germany
b
a
and Industrial Technical University of Munich, 85748 Munich, Germany
Bayerische Motoren Werke (BMW) AG, 80788 Munich, Germany
b

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-89-289-15550; fax: +49-89-289-15555. E-mail address: dino.knoll@iwb.mw.tum.de

Paul Stief *, Jean-Yves Dantan, Alain Etienne, Ali Siadat
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-89-289-15550; fax: +49-89-289-15555. E-mail address: dino.knoll@iwb.mw.tum.de
École Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et Métiers, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, LCFC EA 4495, 4 Rue Augustin Fresnel, Metz 57078, France
Abstract
*Abstract
Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 3 87 37 54 30; E-mail address: paul.stief@ensam.eu
The manufacturing industry is highly affected by trends of mass customization and increasing dynamics of product life-cycles which result in a
large set of part variants. Thus, the required effort for logistics planning and, in particular, for packaging planning is increasing. This paper
The manufacturing industry is highly affected by trends of mass customization and increasing dynamics of product life-cycles which result in a
proposes an approach to automate the assignment of packaging for an individual part based on its characteristics using machine learning. We use
large set of part variants. Thus, the required effort for logistics planning and, in particular, for packaging planning is increasing. This paper
the historical data of product parts and their packaging specifications to train our two-step machine learning model. Consequently, the model is
Abstract
proposes an approach to automate the assignment of packaging for an individual part based on its characteristics using machine learning. We use
able to propose a packaging with an accuracy of 84% in comparison with real-world data.
the historical data of product parts and their packaging specifications to train our two-step machine learning model. Consequently, the model is
Inable
today’s business
to propose environment,
a packaging with the trend towards
an accuracy of 84% more product variety
in comparison with and customization
real-world data. is unbroken. Due to this development, the need of
© 2019
agile andThe Authors. Published
reconfigurable production by Elsevier
systems Ltd. This is
emerged to an open
cope access
with article
various under the
products andCC BY-NC-ND
product license
families. To design and optimize production
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
systems
© 2019 as
Thewell as
Authors.to choose
Published the optimal
by Elsevierproduct matches,
Ltd. This is licenseproduct
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license of the known methods aim to
analysis methods are needed. Indeed,
an open(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) most
This is an
Peer-review open access
under article under
responsibility the scientific
of the CC BY-NC-ND committee of the 52ndproduct
CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems.
analyze a product or one product family on
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) the physical level. Different families, however,
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 52nd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems.
may differ largely in terms of the number and
nature of components.
Peer-review This fact impedes
under responsibility an efficient
of the scientific comparison
committee and choice
of the 52nd of appropriate
CIRP Conference product familySystems.
on Manufacturing combinations for the production
Keywords:
system. production
A new planning;ispackaging
methodology proposedplanning; machine
to analyze learning;
existing modelinbuilding;
products view ofcasetheirstudy
functional and physical architecture. The aim is to cluster
these
Keywords: production planning; packaging planning; machine learning; model building; case studyassembly lines and the creation of future reconfigurable
products in new assembly oriented product families for the optimization of existing
assembly systems. Based on Datum Flow Chain, the physical structure of the products is analyzed. Functional subassemblies are identified, and
a functional analysis is performed. Moreover, a hybrid functional and physical architecture graph (HyFPAG) is the output which depicts the
1. Introduction
similarity between product families by providing design support to both,supervised production and unsupervised
system planners andML. Unsupervised
product designers. AnML tries to
illustrative
example of a
1. Introductionnail-clipper is used to explain the proposed methodology. An discover unknown patterns (e.g. clustering),
supervised and unsupervised ML. Unsupervised ML tries of
industrial case study on two product families of while
steering supervised
columns to
The manufacturing
thyssenkrupp Presta Franceindustry is highly
is then carried affected
out to by trends
give a first of evaluation
industrial ML requires
discover of the a set ofpatterns
proposed
unknown labels to(e.g.
approach. classify or regress
clustering), the labels
while using
supervised
©mass Thecustomization
2017 The and
Authors. Published
manufacturing dynamics
industryby Elsevierof B.V.
is highlyproduct
affected life-cycles
by trends[1]. of algorithms
ML requires[6]. a set of labels to classify or regress the labels using
Consequently,
Peer-review under the variety
responsibility of individual
of the parts,
scientific
mass customization and dynamics of product life-cycles [1]. sub-assemblies
committee of the 28th CIRP Nevertheless,
Design
algorithms [6]. it is2018.
Conference far from trivial to formulate, develop and
and product the
Consequently, components
variety of increased
individual to meet
parts, customers’
sub-assemblies implement a MLitmodel.
Nevertheless, This trivial
is far from requires both business
to formulate, and data
develop and
Keywords: Assembly;
requirements [1].Design
Tomethod; Family identification
overcome these challenges, the understanding, as well as the right algorithms and concepts.
and product components increased to meet customers’ implement a ML model. This requires both business and data
manufacturing
requirements [1]. industryTo has developed
overcome an integrated
these challenges,supply the Also, for production
understanding, as wellplanning,
as the righta variety of applications
algorithms and
and concepts.
chain network to enable a continuous supply
manufacturing industry has developed an integrated supply of parts [2]. When case studies exists [7,8]. However, none
Also, for production planning, a variety of applications and of the approaches
1.supplying
chain network
Introduction parts, the packaging
to enable a continuous(1) enables
supply of theparts
transport and of
[2]. When focuses
case on theexists
thestudies
product packaging and planning
range[7,8]. However, process.
characteristics nonemanufactured
of the approaches
and/or
storage of parts, (2) protects both the parts and the environment
supplying parts, the packaging (1) enables the transport and assembled This paper
focuses onin thethisseeks
packaging to
system. In propose
planning an approach
process.
this context, the mainto automate
challenge in
and (3) of
storage enables thethe
toparts, identification
(2)fast
protects both theof parts in[3,4].
parts and However,
thethe environmenteach packaging
This paper planning
seeks by toisformulating
propose a packaging planning
Due development domain of modelling and analysis now notanonly approach
to copetowithautomate
single
part
and (3)hasenables
its individual
the characteristics (e.g. geometry, weight) problem
packagingausing supervised ML. It also contributesplanning
to the
communication andidentification
an ongoingoftrend parts [3,4]. However,
of digitization each
and products, planning
limited by formulating
product a packaging
range or existing product families,
and requires suitable
part has its individual packaging.
characteristics Thus,
(e.g. the effort and literature by:
digitalization, manufacturing enterprises aregeometry, weight) but
facing important problem
also tousing
be ablesupervised
to analyze and ML.toItcompare
also contributes
products to to the
define
complexity
and requires for logistics and
suitable market packagingThus,
packaging. planning haseffortincreased
challenges in today’s environments:thea continuing and new literature by:families. It can be observed that classical existing
product
dramatically.
complexity for logistics andofpackaging planning hastimes increased • Identifying and developing relevant features both for part
tendency towards reduction product development and product families are regrouped in function of clients or features.
In contrast,
dramatically. within the last years, machine learning (ML) has • and packaging
Identifying andcharacteristics
developing using the
relevant literature.
features both for part
shortened product lifecycles. In addition, there is an increasing However, assembly oriented product families are hardly to find.
been adapted
In contrast, successfully
within the last across
years, various industries. ML • Translating underlying decisions into separate ML models:
demand of customization, being at machine
the samelearning
time in (ML) has
a global andthe
On packaging
product characteristics using thediffer
family level, products literature.
mainly in two
algorithms
been adapted aim successfully
to optimize the performance criterion which • packaging classification and fill rate regression.
competition with competitors across all overvarious industries.
the world. ML
This trend, main Translating underlying
characteristics: (i) thedecisions
number of into separate ML
components andmodels:
(ii) the
evaluates
algorithms the efficiency
aim to optimize of fulfilling a
the performancegiven task by
criterion learning • Evaluating the feasibility of the approach using real-world
which is inducing the development from macro to which
micro typepackaging
of componentsclassification and fill rate
(e.g. mechanical, regression.
electrical, electronical).
from (historical)
evaluates data [5].of
the efficiency The field of ML
fulfilling can be
a given separated into data of the automotive industry.
markets, results in diminished lot sizes duetask by learning
to augmenting Evaluating
• Classical the feasibility
methodologies of the approach
considering mainlyusing
singlereal-world
products
from (historical)
product data [5]. The field
varieties (high-volume of ML can be
to low-volume separated into
production) [1]. or data of thealready
solitary, automotive industry.
existing product families analyze the
2212-8271 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
To cope with this augmenting variety as well as to be able to product structure on a physical level (components level) which
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
identify
2212-8271 possible
© 2019 The optimization
Authors. Publishedpotentials in the is existing
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 52nd CIRP Conference on difficulties
by Elsevier Ltd. This an open access causes
article under the CC BY-NC-ND regarding
Manufacturing Systems.
license an efficient definition and
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
production system, it is important to have a precise knowledge comparison of different product families. Addressing this
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 52nd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems.
2212-8271 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an©open
2212-8271 2017access article Published
The Authors. under theby CC BY-NC-ND
Elsevier B.V. license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of scientific
of the the scientific committee
committee of the of theCIRP
28th 52ndDesign
CIRPConference
Conference2018.
on Manufacturing Systems.
10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.158
 Dino Knoll et al. / Procedia CIRP 81 (2019) 576–581
2 Dino Knoll et al. / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. Sec. 2
briefly summarises the packaging planning theory. Then, the
approach is presented in Sec. 3 and applied within a case study
in Sec. 4. Sec. 5 discusses the advantages and limitations.
Finally, Sec. 6 concludes this paper and presents an outlook for
future work.
2. Packaging planning theory
This section presents a short overview of the current practice
of packaging planning. This includes related definitions and
packaging concepts, the packaging planning process, and the
packaging decision-making.
2.1. Definitions and concepts
The term packaging is frequently used in different
applications and scenarios, and consequently there are various
definitions and perspectives. This issue has been identified and
addressed by the DIN 55405 (2014). We briefly summarise the
definitions as follows [9]:
• Packaging goods: the parts which are packed
• Packaging: the container which holds the packaging goods
• Package: the packaging including the packaging goods
• Packaging aids: protective layers inside the packaging
Packaging is separated into primary packaging (e.g. small
load carrier) and secondary packaging (e.g. load unit for
transport). According to Rosenthal (2016), the main packaging
characteristics are size (e.g. small load carriers), type (e.g.
standard or special packaging) and material (e.g. plastic or
metal) [10]. Consequently, the set of possible packaging
designs is large. In this paper, we focus on primary packaging.
2.2. Packaging planning process
The packaging planning process aims to select a packaging
and to determine the fill rate of parts. The current practice
presents various packaging planning processes with individual
activities. Existing packaging planning processes share the
main activities of characterizing the parts, comparing and
evaluating existing packaging concepts, and selecting the most
suitable packaging. Only in case of special requirements (e.g.
oversized parts), will a special packaging type be developed.
When packaging with its characteristics (e.g. size) is defined,
the fill rate of parts per packaging can be calculated. The whole
packaging planning process is repeated for each individual part
and the results are documented in related information systems.
During the planning progress, the rough planning result is
transferred to a detailed planning result. We summarize the
process in Fig. 1.
577
Fig. 1. Packaging planning reference process based on [10, 11, 12].
2.3. Packaging decision making
During this process, two main decision points can be
identified: (1) select a certain packaging and (2) calculate the
fill rate. According to Boeckle [13] and Schulz [14], the part
(e.g. size, weight) is the main driver for the packaging decision
[13, 14]. Other factors include the logistics functions, the
suppliers and the legal conditions [13,14,15].
Based on the packaging decision, the fill rate of parts can be
calculated. In operations research, the container loading
problem (CLP) has been formulated. CLP aims to maximize
the number of parts with the geometric constraints that parts lie
entirely inside the packaging bin and they do not overlap [16].
However, it has to be stated that more than the geometric
characteristics have to be considered [16, 17]. Furthermore,
with very few exceptions, publications in the area of CLP deal
with small rectangular items [16].
Thus, in the automotive industry, both physical and virtual
simulation techniques are applied. Physical simulation requires
physical prototypes of the parts and is cost-intensive [18].
Virtual simulation uses existing computer-aided design (CAD)
files of parts and determines the fill rate [10,11,18]. To do so,
a detailed CAD file is required, and the experience of
packaging planners is required to select the packaging.
2.4. Interim conclusion
We conclude that the packaging planning process is a
standardized process to select the packaging and calculate the
fill rate. The process is repeated for each part. Further on, the
decision-making requires additional information (e.g. weight,
quality requirements) besides the mathematical optimization of
the geometric objective function. It can be stated that the
process can be supported using software but expert knowledge
is still required.
578 Dino Knoll et al. / Procedia CIRP 81 (2019) 576–581
Dino Knoll et al. / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000 3

3. Approach 3.2. Data preparation

In the following section, we formulate the packaging
planning process and the decision-making within the process
using supervised ML. Our approach and the structure of this
section are based on the well-known cross-industry standard
process for data mining (CRISP-DM) framework [19].
3.1. Data understanding
The decision-making of the packaging and the fill rate is
significantly influenced by the part characteristics (cf. Sec.
2.3). To apply ML, we need to understand and formulate the
characteristics as features for the ML algorithm. Thus, we
reviewed existing literature of packaging planning with focus
on part characteristics. Other factors, e.g. supplier, are not in
the scope. The findings are used to develop the part and
packaging model shown in Fig. 2.
The step of data preparation aims to prepare the existing data
into the predefined schema for ML. For our given problem, we
decide to use supervised ML because we want to train the ML
model based on historical packaging assignments of planners.
To apply supervised ML, we need to prepare the input data into
a set of features. In contrast, the label represents the outcome
of the model.
Therefore, we use the prepared feature set of part
characteristics and merge the historical packaging planning
results. We use the packaging and the fill rate as labels. This is
required to enable the algorithm to learn from the knowledge
of packaging planners. To complete the step, the master data of
the packaging are extended (e.g. size).
Afterwards, invalid data has to be cleaned (e.g. drop empty
rows). Finally, we created a set of 11 features, two labels and
additional packaging information.

3.3. Modelling

We present an approach to formulate an ML model based on

the labelled feature set. Based on the understanding of the
packaging planning process and the underlying decision
making, we split the model into two sub-models:

• Packaging classification model: Which packaging is

suitable based on the part characteristics?
• Fill rate regression model: What is the expected fill rate of
parts for the selected packaging?

Fig. 2. Part and packaging relation model based on [12, 14, 20-23]. Based on the part and packaging relation model, we
formulated the input features for both tasks (cf. Sec 3.2).
Firstly, the packaging classification model uses the 11 features
We translated the findings into a set of 11 part features. and the packaging label for training. Thus, it can classify an
Additionally, we calculated the volume, three shape features unknown packaging (e.g. for future planning activities).
and the bounding box density (cf. Table 1). Secondly, the fill rate regression model uses the 11 features and
the fill rate label. However, as the fill rate mainly depends on
Table 1. Prepared feature set of part characteristics. the size of the packaging itself, the result of the classification
Category Feature Description (the packaging) is used as input for the regression model. The
Dimensions Length Length of the bounding box proposed design of the ML model is shown in Fig. 3.
Width Width of the bounding box
Height Height of the bounding box
Volume Bounding box volume
Shape Length/Width Part shape
Height/Length Part shape
Height/Width Part shape
Weight Weight Weight of the product
Weight/Volume Bounding box density
Quality / Quality index Quality requirements
sensitivity indicator
Electrostatic Electrostatic protection
Price Part price Part price
Dangerous goods Dangerous goods Dangerous goods indicator Fig. 3. Design of the ML model.
 Dino Knoll et al. / Procedia CIRP 81 (2019) 576–581 579
4 Dino Knoll et al. / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000

In addition to the design of the model, both ML sub-models Table 2. Packaging categories used in the case study.
require the selection of an ML algorithm and the related hyper Category Size Dimensions
parameters. Subsequently, we need to select an algorithm for Small load carrier (SLC) Small <= 400mm x 300m
the classification model (e.g. decision tree, support vector
Medium <= 600mm x 400mm
machine) and the regression model (e.g. linear regression). In
Large > 600mm x 400mm
theory, there are plenty of different algorithms with a variety of
hyper parameters that can be combined with boosting or Large load carrier (LLC) Normal <= 1200mm x 800mm
ensemble techniques. In industry, the random forest (RF) Extra large > 1200mm x 800mm
algorithm is applied widely due to its robustness and ease-of- Heavy Load - -
application [24]. For now, we decided to use the RF both for Special Small <= 400mm x 300m
the classification (RF classifier) and the regression (RF
Medium <= 600mm x 400mm
regressor). To select the right parameters, we applied a grid
Large > 600mm x 400mm
search of the (1) number of trees in the forest, (2) the maximum
depth of each tree, (3) the maximum set of features, (4)
bootstrapping and (5) the internal quality measurement and
split criterion. For the regression, we applied a one hot encoder Further on, a quality index is not available in the data.
for the packaging categories to translate the categorical feature However, the experts mentioned that the part price can be used
into separate features. to reflect the quality requirements: the more expensive a part,
the higher the probability that there is a higher quality
4. Case study requirement. Thus, we used the part price of the product as a
quality indicator. After the grid optimization, the average
Within this section, we outline the application and accuracy of the packaging classification model on the test data
evaluation of the approach within a case study. The case study (n = 500) is 84.4%. The result of the classification model is
has been conducted at an original equipment manufacturer displayed in the confusion matrix in Fig 4 which outlines three
(OEM) in the automotive industry. findings. Firstly, the invalid classifications are mostly related
Before working on the ML model, we conducted four to the same packaging categories (e.g. SLC, special packaging)
workshops with experts to understand the packaging planning with different sizes (e.g. small, medium, large). Secondly, the
process, the relevant criteria for decision-making and the heavy load packaging was classified with a high accuracy. The
historical data. The experts broadly agreed on the process found ML model learned the relation between volume and packaging
in the literature, and additionally, that decision-making is weight. Thirdly, the overall distribution between standardized
mostly based on historical packaging. Within this stage, we packaging and special packaging has been learned very well.
analyzed, cleaned (e.g. part weight of 0.0) and prepared the
data. In total, we selected a random set of 2,500 parts with
packaging assignments. Thus, no conclusion of the overall
distribution about parts and packaging can be made.
To assess the quality of the ML model, we separate 500 parts
for testing purposes. The remaining 2,000 parts are split into a
training and validation set, and are evaluated using cross
validation (3-fold cross validation). Next, we present the results
of the classification model (cf. Sec. 4.1) and the regression
model for the fill rate (cf. Sec. 4.2).

4.1. Packaging classification model

The packaging classification model aims to classify a

packaging based on the features of each part (cf. Sec. 3.3).
During the interviews and the data exploration, we
identified 293 different packaging variants for the 2,500 parts.
Only 9.3% is standardized packaging (e.g. small load carrier),
but the standardized packaging covers 71% of all parts. Due to Fig. 4. Confusion matrix of the classification model on the test data.
the high variance of existing packaging, we categorized the
packaging into 9 categories for this case study (cf. Table 2).
Finally, we evaluate the importance of the individual
features. The feature importance ranking of the classification
model is shown in Fig. 5. The most important feature of the
trained model is the part price which reflects the quality
requirements. The second group covers volume, length and
weight of the part. Thus, we can conclude that the ML model
successfully learned a valid set of important features. Also, the
580 Dino Knoll et al. / Procedia CIRP 81 (2019) 576–581
Dino Knoll et al. / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000 5

ML model strengthens the understanding in the literature,

namely that the problem cannot be reduced to the mathematical
optimization of the volume of the part and packaging.

Fig. 5. Feature importance of the packaging classification model.

4.2. Fill rate regression model Fig. 6. Actual vs. predicted fill rate of regression model on the test data.

The objective of the fill rate regression model is to calculate

the fill rate based on the part characteristics and the packaging.
As the fill rate depends on the packaging, e.g. dimensions of 5. Discussion
the packaging (cf. Sec. 3.3), we provide the correct packaging
for the evaluation. To do so, we compared three different In the following section, we discuss the strengths and
scenarios (cf. Table 3). weaknesses of the model both from the technical machine
learning perspective and from the packaging planning
Table 3. Feature set for the regression model. perspective.
Scenario Total number of Root squared We can identify three strengths of the ML model. Firstly, the
features mean error approach can automate activities during the rough planning
(RSME)
stages. However, the detailed planning cannot be replaced. In
1. Packaging volume 12 529 addition to the packaging planning process, experts highlighted
2. Packaging length, width 14 524 the chance to use the approach for other planning cases (e.g.
and height during the change management process). Secondly, the
3. Packaging length, width, 14 + 9 (hot 542 approach is capable to learn and predict using the bounding box
height and category encoded) of the part, and does not require a precise CAD file or other
information (e.g. CLP). Thirdly, as the process can be
automated, the bottlenecks of manual evaluation can be
The regression model performs the best in the second eliminated. Thus, the process can be reengineered so that, for
scenario with the packaging length, width and height (root example, every change of the product structure and underlying
squared mean error (RSME) of 583). A possible reason might parts, are evaluated instantly. Consequently, the risk of
be that the variety of input features in scenario 3 cannot be outdated planning results decreases.
learned in a sufficient manner when using the training set size. Nevertheless, the approach shows limitations. Firstly,
This can be underlined by the fact, that the distribution of the currently only part characteristics are considered. Existing
fill rate is very large (median 64, while the maximum is supplier information and special requirements are neglected.
25,000). Secondly, with the dependency between the two sub-models,
To further interpret the range of validity, we compare the the result of the packaging classification has a significant role
actual fill rate (based on packaging planners) and the predicted on the fill rate. Currently, there is no validation of packaging
fill rate (cf. Fig. 6). This allows us two findings: Firstly, the result yet. Thirdly, the performance of the regression model
lower the fill rate, the lower the absolute error. With an varies. Especially when the fill rate is high, the error rate
increasing fill rate, also the deviation between the actual fill increases. Thus, the packaging planning experts have to
rate and predicted fill rate increases too. Secondly, there are evaluate the fill rate after the prediction, in particular for high
still outliers with invalid predictions in both directions fill rates. Fourthly, if the packaging process changes, the ML
(prediction is higher than the actual fill rate, and vice versa). To model has to be trained with updated data.
summarize, the regression model is less robust than the
classification model.
 Dino Knoll et al. / Procedia CIRP 81 (2019) 576–581
6 Dino Knoll et al. / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
6. Conclusion and outlook
In this paper, we provide an approach to automate packaging
planning. Therefore, we reviewed the existing packaging
planning theory to understand the process and the underlying
information required for decision making. Our proposed model
combines a classification and regression model to determine
the packaging and the fill rate. To do so, we reviewed the
literature to provide and construct relevant features. We
successfully evaluated the approach with real-world data.
While the classification model performs with an overall
accuracy of 84.4%, the regression model has an overall RSME
of 524.
Our research provides an initial approach and future
research is required. Firstly, additional features, such as
including the supplier or logistics process, have to be
integrated. Secondly, different algorithms other than the RF
and sampling techniques have to be evaluated. Thirdly, we only
focused on the ML model. In the future, a combination of our
approach with existing techniques such as CLP or simulation
have to be integrated and evaluated.
Acknowledgements
The research forms part of the cooperation between
Bayerische Motorenwerke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW AG) and
the Institute for Machine Tools and Industrial Management
(iwb), Technical University of Munich. Dino Knoll and
Gunther Reinhart are part of the project team and are employed
at Technical University of Munich. Marco Prüglmeier is
employed at BMW AG.
References
[1] ElMaraghy H, Schuh G, ElMaraghy W, Piller F, Schönsleben P, Tseng M,
Bernard A. Product variety management. J CIRP Annals 2013;62:629-652.
[2] Croom S, Romano P, Giannakis M. Supply chain management: an
analytical framework for critical literature review. J European Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management 2000;6:67-83.
[3] Schuh G, Stich V. Logistikmanagement. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer
Berlin Heidelberg; 2013.
[4] Sellschopf L, Berndt D. Verpackungsfunktionen. In: Kaßmann, M, editor:
Grundlagen der Verpackung. Berlin: Beuth; 2014. p. 15-18.
581
[5] Mannila H. Data mining: machine learning, statistics, and databases. In:
Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Scientific and Statistical
Data Base Management, IEEE; 1996. p. 2-9.
[6] Kotsiantis S, Zaharakis I, Pintelas P. Supervised machine learning: A
review of classification techniques. J Emerging artificial intelligence
applications in computer engineering 2007;160:3-24.
[7] Harding A, Shahbaz M, Kusiak A. Data mining in manufacturing: a
review. J of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 2006;128:969-976.
[8] Choudhary K, Harding A, Tiwari K.. Data mining in manufacturing: a
review based on the kind of knowledge. J of Int Man 2009;20:501-521.
[9] DIN55405. Packaging - Terminology - Terms and definitions; Amendment
A1; 2014
[10] Rosenthal A. Ganzheitliche Bewertung modularer
Ladungsträgerkonzepte. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2016.
[11] Bracht U, Geckler D, Wenzel S. Digitale Fabrik. Methoden und
Praxisbeispiele. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2011.
[12] Schedlbauer M. Adaptive Logistikplanung auf Basis eines
standardisierten, prozessorientierten Bausteinkonzepts. Doctoral Thesis,
2008.
[13] Boeckle U. Modelle von Verpackungssystemen. Lebenszyklusorientierte
Untersuchung. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2013.
[14] Schulz M. Logistikintegrierte Produktentwicklung. Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2014.
[15] Lackner E, Zsifkovits H. Die Rolle von Behältern in der Supply Chain. In:
Engelhardt-Nowitzki C, Lackner F, editors. Chargenverfolgung. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2006. p 241-256.
[16] Bortfeldt A, Wäscher G. Constraints in container loading. J European
Journal of Operational Research 2013;229:1-20.
[17] Bischoff E, Ratcliff S. Issues in the development of approaches to
container loading. J Omega 1995;23:377-390.
[18] Klug F. Logistikmanagement in der Automobilindustrie. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2010.
[19] Wirth R, Hipp J. CRISP-DM: Towards a standard process model for data
mining. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on the practical
applications of knowledge discovery and data mining. 2000. p. 29-39.
[20] Azzi A, Battini D, Persona A, Sgarbossa F. Packaging design: general
framework and research agenda. J Packaging Technology and Science
2012;25:435-456.
[21] Early C, Kidman T, Menvielle M, Geyer R, McMullan R. Informing
packaging design decisions at Toyota motor sales using life cycle
assessment and costing. J Industrial Ecology 2009;13:592-606.
[22] Mojzes Á. The significance of systematic approached package design
technology. In II Conference ISCKS, Nesebar 2009. p. 48-51.
[23] Wänström C, Medbo L. The impact of materials feeding design on
assembly process performance. J Man Tech Manag 2008;20:30-51.
[24] Criminisi A, Shotton J, Konukoglu E. Decision forests: A unified
framework for classification, regression, density estimation, manifold
learning and semi-supervised learning. J Foundations and Trends® in
Computer Graphics and Vision 2012;7:81-227.