Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 211–218

Advanced Resource Planning

Nico Vandaele*, Liesje De Boeck
Faculty of Applied Economics, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, Antwerp 2000, Belgium

Abstract

Advanced Resources Planning hits the bottom of what we know as aggregate planning. This approach differs from other
approaches in that it explicitly recognizes the stochastic nature of manufacturing systems. Therefore, it is an ideal high-level tuning
and planning tool which can be used in various planning environments like MRP, ERP, JIT, Load-Oriented Planning, Theory of
Constraints, Finite Scheduling, POLCA systems, and perhaps many more. The main purpose is to set aggregate planning
parameters right before diving into any other operational planning decision. In this sense, we opt to offer realistic lead time
estimations, lot sizes, utilization levels, customer service levels and quoted delivery times.
The underlying approach is a waiting line network, which is heavily adapted in order to make it useful for planning purposes. The
main feature is that both input parameters and output parameters are considered as stochastic variables. In this way it allows us to
model manufacturing environments in a more realistic and intuitive way, including all kinds of uncertainty and variability. As a
consequence, the output of the planning effort is also a stochastic variable: it has an average, a variance and the entire lead time
distribution. The latter makes it possible to obtain high customer service levels or to establish realistic delivery times, which can be
met with a high probability.
This mathematical approach as such is not suited for people operating a manufacturing system. We illustrate the approach with
software, named i-CLIPS, and we review some implementations and their results.
r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Aggregate planning; Lead time analysis; Lot sizing; Queuing networks

1. Introduction into two basic categories: material decisions and

Before we go into the details of the Advanced
Resource Planning approach, we have to go back and
revisit the very basics about planning. Once these are
put forward in an indisputable manner, the advantages
and the shortcomings of the current planning ap-
proaches can become clear. Subsequently, suggestions
for improvements can be made. Planning has all to do
with putting activities on the time axis: management has
to decide on the ‘what’ in terms of the ‘when’. As this is
so easy to grasp, it turns out to be extremely difficult in
practice. The reason is that the activities which have to
be planned are usually consuming resources. Resources
are usually not abundantly available, causing competi-
tion for the resources and planning has to be involved to
organize this. More precisely, the ‘what’ breaks down
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +32-3-220-4159; fax: +32-3-220-
4799.
E-mail address: nico.vandaele@ua.ac.be (N. Vandaele).
resource decisions, as can be seen in Fig. 1.
Material is considered to flow through the system and
will be related to the product or service provided
(examples are products in a manufacturing company,
patients in a hospital, messages in a computer system, a
file in a bank,y). Material usually comes out from
outside the system, is transformed in the system and gets
out of the system. In this sense, performance measures
like lead time, inventory, value adding for the customer
and customer service play a role. Resources basically
remain part of the system and make the material flow
(resources typically are machines, computer systems,
employees, subcontractors, transportation equip-
ment,y). Resources are provided by the system and
are put there to generate value for the owner. Therefore,
performance measures like utilization, efficiency, avail-
ability, etc. are of primary interest.
It should be clear that this becomes complex: on the
one hand, material relations can be very complicated:
deep and wide bill-of-materials, variety, customization,

0736-5845/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0736-5845(02)00081-9
212 N. Vandaele, L. De Boeck / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 211–218
Material
When
Resources
Fig. 1. Basic dimensions of planning.
component commonalities, modularity, supplier issues,
assembly. As can be understood from these issues: a lot
of material planning decisions are interdependent and
make planning far from easy. Some well-known efforts
from the past include MRP, ERP, DRP, SCM and
similar approaches. They all try to cope with material
complexity and they try to plan material on the time
axis. Unfortunately, they overstate the importance of
material (or equivalently, neglect the importance of
resources) so that more and more of these planning
systems are facing difficulties in catching up with today’s
dynamics and evolutions, of which customization
(variety) and time-based performance measurements
are the mainstream issues.
On the other hand, resources are not simple either:
their relationships are for instance technical (order of
operations, mix of different processes), dependent (like
man–machine interrelationships), limited in availability
so that resources force to do the various operations in a
sequential manner. There are systems that are specia-
lized in planning resources over time: advanced planning
and scheduling approaches, Theory of Constraints, just-
in-time approaches only to mention a few. Although this
sounds reasonable, mostly these resource-oriented ap-
proaches stress resources too much (assume that the
material is a secondary problem, e.g. like just-in-time) or
limit themselves to some crucial resources (bottleneck
approaches). What most of the advanced planning and
scheduling system are overlooking is the fact that the
resources are some kind of a fixed and deterministic
availability, which may only be true on the very short
term (and even in this case it can be inappropriate).
Finally, we may not forget that both material and
resource decisions themselves are highly interdependent.
This dependency is not without speculation: high
utilization levels (appreciated by the resource manage-
ment) is devastating for lead times (appreciated by the
customer). This inherent conflict in objectives further
complicates the planning activities. Concluding, any
effective planning system must address material and
resources simultaneously and both should be considered
together when they are put on the time axis. So the first
thing to do is to find out what ‘time’ information you
need for appropriate planning. We call this the ‘total
characterization of the lead time’ where lead time is
defined as the time material spends on resources.
2. A primer on lead time and lead time determinants
2.1. Total characterization of lead time
Lead time is a consequence of loading demand
(material) on capacity (resources). In very general terms,
we can expect that lead time has a distribution as
pictured in Fig. 2. As can be seen the lead time is
presented with all its characteristics, which all can be
derived from its probability distribution or density
function. Basic elements are the technical minimum
lead time to perform an operation (under ideal
circumstances), the mode (most likely lead time), the
expected or average lead time (as the main summary
statistic of the lead time), the lead time variance
(indicating fluctuations around the average) and the
lead time percentiles (crucial for determining the
customer service for a given agreed lead time and
equivalently, quoting a lead time to a customer for a
predetermined service level). Note that we intentionally
do not assume a symmetric distribution, as this is not
realistic for a lead time. Lead times are characterized by
an asymmetric distribution, mostly skewed to the right.
This means that if something happens in the system, the
impact on the lead time is dominantly negative: longer
lead times will be observed more often than shorter ones
(the average is larger than the mode). As systems are
usually interested in the higher service levels, automa-
tically this skewness is under the consideration of the
management: the heavy right tail is the clue towards
relevant customer service levels.
2.2. The lead time determinants
The lead time pictured in Fig. 2 is the result of
confronting load and capacity. We must investigate
what makes the lead time behave in the above-described
Fig. 2. Total lead time characterization.
 N. Vandaele, L. De Boeck / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 211–218
way. Without being complete, a list of important
determinants is given below:
* Demand factors:
* Demand volume (quantity).
* Demand timing (frequency).
* Capacity factors:
* Processing times.
* Setup times.
* Number of resources.
* Shift patterns.
* Outsourcing capabilities.
* Amplifiers:
* Stochasticity.
* Variability.
* Heterogeneity.
* Complexity.
* Management intervention:
* Lot sizing.
* Sequencing.
* Release mechanism.
For a long time, it has been known that utilization
is one of the main determinants of lead times: lead
times increase in a strongly non-linear manner as a
function of the utilization. What is more important, a
designated insight in the various components of both
demand and capacity is mandatory. Demand consists
of two dimensions: quantity and timing. Both taken
together, they constitute the load put on the system. The
capacity itself consists of the available time compared to
the demand time axis (usually twenty four-seven basis).
Availability is determined by shift patterns, calendars,
breaks, maintenance, breakdowns (repair), setups, etc.
From this available time, the natural processing time
and the number of resources determine the effective
capacity of the system. Or vice versa, the effective
processing time is the processing time including all time
losses. This leads to the concept of effective utilization
(which is larger than the natural/productive utilization),
a crucial value in Advanced Resources Planning. For
instance, Hopp and Spearman [1] deal with this concept.
The concept of (effective) utilization is typically an
average concept. The non-linear effects of utilization on
the lead time will further be amplified if some or all of
the following occur:
* All the average parameters (both from demand and
capacity) are not deterministic; they deviate from the
average. This means that all these parameters behave
stochastically and have their own specific distribu-
tion. From the literature it is known that even if
average circumstances are under control, stochastic
realities cause the systems to demonstrate waiting.
The more stochasticity, the longer the lead times
will be.
213
* A lot of variability effects take place in operational
systems. These are events that have a strong negative
impact on the system such as breakdowns, planned
maintenance, rework, scrap, setups, etc. It is im-
portant to model these events explicitly (and sepa-
rated from the natural stochasticity), because only
then their impact can be quantified and corrective
action can be directed. Their main impact is that they
artificially increase the utilization and thus deterio-
rate lead time performance. Note that the variability
parameters (for example, repair and setup times) are
stochastic themselves. In this way amplifying effects
stimulate one another.
* A third category of amplification consists of hetero-
geneity. This means that due to the fact that demand
volume is made up of a mix of products, this mix
causes all parameters to be more or less deviating.
For example, demand quantity (timing) distributions
differ from product to product. As a consequence, the
capacity figures (like processing times) differ from
product to product. The same holds for variability
factors: it is obvious for scrap rates and setups being
dependent on the product, but also breakdown and
maintenance may be susceptible to differences among
the products. All this taken together leads to the
phenomenon of shifting or wandering bottlenecks,
which only can occur if different products have
different impacts on the system.
* A last category contains the amplifier called complex-
ity. Complexity means that general aspects from the
systems such as routings, bill of materials, production
characteristics, precedence relations, shop floor lay-
out, etc. are not the best suited ones for the current
demands. In many occasions this has historical
reasons and companies hope that when refurbishing
systems they can eliminate these heritages from
the past. Unfortunately, given the dynamics of the
current markets and technologies, it is extremely
difficult to avoid complexity in the future. Not the
least, shifting product mixes and volatile markets are
forcing companies to use systems which are not the
best suited because they have been designed under
different circumstances. Complexity is difficult to
measure but is always implicitly modeled by the
structure of the current system.
A fifth amplifier could be management intervention.
However, because we assume that the intervention from
management can work in both favorable and unfavor-
able directions, we like to keep this as a separate
category of determinants. These management interven-
tions share some common features. Both the advantages
and disadvantages from, respectively, wise and wrong
decision making can be substantial. In addition, as by
the definition of management, they can usually easily be
214 N. Vandaele, L. De Boeck / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 211–218

adjusted by changing a company policy and/or a but it should be clear that this can have a
software code. On the other hand, implementing them substantial impact on lead times. Think of a policy
can be very hard due to corrosive human behavior and that releases every order as soon as it is available.
long-standing management beliefs or myths. We give This will cause work-in-process to pile up, explode
some examples below: lead times and undermine customer service.
Release policies should take into account customer
* Lot sizing: elements (e.g. due dates) and load elements
* Process batching: It is now widely accepted that (demand versus capacity). Systems like kanban,
process batching involves a convex relationship of POLCA, CONWIP, load-based policies try to
the lead time as a function of the processing batch. accomplish this.
As a consequence, there exists an optimal process
batch, minimizing lead time. If management
2.3. Advanced Resource Planning
decides to deviate from this optimal process batch,
the effects can be substantial, especially under
As we now have an idea about the input parameters
circumstances of high utilizations and stochasti-
of a system, the output parameters and the way input
city. Moreover, this convex relationship is not
parameters are transformed into output parameters, we
symmetrical, meaning that a deviation above and
can summarize the content of Advanced Resource
below the optimal size does not have the same
Planning in the following Fig. 3.
impact on the lead time.
* Transfer batching: It is also known that shipping
This is what Advanced Resource Planning is about:
finding the stochastic behavior of the system in order to
smaller quantities than the process batches can
obtain important mid-term performance measure values
enhance the flow of material through a system.
to direct the mid term planning and short term
Again, the effect is not always substantial. Its
scheduling decisions. Methodologically, we rely on
effects depend on the relative processing and setup
queuing networks, which are adapted towards these
times between the resources. As decisions in terms
system management characteristics. A key concept in
of transfer batches have far-reaching effects on
this approach is the notion of effective capacity, a
some investments (transportation, container, stor-
concept extensively described by Hopp and Spearman
age,y) and policies (ordering and delivery rela-
[1]. Effective capacity tries to capture all capacity losses
tionships with suppliers and customers), transfer
and reformulates the input parameters (like processing
batching is an important management decision.
times) accordingly. Examples of this queuing approach
* Sequencing policy:
* Most stochastic modeling techniques assume first-
can, for instance, be found in Lambrecht, Ivens and
Vandaele, Vandaele and Lambrecht, Vandaele, De
in/first-out disciplines, because it is mathematically
Boeck and Callewier. What is important for this paper
(almost the only) tractable. Fortunately, on the
is the use of the output of this modeling effort for
mid-term horizon, this policy makes sense or is at
planning purposes. The output takes on the form of the
least a starting point. However, in the short term,
total lead time characterization, optimized lot sizes,
managers like to deviate from this discipline and
utilization levels and other derivatives. Without going
they like to do this for numerous reasons. Some
into detail, we will illustrate this for some well-known
reasons are readily justified as, for instance, to save
planning systems used today:
on sequence-dependent setups. However, the result
of setting dynamic priorities (for example, pure * Material requirements planning (or ERP and the like):
expediting in terms of customer calls and yells) None of these systems give some indication on how
may cause more trouble than it deserves and
consequently ruining up the net result for the
system as a whole. Behind this is the reality that
each decision to expedite contains immediately a Stochasticity Stochasticity
number of decisions to de-expedite. It is not clear
that for the entire material flow this is a good way
to go: even if it keeps the average delivery under Variability Effective
control, the effects on the variability of delivery Utilization
are less clear cut. Details can be found in Dupon
et al. [2].
* Release policy: Heterogeneity Heterogeneity
* Management may decide to release work onto the

system in various ways and for various objectives.

At this point it would lead us far to analyze this Fig. 3. The content of Advanced Resource Planning.
 N. Vandaele, L. De Boeck / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 211–218
lead times (for the material off-setting in the
explosion process) should be set. On the contrary,
these systems assume that this lead time information
is known, deterministic and static. None of these is
true. Given the above discussion about the lead time
determinants, in many systems lead times are not
appropriately calculated. Moreover, lead times are
stochastic variables themselves, meaning that only a
lead time percentile is a correct way to import it into
an MRP calculation. On top of that, as both demand
and capacity are dynamic, lead times behave accord-
ingly. As a consequence, MRP off-setting lead times
should be adopted regularly if conditions evolve.
MRP systems rely also heavily on lot sizes, but how
these have to be obtained is not determined at all.
Advanced Resource Planning provides optimized lot
sizes that can be considered as target values for the
shorter-term decision making.
* Just-in-time: In these systems the production lines
have to be capacitated in such a way that in
many cases the instantaneous pull signal can be
fulfilled without much delay (i.e. within the tact time
interval). Even in the best designed production
lines, variations in the parameters are hard to exclude
so that each station will have to take a capacity
‘cushion’ into account in order to be responsive to the
just-in-time calls. This cushion has everything to do
with the consideration that the lead time on the
station is stochastic (due to both demand and
process fluctuations) and that a pull signal must
be fulfilled within the tact time with a high
probability. Therefore, the results of the above
discussion on lead time determinants are a necessity.
Lot sizing is a kind of anomaly in just-in-time
systems as a lot size equal to one is the ultimate
goal. It is worthwhile to mention that due to the fact
of mass-customization and the increasing product
diversity (i.e. heterogeneity) lot sizes equal to one are
not always the predicate anymore. In these circum-
stances, the lot size information from Advanced
Resource Planning can help, because it minimizes the
overall average lead time being one of the main
objectives of just-in-time.
* Theory of Constraints: In this approach the defined
bottleneck governs the rate of the entire system. The
non-bottleneck machines work in accordance with
the bottleneck directions in terms of schedules and
material provision. Without going into further detail,
the fact that in ‘Theory of Constraints’-systems the
material should be available in front of the bottleneck
with a very high probability (to protect the bottleneck
from losing throughput, which otherwise automati-
cally will make a loss for the entire system) is nothing
else than a lead time percentile over the routing
feeding the bottleneck. In other words, the concept
of a rope (both the constraint, the assembly as the
215
shipping rope) is exactly the information the
Advanced Resource Planning provides. The Theory
of Constraints does not effectively deal with the lot
sizing issue. Especially because on bottlenecks lot
sizing is strongly limited (lack of capacity) while on
non-bottlenecks lot sizing is less stringent, one has to
be very careful not to create artificial bottlenecks by
performing many setups (too small lot sizes). It is
clear that this compromising on lot size can only be
obtained by an integrated approach over the entire
network.
* Detailed scheduling: For each manufacturing order,
these short-term schedulers need a release and a due
date (defined as the time window for the order)
from outside the scheduling system. It is known
that if these windows are too small, scheduling
engines face difficulties in solving the scheduling
problem and will end up with a lot of orders over
due (which may be unavoidable in the given
circumstances). If these windows are too large,
scheduling will be easier but at the expense of early
releases, high levels of work-in-process and long lead
times. The latter is hard because more extended
forecasts will be needed and thus inducing (unneces-
sary!) uncertainty in the planning system. In addition,
finite schedulers must be fed with the appropriate lot
sizes, because if this job is left for the scheduling
engine, the solution power drops dramatically as the
number of combinations/alternatives astronomically
explodes. Applications of these ideas are written
in [3–5].
There are many more applications of the output of an
Advanced Resource Planning system. Basically it can
be summarized as follows: it provides the integrated,
stochastic approach of handling material and capacity
planning decisions simultaneously, providing a totally
characterized lead time, complete with adequate infor-
mation on lot sizes, utilizations and tuning opportu-
nities. The latter consists of the possibility of running
easily what–if’s to find out how an unacceptable
situation can be remedied.
3. A software implementation: i-CLIPS
The queuing network which is the backbone of
Advanced Resource Planning approach is described
extensively in other works (see [5] for an extensive
reference in the field of scheduling). The software
implementations can take many forms, mainly depend-
ing on the type of operational system one is considering.
The i-CLIPS software is typically developed for job
shop environments like metal working. However, we
like to stress that other environments have analogue
216 N. Vandaele, L. De Boeck / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 211–218
needs and can benefit from the use of the Advanced
Resource Planning concept. We studied examples in
concrete production, hospital management (see [6]),
automated packing (see [7]), brewing processes and
pharmaceutical industries. For the sequel of the text, we
focus on i-CLIPS, intended for job shop environments.
First, we elaborate on the decision environment typical
for a job shop.
The decision problem at hand can be summarized as
follows: given the fluctuations of demand volume and
mix; given the fluctuating availability of capacity, how
can we manage both demand and capacity so that
customer service is at the right level subject to the
financial/cost constraints? In order to underpin this
business process, data are usually available from the
following sources: bill of material, routings, resource
files, resource availability lists and demand records. The
data requirements are quite generic so that typical ERP
systems can provide these data. The output of i-CLIPS
provides the decision maker with lot size and lead time
information for each product and component. This
includes both the expected lead time and the lead time
probability distribution. This provides customer service
levels and safety times. As an additional output
parameter, batch sizes are obtained which minimize
the expected lead time.
i-CLIPS guides the decision maker in three basic
ways: it improves the Planning, it Tunes the capacity
and it offers levers for Improvement.
3.1. Planning
Planning is the main objective of the i-CLIPS tool.
As lead times and lot sizes are dynamic parameters,
i-CLIPS regularly recalculates the lead times and lot
sizes as seasonalities, mix changes, resource calendars,
disruptive events are taking place. This creates robust
lead times and lot sizes for ERP calculations, time
windows for finite scheduling, timely purchasing
instructions, robust outsourcing guidelines, etc.
3.2. Tuning
If the output of i-CLIPS turns out to be unsatisfac-
tory, remedying actions have to be taken. ‘Being
unsatisfactory’ can take many forms: the lead time
may be too long and yield low customer service, the lead
times may be too short (with high customer service but
at the expense of low utilization), lot sizes may not be
appropriate (either too small for practical and produc-
tivity considerations or too large), etc. Therefore,
management will have to intervene and explore valuable
alternatives along the axis of the capacity-lead time
trade-off and the responsiveness-customer service trade-
off. Both measurements on the demand/load side (e.g.
off-loading, allocation, demand management,y) and
on the capacity side (adding/deleting shifts and over-
time, out- or in-sourcing,y) will be considered to
remedy the undesirable output. Once the parameters
become acceptable, the final output can be used for the
planning decisions described above.
3.3. Levers for improvement
It is clear that stochastic models can be used to
analyze the impact of improvement efforts. Typical
issues investigated are the impact of adding strategic
excess capacity, (focused) setup time reductions, im-
proved maintenance and repair programs, lower defect
rates, better quality, better process control, better
demand management, etc.
It is well known that (M)ERP buffers each level of the
Bill of Material against uncertainty and variability in
order to guarantee a certain service level. Let’s illustrate
this numerically with an example taken from Vandaele
and Lambrecht [8]. Suppose a job arrives on average
every 8 h (exponentially distributed). The average
processing time equals 6 h (exponentially distributed)
for one level in the Bill of Material. The expected lead
time equals 24 h. For a 95% service level we will have to
quote a lead time of 72 h. Assume now that we have five
levels in the Bill of Material, the expected processing
time per level equals 6 h (exponentially distributed). The
total 95% service quoted lead time equals 360 h (72  5).
In an aggregate MRP setting, we will treat the five levels
as one and consequently we will buffer only once. The
great advantage is that we allow risk pooling, a long lead
time on one workstation can be compensated by a short
lead time in another workstation. Making use of the
Erlang distribution shows that the 95% service quoted
lead time equals 219.85 h. Clearly, a drastic reduction in
quoted lead time for the same service level. Allocated
safety time is inferior to pooled safety time. The
aggregate high level MRP concept is quite different
from the lead time off-setting, milestones-based tradi-
tional ERP approach. The existence of assemblies,
bottlenecks and material trace-ability requirements will
of course limit the use of pooled safety time. This shows
again the richness and the generality of the Advanced
Resources Planning concept.
In order to show the practical relevance, we describe
one of the output windows (Fig. 4): the lead time
information per product over the complete routing. The
‘Tot Production Lead Time’ is the expected lead time
while ‘Planned Lead Time’ represents the lead time
percentiles associated with a customer service level of
90% (as mentioned on top of the window). On these
lead time percentiles the ‘What–If’ stands for ‘on-line’
analysis for different percentiles. The second window
shows the lot sizes used in the lead times shown on the
window on the right side. Here also, a synthesizing
aggregate measure of the system is shown: aggregate
 N. Vandaele, L. De Boeck / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 211–218
Fig. 4. The lead time output of i-clips.
lead time. It gives an idea how the system as a whole
reacts to the lot sizing optimization and/or to subse-
quent tuning and improvement suggestions.
4. An industrial implementation
In this section we report on the results of an
implementation of i-CLIPS at Spicer Off Highway,
Brugge (Belgium). This metal working company pro-
duces powershift transmissions for the OEM market.
More details about the company, implementation and
detailed results can be found in [4]. Here we just focus
on the improvements in the logistic performance
measures.
We improved lead times and inventory turns. To
verify the lead time performance with i-CLIPS we
conducted the following computer experiments. In
the first planning experiment we evaluated the
existing planning practice. The current planning
practice involves the use of heuristically determined lot
sizes (fixed at 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 weeks of supply) and the
use of local, myopic priority rules for scheduling. In the
second experiment we set the lot sizes as obtained
through the optimization routine and the scheduling
217
is done by the extended shifting bottleneck procedure
[9] in place of the local priority rules. The exact
problem size concerned 556 different components, 70
machines, 3484 operations and about 10,000 orders.
The conclusion is that the average lead time per
order can be reduced by a factor three to four. We
figured out that 85% of the lead time improvement
is due to Advanced Resources Planning and for 15%
due to improved scheduling [3]. The above-
mentioned lead time reduction is based on a computer
experiment. Real-life data show that the lead time
for final products decreased from the original 16 weeks
on average, to lead times in the range 6–8 weeks. A
lead time reduction by a factor 2–3 is a realistic
estimate.
A secondary effect of this lead time reduction is a
significant reduction of internal quality problems while
yearly inventory turns have increased from 3.5 to 6. A
relentless search to reduce the total manufacturing lead
time has led to a complete new layout of the plant,
focused on cellular manufacturing. This was possible
only after managers made a couple of strategic decisions
supported by the Advanced Resource Planning concept.
For instance, they decided to outsource all non-core
processes and components.
218 N. Vandaele, L. De Boeck / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 211–218
The use of the Advanced Resource Planning
approach induced several other supporting activities.
Based on the data needs for i-CLIPS, each machine
operation, for example, is now identified by its five most
important setup characteristics ranked in order of
changeover time required. This allows us to implement
a sequence dependent setup time routine to minimize the
setup time loss. Indices to measure product variety were
developed as well. Spicer Off Highway also developed a
monitoring system to manage the projected availability
of raw materials against the planned release dates of
manufacturing orders. It thereby coordinates its capa-
city and material plans.
5. Conclusion
We described a novel approach named Advanced
Resource Planning. It starts with the general observa-
tion that all planning systems share the same issues,
namely planning both material and capacity simulta-
neously on the time axis. Up till now, this complicated
task has not been appropriately dealt with. What we
need is a transformation of both demand and capacity
parameters of an operational system into to the
determination of performance measures like the lead
time, utilization, inventory, etc. On top of that we
stressed the importance of obtaining all characteristics
of a lead time: not only the average, but also the
variance and the entire distribution in order to obtain
lead time percentiles. The latter is a fundamental input
for any planning system, as we illustrated in the case of
MRP, JIT, TOC and finite scheduling. As Advanced
Resource Planning is not an easy thing, advanced
mathematics of queuing networks is involved. We
developed a software, named i-CLIPS, mainly intended
for job shop environments. We reported on a successful
implementation in a metal working industry. Never-
theless, a lot of other environments, including services,
may benefit from the approach.
Acknowledgements
This research was sponsored by the National Science
Foundation of Flanders, project G.0053.03. The authors
like to thank K. Verhelst for numerous supporting
activities and suggestions on the paper.
References
[1] Hopp W, Spearman M. Factrory physics. Irwin and McGraw-Hill,
Homewood, IL and New York, 2000. 668pp.
[2] Dupon A, Vannieuwenhuyse I, Vandaele N. The impact of
sequence changes on product lead time. Flexible Automation and
Intelligent Manufacturing. Dublin, 2001.
[3] Lambrecht M, Ivens P, Vandaele N. Aclips: a capacity and lead
time integrated procedure for scheduling. Management Science 44
11;1998:1548–61.
[4] Vandaele N, Lambrecht M, De Schuyter N, Cremmery R.
Improved lead time performance at spicer off highway. Interfaces
101;2000:83–95.
[5] Vandaele N, Lambrecht M. Planning and scheduling in an
assemble-to-order environment: spicer off-highway products divi-
sion. In: Song JS, David D Y, editors. Supply Chain Structures:
Coordination Information and Optimisation. Kluwer Academic
Publishers: Dordrecht, 2002. p. 61.
[6] Vandaele N, Vannieuwenhuyse I, Cupers S. Optimal batching at
a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Scanner. European Journal of
Operational Research, Accepted for publication, 2003.
[7] Vandaele N, De boeck L, Callewier D. An Open Queueing
Network for Lead Time Analysis. IIE Transactions 34(1);2002:1–9.
[8] Vandaele N, Lambrecht M. Reflections on the use of stochastic
manufacturing models for planning decisions, In: W.H.M. Zijm,
David D, editors. Liber Amicorum J. A Buzacott, Yao, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, forthcoming, 2003.
[9] Ivens P, Lambrecht M. Extending the shifting bottleneck
procedure to real-life applications. European Journal of Opera-
tional Research. 90;1996:252–68.