Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 157–171

MRP-controlled manufacturing environment disturbed

by uncertainty
S.C.L. Koha,*, S.M. Saadb
a
Management School, University of Sheffield, 9 Mappin Street, Sheffield S1 4DT, UK
b
School of Engineering, Sheffield Hallam University, City Campus, Sheffield S1 1WB, UK

Abstract

Most identified research on uncertainty in material requirements planning (MRP)-controlled manufacturing environment, while
purporting to represent such environment, does not truly model a multi-level dependent demand system, with multi-product and
controlled by planned order release (POR) schedule based on planned lead times. This research has developed an MRP-controlled
batch manufacturing simulation model using ARENA simulation software to represent such environment. In this paper, the delivery
performance of the environment, measured with parts delivered late (PDL) and finished products delivered late (FPDL), when
disturbed by uncertainty is examined. Design of experiments and simulation studies are carried out for these uncertainties: external
late supply, internal late supply, planned set-up time exceeded, machine breakdowns, labour unavailability, tooling unavailability,
demand batch size enlargement and customer design changes. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results identify significant effects
from individual uncertainty as well as combination of uncertainties. The knock-on and the compound effects cause more PDL and
FPDL. The main finding is that the higher is the level of the significant uncertainties, the higher is the level of PDL and FPDL. It is
suggested that MRP-controlled manufacturing enterprise must diagnose for the significant uncertainties, so that optimum use of
buffer or slack can be implemented. Some practical implications of this work and required further work are also discussed.
r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: MRP; Release logic; Uncertainty; Batch manufacturing

1. Introduction of these systems in batch manufacturing enterprises is

Modern manufacturing enterprises are facing increas-
ing pressure to respond to production dynamics caused
by disruption of uncertainty. In this paper, uncertainty
is defined as any unplanned events that occur during
production, which disrupt orders execution. Central to
this are the role of the production planning and
scheduling systems within such enterprises.
In batch manufacturing environment, material re-
quirements planning (MRP), manufacturing resource
planning (MRPII) or enterprise resource planning
(ERP) has been recommended as the ideal system [1].
Since the MRP release logic is deployed in MRPII and
ERP systems, when they are used for production
planning and scheduling, the scheduled outputs are
identical. This research focuses on their roles in
production planning and scheduling, therefore the use
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1144-222-3395; fax: +44-114-
222-3348.
E-mail address: s.c.l.koh@sheffield.ac.uk (S.C.L. Koh).
referred as MRP-controlled manufacturing environment.
Extensive research can be found in the examination
for an appropriate technique to tackle uncertainty [2,3],
for example, the use of safety stock to tackle quantity
uncertainty or rescheduling to tackle timing uncertainty.
However, little emphasis has been put on investigating
the correct representation of an MRP-controlled man-
ufacturing environment. This environment typifies a
multi-product and multi-level dependent demand system
whereby the production orders execution is governed
by a planned order release (POR) schedule. A POR
schedule is the typical output from the MRP run [4].
A range of different methods may be used for order
release with MRPII or ERP system, including Kanban
and work-to-list. These methods are not considered in
this study because we are interested in the performance
of a push system in a finite-capacitated scenario without
intervention of any buffer or slack.
The use of Kanban may invalidate the planned release
time in the POR schedule because it will pull order from
the preceding workstation if the current workstation is

0736-5845/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 7 3 6 - 5 8 4 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 7 3 - X
158 S.C.L. Koh, S.M. Saad / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 157–171
idle, which may result in early release of order. Early
release contradicts with the MRP release logic within
which order will never be released until the release date
is reached [5]. This is to avoid part shortages at the
associated lower level bill of material (BOM) to process
the related part at the higher level. To ensure the multi-
level dependent demand relationship is permanently
linked, particularly, under a finite-capacitated manufac-
turing environment, this release logic plays a vital role
in evaluating the effectiveness of release timing and
quantity for parts at the subsequent process.
Work-to-list lists a series of jobs that need to be
completed in a batch. Some enterprises use this as their
production execution mode [6]. The use of work-to-list is
unnecessary in this study because batch release can
easily be designed in the POR schedule; therefore one
design architecture has been eliminated. This will be
discussed in the later section.
A correct representation of MRP-controlled manu-
facturing environment is crucial to demonstrate and
analyse how uncertainty affects the production and
enterprises’ performance, and to effectively provide a
knowledge base for prevention and/or reaction.
2. Literature review
Review of the literature on representation of MRP-
controlled manufacturing environment to examine its
performance when disturbed by uncertainty has been
carried out. This section discusses the past research and
comments on the effectiveness of previous representa-
tion of such environment.
Minifie and Davies [7] developed a dynamic MRP-
controlled manufacturing system simulation model
to study the interaction effects of demand and supply
uncertainties. These uncertainties were modelled in
terms of changes in lot-size, timing, planned orders
and policy fence on several system performance
measures, namely late deliveries, number of set-ups,
ending inventory levels, component shortages and
number of exception reports. It was concluded that
the system performance is significantly affected when
disturbed by demand and supply uncertainties.
They used POR schedule to release order into the
simulation model. However, their simulation model
allowed partial order release when some required parts
at the lower level BOM chain are available on hand.
This logic violates MRP release logic in two-fold: (1)
order at the upper level BOM cannot be released until
all parts at the lower level BOM are available, and (2)
this order cannot be released early or it can only be
released when its release date is reached or at a later
release date (late release).
Using a similar research methodology, Brennan and
Gupta [8] examined the performance of MRP-controlled
manufacturing environment under demand and lead-
time uncertainties. The effects from the use of different
lot-sizing rules were also considered. It was concluded
that these uncertainties could be tackled by using
appropriate lot-sizing rules. A multi-product and
multi-level dependent demand system was developed,
which the production orders execution was controlled
by POR schedule. Additional algorithm was coded to
control order release by checking availability of all
required components. Nevertheless, their order release
logic ignored the feasibility of parts’ early completion,
which it allowed order at the higher levels BOM chain to
be released early. The consequences of this logic are that
some part shortages would occur in the process and in
reality the part that was affected by the shortages would
have never been completed if buffer or slack does not
exist.
To represent MRP-controlled manufacturing
environment, similar simulation models have been
developed by Enns [1], Ho and Carter [9] and
Homem-de-Mello et al. [10]. The above omissions are
the most common, made by the researchers in this field.
Little research can be found, which has modelled
the MRP release logic in its entirety. They were the
closest representation of MRP-controlled manufactur-
ing environment.
Kanet and Sridharan [11] examined late delivery of
raw materials, variations in process lead-times, inter-
operation move times and queue waiting times in MRP-
controlled manufacturing environment. To model such
environment, they represented demand by inter-arrival
time rather than defined from the master production
schedule (MPS). Matsuura et al. [12] adopted the same
approach to model demand. This has resulted in the
absence of an order release schedule to control produc-
tion orders execution. Since the MRP lead-time was not
represented in anywhere in the system, it did not model
the MRP release logic. The production orders execution
was controlled by a flow line rather than processed in
batch. This logic ignored the MRP multi-level depen-
dent demand. Additionally, only a single product was
modelled and there was no control over the release
timing of the orders. The use of MRP needs to be
justified with a complex multi-product set-up because
simple product variety does not realistically require the
assistance of such systems. Their models are a more
accurate representation of an independent demand
system or a flow line.
Yang and Pei [13] examined the effects of engineering
changes using integration between a design model
and an MRP-controlled manufacturing system simula-
tion model. In their study, only engineering changes
during planning were examined. These changes
were transformed into the manufacturing BOM before
the production begins. It was concluded that early
engineering changes could be accommodated easily in
 S.C.L. Koh, S.M. Saad / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 157–171
production. They did not consider late engineering
changes that might occur during production, which
could render significant deviations to the POR schedule
on order release timing and quantity. Since the MRP
release logic used was not discussed in detail in their
paper, definite conclusion cannot be made on the basis
of the effectiveness of their model.
Although much research can be found claiming
have had modelled the MRP release logic in its entirety,
little evidence are available to support and explain
the implementation of the logic. Although the sugges-
tions proposed by the researchers may or may not be
affected by the effectiveness of the representation
of such environment, the simulation results will certainly
vary and this may subsequently affect the validity of
the suggestions in relation to the performance measures
used. For example, if early release is persisted, the
implication will be unnecessary higher inventory level as
the parts are not required until the scheduled date.
Consequently, this gives a faulty inventory level and it
could lead to a deceptive proposal on reducing the level
of inventory.
Two of the most important findings from this
literature review are: (1) MRP release logic has not
been represented in its entirety, and (2) simulation
modelling appears to be the most common research
methodology used to model MRP-controlled manufac-
turing environment.
This research aims to develop a batch manufacturing
system simulation model to truly represent an MRP-
controlled manufacturing environment in its entirety.
This paper presents the developmental and experimental
work on modelling its operations and performance when
disturbed by several uncertainties simultaneously. It also
provides some useful insights into the relative signifi-
cance of the uncertainties.
3. Simulation model development
This research has developed a batch manufacturing
system simulation model to represent an MRP-con-
trolled manufacturing environment. It is programmed
using SIMAN V simulation language within the
ARENA simulation software. The baseline in the
simulation model is a series of resources (machine,
labour or tool) and its associated queues.
The most challenging work in order to successfully
model such environment is to effectively design
and implement the MRP release logic in a simulated
finite-capacitated manufacturing system. This includes
modelling of a multi-level dependent demand system
and an order release timing control. We look at
the information in a typical POR schedule to investigate
how this information can be used to model such
environment.
159
3.1. Multi-level dependent demand
A typical POR schedule contains customer order
number, part number, net requirement, release date
and due date. It is a collection of scheduled output of
all orders in the MPS. It acts as the controller to
release order for production execution in the simulation
model.
Since the simulation model executes forward in time,
all orders in the POR schedule have to be ranked in
chronological order by release date and part number.
This ranking enables parts at the lower level BOM for
each product with smaller release date to be processed
prior to their sub-assembly and finished product.
Nevertheless, the orders in the POR schedule do not
have a unique identity likewise in the BOM to link the
parts demand dependency. Although their due date can
be closely tracked with the release date of the related
part at the upper level BOM, there could be an identical
release date for a different part, which may create
ambiguity in establishing parts demand dependency.
Additionally, if delay has occurred during production,
such tracking may not work due to lead-time variations.
To overcome these limitations, a tagging configura-
tion is developed. The tagging configuration is derived
from the concept known as the parent and child in MRP
system. Child is referred to required parts or compo-
nents to assemble or manufacture parts at the upper
level BOM chain. Parent is defined as parts, sub-
assemblies or finished products, at the upper level
BOM chain, which is dependent on completion and
availability of all required child before they can be
processed.
Using this concept, several tagging attributes are
designed but the most important attributes are: (1) part
tag, (2) parent tag, and (3) child number tag. Part tag is
configured from the concatenation of customer order
number and part number. Parent tag is configured from
the parent’s part tag. Child number tag is configured
from the sum of the required number of child for a part.
Consider an illustrative example. Let:
Customer order number for product j¼x;
Child number tag for product j, which is a parent¼7
(assume it requires a total of 7 child);
The part numbers for the child of product
j¼a,b,c,d,e,f,g;
Child number tag for part a¼5;
The part numbers for the child of part a ¼ h; i; j; k; l;
The tagging configuration will generate the following:
The part tag of product j¼xj;
The parent tag of product j¼x0; (a value of zero is
assigned because it does not have a parent)
The part tag of part a¼xa, the part tag of part b¼xb,
y the part tag of part g¼xg;
The parent tag of part a¼xj, the parent tag of part
b¼xj, y the parent tag of part g¼xj;
160 S.C.L. Koh, S.M. Saad / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 157–171
The part tag of part h¼xh, the part tag of part i¼xi,
y the part tag of part l¼xl;
The parent tag of part h¼xa, the parent tag of part
i¼xa, y the parent tag of part l¼xa;
Recognition of parent and child is shown by the
identical values between the part tag of product j and
the parent tag of its child. The example has also
considered the case of multi-level dependent demand
(parent=part a, child¼part h,i,j,k,l). The values of the
child number tag give the expectation for the number of
matching values sets. In this example, there are 7 sets of
matching values between product j and its child; and
there are only 5 sets between part a and its child. An
identical parent tag value for each of the part tag of part
a–g and h–l is expected at their respective lower level
BOM chain. To summarise, by comparing the values of
the part tag and the parent tag, such tagging configura-
tion could clearly recognise and verify the parts demand
dependency.
The tagging configuration is coded using Visual Basic
Application. The results are known as an advanced POR
schedule. The advanced POR schedule contains all
typical information in a POR schedule with the addition
of the tagging attributes. Using this information, the
parts multi-level dependent demand is permanently
linked in the simulation model.
3.2. Order release timing
Owing to the assumption of infinite capacity in MRP
to generate the release date, there is no guarantee that
the parts can be released according to plan in the
simulation model when resource constraints or uncer-
tainties are applied. We examine the default time that
the simulation model uses. We found that every part is
being released at its first feasible current simulation time
(from time zero). In SIMAN V, this time is stored in a
reserved variable known as time now (TNOW) [14].
However, the release date is the start time for produc-
tion in an MRP-controlled manufacturing environment,
and hence this time should be used instead of the
simulated start time.
Delaying the order release date before the first
operation begins has successfully solved this problem.
The TNOW is being forwarded in time. This has
resulted in the orders to be released according to their
release date if tardiness does not occur.
Nonetheless, release of parent in such time implies
that they are independent of the completion time of
their child. If some required child has not yet completed
their production, the parent will start its produc-
tion with child shortages and it is still able to complete
the batch. In contrast, the parent should never be
released until all required child arrived. When they
are arrived, the parent will be released at that time.
On the other hand, if all required child has completed
their production earlier than their due date, the
parent will start its production at TNOW, which
is earlier than the release date. In contrast, the
parent should never be released earlier than the release
date.
Given that we need to control over the order release
timing, it is important to be able to evaluate the validity
of any potential release. Evaluation of the difference
between TNOW and release date gives three potential
releases scenario: (1) prompt, (2) late, and (3) early.
Fig. 1 shows the order release timing logic, which is
designed to eradicate the above limitations.
If a part is about to be released, and the TNOW
equals its release date, the part will be released without
delay. This scenario is known as the prompt release,
which it can be achieved when the lead-time is accurate
and the planned resources are available. This scenario
may or may not be achieved at all time due to finite-
capacitated manufacturing and disruption to production
from uncertainty.
In such case, the second scenario is feasible. Late
release is the outcome when the TNOW is greater than
the release date. The part will be released at TNOW. If
this is a child for another parent, it is likely that the
parent will also be released late due to the tardiness of its
child under the condition where buffer or slack does not
exist. This scenario may or may not be true if buffer or
slack is available.
For example, if the planned lead-times in the MRP
system for the required child of a parent have been
over-estimated, this will result in early completion of
the child if the planned resources are available to process
the parts. As a result, the third scenario may be feasible
because the parent is in a position to be released.
However, MRP will only release order when the
release date is reached or thereafter, hence the earliness
(release date—TNOW) is offset to counteract with
this scenario. The implication is similar to the prompt
release scenario, with the exception that the delay is
relatively smaller for the third scenario.
Parts to be released
Yes
TNOW = Release date? Prompt release
No
Yes
Route parts to
TNOW > Release date? Late release
routing
No
Delay: Release date - TNOW;
Prevent early
release
Fig. 1. Order release timing logic.
 S.C.L. Koh, S.M. Saad / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 157–171 161

3.3. Simulation model logic
The designs of the multi-level dependent demand
system and the order release timing control are
embedded in the simulation model logic. Fig. 2 shows
the simulation model logic.
The priority for production orders execution is
determined by the release date. The earlier is the release
date, the higher is the execution priority. To model such
priority rule, the release date and the part number for all
orders in the advanced POR schedule are pre-ranked
in chronological order. Since ARENA permits reading
of sequential data [14], such ranking automates the
execution priority in the simulation model.
To route the orders for production process to the
planned resources, a routing number is initially assigned
to each part in the advanced POR schedule. The routing
consists of the set-up and operation times at the planned
machine, labour or tool for producing a part. There is a
destination in the simulation model where the routing is
stored with respect to each routing number. By assign-
ing the part routing number to the sequence Number
(NS), a reserved variable in SIMAN V for defining
operations sequence [14], the parts can be easily directed
to its own routing. Batch manufacturing is modelled by
delaying the operation time for a batch. Given that the
operation time in the routing is defined in a unit basis,
this time is multiplied with the net requirement of the
order.
The values of the attributes in the advanced POR
schedule are read into the simulation model record-by-
record. In such case, it is expected that those child at the
lower level BOM will be processed. When they have
completed their production, they have to search for their
parent. Thus, they cannot be disposed. However, their
parent does not yet exist in the simulation model
because they have not been read. This prohibits the
searching and hence the parts demand dependency is
lost.
These problems can be solved in two methods: (1) by
modelling a pre-defined queue for every completed child
to wait for their parent to arrive, or (2) by pre-routing
every parent to a pre-defined queue at the beginning of
the simulation to wait for the completion of their child.
Both methods have been tested and we found that they
give identical results, but the latter method reduced the
simulation time by 97%. Therefore, this method is
implemented in the simulation model.
Pre-routing the parent requires upgrading their record
sequence to the forefront of the advanced POR
schedule. To verify whether the part is a parent, only
those order that has a child number tag greater than zero
is upgraded. This arrangement enables pre-routing of
every parent to a pre-defined queue in the simulation
model. The simulation model needs to recognise the
threshold of such pre-routing. Therefore, the same
parent verification is coded. If this condition is true, it
verifies for the existence of a parent, and the parent is
routed to a holding bay (pre-defined queue). Until a
point where this condition is false, the next part will be
the first child, which has the earliest release date.
The child will be routed to its routings for production.
Before production, the release date will be evaluated
according to the order release timing logic. When it is

Start

Advanced
POR Read
Schedule

No Part = Child at the Once a child/parent is

Child number tag>0?
lowest level BOM completed:

Yes

Part = Parent Evaluate release

Route to its queue date SEARCH, No
ParentQSet(Holding): Record
(Parent tag == Part performance
tag);
ParentQSet(Holding) Route for supply
Dispose
Yes

No
Child number tag = REMOVE: Parent entity,
Child number tag = 0? End
Child number tag - 1 ParentQSet(Holding);

Yes

Route parent for

Evaluate release date
manufacture

Fig. 2. Simulation model logic.

162 S.C.L. Koh, S.M. Saad / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 157–171

completed, it exits the manufacturing system. The exit is These products consist of three to five BOM levels
coded to signify for the completion of a routing. Then, (multi-level) with a mixture of 60% purchased and 40%
it searches its parent in the holding bay by finding a manufactured parts. There are a total of 434 different
matching value between the part tag and the parent tag. parts in this product range. This range represents a
When the matching value is found, it removes the parent complex routing assignment for each part. Their MPS
entity in the holding bay. The removal is coded to are run through an MRP system, which result in some
signify for a successful search. After removal, the 50,000 batches of orders in the POR schedule. Their
parent’s child number tag is reduced in one. This values for each tagging attributes are generated and then
reduction is coded to lead to the eventual stage (child the advanced POR schedule is integrated into the
number tag=0), where all required child are completed. simulation model for the experiments.
At this stage, the entity can be disposed when all Ten types of machines, six types of assemblers
required performance measures are collected. and inspectors, and four types of tooling are modelled.
A parent may have more than one child. Hence, the Table 1 shows the resources capacity levels. All
next step is to check whether all required child is machines are set to work on a 24 h basis, whilst all
completed before it can be released under the control of labour work on 3 eighth shifts.
the order release timing logic. If these conditions are not It has been assumed that no alternative machines are
being satisfied, the parent will continue to stay in the available if the required machines breakdown and no
holding bay to wait for the other required child. alternative routing can be executed if an order needs to
Otherwise, the parent will be released for production. be expedited. Additionally, no multi-skilling labour has
To accommodate for those parts that have double also been assumed. The tooling assignment for each part
roles (parent and child) for different parts, the same is fixed; therefore no flexible set-up can be performed if
search, remove and child number tag reduction processes the required tools are not available. These assumptions
will recur until a negative search result is obtained. This are designed towards setting-up the experiments that are
result implies that the parts multi-level dependent without the influence of any buffer or slack.
demand has been entirely processed. These processes
cease when all orders in the advanced POR schedule are 4.2. Performance measures
processed.
Owing to the objective and the design of this
experiment, the effects of uncertainty can be clearly
4. Experimental design measured by the amount of negative effects on delivery.
Timely delivery is becoming increasingly important in
The objective of the experiment is to investigate the today’s competitive business environment; hence the
net effects of uncertainty on delivery performance in an performance on tardiness is measured.
MRP-controlled manufacturing environment. The net
effects are referred to the outcome after we have relaxed
the influence of any buffer or slack on the effects of Table 1
uncertainty. This is designed to provide clear insight and Resources capacity levels
direction to MRP-controlled manufacturing enterprises, Resource Type Capacity
for deciding their priority in tackling the uncertainty.
Guillotine Machine 1
Several important issues in the experimental design
Break Press Machine 1
are addressed: (1) what parameters settings to be used, Drill Machine 1
(2) what performance measures to be used, and (3) what Coiler Machine 4
uncertainties to be modelled, at how many levels and at Finished Coiler 1 Machine 1
what levels. The assumptions used for the experiments Finished Coiler 2 Machine 1
Turret Punch Machine 2
are discussed within the relevant issues.
Weld Machine 3
Mixer Machine 5
4.1. Parameters settings Setting Machine 1
Assembly station 1 Labour 12
The simulation model is parameterised using the data Assembly station 2 Labour 1
Assembly station 3 Labour 1
collected from a transformer manufacturer, which use
Assembly station 4 Labour 2
an MRP system for production planning and schedul- Deburr Labour 1
ing. They operate in batch manufacturing. We study Inspector Labour 1
their product range to identify the most active products Tool Set 1 Tool 1
sales over the last 2 y. This has led to ten products Tool Set 2 Tool 1
Tool Set 3 Tool 2
(multi-product) and hence the MPS is set-up based on
Tool Set 4 Tool 2
their demand.
 S.C.L. Koh, S.M. Saad / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 157–171 163

Dual tardiness performance measures are examined:
(1) the proportion of finished products delivered late
(FPDL), and (2) the proportion of parts delivered late
(PDL). In this experiment, tardiness is defined as
TNOW>due date. This condition is evaluated before
a part is disposed in the simulation. If this condition is
true, the part will be recorded and added to the tardiness
counter.
If the part involved is a finished product, the FPDL is
increased by 1/total number of finished products in the
advanced POR schedule. Recognition for a finished
product is decided by a parent tag with a value of zero
being assigned to its secondary concatenated fragment
(parent’s part number). If it is not a finished product,
the PDL is increased by 1/total number of parts in the
advanced POR schedule (50,000—total number of
finished products).
Both measures are designed to give different views on
the effects of uncertainty. For example, if a part is
delivered late, it will certainly be recorded in the PDL.
However, this part may be used as a child for other
parts, which means its multi-level demand dependency
may result in late delivery on its related parent.
Therefore, a part that is delivered late as a result of
uncertainty may lead to larger PDL. On the other hand,
such effects may not be affecting FPDL if buffer or slack
is employed to expedite the affected orders. Since we
aimed to ensure that there is no buffer or slack in the
simulation model, it will be interesting to see whether
there is any difference in terms of the effects on
deliveries.
4.3. Uncertainties
The literature review appears to cover a diversified
range of uncertainties. However, there is no consensus
on why those uncertainties were examined. Without
establishing for the correct reasons, MRP-controlled
manufacturing enterprises might not rationalise their
effort.
A business model for diagnosing underlying causes
of uncertainty was developed by Koh [6]. This model
was applied to 126 MRP-controlled manufacturing
enterprises (including the transformer manufacturer),
which found eight uncertainties that are most likely to
affect customer delivery performance. These are external
late supply, internal late supply, planned set-up time
exceeded, machine breakdowns, labour unavailability,
tooling unavailability, demand batch size enlargement
and customer design changes. Their experiments are
designed. Table 2 shows a brief description of each of
the uncertainties.
The number of levels per factor determines the total
number of experiments required. To reduce the number
of experiments required, a half factorial of eight
uncertainties each at two levels is designed. This requires
a total of 12  28 ; 128 experiments. Two levels are
considered sufficient in this study because it enables
the uncertainties to be modelled realistically at high and
low levels. Ten replications are run for the pilot
experiments to achieve a normal distributed response.
Therefore a minimum of 1280 simulation run is
required.
A normal distributed response is measured by an
acceptable half-width (h) value, considered to be less
than 5% of the sample mean [15], whilst the confidence
level is set in all experiments to be 95%. If the error is
p5%, a normal distributed response is obtained. Thus
no further replication is required. Otherwise, further
replication is required until the limit is satisfied. See [14]
for the procedures to calculate the h value and the
number of further replication. Recursion of this
procedure has resulted in a total of 1534 simulation
run for this design of experiment.
Interviewing the transformer manufacturer gives de-
tails for the best and the worst scenario for setting the
levels of uncertainties. These levels are tested in the
experiments in conjunction with a sensitivity study
to investigate the responsiveness of the simulation
model to such levels. This is performed to ensure the
levels are within the tolerance of the simulation model to
give a sensible outcome. Table 3 shows the modelling
methods for each uncertainty and the selected levels
from the results of the sensitivity study. This is the
replica of a realistic level that is experienced by the
transformer manufacturer.

Table 2
Uncertainty descriptions

Uncertainty Description

External late supply External suppliers deliver later than scheduled

Internal late supply Internal suppliers, e.g. workstations of previous stages of production, complete their production
later than scheduled, thus they deliver later than scheduled
Planned set-up time exceeded Machines take longer than the planned time to set-up
Machine breakdowns Machines failure or stoppage
Labour unavailability Labour scheduled for production are not present
Tooling unavailability Tooling scheduled for production are not present
Demand batch size enlargement Customer increases demand or order size of scheduled product
Customer design changes Customer changes ordered product specification, hence resulting in additional operations required
 164

Table 3
Uncertainty modelling methods and the selected levels

Modelling method Levels

Uncertainty Parts/orders/resources Probability Low High

subjected distribution

External late supply Purchased parts with lead-time variation Discrete F ¼ 2%

M ¼ 1 day M ¼ 3 days
Internal late supply Manufactured parts with lead-time variation Discrete F ¼ 2%
M ¼ 1 day M ¼ 3 days
Planned set-up time Manufactured parts with machine set-up time Discrete F ¼ 5%
exceeded variation
M ¼ 15 min M ¼ 240 min
Labour unavailability Assemblies or parts for inspection with lead-time Discrete F ¼ 5%
variation
M ¼ 15 min M ¼ 240 min
Tooling unavailability Manufactured parts that require tool sets for Discrete F ¼ 5%
machining with lead-time variation
M ¼ 30 min M ¼ 480 min
Demand batch size Products with varied order size after being Discrete F ¼ 100%
enlargement scheduled
M ¼ 1 order per product M ¼ 10 orders per product
Customer design changes Manufactured parts with operations Discrete F ¼ 4% F ¼ 10%
routings variation
Machine breakdowns Break Press, Coiler and Weld failure Exponential F (Break Press)=125 days
with MTBF and MTTR F (Coiler)=50 days
F (Weld)=63 days
Gamma M (Break Press)=(300 min, 2) M (Break Press)=(1200 min, 2)
M (Coiler)=(120 min, 2) M (Coiler)=(1200 min, 2)
M (Weld)=(150 min, 2) M (Weld)=(1200 min, 2

Keys: F =Frequency: M=Magnitude: min=minute

S.C.L. Koh, S.M. Saad / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 157–171
 S.C.L. Koh, S.M. Saad / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 157–171
In general, each uncertainty is randomised with a
specific probability distribution. The distribution used is
dependent on the uncertainty. Parts that are subjected to
the uncertainties are expressed in terms of frequency and
magnitude. Frequency models the proportion of parts
that are subjected to uncertainty. Magnitude models the
tardiness of the uncertainty.
Consider external late supply, a representation of late
delivery from external suppliers. It is modelled with a
discrete probability distribution because such supply
tardiness is usually recorded in number of time unit late
with respect to the proportion of batches affected. In
reality, practitioners recognise and exercise such records.
For example, 2% (frequency) of the purchased batches
are on average being delivered late by one day or by
three days (magnitude). This method gives a useful
context to the practitioners. Since it is also simple to
model, it is employed in some cases. The frequency is
fixed at both levels because its increment will obviously
increase late delivery. The magnitude is varied so that
different levels of uncertainty can be modelled.
The uncertainties that are modelled with a discrete
probability distribution include internal late supply,
planned set-up time exceeded, labour unavailability,
tooling unavailability, demand batch size enlargement
and customer design changes. Internal late supply is
similar to the external, only with the exception that the
internal affects manufactured parts. The delivery of an
internal supply is dependent on the promptness of the
previous workstations. Only machined parts are sub-
jected to planned set-up time exceeded. Assemblies are
subjected to labour unavailability. Machined parts that
required tooling are subjected to tooling unavailability.
Demand batch size enlargement is a representation of
demand uncertainty. Demand uncertainty is modelled
with batch size variation as opposed to moving back-
ward the due date because the latter can be easily
tackled by rescheduling in MRP system. The more
interesting question in demand uncertainty is whether
order batch size enlargement will distort the POR
schedule. The underpinning motive for this is resources
will not be loaded in 100%; therefore the additional
order may be able to process through the manufacturing
system. This uncertainty is modelled with a double batch
size (frequency=100%) and with varied number of
orders being affected (magnitude) in a product. Varying
the number of orders affected gives a more randomised
effect because in reality we would not know in advanced
what orders are going to be subjected to demand
uncertainty.
Customer design changes are modelled with a routing
assignment problem. The design changes are represented
with additional operations in their routing. It has been
assumed that the resources required and the time
involved to process the additional operations are
known. This information can be easily identified and
165
estimated by the designers and the engineers. The design
changes are assumed to not involve any additional
replenishment of purchased parts. Magnitude of un-
certainty is not assigned because the lead-time variation
has already been considered in the revised routing. For
this uncertainty, frequency is the issue concerned by the
practitioners. Since it is difficult to predict which parts
would be subjected to customer design changes, thus the
frequency is varied to give a completely randomised
effect.
Machine breakdowns are a representation of machine
failure. In theory, machine failure can be measured with
mean time between failures (MTBF) and mean time to
repair (MTTR). An exponential distribution is used to
model MTBF. It defines the failures interval, which is
also the frequency for which the machine will break-
down. A gamma distribution is used to model MTTR. It
defines the failure elapsed time, which is the magnitude
of the machine downtime. These are the suggested
distributions to model machine failure [14]. The
frequency of machine breakdowns is fixed because this
can be estimated from the machine’s life. The magnitude
of machine breakdowns is varied because different
repairman or maintenance programme would affect
the elapsed downtime. This could be due to the learning
curve of the repairman or the efficiency of the
maintenance programme. There are only three ma-
chines, which are subjected to this uncertainty due to
their high utilisations.
5. Results, analysis and discussions
The results of the simulation experiments are analysed
using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The following
sections discuss the main effects and the interactions
outputs. The outputs significance is determined at a 0.05
level. Further analyses on the practical implications of
the results will also be discussed.
5.1. Main effects
The main effects output shows the significance level of
the uncertainty to the performance measures used. The
significance signifies that whenever the level of the
uncertainty is increased, the performance of the MRP-
controlled manufacturing environment would signifi-
cantly be affected. Table 4 and 5 show the main effects
outputs to PDL and FPDL, respectively.
The outputs highlight four uncertainties that have
significant effects to PDL and FPDL. These are external
late supply, machine breakdowns, demand batch size
enlargement and customer design changes. Nonetheless,
internal late supply and labour unavailability have
significant effects only to FPDL.
166 S.C.L. Koh, S.M. Saad / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 157–171

Table 4
Main effects output to PDL

Source Sum of square Degree-of-freedom Mean square F p (sig.)

Corrected Model 57225.029 92 622.011 98.463 0.000

Intercept 149609.592 1 149609.592 23682.779 0.000
External late supply 3705.849 1 3705.849 586.626 0.000n
Internal late supply 19.618 1 19.618 3.105 0.078
Planned set-up time exceeded 6.953 1 6.953 1.101 0.294
Machine breakdowns 50881.286 1 50881.286 8054.365 0.000n
Labour unavailability 0.240 1 0.240 0.038 0.846
Tooling unavailability 0.532 1 0.532 0.084 0.772
Demand batch size enlargement 378.375 1 378.375 59.896 0.000n
Customer design changes 53.634 1 53.634 8.490 0.004n
Error 9103.130 1441 6.317
Total 256965.068 1534
Corrected Total 66328.159 1533

Key: * indicates po0.05.

Table 5
Main effects output to FPDL

Source Sum of square Degree-of-freedom Mean square F p (sig.)

Corrected Model 1441466.307 92 15668.112 408.894 0.000

Intercept 5335016.622 1 5335016.622 139228.98 0.000
External late supply 140079.803 1 140079.803 3655.690 0.000n
Internal late supply 494.355 1 494.355 12.901 0.000n
Planned set-up time exceeded 140.508 1 140.508 3.667 0.056
Machine breakdowns 1192396.041 1 1192396.041 31118.195 0.000n
Labour unavailability 323.295 1 323.295 8.437 0.004n
Tooling unavailability 74.567 1 74.567 1.946 0.163
Demand batch size enlargement 817.075 1 817.075 21.323 0.000n
Customer design changes 670.795 1 670.795 17.506 0.000n
Error 55216.658 1441 38.318
Total 8086941.040 1534
Corrected Total 1496682.965 1533

Key: * indicates po0.05.

There are two phenomenons that have been observed
in the simulation: (1) knock-on effect, and (2) com-
pound effect, which explain how the uncertainties
significantly affect PDL and FPDL. Fig. 3 illustrates
the knock-on and compound effects phenomenon using
external late supply and machine breakdowns as
examples.
Knock-on effect can be defined as the delay resulted
from uncertainty from a lower level to a higher level in a
BOM. Within a multi-level dependent demand system,
parts tardiness at the lower level BOM chain will have a
knock-on effect to the higher level. The propagation of
the knock-on effect is dependent on the level at which
the subjected part is located with respect to its entire
subsequent parent. In another word, the greater is the
where-used of a subjected part, the greater is the knock-
on effect and hence the larger is the PDL.
It is expected that the uncertainty that has significant
effects to PDL will behave likewise to FPDL. Due to a
large number of parts affected as recorded in the PDL,
which makes the uncertainty to be significant, this effect
would naturally increase the risk on finished products
delivery. Therefore, FPDL is likely to be significantly
affected.
External late supply does not merely result in the
purchased parts subjected to this uncertainty being
recorded in PDL, but all of their parent will also be
recorded in PDL and FPDL due to the knock-on effect.
Within a typical BOM, purchased parts tend to be
located at the lower levels; hence it has resulted in the
maximum knock-on effect. Thus, external late supply is
found to be significant to both measures.
Visualisation on the parts that are affected by
uncertainty can sometimes be convoluted. This situation
arises when the resources loading profile has changed.
For example, if machine breakdowns occur during
production, the parts that required machining by this
machine will be accumulated in the queue. These parts
could be from a variety of products. Hence, the effect
can be expanded across product range.
 S.C.L. Koh, S.M. Saad / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 157–171
Knock-on effects from
external late supply
Product A
Assembly c Assembly d
Part e
Purchased part g
If purchased part g is
subjected to external
late supply:
PDL = Part g, f,
assembly d
FPDL = Product A
Fig. 3. Examples of the knock-on and compound effects phenomenon.
Those parts that are in the queue at the time of
breakdown can easily be visualised but prediction on
parts that are going to be in the queue when the machine
is repaired cannot be made. Their deliveries may be
affected because the machine may not be idle when the
parts are ready to be released. It is assumed that the
machine will process the parts in a first-in-first-out
(FIFO) basis. When the machine is repaired, it will be
busy processing the delayed parts in that sequence. The
changes in the planned resources loading profile may
further delay the parts. Such delays will also create a
secondary knock-on effect to their parent.
This phenomenon can be defined as the compound
effect because PDL and/or FPDL are significantly
affected when one bottleneck machine or resource
disrupts the synchronisation of the entire manufacturing
system. The compound effect is more immense than the
knock-on effect.
The compound effect has resulted in machine break-
downs, demand batch size enlargement and customer
deign changes to significantly affect PDL and FPDL.
The phenomenon of machine breakdowns has already
been discussed. Demand batch size enlargement changes
the resources loading profile by randomly affecting the
number of orders with increased order size. The
randomness in the orders affected and the increased in
order size have resulted in the resources to be seized for
an extended period. The resources affected and the time
variations are unpredictable, hence queue may build-up
at the resources and it creates compound effect.
Customer design changes also create compound effect
due to the additional operations required. Since the
orders that are subjected to this uncertainty are
randomised, the resources affected and the total time
167
Compound effects
from machine
breakdowns
Product B
Assembly j Assembly k
Part f
Part l Part m
Part h
Part n Part o Part p
If part f is subjected to machine
breakdowns, whilst part l is at the queue
of the machine waiting to be processed:
PDL = Part f, assembly d, part l,
assembly j
FPDL = Product A, product B
variations for processing the revised routing are also
unpredictable. Their compound effects have resulted in
larger PDL and FPDL; therefore demand batch size
enlargement and customer design changes are found to
be significant.
It is found that internal late supply and labour
unavailability do not significantly affect PDL. This may
be due to the fact that only the manufactured or
assembled parts are being affected, which majority of
them are located at the higher levels BOM. Hence, a
large number of parts at the lower levels have skipped
the PDL records. However, those affected parts that are
at the higher levels BOM do increase the risk of finished
products delivery. These uncertainties create compound
effect owing to the unpredictability of the resources
affected and the time required for processing the parts
tardiness. Leading to the final level, more and more
parts are pushed to assembly. Whilst labour unavail-
ability affects the assemblies, this has resulted in larger
FPDL. Therefore internal late supply and labour
unavailability are found to be significant to this
measure.
5.2. Interactions
The interactions output shows which uncertainties
when jointly affecting a part create additional level to
the performance measures used. The significance sig-
nifies the frequent encounter of such interactions. When
such frequency is encountered, the PDL and FPDL
would significantly be affected. Tables 6 and 7 show the
significant interactions from the interactions outputs to
PDL and FPDL, respectively.
168 S.C.L. Koh, S.M. Saad / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 157–171

Table 6
Significant interactions outputs to PDL

Source Sum of square Degree-of-freedom Mean square F p (sig.)

Corrected Model 57225.029 92 622.011 98.463 0.000

Intercept 149609.592 1 149609.592 23682.779 0.000
External late supply  Machine breakdowns 238.565 1 238.565 37.764 0.000n
Machine breakdowns  Demand batch size enlargement 38.791 1 38.791 6.140 0.013n
External late supply  Planned set-up time exceeded  Labour unavailability 25.076 1 25.076 3.970 0.047n
Internal late supply  Planned set-up time exceed  Demand batch 43.305 1 43.305 6.855 0.009*
size enlargement
Internal late supply  Machine breakdowns  Labour unavailability 29.125 1 29.125 4.610 0.032n
Labour unavailability  Tooling unavailability  Demand batch 30.846 1 30.846 4.883 0.027*
size enlargement
Error 9103.130 1441 6.317
Total 256965.068 1534
Corrected Total 66328.159 1533
*
Key: indicates po0.05.

Table 7
Significant interactions outputs to FPDL

Source Sum of square Degree-of-freedom Mean square F p (sig.)

Corrected Model 1441466.307 92 15668.112 408.894 0.000

Intercept 5335016.622 1 5335016.622 139228.98 0.000
External late supply  Machine breakdowns 88833.234 1 88833.234 2318.298 0.000n
Internal late supply  Machine breakdowns 434.667 1 434.667 11.344 0.001n
Machine breakdowns  Tooling unavailability 242.396 1 242.396 6.326 0.012n
Machine breakdowns  Demand batch size enlargement 235.789 1 235.789 6.153 0.013n
Machine breakdowns  Customer design changes 767.939 1 767.939 20.041 0.000n
Demand batch size enlargement  Customer design changes 156.146 1 156.146 4.075 0.044n
Error 55216.658 1441 38.318
Total 8086941.040 1534
Corrected total 1496682.965 1533

Key: * indicates po0.05.

Some of these two-way interactions are found
creating significant additional level to PDL and FPDL.
No significant three-way interaction to FPDL or
significant higher order interactions for both measures
are found. The interactions that are not significant are
excluded in this paper. However, this does not mean
that they do not create additional level to PDL or
FPDL, but the levels are found not to significantly affect
the delivery performance.
The interaction between external late supply and
machine breakdowns can be explained with the sequence
of events in the manufacturing system. When the
purchased parts that are subjected to external late
supply have ultimately arrived, the resources loading
profile would have changed. This may cause the parts
that are affected by external late supply to be delayed by
machine breakdowns, which are modelled at that time.
The crossing point of such events results in the
interaction between the uncertainties. The combination
of knock-on effect from external late supply and
compound effect from machine breakdowns have
resulted in many additional parts and finished products
to be delivered late. Thus, this interaction is found to be
significant to PDL and FPDL.
The interaction between machine breakdowns and
demand batch size enlargement occur when the addi-
tional parts in the orders are due to be processed by a
machine, which is modelled to be subjected to machine
breakdowns at that time. Such interaction is found to be
significant because of the high frequency of the crossing
point where the orders affected by demand batch size
enlargement need to be processed by the broken down
machines. In this case, the compound effect from both
uncertainties would multiply and thus more additional
parts and finished products are recorded in PDL and
FPDL.
The delays would be amplified when a broken down
machine blocks a part that has been subjected to
internal late supply, tooling unavailability or customer
design changes. A reversed sequence of this event could
also result in such delays. These explain the interactions
between internal late supply and machine breakdowns;
machine breakdowns and tooling unavailability; and
machine breakdowns and customer design changes.
 S.C.L. Koh, S.M. Saad / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 157–171 169

Tooling unavailability creates compound effect owing delivered late and thus the interaction is found to be
to the unpredictability of the total tardiness involved at significant to PDL.
parts that require such tools for production. Parts that The interactions between internal late supply, planned
require tooling would be manufactured parts, which set-up time exceeded and demand batch size enlarge-
tend to be at higher levels BOM. It has been assumed ment; internal late supply, machine breakdowns and
that customer design changes would only affect manu- labour unavailability; and labour unavailability, tooling
factured parts. Internal late supply would also affect unavailability and demand batch size enlargement are
manufactured parts. Hence, it is expected that the found to significantly affect PDL. These interactions
crossing points of these interactions would be at a later occur in a similar way with the above interaction. To
stage of the production. summarise, the delivery of the same part could be
The compound effects have resulted in these interac- affected sequentially by the changes in the resource
tions to be significant because more orders are affected loading profile that are caused by these uncertainties
by such delays. It is found that these interactions are during the production. These uncertainties individually
only significant to FPDL but not to PDL. These results create compound effects, but when interacted the joint
support our expectation for the time of the crossing effects result in many additional parts to be delivered
points of such events, which have resulted in more late.
finished products to be delivered late.
The significance effect to FPDL from the interaction
5.3. Practical implications
between demand batch size enlargement and customer
design changes could also be explained with the above
Further analyses have also been carried out to
expectation. Demand batch size enlargement would
investigate how do the levels of the uncertainties affect
affect the order size of all parts in the entire product of
PDL and FPDL; and what are the benefits if MRP-
the affected order. However, only the schedules of
controlled manufacturing enterprises know which un-
the manufactured parts would be affected because the
certainty is significant to their performance. Figs. 4
operations time would be doubled. The schedules of
and 5 show the PDL and the FPDL plot for the
the purchased parts would not be affected because their
significant uncertainties at both high and low levels.
releases and deliveries are independent of batch size.
It is found that the higher is the level of the significant
This situation results in a higher risk on the finished
uncertainties, the higher is the level of the PDL and the
products delivery as more manufactured parts are
FPDL. These results clearly show that the levels of the
affected due to the joint compound effects from this
significant uncertainties must be reduced to minimise
interaction.
PDL and FPDL. An average of 18.20% PDL is
All significant three-way interactions are found to
achieved when the significant uncertainties are at their
affect PDL but not to FPDL. Owing to the complexity
high levels. An average of 1.87% PDL is achieved when
of such crossing point, which the delivery of a part
the significant uncertainties are at their low levels. In
involves three uncertainties simultaneously; this may
contrast, the average levels of FPDL are 92.26% and
have subdued the effect to higher levels BOM or at later
12.35%, respectively, when the significant uncertainties
stages of production. Therefore, significant additional
are at their high and their low levels.
level of FPDL is not found.
These results indicate that the customer delivery
Following with the discussion for the inter-
performance (which is denoted by the FPDL level)
action involved external late supply, it is also possible
is unacceptably poor even when the levels of the
that when the subjected purchased parts have ultimately
arrived, the changes in the resources loading profile
could cause further delay to process their parent. 25
It is found that the changes in the resources loading
profile are also due to planned set-up time exceeded 20
and labour unavailability. The interaction occurs when
PDL (%)

15
the affected parts are processed by a machine that
is subjected to planned set-up time exceeded and at 10
some stages in the production, the affected parts are
also delayed by labour unavailability. This could 5
happen before or after the affected parts are
0
delayed by planned set-up time exceeded. In
13
19
25
31
37
43
49
55
61
67
73
79
85
91
1
7

all circumstances, the combination of the knock-on

Experiment Number
effect from external late supply and the compound
Low level High level
effects from planned set-up time exceeded and
labour unavailability have resulted in more parts to be Fig. 4. PDL plot of the significant uncertainties.
170 S.C.L. Koh, S.M. Saad / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 157–171
100
80
FPDL (%)
60
40
20
0
13
19
25
31
37
43
49
55
1
7
Experiment Number
Low level
Fig. 5. FPDL plot of the significant uncertainties.
uncertainties are low. Therefore, when the levels of the
uncertainties are high, the FPDL average denotes the
worst case. It needs to be reiterated that buffer or slack
is not available in the manufacturing system that we
modelled. These performances represent the net effect.
It is useful for MRP-controlled manufacturing
enterprise to know which uncertainty significantly
affects their delivery performance so that they can
optimise the use of their buffer or slack. Such net effect
encourages the use of buffer or slack to surmount the
level of late delivery. It will become the baseline of the
delivery performance where comparison will be taken.
After buffer or slack is employed, it is expected that the
delivery performance will be improved.
The average PDL levels are lower than the FPDL
averages due to a relatively greater denominator in the
total parts as compared to the total number of finished
products. If only the PDL is measured, the effect may
not be as strong as this. Since many MRP-controlled
manufacturing enterprise is keen on improving their
customer delivery performance, the use of FPDL would
provide a more transparent result. The level of the PDL
could still be reduced with buffer or slack before it
reaches the later stages of the production.
6. Conclusions and further work
An MRP-controlled batch manufacturing simulation
model that has represented the multi-level dependent
demand system and the MRP order release timing logic
was developed and modelled with a unique method
called the tagging configuration, which is conceptualised
from the parent and child in MRP systems. The MRP
order release timing logic was modelled with an
evaluation of the potential releases scenario.
Simulation experiments were carried out on eight
uncertainties to PDL and FPDL. Four significant
uncertainties to these measures were found: external
late supply, machine breakdowns, demand batch size
enlargement and customer design changes. Internal late
supply and labour unavailability were significant only to
FPDL. Several significant two-way and three-way
interactions were also found.
The knock-on and the compound effects cause more
parts or finished products to be delivered late. The
knock-on effect can be estimated because the parts that
are affected by uncertainties can be visualised using the
BOM. The compound effect is unpredictable because it
affects parts or products deliveries indirectly. This has
61
67
73
79
85
91
led to the conclusion that machine breakdowns, demand
High level batch size enlargement, customer design changes,
internal late supply and labour unavailability must be
tackled with extra care. The deliveries of parts or
finished products, which are affected by significant
interactions of uncertainties, must also be recognised.
Therefore, further research is required to develop a
method or a strategy to capture the knock-on and the
compound effects.
This research has also shown that the levels of the
significant uncertainties must be reduced to minimise
PDL and FPDL. This will lead to further work on the
types of buffer or slack to tackle these uncertainties. It is
suggested that if the MRP-controlled manufacturing
enterprise knows which uncertainty significantly affects
their delivery performance, they can optimise the use of
their buffer or slack. Hence, it is important that this
enterprise would diagnose for the significant uncertainties.
It can be concluded that FPDL provides a more
transparent measure than PDL. The level of PDL could
still be reduced with buffer or slack before it reaches the
later stages of production. Since the ultimate objective
of many MRP-controlled manufacturing enterprise is to
be able to deliver to their customer on time, the level of
finished product delivered late (FPDL) do provide a
clear direction for this enterprise.
Acknowledgements
The research was partially funded by the ORS Award
from the Council of Vice Chancellors and Principals
(CVCP). The authors wish to acknowledge the con-
structive suggestions received from the editor and the
reviewers of this paper.
References
[1] Enns ST. MRP performance effects due to lot size and planned
lead-time settings. Int J Prod Res 2001;39(3):461–80.
[2] Koh SCL, Saad SM, Jones MH. Uncertainty under MRP-
planned manufacture: review and categorisation. Int J Prod Res
2002;40(10):2399–421.
[3] Guide VDR, Srivastava R. A review of techniques for buffering
against uncertainty with MRP systems. Prod Planning Control
2000;11:223–33.
 S.C.L. Koh, S.M. Saad / Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (2003) 157–171
[4] Vollmann TE, Berry WL, Whybark DC. Manufacturing planning
and control systems. 4th ed. Homewood, IL: Irwin Inc., 1997.
[5] Koh SCL, Saad SM. Design and implementation of ERP-
controlled manufacturing in simulation. Proceedings of 2nd
International Responsive Manufacturing Conference, 2002. Ga-
ziantep, Turkey: University of Gaziantep.
[6] Koh SCL. Development of a business model for diagnosing
uncertainty in MRP environments. Ph.D. Thesis. University of
Hertfordshire, UK, 2001.
[7] Minifie JR, Davis RA. Interaction effects on MRP nervousness.
Int J Prod Res 1990;28:173–83.
[8] Brennan L, Gupta SM. A structured analysis of material
requirements planning systems under combined demand and
supply uncertainty. Int J Prod Res 1993;31:1689–707.
[9] Ho CJ, Carter PL. An investigation of alternative dampening
procedures to cope with MRP system nervousness. Int J Prod Res
1996;34:137–56.
171
[10] Homem-de-Mello T, Shapiro A, Spearman ML. Finding optimal
material release times using simulation-based optimisation. Int
J Manage Sci 1999;45(1):86–102.
[11] Kanet JJ, Sridharan SV. The value of using scheduling informa-
tion in planning material requirements. Int J Decision Sci
1998;29:479–96.
[12] Matsuura H, Tsubone H, Kataoka K. Comparison between
simple infinite loading and loading considering a workload status
under uncertainty in job operation times. Int J Prod Econ
1995;40:45–55.
[13] Yang CO, Pei HN. Developing a STEP-based integration
environment to evaluate the impact of an engineering change on
MRP. Int J Adv Manufacturing Technol 1999;15(11):769–79.
[14] Pegden D, Shannon RE, Sadowski RP. Introduction to simula-
tion using siman/c, 2nd ed.. New York: Mc Graw-Hill, 1995.
[15] Saad SM. Design, analysis of a flexible hybrid assembly system.
Ph.D. Thesis. University of Nottingham, UK, 1994.