In this assignment you will study the effect that variability can have on the behaviour of a simple

linear Operations system, using computer simulation as a tool to gain insights that can be applied
to more complex systems. The system under study is a three-stage line with stations named Joe,
Next, and M3. Processing times at stations have an average of 6 minutes, with variability
following the Shifted Exponential distribution (already entered in the model). Buffers are used to
cushion the impact of variability to some extent, by holding the output of one station while
waiting for its processing at the following station. It can be assumed that Joe will always have
something to work on, and M3 can always deposit finished output in a Shipping storage area.

Though the situation seems to be set in production context, several services also operate as series of
operations with intermediate queues (e.g. a cafeteria line), which is what the simulator tries to model.
The questions given below are to be answered using the Linesim Excel-based educational simulator
We have taken joe capacity as 1 and next capacity as 1 . and we got the output as 6.674.
And when we have taken joe capacity as 1 and next capacity as 2 we got the output as 6.974.
Why the output got increase. Give reasons for it.

From the provided data table showing different combinations of capacities for stations
named "Sushovan" (X) and "Shubhang" (Y), along with their mean output values, it's
evident that changing the capacities at these stations leads to varying outputs in the
system. Let's analyze the trends and patterns observed in the mean output values based
on the changes in capacities:
• Increasing Capacity at One Station:
• As the capacity at one station increases while keeping the other constant (e.g.,
Sushovan's capacity at 1 and Shubhang's capacity varying from 1 to 32), the mean
output generally tends to increase. This pattern suggests that increasing the capacity at
a single station positively impacts the overall system output.
• Balancing Capacities:
• Certain combinations, like Sushovan's capacity at 9 and Shubhang's capacity at
18 or Sushovan's capacity at 18 and Shubhang's capacity at 25, demonstrate higher
mean outputs. This implies that balancing capacities between stations can contribute
to improved system performance.
• Complex Relationship:
• The relationship between capacities at different stations and mean output is not
strictly linear or straightforward. Different combinations yield different outputs,
suggesting a complex interplay of station capacities influencing overall system
efficiency.
• Diminishing Returns:
• In some cases, increasing one station's capacity while keeping the other high
does not proportionately increase the mean output. This suggests a point of
diminishing returns where the benefits of increasing capacity begin to plateau or
decrease.
• Optimal Capacities:
• Certain capacity combinations result in higher mean outputs compared to
others, indicating that there might be an optimal balance or configuration of capacities
for maximizing system efficiency.
• Station Interdependency:
• The impact of each station's capacity on the overall system performance might
be influenced by the interaction and interdependency between the stations. Changes in
one station's capacity can affect the flow and dynamics of the entire system.
• Threshold Effect:
• Some configurations might have a threshold effect, where a certain capacity
level needs to be reached before observing significant improvements in mean output.
In summary, the analysis of the provided data highlights the non-linear and
interdependent relationship between the capacities of stations (Sushovan and
Shubhang) and the resultant mean output. Optimizing the capacities of these stations
is crucial to enhance the overall efficiency and output of the system. Further
experimentation and analysis might reveal more nuanced insights into the dynamics of
the system concerning station capacities.

In this assignment you will study the effect that variability can have on the behaviour of a simple
linear Operations system, using computer simulation as a tool to gain insights that can be applied
to more complex systems. The system under study is a three-stage line with stations named Joe,
Next, and M3. Processing times at stations have an average of 6 minutes, with variability
following the Shifted Exponential distribution (already entered in the model). Buffers are used to
cushion the impact of variability to some extent, by holding the output of one station while
waiting for its processing at the following station. It can be assumed that Joe will always have
something to work on, and M3 can always deposit finished output in a Shipping storage area.

Though the situation seems to be set in production context, several services also operate as series
of operations with intermediate queues (e.g. a cafeteria line), which is what the simulator tries to
model. The questions given below are to be answered using the Linesim Excel-based educational
simulator.

Diagram the impact of changing the buffer stocks on the output of the system by changing the
storage area capacity cells (e.g. the buffer between Joe and Next is changed by changing Joe’s
Output storage capacity). Consider buffer sizes that vary from 0 up to at least 20 units. What
do you conclude from these experiments, and what buffer size would you recommend?
We have taken joe capacity as 1 and next capacity as 1 . and we got the output as 6.674.
And when we have taken joe capacity as 1 and next capacity as 2 we got the output as 6.974.
Why the output got increase. Give reasons for it.

From the provided data showing various combinations of capacities for stations
named "Sushovan" (X) and "Shubhang" (Y), along with their corresponding mean
output values, several observations and conclusions can be drawn:
Observations:
• Impact of Capacity Combinations: There's a clear relationship
between different combinations of Sushovan (Joe) and Shubhang (Next) capacities
and the resulting mean output of the system.
• Optimal Combinations for Higher Output: Certain
combinations show higher mean output values compared to others. For instance:
• Combining Sushovan's capacity at 18 with Shubhang's capacity at 37 results in
a mean output of 9.51, which is one of the highest observed outputs.
• Another high output is seen when Sushovan's capacity is 24 and Shubhang's
capacity is 18, yielding a mean output of 9.286.
• Non-Linear Relationship: The relationship between capacities
and mean output is not strictly linear. Some combinations might exhibit
disproportionate increases or decreases in output relative to changes in capacities.
• Capacity Interdependency: There's an evident interdependence
between Sushovan and Shubhang capacities, affecting the system's overall
performance. Altering the capacity at one station influences the dynamics of the entire
system.
Recommendations:
Based on the data provided:
• Focus on High-Performing Combinations: Consider
configurations that yield higher mean output values for Sushovan and Shubhang
capacities, such as the combinations mentioned above.
• Further Analysis: Conduct deeper analysis or simulations to
understand why certain capacity combinations result in higher output. This might
involve investigating system bottlenecks, queuing dynamics, or the interaction
between stations under different capacities.
• Explore Nearby Capacity Values: Explore capacities close to
high-performing combinations to identify potential threshold points or changes in
system behavior concerning capacity adjustments.
• Consider Practical Implementation: Balance high output
configurations with practical considerations like resource availability, costs, and
system constraints when implementing recommended capacity configurations.
In summary, the analysis of the provided data highlights the importance of selecting
optimal combinations of Sushovan (Joe) and Shubhang (Next) capacities to maximize
the system's mean output. Further exploration and experimentation could provide
deeper insights into system dynamics and aid in determining the most effective
capacity configurations.

From the given data representing different combinations of Sushovan (Joe) and
Shubhang (Next) capacities along with their corresponding mean output values, there
isn't a direct indication of buffer sizes explicitly mentioned. However, we can make
recommendations for buffer sizes based on the observed trends in system performance
concerning capacity combinations.
Observations from the capacity combinations and mean output values can indirectly
guide us toward potential buffer size recommendations:
• Optimal Capacity Combinations: Combinations that yield
higher mean outputs (such as Sushovan's capacity at 18 and Shubhang's capacity at
37, resulting in a mean output of 9.51) might benefit from larger buffer sizes. Higher
capacities seem to improve the system's output, and larger buffers often complement
higher capacities by mitigating delays and managing variability.
• Non-Linear Relationships: As observed in the data, the
relationship between capacities and output isn't strictly linear. There might be specific
thresholds or points where the addition of buffer sizes can significantly impact or
stabilize system performance.
• Interdependency of Capacities: The interaction between
Sushovan and Shubhang capacities influences system behavior. Appropriate buffer
sizes can facilitate smoother transitions between stations, especially when there are
disparities in their capacities.
Recommendations for Buffer Size:
Considering the high-performing capacity combinations and aiming to maximize
system output, I would recommend larger buffer sizes for configurations such as:
• Sushovan's capacity at 18 and Shubhang's capacity at 37, which yielded a mean
output of 9.51.
• Sushovan's capacity at 24 and Shubhang's capacity at 18, resulting in a mean
output of 9.286.
For these high-performing capacity combinations, employing buffer sizes that can
effectively handle potential fluctuations and maintain a smooth flow of items between
stations would likely contribute to sustaining or further improving the observed high
output levels.
It's important to note that the specific optimal buffer size would depend on the
system's dynamics, variability in processing times, and other factors not explicitly
presented in the given data. Hence, conducting simulations or further analysis based
on these recommendations would be advisable to validate and fine-tune the buffer size
selection for practical implementation.

Make it paraphrase and make that it has been written by human based. And make it
well combine it well.

Que 3

Observations:
• A distinct correlation is evident between the capacities of Sushovan and
Shubhang stations and the resulting system's average output.
• Specific capacity pairings, such as Sushovan at 18 coupled with Shubhang at
37 (yielding 9.51 average output), demonstrate superior performance in contrast to
others.
• The relationship between capacities and output doesn't strictly adhere to a
linear pattern, often showing unexpected fluctuations.
• Altering the capacity at one station significantly influences the overall system
dynamics due to the interconnectedness of Sushovan and Shubhang capacities.
Recommendations Based on Data:
• Prioritize configurations that produce higher mean output values for both
Sushovan and Shubhang capacities.
• Conduct detailed analysis or simulations to uncover the underlying reasons
contributing to configurations with elevated output levels.
• Investigate capacity values neighboring the high-performing combinations to
identify critical threshold points affecting system behavior.
• Ensure a balanced approach between configurations optimizing output and
practical considerations like resource availability and system limitations during
implementation.
Buffer Size Recommendations:
• Configurations demonstrating higher mean outputs, such as Sushovan at 18
paired with Shubhang at 37 or Sushovan at 24 with Shubhang at 18, might benefit
from larger buffer sizes.
• Larger buffers complement higher capacities by managing delays and handling
variability more effectively.
• Choosing an optimal buffer size should account for system dynamics and
variations in processing times through simulations or further analyses.