ADVANCED APPAREL

MANUFACTURING MANAGEMENT

ASSIGNMENT – 1

CASE STUDY REVIEW ON

APPLICATION OF LINEAR
PROGRAMMING MODEL

Submitted To:
Prof. Sumit Kumar
Submitted By:
Sulogna Sikidar [BFT/20/583]

1
CONTENTS
Ensure Optimum Profit Using Linear Programming a Product-Mix of Textile
Manufacturing Companies....................................................................................3
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................3
KEYWORDS:...................................................................................................3
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................3
METHODOLOGY............................................................................................5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS...................................................................10
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION...........................................................13
CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................15
REFERENCES................................................................................................16

2
Ensure Optimum Profit Using Linear Programming a
Product-Mix of Textile Manufacturing Companies
ABSTRACT
The research paper focuses on optimizing profit in a dynamic manufacturing setting by
determining the best product mix within capacity constraints. It employs linear programming
as an operations research tool to maximize profit by allocating limited resources optimally.
Utilizing the Excel Solver software, the study presents a well-structured model and applies it
to a case study of a textile industrial unit in Ethiopia. The findings indicate that employing
linear programming could enhance the company's profit by 11.8%, which is a substantial
improvement. Moreover, the study underscores the potential for significant enhancements in
resource utilization through the adoption of linear programming techniques. Overall, this
research offers valuable insights into the practical application of linear programming to
address complex manufacturing scenarios, demonstrating its effectiveness in achieving
substantial profit gains and resource optimization.

KEYWORDS: excel solver; linear programming; optimal profit; product mix; textile
manufacturing.

INTRODUCTION
The research paper delves into the critical issue of optimizing product mix within
manufacturing companies while adhering to capacity constraints. The study emphasizes the
pivotal role that efficient management decisions at the firm level play in contributing to
economic growth, whether through cost minimization or output maximization. The ultimate
goal is to achieve maximum net profit by identifying the optimal combination of productive
elements that facilitate the production of the most profitable product mix. To address this
complex problem, the paper highlights the use of linear programming, a well-established
mathematical technique in the field of operations research.

Linear programming involves the optimization of a linear objective function with multiple
decision variables while subject to a set of linear equality or inequality constraints. The
research paper correctly points out that linear programming, when appropriately formulated,
can provide effective solutions for various optimization problems. The paper underscores that
linear programming can be applied to plan, manage, control processes, and allocate scarce

3
resources such as labour, direct materials, machines, capital, and indirect materials in an
optimal manner to maximize profit.

The significance of this research lies in its application to the textile industry, exemplified
through a case study of a textile industrial unit in Ethiopia. The data collected from this
company is used to estimate the parameters of the linear programming model. The findings of
the study reveal that the company's profit can be improved by a remarkable 11.8% when
linear programming techniques are applied. This is a substantial profit increase and
showcases the tangible benefits of adopting linear programming methodologies in real-world
industrial settings.

Historically, linear programming emerged in 1939 with Kantorovich's work and was further
developed by Dantzig, an American mathematician, who adapted it for planning the
diversified activities of the US Air Force. Linear programming quickly expanded to various
commercial applications, which ultimately eclipsed its military origins. It is a mathematical
technique designed to optimize resource allocation, ensuring that profits are maximized or
costs are minimized. The paper highlights that linear programming provides a holistic
decision support tool with numerous advantages, particularly in allocating limited resources
for optimal outcomes.

The linear programming model consists of three main components: the objective function,
constraints, and non-negativity requirements. The objective function mathematically
expresses the relationships between the elements the decision maker wishes to optimize and
the operational levels. The linear programming approach is especially suited to problems with
characteristics such as certainty, linearity, additive, fixed technology, and constant profit per
unit.

The primary application of linear programming is to address product mix determination

problems, where different products in a company require varying amounts of resources and
possess distinct production costs, revenue, and unit profits. In such scenarios, linear
programming proves invaluable in determining the product mix that maximizes profit.
Moreover, it is a widely-used tool for optimal resource allocation, enhancing resource
utilization efficiency. Allocating resources to various activities is a crucial aspect of this
approach, ensuring overall efficiency is maximized.

The paper acknowledges the historical development of linear programming and its
applications to a range of sectors. It highlights its particular relevance to product mix

4
determination, which is essentially an optimization problem that can be approached using
mathematical programming techniques. The method aids decision-makers in selecting the
best basic feasible solutions for the model, often using techniques like the simplex method.

One specific area of focus in this research paper is the application of linear programming to
the textile industry, particularly through the use of the Excel Solver tool. This is highly
pertinent to companies like Kombolcha Textile Share Company, which produces cotton yarn
and fabrics according to customer specifications. The company offers a diverse range of
products, including heavy and light fabrics in both gray and finished states, to expand its
market share. In this context, the determination of the product mix within capacity constraints
becomes crucial for maximizing profit.

In conclusion, this research paper sheds light on the critical role of linear programming in
addressing product mix determination problems within the manufacturing sector, with a
specific focus on the textile industry in Ethiopia. The findings from the case study highlight
the significant potential for profit improvement and resource utilization enhancement that can
be achieved by adopting linear programming techniques. This paper serves as a valuable
resource for industries seeking to optimize their product mix, enhance resource allocation,
and ultimately maximize profit in a rapidly changing manufacturing landscape.

METHODOLOGY
The method used in this case study to obtain the data was quantitative in nature and involved
in-person interviews with the specific company's management and line supervisors. In line
with this, Tables 1 to 4 summarise the information from the available records on the
resources owned, resources used, production volume, and profit of each product in order to
create the model.
RESOURCES
Major inputs Unit Held value Consumption value
2,96,63,23
Cotton Kg 0 2,60,14,375
Sizing chemicals Kg 16,07,772 8,29,982
Chemicals Kg 5,90,420 5,86,704
Dyestuffs Kg 6,16,776 2,45,950
Packing Birr 14,46,955 10,27,082
Labour hours Birr 19,62,400 17,09,280

5
 Indirect materials (oil, lub.,
factory supplies + furnace oil) Birr 16,98,740 6,61,625
Electric power KW 87,85,173 50,56,689
Depreciation Birr 43,97,350 27,14,796
Other expenses Birr 15,13,510 3,73,049
Table1 Resources held and consumed in quantity/value terms Birr (Ethiopian currency) for textile
products

Direct resources
Finished Sizing Dye
Sl. Product width(m Fabric chemica Chemic stuff Packin
no. type ) weight Cotton l al s g
Quilt
1 cover 1.68 221.10 9.00 0.80 1.67 0.53 0.36
Fitted
sheets
2 dyed 1.60 275.60 11.21 0.65 1.86 0.66 0.36
Fitted
sheets
3 printed 1.50 384.80 15.65 0.55 1.02 0.53 0.36
Fitted
sheets _
4 bleached 2.40 381.60 15.53 0.54 0.56 0.94
Dyed
5 fabrics 2.50 401.30 16.33 0.54 1.44 0.51 0.53
Bleached
_
6 fabrics 1.60 275.70 11.22 0.65 0.32 1.14
Gray
_ _
7 fabrics 1.50 230.00 9.36 0.54 0.21
Cone
yarn _ _ _ _ _
8 (30/2) 40.68 2.25
Table 2 Direct resources consumed in quantity/value terms Birr to produce a unit textile product

Factory over head

Sl.no Product Labour
6
 . type hours
Indirect materials Power Depreciation Others
Quilt
1 cover 0.4143 0.376 4.2735 1.2962 0.4542
Fitted
sheets
2 dyed 0.7948 0.5198 6.6061 1.6427 0.3906
Fitted
sheets
3 printed 1.0361 0.4985 2.0462 2.5272 0.2605
Fitted
sheets
4 bleached 0.9747 0.3447 4.1924 1.0647 0.1525
Dyed
5 fabrics 1.1424 0.5097 4.3401 1.4189 0.1895
Bleached
6 fabrics 0.8049 0.533 5.8888 1.6641 0.3911
Gray
7 fabrics 0.5741 0.302 1.3986 1.2453 0.1536
Cone
yarn
8 30/2 2.776 0.4178 1.7587 1.4354 0.2812
Table 3 Labour hours and factory overhead used in quantity/value terms to produce a unit product

Finished Production
width (m) volume In value terms Birr
Product Production Selling
Sl.no. type cost price Profit
Quilt
1 cover 1.68 9500.00 19.16 28.8469 9.686
Fitted
sheets
2 dyed 1.60 37280.00 24.68 66.95 42.2653

3 1.50 377800.00 24.48 66.95 42.4735

Fitted
7
 sheets
printed
Fitted
sheets
4 bleached 2.40 46700.00 24.30 35.2345 10.936
Dyed
5 fabrics 2.50 34560.00 26.95 48 21.0493
Bleached
6 fabrics 1.60 126260.00 22.60 60 37.4006
Gray
7 fabrics 1.50 854060.00 4.43 17.5 13.0748
Cone
8 yarn 30/2 218780.00 49.60 63.17 13.574
Table 4 Production volume, cost, selling price and profit earned per unit of textile (fabric )

Model Formulation

The fundamental components of the model should be recognised while putting a given
decision issue in LPP form. An objective function, parameters, a set of constraints, and a set
of decision variables make up the four components of every linear programme.

 Mathematical symbols that indicate activity levels are called decision variables.
 The goal function is a mathematically linear relationship that expresses the firm's
advantages in terms of choice factors.
 Restrictions, which are expressed in the decision variables' linear connections, are
limitations imposed on the working environment of the company.
 The numerical constants and coefficients employed in the goal function and constraint
equations are called parameters or cost coefficients.

Fundamental Assumptions

 A linear programming problem can be formulated based on the following

fundamental assumptions:

8
  Conditions of certainty: the objective and constraints numbers are known with
certainty and do not change during the studied period;
 Proportionality: the objective and constraints are proportionate;
 Additive property: the sum of the individual activities equals the total of all activities;
 Divisibility assumption: the solution does not have to be in whole numbers (integers);
instead, it can assume any fractional value;
 Decision variables: they are nonnegative. Manufacturing cannot, in reality, assume a
negative quantity.

Linear programming model formulation steps

Mathematically, the steps to formulate any LPP are:

Step 1 Labelling the decision variables of the problem, X = (x1, x2, …, xn).

Step 2 Write the objective function as a linear combination of the decision variables, Z = f(X).

Step 3 Formulating the constraints of the problem as a linear combination of the decision
variables.

Formally, if C = (c1, c2, …, cn) is a tuple of real numbers, then a function of real variables X
defined by

f(X) = c1x1 + c2x2 + c3x3 + ….. + cnxn

is known as a linear function. If g is a linear function and b = (b1, b2, …, bn) is a tuple of real
numbers then

g(X) = b

is called a linear equation, whereas

g(X)(≤, ≥ )b

is called a linear inequality. A linear constraint is one that is either a linear equation or a
linear inequality. A linear programming (LPP) problem is one which optimises (maximises or
minimises) a linear objective function subject to collection of linear constraints. In general,
any LPP having decision variables can be written in the following form:

9
 n
Optimise z = ∑ c j x jSubject to
j=1

∑ aij x j ( ≤ ,=, ≥ ) bi , i=1 ,2 , … . , m

i=1

xj ≥ 0, j = 1, 2, ....., n

where cj, aij, bi, are constants.

Common terminology for the above linear programming model can now be summarised as
follows:

 The function being optimised (maximised or minimised), c1x1 + c2x2 + … + cnxn, is

referred to as the objective function.
 The restrictions normally are referred to as constraints.
 The first m constraints (those with a function of all the variables ai1x1 + ai2x2 + … +
ainxn, on the left-hand side) are called functional constraints (or structural constraints).
 The xj ≥ 0, j = 1, 2, …, n restrictions are called non-negativity conditions and the aim
is to find the values of the variables xj.

The aim is to obtain a basic feasible solution to a given LPP, which optimises the objective
function. Mathematically,

 Any X ∈ Rn which satisfies AX = b, X ≥ 0 is called a feasible solution to the given

LPP.
 Any feasible solution X ∈ Rn in which k (≤ m) variables have positive values and the
rest (n – k) have zero values is called a basic feasible solution. If k = m, the basic
feasible solution is called non-degenerate. If k < m, the basic feasible solution is
called degenerate.
n
 Any feasible solution, X ∈ Rn which optimises the objective function ∑ c j x j is
j=1

known as the optimum solution.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

In this study, the model used is formulated by setting the number of decision variables to
each textile products to be produced in the case textile company as follows:

x1 number of quilt cover 1.68 metre fabric to be produced

10
x2 number of fitted sheets dyed 1.60 metre fabric to be produced

x3 number of fitted sheets printed 1.50 metre fabric to be produced

x4 number of fitted sheets bleached 2.40 metre fabric to be produced

x5 number of dyed 2.50 metre fabric to be produced

x6 number of bleached 2.10 metre fabric to be produced

x7 number of gray 2.40 metre fabric to be produced

x8 number of cone yarn 32/2 to be produced

Z total profit contribution

The, total profit is equal to Birr 9.686x1 + 42.2653x2 + 42.4735x3 + 10.936x4 + 21.0493x5 +
37.4006x6 + 13.0748x7 + 13.5740x8. The next step is constructing mathematical relationships
to describe the eight constraints. One general relationship is that the amount of resources used
is to be less than or equal to the amount of resources available. In case, the total amount of
cotton used (8.9956 kg per quilt cover) * (number of quilt cover 1.68 metre fabric to be
produced) + (11.2126 kg per fitted sheet dyed 1.60 metre fabric) * (number of fitted sheets
dyed 1.60 metre fabric to be produced) + … + (40.68 kg per cone yarn 32/2) * (number of
cone yarn 32/2 to be produced) is less than or equal to amount of cotton available
(29,663,230). Thus, mathematically

• Cotton:
8.9956x1 + 11.2126x2 + 15.652x3 + 15.525x4 + 16.326x5 + 11.2155x6 + 9.358x7 +
40.68x8 ≤ 29,663,230
Other constraints are represented as follows:
Sizing chemical:
0.7988x1 + 0.6469x2 + 0.5537x3 + 0.5425x4 + 0.5425x5 + 0.6469x6 + 0.5425x7 ≤
1,607,772
Chemical:
1.67x1 + 1.8592x2 + 1.02x3 + 0.5606x4 + 1.4418x5 + 0.3181x6 ≤ 590,420
DyeStuff:
0.5265x1 + 0.6562x2 + 0.5265x3 + 0.5085x4 ≤ 216,776
Packing:

11
 0.3558x1 + 0.3558x2 + 0.3558x3 + 0.9409x4 + 0.5312x5 + 1.137x6 + 0.2091x7 +
2.2469x8 ≤ 1, 446,955
Labour hours:
0.4143x1 + 0.7948x2 + 1.0361x3 + 0.9747x4 + 1.1424x5 + 0.8049x6 + 0.5741x7 +
2.776x8 ≤ 1,962, 400
Indirect materials:
0.376x1 + 0.5198x2 + 0.4985x3 + 0.3447x4 + 0.5097x5 + 0.533x6 + 0.302x7 + 0.4178x8
≤ 1,698,740
Electric power:
4.2735x1 + 6.6061x2 + 2.0462x3 + 4.1924 x4 + 4.3401x5 + 5.8888x6 + 1.3986x7 +
1.7587 x8 ≤ 8,785,173
Depreciation:
1.2962x1 + 1.6427x2 + 2.5272x3 + 1.0647x4 + 1.4189x5 + 1.6641x6 + 1.2453x7 +
1.4354x8 ≤ 4,397,350
Other expenses:
0.4542x1 + 0.3906x2 + 0.2605x3 + 0.1525x4 + 0.1895x5 + 0.3911x6 + 0.1536x7 +
0.2812x8 ≤ 1,513,510
All of the above constraints represent production capacity restrictions and affect the total
profit. The LPP formulation to find x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7, and x8 that assures optimal profit is
Maximise Z = 9.686x1 + 42.2653x2 + 42.4735x3 + 10.936x4 + 21.0493x5 + 37.4006x6
+ 13.0748x7 + 13.5740x8
Subject to
8.9956x1 + 11.2126x2 + 15.652x3 + 15.525x4 + 16.326x5 + 11.2155x6 + 9.358x7 +
40.68x8 ≤ 29,663,230
0.7988x1 + 0.6469x2 + 0.5537x3 + 0.5425x4 + 0.5425x5 + 0.6469x6 + 0.5425x7 ≤
1,607,772
1.67x1 + 1.8592x2 + 1.02x3 + 0.5606x4 + 1.4418x5 + 0.3181x6 ≤ 590,420
0.5265x1 + 0.6562x2 + 0.5265x3 + 0.5085x4 ≤ 216,776
0.3558x1 + 0.3558x2 + 0.3558x3 + 0.9409x4 + 0.5312x5 + 1.137x6 + 0.2091x7 +
2.2469x8 ≤ 1, 446,955
0.4143x1 + 0.7948x2 + 1.0361x3 + 0.9747x4 + 1.1424x5 + 0.8049x6 + 0.5741x7 +
2.776x8 ≤ 1,962, 400
0.376x1 + 0.5198x2 + 0.4985x3 + 0.3447x4 + 0.5097x5 + 0.533x6 + 0.302x7 + 0.4178x8
≤ 1,698,740

12
 4.2735x1 + 6.6061x2 + 2.0462x3 + 4.1924 x4 + 4.3401x5 + 5.8888x6 + 1.3986x7 +
1.7587 x8 ≤ 8,785,173
1.2962x1 + 1.6427x2 + 2.5272x3 + 1.0647x4 + 1.4189x5 + 1.6641x6 + 1.2453x7 +
1.4354x8 ≤ 4,397,350
0.4542x1 + 0.3906x2 + 0.2605x3 + 0.1525x4 + 0.1895x5 + 0.3911x6 + 0.1536x7 +
0.2812x8 ≤ 1,513,510
In the case study the LPP model was solved using Excel’s built-in-solver.

RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

The results from the LPP model of the case company articulate that the maximum profit
attained is Birr 66,850,232.79 (Ethiopian currency) per quarter. At optimality, the volumes of
quilt cover 1.68 metre fabric, fitted sheet dyed 1.60 metre fabric, fitted sheet printed 1.50
metre fabric, fitted sheet bleached 2.40 metre fabric, dyed 2.50 metre fabric, bleached 2.10
metre fabric, gray 2.40 metre fabric, and cone yarn 32/2 to be produced are 0; 0; 303,377.3;
0; 0;883,291.9; 1,600,720 and 0 respectively. These indicate that only three out of eight
products are accountable for the optimal profit. Thus, products fitted sheet printed 1.50 metre
fabric; bleached 2.10 metre fabric and gray 2.40 metre fabric are the right textile products for
the maximum profit. In case, it is better to spot on lessening the cost of resources and/or
curtail the wastes in advance to produce the remaining five products. Therefore, adopting
operational research techniques in the production line helps the company to improve its
objective with given constraints.
Actual LPP
Produc Total profit
Sl.no. Profit/Unit production production
t type
Volume Volume Actual LPP
1 X1 9.686 39500 0 382597 0
2 X2 42.2653 37280 0 1575650.38 0
3 X3 42.4735 377800 303377.31 16046488.3 12885496
4 X4 10.936 46700 0 510711.2 0
5 X5 21.0493 34560 0 727463.808 0
6 X6 37.4006 706260 883291.86 26414547.8 33035646
7 X7 13.0748 854060 1600719.8 11166663.7 20929091
8 X8 13.574 218780 0 2969719.72 0
Sub Total 59793841.91 66850233
Table5 Comparison between the actual and LPP total profit per quarter

13
The paper explains the concept of slack values in resource allocation and their potential
impact on a company's profitability. Slack values, representing idle resources, offer an
opportunity for companies to identify and utilize their underutilized assets. The study
distinguishes between binding constraints with a slack value of 0, indicating that all available
resources are fully utilized, and idle resources with non-zero slack values. Notably, for the
case company under consideration, sizing chemicals, chemicals, and packing materials are
identified as binding constraints, meaning that the company's optimal solution would benefit
from obtaining additional quantities of these resources. Conversely, cotton, dyestuff, labor,
indirect materials, electric power, depreciation, and miscellaneous expenses are classified as
idle resources. These resources are not fully utilized in the short run, suggesting that
acquiring more of them would not significantly enhance production efficiency.

The paper demonstrates the feasibility of the optimal solution by showing that all slack values
are greater than or equal to zero. Moreover, the research conducts a comparative analysis
between the actual production scenario and the Linear Programming (LPP) optimal solution.
This analysis considers resource utilization and profit generation per quarter. The results
indicate that implementing the LPP optimal solution can boost the company's profit by an
impressive 11.8%, underscoring the potential for substantial financial gains. It also provides a
detailed breakdown of the resources not consumed and their respective percentages in both
actual production and LPP-driven production methods, highlighting the significant room for
resource optimization. This study exemplifies the considerable improvements achievable in
resource utilization by adopting LPP techniques.

Resources not consumed

Values %
Actual Actual
Major inputs production LPP production LPP
Cotton (kg) 36,48,855 28,672 12.3 0.1
Sizing chemicals (kg) 7,77,790 0 48.38 0
Chemicals (kg) 3,716 0 0.63 0
Dyestuffs (kg) 3,70,826 3,57,047 60.12 57.88
Packing (Birr) 4,19,873 0 29.01 0
Labour hours (Birr) 2,53,120 18,136 12.89 0.92
Indirect materials (Birr) 10,37,115 5,93,294 61.05 34.92
Electric power (KW) 37,28,484 7,24,106 42.44 8.24

14
 Depreciation (Birr) 16,82,554 1,67,392 38.26 3.81
Other expenses (Birr) 11,40,461 8,43,154 75.35 55.71
Table 6 Resources not consumed by the actual production and LPP per quarter

80
70
60
50
40 Actual
production
30
20 LPP
10
0
g) g) g) k g) irr
)
irr
)
irr
)
W
)
irr
)
irr
)
(k s(
k
s(
k
s( ( B ( B ( B (K ( B ( B
n al al ff
tto ic ic tu in
g rs ls er n
se
s
o es
u
er
ia w tio
C em em y c k ho t po ci
a e n
ch Ch D Pa or a c re xp
ng
b t m tri p
er
e
zi La ec e c D
e
th
Si d ir El O
In
Figure 1 Comparison between actual production and LPP resources utilisation

CONCLUSIONS
The research conducted in this study provides a compelling demonstration of the
effectiveness of linear programming as a method for maximizing profit within a
manufacturing company. Specifically, the research employs a Linear Programming Problem
(LPP) model that leverages data collected from Kombolcha Textile S. Company in the
Amhara Region. What's particularly noteworthy is the company's embrace of modern
scientific tools like Excel Solver, which plays a pivotal role in planning and controlling their
product mix.

The study brings to light the significant impact of resource allocation during production on
the resulting profit. It underscores the critical importance of selecting an appropriate
production schedule to model and ensure the highest level of profitability. Such scheduling
decisions have wide-ranging implications, from managing the workforce and hiring
temporary workers to optimizing the utilization and arrangement of raw materials.

15
REFERENCES

 Ensure optimum profit using linear programming a product-mix of textile manufacturing

companies. ResearchGate. Retrieved November 1, 2023, from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343748890_Ensure_optimum_profit_using_lin

ear_programming_a_product-mix_of_textile_manufacturing_companies

 Linear Programming - Definition, Formula, Problem, Examples. (n.d.). Cuemath.

Retrieved November 1, 2023, from https://www.cuemath.com/algebra/linear-

programming/

 MAITI, A. (2020, November 19). Applications of Linear Programming Problem (LPP) |

by ARIMITRA MAITI. Towards Data Science. Retrieved November 1, 2023, from
https://towardsdatascience.com/applications-of-linear-programming-problem-lpp-
385bc3bb9621

16