You are here

A review on solving approaches

19 January, 2016 - 17:08

The MMJIT problem, showing nonlinear OF and binary variables, has no polynomial solutions as far as we know. However, a heuristic solution approach can be effective. To get to a good solution, one among dynamic programming, integer programming, linear programming, mixed integer programming or nonlinear integer programming (NLP) techniques can be used. However, those methodologies usually require a long time to find a solution, so are infrequently used in real production systems1. Just a few studies used other methods such as statistical analysis or the Toyota formula2. The most renowned heuristics are the Miltenburg’s3 and the cited Goal Chasing Method (GCM I) developed in Toyota by Y. Monden. Given the products quantities to be processed and the associated processing times, GCM I computes an “average consumption rate” for the workstation. Then, the processing sequence is defined choosing each successive product according to its processing time, so that the cumulated consumption rate “chases” its average value. A detailed description of the algorithm can be found in4. GCM I was subsequently refined by its own author, resulting in the GCM II and the Goal Coordination Method heuristics5.

The most known meta-heuristics to solve the MMJIT6, 7, 8  are:

  • Simulated Annealing;
  • Tabu Search;
  • Genetic Algorithms;
  • Scalar methods;
  • Interactive methods;
  • Fuzzy methods;
  • Decision aids methods;
  • Dynamic Programming.
 
Table 6.1 Alternative configurations of most common MMJIT models

Parameter / major alternatives

Alternatives

Model structure

Mathematical programming

Simulation

Markov Chains

Other

Decision variables

Kanban number

Order interval

Safety Stock level

Other

Performance measures

Kanban number

Utilization ratio

Leveling effectiveness

Objective function

Minimize cost

Setup cost

Inventory holding cost

Operating cost

Stock-out cost

Minimize inventory

Maximize throughput

Setting

Layout

Flow-shop

Job-shop

Assembly tree

Period number

Multi-period

Single-period

Item number

Multi-item

Single-item

Stage number

Multi-stage

Single-stage

Machine number

Multiple machines

Single machine

Resources capacity

Capacitated

Non-capacitated

Kanban type

One-card

Two-card

Assumptions

Container size

Defined

Ignored (container size equals one item)

Stochasticity

Random set-up times

Random demand

Random lead times

Random processing times

Determinism

Production cycles

Manufacturing system

Continuous production

Material handling

Zero withdrawal times

Non-zero withdrawal times

Shortages

Ignored

Computed as lost sales [43]

System reliability

Dynamic demand

Breakdowns possibility

Imbalance between stages

Reworks

Scraps

 

In some experiments9 Tabu Search and Simulated Annealing resulted to be more effective than GCM; however, the computational complexity of these meta-heuristics – and the consequent slowness of execution – makes them quite useless in practical cases, as the same authors admitted.

Another meta-heuristic based on an optimization approach with Pareto-efficiency frontier – the “multi objective particle swarm” (MOPS) – to solve the MMJIT with setups was proposed through a test case of 20 different products production on 40 time buckets10.

In11, the authors compared a Bounded Dynamic Programming (BPD) procedure with GCM and with an Ant Colony (AC) approach, using as OF the minimization of the total inventory cost. They found that BDP is effective (1,03% as the average relative deviation from optimum) but not efficient, requiring roughly the triple of the time needed by the AC approach. Meanwhile, GCM was able to find the optimum (13% as the average relative deviation from optimum) on less than one third of the scenarios in which the AC was successful.

A broad literature survey on MMJIT with setups can be found in12 while a comprehensive review of the different approaches to determine both kanban number and the optimal sequence to smooth production rates is present in13.