The Role of Discrete Event Simulation Techniques in Finite Capacity Scheduling Author(s): R. Roy and S. E.

Meikle Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 46, No. 11 (Nov., 1995), pp. 1310-1321 Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals on behalf of the Operational Research Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2584566 . Accessed: 05/07/2012 17:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Palgrave Macmillan Journals and Operational Research Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of the Operational Research Society.

http://www.jstor.org

Research Society(1995)46, 1310-1321 Journal of the Operational

(C1

$12.00 01 Ltd. Allrights reserved. 995Operational Research Society 60-5682/95

The Role of Discrete Event SimulationTechniques in Finite CapacityScheduling

R. ROY and S. E. MEIKLE
University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Discrete event simulation is becoming an established tool in finite capacity scheduling. However, recent work on scheduling systems has concentrated on the development of different modelling approaches and tools, without proper examination of how they can be used to meet business objectives. This paper examines the role of scheduling in improving business performance and suggests possible considerations in the development and implementation of a finite capacity scheduler. It reviews the advantages and limitations of discrete event simulation as a modelling technique for scheduling, and argues the need for further research to develop more versatile tools. A simulation-based scheduling system incorporating bottleneck planning principles to maintain throughput with low inventory is described, as are the experiences gained during its implementation in a medium-sized press shop. Key words: simulation, scheduling, production

INTRODUCTION Since the introduction of Optimized Production Technology (OPT), interest in finite capacity scheduling for discrete manufacturing industry has been steadily increasing amongst both researchers and practitioners of Computer-Aided Production Management (CAPM) techniques. This is evident from numerous research papers (for example, Schengillil, Adelsberger and Kanet', and Philipoom and Fry3) and the number of commercial systems (e.g. SCHEDULEX, PROCAPS and FACTOR) currently available. Finite capacity scheduling systems are usually designed to be used in conjunction with an infinte capacity planning system (MRP II) and to convert the delivery schedules contained in a Master Production Schedule (MPS) or a Sales Order Bank into a detailed timing plan of the necessary production activities required to fulfil customer demand. Research on the development of finite capacity scheduling tools can be classified into two broad categories-optimization and logical modelling techniques. Optimization techniques depend upon the objectives of scheduling being explicitly expressed as a single mathematical function. Early research used mathematical programming techniques4, and enumeration methods using branch-and-bound algorithms5,6. More recent work by researchers, particularly in the Al community, has been investigating the use of random search process methods, e.g. genetic algorithms as an enumeration technique7. Optimization techniques, mathematical or enumeration, all suffer from one fundamental problem-the difficulty of expressing the business goals of scheduling in the form of a simple mathematical function. Many different objectives, related to customer satisfaction, inventory, resource utilization, etc, have been suggested in the research literature8'-0, but as Goldratt and Fox11 pointed out, a business needs to satisfy a number of different goals simultaneously. Cost functions to reflect the multiple objectives have sometimes been suggested'2, but the practical problems of assigning meaningful values to many of the costs involved are well known. The different cost elements are not independent either, as is usually assumed. Unreliable delivery of orders inevitably leads to the need for longer lead-times and higher inventory to be planned in the supply chain (internal or external) to take such variability into account. The alternative approach that has been used is that of logical modelling, in which the operations of the manufacturing systems are represented as a set of logical constraints or rules
Correspondence: R. Roy, Warwick Manufacturing Group, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK

R.Roy and S.E.Meikte-Role of DESin Scheduling

1311

(e.g. precedence relationships, resource requirementsfor operations, capacity restrictions). The objectives of scheduling, however, are not explicitly expressed but, instead, heuristic procedures/rulesare incorporatedin the model to derive 'good' acceptable schedules. OPT was the first such tool to be developed and more recently many different approachesusing constraint directed search techniques have been suggested13.For other researchers and practitioners, the accurate, simple to understand, and computationallyefficient modelling capabilityoffered by Discrete Event Simulation(DES) has made it an attractivechoice1417 and a small but growing number of commercialsystems are now available (e.g. PROVISA18 and FACTOR19). The performanceof such techniques in meeting business goals very much depends on the heuristics used. However, except in the case of OPT, which is based on a well-defined philosophyand principles,developmentof finite capacityschedulershas rarelybeen accompanied by a detailed examinationof how they can serve the businessprocess. The objectivescan only be implied from the features contained in the systems and their recommendeduse, or are left to the discretionof the user with the systems only acting as a modellingtool. The lack of an underlyingscheduling philosophy is also apparent in the case of existing DES-based systems. Unlike OPT, which is prescriptivein its approachto the development of schedules, DES-based systems have been considered as merely modelling tools to assist in scheduling16. The danger, of course, is that while easing the task of scheduling,the potential benefits to the business may not be fully realized, as currentworkingpracticesare reproducedin the model and continuedin the implementationof the system. This papar reviews the objectives of finite capacity schedulingand examines the strengths and limitations of DES as a modelling tool. It also describes a DES-based finite capacity schedulingsystem that has been developed, primarilyfor the pressworksindustry,and relates lessons learnt duringits implementation.

OBJECTIVESOF SCHEDULING Goldratt and Fox1" described the fundamental objectives of any business as that of simultaneously maximizingsales, while minimizinginventoryand other operatingexpenses. It is a succinct statement of the business goal, emphasizingboth competitive performanceand productive use of resources. A scheduling system must contribute to this by helping to promote competitivenessthroughbetter delivery performance,and by improvingthe effective use of resources to increase output of saleable goods while minimizing inventory and operatingexpenses. The objectivesare not as contradictory as is sometimes suggested, at least as long as they are consideredjointly. Deliveryperformance A schedulingsystem can influence two areas of delivery performance-reliability and speed of delivery. Both factorshelp to reduce supply chain costs and are increasinglybeing regarded as order qualifiersby many customers. Delivery reliabilityis usually measuredeither as a percentage of jobs delivered on time, or as an overall indicatorof lateness of jobs (e.g. average lateness/tardiness).In a just-in-time business environmentwith emphasison reliabilityof delivery, the formerwould seem to be a more appropriatemeasure. However, if it (or any other) is used as the sole performance measure, the result is variabilityin delivery performanceas shorter (easier) jobs are selected for processing in perference to longer, more urgent jobs. A scheduling system should be designed to take a long-termview of the business as an on-going process, and avoid making the output look better in one period at the expense of creatingvariabilitybetween scheduling periods, jobs and customers. Delivery speed is measured as the time between the receipt of an order (internal or external) and its delivery to the customer (i.e. the order fulfilment time). It is affected by many factors (e.g. factory layout, batch sizes, resource levels, informationsystems, lead-time

1312

journalof the OperationalResearchSociety Vol. 46, No. I I

of bought out items, distribution time) over which a scheduling system either has no influence or very little direct effect. A scheduling system, however, directly affects the lead-time from the point the job is available for release to production, to the time it is ready for delivery. A distinction between planned and actual manufacturing lead-time needs to be made for clarity of discussion. Planned manufacturing lead-time is the maximum time a production department is allowed to fulfil its commitment (a concept on which MRP systems are based), and is defined as a fixed value for all jobs or a class of jobs that are processed in the shop. Delivery promises (both external and internal), including stock policies, are based on this. The actual manufacturing lead-time will, however, vary due to a number of factors, such as fluctuating load levels and the priorities assigned to different jobs. The performance of a shop and its scheduling system with regard to delivery speed is usually measured by the mean value of actual manufacturing lead-times and, perhaps, their standard deviation. However, early completion is of little consequence to customer service but, more importantly, delivery promises and manufacturing plans (including stock policies) can only be based on planned manufacturing lead-times that can be consistently achieved. This is reflected, to an extent, in aiming for a low standard deviation, but a better measure would be a predetermined percentile point; i.e. order completion within the planned lead-time with a certain high degree of confidence (ideally 100%). Whether this objective is being met would, obviously, be reflected in the figure on delivery reliability (expressed as a percentage of jobs delivered on time). Hence, such a percentile point provides a combined measure of both delivery performance characteristics. Average manufacturing lead-times through a production system in which input (demand) and ouput (production) rates are balanced, are directly proportional to the total workload in the system (see Little's Law20). This implies that any excess workload (and, hence, inventory) in the system, beyond that necessary to achieve a balance between demand and capacity, only serves to increase lead-time without any beneficial effect. Hence, the planned manufacturing lead-time needs to be set in a scheduling system at a level that just enables the two rates to be matched, allowing any variability in customer demand to be smoothed; but the planned lead-time also needs to take account of variability in actual lead-times caused by the sequence in which jobs are executed. Hence, delivery performance is improved by the use of due-date related priority rules for scheduling the movement of jobs from receipt of an order to its completion, e.g. use of Earliest Due Date or Slack per Operation as priority rules (see Panwalker and Iskander21 for details of priority rules). Owing to short-term variability in demand, it is usually not possible to match demand with production rate instantaneously or over a very short interval, unless there is a surplus in capacity or the demand variability has been fully smoothed in the Master Production Schedule. The planned manufacturing lead-time needs to include in it an allowance to smooth any (remaining) variability. If, however, materials for all jobs are released as soon as they are available (at the start of the period), without any regard to the workload already in the shop, then such smoothing can only take place on the shop-floor resulting in high work-in-progress (WIP) and/or late jobs; if, instead, the rate of actual release of work onto the shop-floor is controlled to match production rate, then WIP levels and, hence by Little's Law, shop-floor lead-times can be much lower; this does not necessarily lower overall inventory level (unless lead time for the supply of parts is short enough), but low levels of WIP simplify the task of shop-floor control, and make the manufacturing system more responsive to changes in customer demand; hence, an objective of a scheduling system must be' to regulate the release of work to keep WIP/shop-floor lead-time at the minimum level necessary for maintaining target production rate (Figure 1).

Inventory The cost of holding inventory is usually a very significant proportion of a company's operating cost. Inventory levels of stocked items (both bought out and finished goods) are not controlled by a finite capacity scheduling system, but usually by a stock control module of a higher level planning system. The levels are dependent on demand during lead-time and

R.Roy and S.E.Meikle-Role of DESin Scheduling

1313

Receipt of Order (Internal or External) Overall Lead-time (Delivery Speed)

Delivery to Customer (Order Fulfilment)

Available for Release Planned Manufacturing Lead-time

Ready for Delivery

Transport Time

Actual Manufacturing Lead-time Actual Completion Shop-floor Lead-time Actual Release

FIG.

1. Components of delivery speed.

variability in both; hence, finished goods inventory is directly related to planned manufacturing lead-time and the ability of the manufacturing system to meet its commitment consistently within that period. Similarly, as discussed in the previous section, inventory of materials purchased against specific jobs is also directly related to such lead-time, and it is not particularly necessary to use a separate performance measure to judge the effectiveness of a scheduling system in minimizing inventory. In fact, delivery speed and stability in the supply chain relationship are two key elements in competitiveness and cost reduction22. Throughput Potential throughput of a production system is governed by the capacity of its bottleneck resources. Hence, a scheduling system needs to ensure that the capacity of such resources is effectively utilized and that the resources are not starved of work as long as there is real demand for their output. The objective is wholly consistent with maintaining the highest possible level of delivery performance since the latter suffers if the production rate falls below the demand rate; the requirement is to ensure that production output matches demand over the planned manufacturing lead-time. In order to maximize throughput (or at least match demand rate without excessive overtime) a scheduling system must maintain the necessary WIP levels on the shop-floor so that bottleneck resources can operate efficiently. Similarly, rules/algorithms used to schedule movement of jobs through the shop-floor must also try and avoid starvation of such resources, and ensure a balanced flow of production23. Production flow is aided by small transfer batch sizes (pallet loads), short set-up times and cellular layouts with short travel times, which often have a much greater influence than a scheduling system. Nevertheless, rules and algorithms designed to improve production flow are important if they help to maximize throughput with minimum inventory. The issue becomes more complicated if it becomes necessary to batch specific jobs or sequence them in a particular order to maximize utilization of critical resources (e.g. through reduced set-up times). Any rule or algorithm designed to improve throughput would, inevitably, not prioritize jobs by their due dates and, hence, lead to move variable achievement of lead-times; planned manufacturing lead-time and, therefore, inventory levels would need to be increased to accommodate such variability. However, since delivery performance also suffers if production

1314

of the OperationalResearch Journal Society Vol. 46, No. i I

rate falls below that for demand, appropriatemethods for meeting both objectivesneed to be investigated. Simple flow-orientedheuristic priority rules (e.g. based on Shortest Processing Time), which lead to high variabilityin lead-times without necessarilyincreasingthroughput are not the answer;methods that more directly addressthe utilizationof bottleneck resources are required. Evidence of researchon the measurementof throughputis rather sparse in the scheduling literature.A common measure used in industryis standardhours worked by a particularclass of resource (labour or machines). However, it is a measure of input, rather than output, and prioritiesto be assigned encouragesjobs to be pushed onto the shop-floor and inappropriate A better measure would be based on to operations, leading to unnecessarywork-in-progress. output of completed jobs. Goldratt1'suggested the use of throughputaccountingprinciples, and further research is needed to investigate how this could be used to measure actual throughputagainstthe true capabilityof a shop. Operating expenses In the discrete parts manufacturing industry,the principaleffect of a schedulingsystem on operating expenses (other than inventory) is usually that of overtime cost. Overtime results whenever the demand that needs to be met in a period exceeds productioncapacity and, as before, the objective of a scheduling system must be to maintain planned manufacturing lead-time and inventory at a level necessary to smooth demand to a reasonable extent and maximizethe utilizationof the productivecapacityof the shop (unless capacityis in surplus). Other examplesof relevant operatingexpenses include the degradationor loss of perishable raw material that may result from slow movement through a plant, loss of paint quality caused by colour sequences and changeoversin a paint shop, and the severe qualityproblems that can result in the steel industry if a particularsequence of coil widths is not followed. Where such costs are dependent upon the sequence in which jobs are processed on one or more workcentres, the objective of minimizingthe cost is at conflict with that of delivery performance.Sequencingconstraintsof this type are most prevalent in the process industry, but many engineeringcompanieshave one or two workcentreswhere such considerationsmay apply. OPT does not deal with sequence dependentcosts, except on capacity.

APPROACHES TO MODELLING The basic problem of scheduling can be described as that of allocation of available resources to a number of jobs over a given period of time in order to meet certain business objectives. A scheduling system develops a production plan based on a model of the operation of the manufacturingsystem. In the case of logical modelling techniques, three basic approaches can be identified, depending on whether the model that drives the schedulingmechanismis resource,job or time based. Resource-based model In a resource-basedmodel all machines (or workcentres)are first ordered accordingto the severity of their capacityconstraintsor schedulingrestrictionsplaced on them. Each resource is then scheduled in turn with the operations that require its usage; the sequence is then determined accordingto some defined criterion, e.g. to maximize the resource's throughput or to satisfy quality objectives (usually with the urgencyof the jobs as a secondarycriterion). As each resource is scheduled it places temporal constraintson the schedules of subsequent resourcesto be considered;this inevitablyleads to conflicts in the schedule, which the system then needs to resolve. A resource-basedmodelling tool tends to be complex with a high computationalburden. For the system to be computationallymanageable, a resource-based model is best used in the case of a shop where workcentres with significant capacity or

and S.E.Meikle-Roleof DESin Scheduling R.Roy

1315

sequence constraints are very small in number. An example of a resource-basedmodel is

OPT24.

Job-basedmodel In a job-(or order-) based model the first step is to order the jobs accordingto some user defined rule. Each job is then taken in turn and all its associatedoperationsare scheduledon the requiredresources(usuallyworkcentres).The result is a valid schedule, but likely to be of a poor quality. It may then be improved through the iterative applicationof some algorithm or heuristicrules or, as is more often the case, with the direct interventionof expert planning staff. The use of Gantt charts as a manual or electronicmodelling technique is an example of a job-based approach25. Time-based model In a time-based model the system uses an incrementalapproachto move forwardin time, and at each increment idle resources are considered for allocation of jobs waiting to be processed. Heuristic rules are used to prioritize jobs and make choices on allocation; utilizationof bottleneck resources can be affected by the heuristicrules that are chosen, but not directly addressed by the system, as in the case of resource-basedmodels. The variable time increment(i.e. next event) method used in Discrete Event Simulation(DES) makes it a efficient time-basedapproachfor developingmodels of a system. computationally Recent research on finite capacity schedulingwith logical modelling has tended to focus on two broad methods-the use of Al techniques on a hybrid formulationcombiningresources and job based approaches(e.g. OPIS26), and the use of DES as a time-based technique. In system is modelled as a set the case of the former, the entire operation of the manufacturing of constraints (e.g. precedence, capacity, due-dates) and appropriate constraint-directed search techniques (including constraint relaxation) are then used to solve the resulting problem; heuristic rules are employed to define the precedence order in which jobs and/or resources are considered in satisfyingthe constraints.DES, in contrast, develops a schedule incrementally,with one element of it decided at each time update. Precedenceconstraintsare represented as process routes, and due dates are only considered in the heuristic rules employed in the selection of jobs and resources at each time update. DES also deals with satisfaction of constraints (mainly capacity), but considers at each time update only the constraintsprevalentat that time.

DISCRETE EVENT SIMULATION it has a distinct modelling Discrete Event Simulation has three important characteristics: technique, it is an experimental tool for analysis of systems and it has the ability to incorporatestochasticbehaviour. Modellingtechnique As a modelling technique used in scheduling, DES has four important advantages. Techniquesthat treat scheduling as a pure constraintsatisficationproblem tend to produce unstable schedules, i.e. small changes in parameters of the manufacturingsystem (or any heuristicsused within the solution) can very substantiallyalter the characterof the schedule that is generated. In contrast, DES with its incrementalapproachto schedule development produces relatively more stable schedules. Techniques that involve some form of resourcebased modelling also tend to be complex with a high computationalburden and, to keep the system may need problem tractable, often many detailed characteristics of the manufacturing to be omitted from the model. (Unlike in the case of mathematicalmodels, computational

1316

journalof the OperationalResearchSocietyVol. 46, No. I I

efficiency actually decreases very rapidly for highly constrainedsystems, since the need for backtracking is greater during the search process). DES, on the other hand, is well established as an efficient modelling tool, and enables very accuratemodels to be executed relativelyefficiently;the level of accuracyof the manufacturing system model assumesgreater importance in a lean manufacturingenvironment, since the effect of interactions between componentsof a system becomes more pronouncedwith reductionin lead-time and WIP. An constructedmodel can also be first used in its more traditionalrole of analysing appropriately the design of the manufacturing system before it is implemented as an operationalplanning tool. Finally, a Visual Interactive Simulation (VIS) system makes the modelling mechanism very transparent and, hence, more readilyacceptableto productionpersonnel. Discrete event simulation, however, has two importantlimitationsthat can affect its use in scheduling. Incremental scheduling decisions at each time interval have to be made using heuristics without a proper appreciationof their effect on the rest of the schedule. Such myopic decisions may lead to an unacceptable or poor schedule as objectives of critical resources are not met. Starvationof bottleneck resources can usually be avoided by ensuring that a sufficient amount of work is maintained on the shop-floor; theoretically, a resourcebased approachmay achieve this with lower WIP, but the greater accuracyof a DES model will often compensate. It does, however, become a problem when a numberof resourcesin a network of job routes have individual sequencing constraints/objectivesthat need to be fulfilled. There is a need to investigatemethods for providinga DES model with intermediate goals for its incrementaldecision makingprocess. Similarly,a lack of a hierarchicalmodelling technique in discrete event simulation affects the way it is used. DES works on the basis of process routes, and does not use a Bill of Materialsor model of the structureof the enterprise.Its use is limited, at least in the case of large and complex enterprises,to that of a shop/cell planningtool. It is normallyused with an MRP II system, which provides the model of the supply chain within the enterprise and schedules delivery parts between its different units. Lack of an integrated framework lengthens the planning cycle for the supply chain, and slows down the evaluation and transmissionof changes in local schedules. A model of the enterprisewith links to the cell models can help in the design of a more efficient chain, and as a planning tool for better coordination between cells while still retaining local responsibilityfor scheduling of parts within them. Often, a coarse model of the enterprisewill be sufficient, with its constituents exploded into DES models for local use but, as the enterprisegets leaner, the models of the critical cells may also need to be directly used by the higher level planning system. Such a tool can only by truly effective in a supply chain partnershipenvironmentbased on Total QualityManagement(TQM), and practicalmethods will have to be developed for its use as a tool for cooperationbetween the cells.
Experimental tool

Discrete event simulationis a well-establishedexperimentaltool in the strategicanalysisof manufacturing systems. An advantageof its use in productionplanning stems from the fact that a DES model can be used in such analysis prior to its implementationas a scheduling tool. It should be used initiallyto help in any necessaryredesignof the manufacturing system, and to establish the required level of WIP on the shop-floor and lead-times that can be achieved. As a scheduling tool, its use, which is often advocated in the literature16, is for experimentationwith different priority rules. This only prioritizesone job at the expense of another, leads to increased variability in lead-time, and often does not increase actual throughput. A second approach to experimentationsometimes suggested is to provide the planner with a visual interactiveplanningboard25; this is feasible only if the number of 'live' jobs and key resourcesthat need to be considered are fairly limited. In most cases, however, experimentationshould mainly concentrate on finding some ways of eliminatinglateness of jobs, if any, by resolving capacity constraints;possible solutions are overtime, subcontracting jobs/operations, and agreeing with the customer on split delivery or a revised delivery date. By concentratingon a limited numberof options, the job of the planneris made manageable.

R.Roy S.E.Meikie-Role and of DESin Scheduling

1317

The first use of the tool is, hence, in short-termcapacityplanning;in addition, a 'work-to'list and a detailed activity timing plan are produced to help monitor progress of jobs and devise correctiveactions in case of disruption(shop-floorcontrol).
Stochastic system behaviour

Discrete event simulation has always been regarded as a tool for analysis of stochastic systems, but probabilistic distributions have no statistical validity in the short planning horizons normallyused in scheduling. The use of 'time buffers' is, instead, recommendedto produce more robust achievableschedules that have taken the effect of random disturbances into account. The concept of time buffers is well establishedin schedulingand a number of types can be used. Capacity protection for critical resources and uncertaintyabout process durationcan be catered for throughsuitable allowanceson operations/set-uptimes; the use of travel times reduces the effect of late completionof one operationon the rest of the schedule. The aim, however, should be progressivelyto reduce the levels of uncertaintyin the system and adjust the time buffers accordingly.A model used for schedulingshould also incorporate any known disturbancesto the operation of the manufacturingsystem (e.g. known breakof material, etc). The planningintervalshould be kept short to improve downs, unavailability both delivery speed and robustnessof the schedule. Not every disruptionwill have an adverse effect on delivery promises (e.g. breakdownof non-bottleneckmachines) but, when it seems likely, the usual options are again overtime, sub-contracting work, split delivery, etc. Methods for schedule repair, however, still remain an importantarea that needs further research;the objective must be to maintainsupplychain reliability.

A PLANNING AND CONTROLSYSTEM A DES-based scheduling system, PCSS (Planning and Control Simulation System), has been developed incorporatingsome of the ideas presented above. It was developed primarily for use in the pressworks industry and has been validated in three companies. A more detailed presentation of PCSS's scope and operation can be found in Roy et al.27, but an overviewis providedhere. The core element of the system is a data-drivengeneric simulationsystem (developed using the VIS toolkit See-Why28), which can model in detail the operation of press shops, or other operating units engaged in similar made-to-order or batch production. Examples of the features that can be modelled include multiple shift patterns and labour types, sub-contract operations, programmedevents such as planned maintenanceand holidays, alternate routes, complex flow patternsfound in press shops such as 'follow-on' and press-lines, and the ability to model unavailability of tools, materialor other productionresources. In addition to short-termscheduling,PCSS is also suitable for more conventionaluse as a decision support tool for strategic decision making and general improvementsto production systems. Stochastic effects-such as random machine breakdowns-can be introduced to provide representationof capacity losses in a way that is appropriate and necessary for strategicanalysis,but not for short-termproductionscheduling. Individualmodels are created within the system througheight data files. These files define, respectively, the details of the shop and machines, labour, other production resources, manufacturing operations, orders, initial WIP, tooling information,and a calender of events such as holidays. Data files may be created throughthe use of a front-enddata entry system, but in practicethey are most convenientlycreated by downloadingfrom an existing company manufacturing databasesuch as MRP II. Release of jobs onto the shop-flooris controlled in the model throughthe use of a planned manufacturing lead-time and an input control mechanism. If only the former is used, the release mechanism behaves similarly to an MRP system, with jobs made available to the model by a pre-determinedinterval before their due dates; the intevrval correspondsto a job

1318

of the OperationalResearchSocietyVol. 46, No. I I Journal

specific planned lead-time, if one has been specified, otherwise to a default value for the shop. The jobs are then sequenced onto the first workcentre of their process routes according to a selected priority rule. If, in.addition, the input control mechanism is used (as advocated earlier), it helps to smooth the workload on the shop-floor (Figure 2) and can be used to maintain a stable level of WIP, which is considered to be just sufficient to try and ensure that throughput is not unnecessarily constrained. The algorithms to do this are based on the concept of order review and release suggested by Melnyk and Ragatz29, and they control the release of work through the use of pre-set load limits. Load limits may be set on the whole shop, on individual critical resources (considered as potential bottlenecks), or on a combination of both. The computational overhead in defining each additional critical resource is small and does not increase exponentially with each (unlike in the case of resource-based models).

No InputControl With InputControl

Time
FIG. 2. Effects of input control on smoothing WIP.

When capacity constraint is of concern, the planned manufacturing lead-time needs to be long enough to make the input control mechanism the dominant feature and allow effective smoothing of fluctuating demand; otherwise, the planned manufacturing lead-time should be made short and the dominant mechanism for job release. The actual load limits for input control can be determined empirically in the strategic analysis phase prior to implementation of the system as a scheduling tool. In the case of bottlenecks, limits should be chosen that allow some level of queueing immediately prior to them to try and avoid starving them of work, but should not be so large that unnecessarily high levels of queues form and needlessly increase lead-time. An overall shop limit is appropriate where a significant number of wandering bottlenecks exist, or where a shop is constrained by some general resource such as labour. In common with other similar systems, a choice of priority rules is available to sequence movement of jobs within the simulation model, but the use of due-date related rules is strongly advocated. All event times are logged into a file that is used to produce a detailed schedule of all activities. For ease of use by shop-floor personnel, a post-processor converts the timing plans into a Gantt Chart by workcentres, and a similar graphical representation for each job; the first provides a time-phased work-to-list and the latter can be used to monitor the progress of jobs at production meetings. Times when a machine will be idle can also be easily identified and this information can be used to schedule planned maintenance work in a way that will not interfere with production. Additional reports are also available on the start and completion times of jobs (including the earliest time any shipment can be made); a snapshot of the state of each job at the time requested; analysis of utilization and non-productive time of resources; and statistics on various schedule performance measures.

of DESin Scheduling R.Roy and S.E.Meikie-Role

1319

IMPLEMENTATION Extensive trials of PCSS have been carried out in three companies, and it is in the process of being fully implementedin the press shop of a medium-sizedcompany in the automotive sector. The press shop has three sources of demand-parts for current vehicle production, spare parts and a small but increasing amount of sub-contract work. The process of implementingPCSS has been a long and arduoustask, primarilyfor two reasons-lack of data integrity in the company's existing planning system, and the difficulty in adapting to the cultural changes needed. The period of implementationcan be divided up into three (often overlapping)phases, which are probably common in any implementationof a finite capacity schedulingsystem. This has highlightedthe need for the extensive preparationthat is required before such a task in undertaken. The first phase was concerned ostensibly with validationof the system but, in reality, was much more involved with data validation. The company already had an established MRP system, and much of the data required for PCSS was taken directly from it. Although the MRP system had been in existence for a long time, trial implementation of PCSS soon revealed the poor quality of the data on which planning decisions were being made. This became evident from major differences between predicted shop performance and the expectations of the shop-floor supervision;e.g. in utilization of resources, identificationof bottlenecks and feasibilityof trial schedules. The problemswith the MRP data were, in many cases, known to the shop-floor, but effective communicationof them to senior management was not achieved until all partiesviewed and discussedthe simulationresults. Many months of production engineers' time were then taken up in rectifying the MRP database, with the resultsfrom the simulationmodel playing a crucialrole in this audit. In the second phase, a numberof strategicanalyseswere carriedout. Different options for improving the operation of the press shop were studied using PCSS. These included the introductionof flexible working, prioritizingtasks in a set-up time reductionprogrammeand their financial justification, assessing the advisability of accepting large amounts of subcontractwork, and determininglabour requirement.The value of a single model for strategic analysisand operationalplanningwas amply demonstratedduringthis phase. The final phase was concerned with gaining acceptanceof PCSS as a schedulingtool from shop-floor personnel. Initially the system was championed by the Production Engineering Manager,but it was always recognizedthat its success would depend on Productionaccepting ownership.Weekly schedules developed by the system (together with Gantt chart representations) were regularly given to the press shop supervisor for his comments. After some requested modificationswere implemented, the schedules were accepted by him as achievable, but this did not alwayslead to the suggestedsequence of work being followed. This was partly due to corruption of the schedule, often brought about by inaccuraciesin data on finishedgoods stock, but there was also a reluctanceto have a sequence of work dictatedby a schedulingsystem; to do so would require completely changing currentworking practices in which the shop-floor decided on their own job priorities (often based on convenience) in meetingthe weekly MRP targets. This highlightsthe need for a finite capacityschedulingtool producinga detailed timing plan to be owned by the shop-floorfor local planning, and not by a remote department.As for PCSS, this is now gainingin acceptance(helped by the arrivalof staff have been a new press shop manager). Both the press shop managerand key schedulirqg trained in its use; the accuracyof data has now reached an acceptablelevel, and plans have been drawnup for its full implementation.It is expected to be used in four ways-to provide a detailed work plan for the shop-floor, to help in a progress review at daily production meetings, to identify idle periods when preventativemaintenancecan be carried out and to work. identifyresourcesfor which it is appropriateto seek sub-contract

CONCLUSIONS
Discrete event simulationbased schedulingtools have been gaining acceptanceas important aids to CAPM. However, for them to be truly effective they must be more than just

1320

Journal of the OperationalResearch Society Vol. 46, No. I I

modelling tools and should contribute significantly to improvement in business performance. Their implementation must be based on sound principles that promote stability and efficiency within manufacturing, and this paper has suggested possible approaches that may be adopted. In the discrete engineering industry, the subject of this work, delivery speed and reliability must be the key goals, which not only enhance competitiveness but also reduce supply chain cost. Implementation of a finite capacity scheduling system is a long and arduous task, and should only be undertaken after a thorough examination of the manufacturing system and the robustness of the supporting information system; however, a DES-based tool naturally lends itself to that process. There is also the need to pay attention to the changes in working practices that are needed. For these systems to be effective in bringing real business improvement, short lead-times, low inventory and schedule adherence must become part of the company's culture. As a modelling tool, DES has some advantages but also limitations, and there is a need for further research on the development of more versatile tools that can have comprehensive applications in finite capacity scheduling.

REFERENCES
1. J. SCHENGILLI(1986) Optimal scheduling. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Simulation in Manufacturing. (J. E. LENZ, Ed.) pp. 139-145. IFS, Chicago, USA. 2. H. H. ADELSBERGER and J. J. KANET (1991) The Leitstand-a new tool for computer-integrated manufacturing. J. Prod. Invent. Mgmt 32(1), 43-47. 3. P. R. PHILIPOOMand T. D. FRY (1992) Capacity-based order review/release strategies to improve manufacturing performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 30, 2559-2572. 4. E. H. BOWMAN (1959) The schedule-sequencing problem. Opns Res. 7, 621-624. 5. E. IGNAL and L. SCHRAGE (1965) Application of the branch and bound technique to some flow-shop scheduling problems. Opns Res. 13, 400-412. 6. Z. A. LOMNICKI(1965) A 'branch-and-bound' algorithm for the exact solution of the three-machine scheduling problem. Opns Res. Q. 16, 89-100. 7. J. SCHULTE and B. BECKER (1992) Production scheduling using genetic algorithms. In Proceedings IFAC Conference, INCOM'92. (M. B. ZAREMBA, Ed.) pp. 527-533. International Federation of Automatic Control, Toronto. 8. W. S. GERE Jr. (1966) Heuristics in job shop scheduling. Mgmt Sci. 13, 167-189. 9. E. M. DAR-EL and R. A. WYSK (1982) Job shop scheduling-a systematic approach. J. Mftg Syst. 1, 77-88. 10. A. D. NEELY and M. D. BYRNE (1992) A simulation study of bottleneck scheduling. Int. J. Prod. Economics 24, 187-192. 11. E. M. GOLDRATT and R. E. Fox (1986) The Race. North River Press, Croton-on-Hudson, New York. 12. A. A. B. PRITSKER, L. W. MILLER and R. J. ZINKL (1971) Sequencing n products involving m independent jobs on m machines. AIIE Trans. 3, 49-60. 13. M. S. Fox (1987) Constraint-Directed Search: A Case Study of Job-Shop Scheduling. Pitman, London. 14. F. BONSIGNORIO, M. BOTiTERO, M. BUSATiTI and R. FERRARI (1988) A simulation tool integrated in a short term planning system. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Simulation in Manufacturing. (J. BROWNE and K. RATHMILL, Eds) pp. 107-115. IFS/Spinger-Verlag, London, UK. 15. J. DUGAN and J. BROWNE (1988) An AI based simulation for production activity control systems. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Simulation in Manufacturing. (J. BROWNE and K. RATHMILL, Eds) pp. 177-194. IFS/Spinger-Verlag, London, UK. 16. H. GRANT (1986) Production scheduling using simulation technology. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Simulation in Manufacturing. (J. E. LENZ, Ed.) pp. 129-138. IFS, Chicago, USA. 17. E. K. WICHMANN (1990) A methodology for development of simulation based production schedule generation systems. In Proceedings of the 1990 Winter Simulation Conference. (B. OSMAN, R. P. SADOWSKI, R. E. NANCE, Eds) pp. 619-624. IEEE, New York. 18. AT&T ISTEL LTD (1993) Provisa User Manual. AT&T Istel Ltd Redditch, Worcs, UK. 19. D. MAcFARLAND and M. E. GRANT (1990) Tutorial: scheduling manufacturing systems with Factor. In Proceedings of the 1990 Winter Simulation Conference. (B. OSMAN, R. P. SADOWSKI and R. E. NANCE, Eds) pp. 146-148. IEEE, New York. 20. J. D. C. LITTLE (1961) A proof for the queueing formula: L = AW. Opns Res. 9, 383-387. 21. S. S. PANWALKERand W. ISKANDER (1977) A survey of scheduling rules. Opns Res. 25, 45-61. 22. T. HILL (1985) Manufacturing Strategy. Macmillan Education, Basingstoke, UK. 23. E. M. GOLDRATiT and J. Cox (1984) The Goal, Excellence in Manufacturing. North River Press, Croton-onHudson, New York. 24. T. E. VOLLMANN (1986) OPT as an Enhancement to MRP II. J. Prod. Invent. Mgmt 27(2), 38-47. 25. L. J. WALKER and J. D. WOOLVEN (1991) Development and use of a visual interactive planning board within Alcan Aluminium. Eur. J. Opl Res. 54, 299-305. 26. P. S. Ow and S. F. SMITH (1988) Viewing scheduling as an opportunistic problem solving process. Ann. Opns Res. 12, 85-108.

R.Roy and S.E.Meikle-Role of DESin Scheduling

1321

27. R. Roy, P. A. MCCARTHY and S. E. MEIKLE (1992) Controlling press shops using simulation. In Sheet Metal 1992-Proceedings of the International Conference 7-9 April 1992. (B. SHIRVANI and D. R. H. BAGGS, Eds) pp. 261-270. IOP Publishing, Birmingham, UK. and R. D. HURRION (1981) SEE WHY: interactive simulation on the screen. Presented 28. E. FIDDY, J. G. BRIGHT at the Conference of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, December 1981, London, Paper No. C293/81. and G. L. RAGATZ(1989) Order review/release: research issues and perspectives. Int. J. Prod. 29. S. A. MELNYK Res. 27, 1081-1096.

Received October 1994; accepted February 1995 after one revision