7th IFAC Conference on Manufacturing Modelling, Management,

and Control
International Federation of Automatic Control
June 19-21, 2013. Saint Petersburg, Russia

Multivariate simulation analysis of production leveling (heijunka) - a case study

Przemysław Korytkowski*, Tomasz Wisniewski*, Szymon Rymaszewski*


*West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin, Zolnierska 49, 71-210 Szczecin, Poland (Tel: +4891 449 5594;
e-mail; pkorytkowski@zut.edu.pl, twisniewski@wi.zut.edu.pl, srymaszewski@wi.zut.edu.pl)

Abstract: Production leveling (heijunka) is one of the lean tool that is used to stabilize a manufacturing system
(reduce the bullwhip effect). Production leveling is a kind of cyclic scheduling that creates production regularity and
coordination simplicity. This article describes simulation modeling and multivariate analysis of an assembly
production line in a microelectronics factory. The assembly line is organized according to lean principles with
heijunka-kanban production control. The simulation technique is applied to evaluate the performance of the
manufacturing system which requires modifications to achieve two objectives, i.e. to minimize the average
throughput time and to minimize the average work-in-progress. The case study is meant to gain an understanding of
the way the appropriate arrangement of heijunka improves both throughput time and work-in-progress, and to supply
an illustrative example of discrete event simulation as a useful tool in facilitating heijunka.

Keywords: heijunka, production leveling, discrete-event simulation, MANOVA, manufacturing.


1. INTRODUCTION
The objective of this paper is to use a case-based approach to
demonstrate how lean tools, like production leveling, when
used appropriately can help to eliminate waste, maintain
better inventory control and obtain better operational control.
Heijunka, also called production leveling, is a key element of
the Toyota Production System (TPS) which levels the release
of production kanbans in order to achieve an even production
flow over all possible types of products, resulting in reducing
the bullwhip effect (Licker 2004). It aims at balancing
production volume as well as production mix and enhancing
production efficiency (Bohnen 2011).
The aim of strategic management is to achieve and sustain
competitive advantage. Both traditional and emerging
companies must improve existing methods for operation
planning. Lean Manufacturing is an engineering paradigm
that aims at helping companies increase process
effectiveness, reduce costs inside products and services, and
consequently increase competitiveness (R. Al-Aomar, 2011).
Originating from TPS, many of the tools and techniques of
lean manufacturing (e.g., just-in-time (JIT), cellular
manufacturing, total productive maintenance, single-minute
exchanges of dies, heijunka - production leveling) have been
widely used in discrete manufacturing. Applications have
spanned many sectors including automotive, electronics,
white goods, and consumer product manufacturing
(Abdulmalek and Rajgopal 2007, Huttmeir et al. 2009).
time period, with that sequence alternating between
demanding and less demanding products (Huttmeir et al.
2009). This is called EPEI (Every Part Every Interval).
Businesses that employ heijunka scheduling to immediately
fulfill customer orders upon receipt require a finished goods
inventory to service that demand. This inventory must be
appropriately sized to adequately balance the variable
customer demand against a level manufacturing production
rate (Swanson, 2008). Heijunka is a core concept that helps
bring stability to the manufacturing process, converting
uneven customer pull into an even and predictable
manufacturing process. In literature, it has been demonstrated
that Heijunka improves operational efficiency in several
objectives related to flexibility, speed, cost, quality and level
of customer service (Hopp and Spearman 2000, Coleman and
M. R. Vaghefi 1994, Jones 2006).
This paper is further organized as follows. The next section
(2.) presents a summary of related literature. The subsequent
section (3.) describes the case study of a microelectronics
manufacturing system, followed then (4.) by a brief
description of the planned factorial experiment and
methodology for result study, i.e. multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA). Section 5 shows results with a
specification of a discrete event simulation model in Arena.
The final section (6.) concludes the paper with a summary
and some further issues.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW

The lean production practice that protects the producer from
variability in the sequence of jobs to be processed is heijunka
– an approach which is increasingly gaining interest, a
method that tries to harmonize the process by establishing
periodic production sequences (cyclic scheduling).
Production is scheduled such that the production line
produces the same sequence of products throughout a given
Araujo et al. (2010b) presented a case study of an
implementation of a new method for Production Leveling
designed for batch production. It includes prioritizing product
criteria and a level production plan. Results were measured
before and after this implementation by several performance
indicators - Costs (inventory), Speed (lead time), Mix
flexibility (monthly set up operations) and Reliability (service
level). Teece et al. (1997) referred to heijunka as an example

978-3-902823-35-9/2013 © IFAC 1554 10.3182/20130619-3-RU-3018.00285

2013 IFAC MIM
June 19-21, 2013. Saint Petersburg, Russia

of a dynamic manufacturing capability or routine that might
increase company competitiveness when operating with other
routines or capabilities. Huttmeir et al. (2009) tried to find a
trade-off between heijunka and the just-in-sequence method.
They analyzed whether it would be better for a manufacturing
plant to use heijunka to maximize leanness, or use JIS to
maximize its responsiveness. Their work indicates that the
answer may lie somewhere in the middle, with heijunka used
to smooth out the most extreme production values with the
remainder of production carried out with JIS. It is important
to understand this trade-off, as it gives essential insights into
the bigger picture of trading-off between leanness and agility.
Runkler et al. (2011) illustrated and compared two modern
methods to control discrete manufacturing processes: The
Kanban and the Heijunka methods. The experiments
mimicked a real–world production process of an electronic
circuit manufacturer, clearly showing the general advantages
and disadvantages of these two methods. After the startup
phase, however, the experiments indicated that Heijunka was
preferable, because it yielded lower buffer levels and higher
average ability to deliver than Kanban.
Applying the lean paradigm in today’s dynamic production
systems requires special focus on analyzing time-based
performance measures such as lead time, delivery speed,
production takt-time, and inventory level (R. Al-Aomar,
2011). Many authors struggle to take into account several
performance measures, like plant throughput, product cycle
time, and the level of work-in-process (WIP) inventory, all at
the same time. Swanson (2008) determined the trade-offs that
must be made between: the time between fixed production
rate changes, the finished goods inventory needed to provide
a user specified level of backorders, and the flexibility
needed in production capacity to guarantee that the process
will continue to function effectively. Futhermore, WIP level
is often minimized to reduce waiting times or to lower
inventory costs. A low level of WIP may also result in lower
throughput, manufacturing defects and potential shortages.
Thus delivery throughput is maximized to meet demand and
avoid inventory shortages. For efficient production, Shimizu
et al. (2011) regarded the following aspects simultaneously:
reduction of WIP inventory between the processes, and
decrease in line stoppage, at a mixed-model assembly line.
The purpose of this paper is to present the impact of heijunka
with different features (numbers of heijunka pitch times and
arrangement in each pitch time) on system efficiency in the
context of several performance measures. Because an entire
set of performance measures is concerned, the performance
measures will be related to a greater or lesser degree.
Consequently, if each performance measure is analysed in
isolation, the full structure of the data may not be revealed.
Therefore we use multivariate statistical analysis to find
influences and dependences of heijunka on system efficiency.
3. MICROELECTRONICS ASSEMBLY LINE
DESCRIPTION
The microelectronics assembly line produces four main
classes of products (A, B, C and D). Moreover class B
includes three sub-classes (B1, B2, B3) and class C two
subclasses (C1, C2). Average customer demand is about
50,000 pieces per month and distribution by product is as
follows: A – 50%, B – 35%, C – 14% and D – 1%. The
maximum production capacity is 60,000 pieces, working in
two 7hr shifts, 5 days a week, with a max scrap level of 6%.
Order size has great variability, the minimum order size is
100 pieces and the maximum 1000 pieces with an average
about 500. Processing times and setup times vary between
products.
The processes for this product family consists of manual and
semi-automatic assembly, and several quality control
operations. In Fig. 1 and table 1 a production process is
presented, it is made up of 28 workstations of 16 types. Semi-
finished products are transported manually between
workstations in batches of 12 pieces. In the assembly line,
pull production is organized with fixed capacity buffers
between workstations.
6 1-3
5 7 8 4
9-12
13
15
14
16
Figure 1. Microelectronics assembly line
Arriving orders are scheduled using a specially developed
cyclic schedule (heijunka). Heijunka has several
compartments (pitches) where orders are stored according to
a predefined schema. In one compartment only one order can
be stored. For each compartment, the kind of order which can
fall into it is defined. In some cases it is defined that only one
type of order can be stored in a compartment, and for others a
list of possible order types is defined. Orders for production
are executed is the sequence resulting from the heijunka.
The aim of this study is to determine how a heijunka structure
affects an assembly line, by it’s performance measures: work-
in-progress and throughput time.

1555
2013 IFAC MIM
June 19-21, 2013. Saint Petersburg, Russia

Table 1. Production process

 j   j1   jp T
where
Work- Description Time per
station pcs [s]
1 Assembly 1 3.2 to obtain equality: M  1 2  n 
( p ,n )
2 Lubrication 2.5
3 Assembly2 11.8 Matrix B contains the unknown parameters, X is called the
4 Final assembly 6,8 matrix of experiment design and in each case is determined
5 Assembly 3 4,7 by the planned experiment. If the observation samples are
6 Bending 4,3 gathered together in a matrix:
Y   y1 y2  yn 
7 Assembly and lubrication 6.5 ( p ,n )
8 Riveting 17.3 then, in the case of a multivariate linear model, the model
9 Setup 1.0 equation is obtained as:
'
10 Gluing 5.8 Y  X  B  
( p, n) ( n, m) ( m, p ) ( p, n)
11 Front and back marking 2.4
multivariate linear hypothesis is, therefore,
12 Mechanical inspection 2.9
13 Electrical inspection 5.0 H0 : K  B   vs. H1 : K  B  
( s ,m ) ( m , p ) ( s, p) ( s ,m ) ( m , p ) ( s, p)
14 Packing 2.4
15 Electrical inspection + packing 6.3 where K is a matrix composed of constant data and having a
16 Final inspection 1.5 positive rank of equal numbers of rows. In matrix X there is
always the possibility to choose r linearly independent
columns. By re-arranging the columns, the initial column
vectors - the number of r - will be an independent linear
4. MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY system. Similar re-arrangements can also be made in relation
In the case of many variables that affect the outcome of the to B and K, therefore,
analyzed system, resulting in the estimation of a system
   
based on many criteria, we can refer to Mulitple Criteria X   X 1  X 2  and K   K1  K 2 
Decision Analysis (MCDA), which helps managers to make ( n ,r ) ( n ,m  r ) 
( n ,m ) ( s , m )
( s ,r ) ( s ,m r ) 
better decision. The meaning of ‘better’ depends, in part, on To reduce the notation we use:
the process by which the decision is made and implemented. 
QH  X 1 ( X 1' X 1 ) 1 K1' K1 ( X 1' X 1 ) 1 K1' 
1
K1 ( X 1' X 1 ) 1 X 1' and
In MCDA theory it is impossible to consider in every ( n ,n )

situation the existence of the right selection, right assigment Q  I  X 1 ( X 1' X 1 ) 1 X 1'
E
or right ranking method, which could be considered, ( n ,n )

discovered or approximated independently of any procedure

(Roy, 2005). In practice, multivariate data sets are common n
although they are not always analyzed as such (Rencher, ,
2002). Analysis of each variable separately will very likely the
miss uncovering the key features and any interesting patterns The value of test statistics for a given experimental design
in the multivariate data (Hannu Oja, 2010). and established hypothesis is uniquely determined by two
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) is a matrices:
statistically justified method which allows decision makers to
H  YQ Y ' and H
'
E  YQEY
better understand the links between the multiple variables ( p, p) ( p, p)
that affect the test results of the system (Gentleman, et al. All random effects acting on the test statistic are contained in
2011). There are two major situations in which MANOVA is the matrices H and E, and therefore the test statistics can be
used. The first is when there are several correlated dependent regarded as the function f(H,E). For computing the likelihood
variables, and the researcher desires a single overall statistical ratio test for H0 we use a Wilks’ Test Statistic given by:
test on this set of variables instead of performing multiple |E|
individual tests. The second, and in some cases the more 
|EH |
important purpose, is to explore how independent variables
Critical areas to test the statistical significance α level are :
influence the patterning of response of dependent variables.
|E|
In the multivariate case, we assume that n independent   
random samples of size p are obtained from p-variate normal |EH |
populations N(μj,Σj) with equal covariance matrices, as in the with the critical values are defined as follows:
following layout for a balanced one-way multivariate analysis P(    | H 0 )  
of variance. It can be seen that in the application of the significance test at
y j  y j1  y jp 
T where (j=1,2,…,n) significance level α we need to know the distribution of test
statistics that we used if hypothesis H0 is correct. The
M  X  B
' distribution of test statistics for both this case and for the
Assume that for the matrix: ( p ,n ) ( n ,m ) ( m , p ) truth of the alternative hypothesis can be obtained explicitly

1556
2013 IFAC MIM
June 19-21, 2013. Saint Petersburg, Russia

only for some special values of n-r, p and s. Therefore, so far A A B B A A A A B A A B

C B B B D B
the constructed tables of critical values of Λ are not always
C C
sufficient. Therefore, for practical applications, the estimated B A A A A A A B A C B A
distributions of zero lambda statistics are used. C B C B B C D
D
5. COMPUTATIONAL RESULTS B B A A A A B A B A B A
C B B C D B
Experiments were conducted to determine relations between C D
some heijunka characteristic and manufacturing system
efficiency. ARENA simulation software from Rockwell
Table 3 below presents average results (from 25 replications)
Software was used for modeling the manufacturing system.
of output parameters for different NH and AO. It can be seen
There were 400 simulation experiments conducted (25
that for some parameters the range of the results is relatively
replication for each of 16 variants – Table 2). MANOVA and
wide - Throughput Time gained 12.8% and WIP 9.1%, but for
other tests were executed to verify if there were dependence
other parameters it was minimal – for the number of finished
between:
products only 1% - which is a positive result from the
- independent variables:
assumption that heijunka should not change productivity.
o number of heijunka pitch times (NH)
o arrangement of orders in heijunka pitch Table 3. Average results
times (AO) NH AO Finished Throughput
- dependent variables (particular system output products time WIP
parameters): 6 I 59194 49.30 1237.22
o Throughput time 6 II 59140 48.95 1237.51
o Work-In-Progress (WIP) 6 III 59058 52.68 1300.34
o Number of finished products 6 IV 59205 48.61 1230.02
8 I 59189 51.28 1274.63
Table 2. Arrangement of orders in heijunka pitch times
8 II 59259 45.94 1181.99
N A 8 III
H O 59058 52.68 1300.34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
8 IV 59205 48.61 1230.02
A B B A A A 10 I 59189 51.28 1274.63
C B C
10 II 59140 48.95 1237.51
D
A A B B A A 10 III 59058 52.68 1300.34
C B D 10 IV
C
59205 48.61 1230.02
B A A A A B 12 I 59189 51.28 1274.63
C B C D 12 II 59140 48.95 1237.51
B B A A A A 12 III
C B D 59058 52.68 1300.34
C 12 IV 59205 48.61 1230.02
A B B A A B B A min 59058 45.94 1181.99
C C
D D max 59259 52.68 1300.34
A B B A A A A B % 0.34% 12.8% 9.1%
C B B B D
C
B A A A A B A B Because of the ambiguity of the results, multivariate
C B C B C statistical analysis will be used to find a deeper relationship
D between the analyzed parameters.
B B A A A A B A
C B B C
C D
The analyzed three dependent variables can be included in a
A B B A A B B A A B multi-dimensional variable – the efficiency of the system. We
C C use MANOVA instead of univariate ANOVA conducted on
D D the sum of the three variables. All calculation was done in
A A B B A A A A B A Statistica 8.0 software. Results for each multi-dimensional
C B B B D B
C C
Wilks’ Test Statistic are presented in Table 4:
B A A A A A A B A C
C B C B B C D Table 4. MANOVA results
D
B B A A A A B A B A Effect – Error –
C B B C D B degrees of degrees of
C D Variable Test Value F freedom freedom p-value
A B B A A B B A A B A B Wilks 0.947 2 9 929.838 0.0138
NH
C C
D D AO Wilks 0.314 63 9 929.838 <0.001

1557
2013 IFAC MIM
June 19-21, 2013. Saint Petersburg, Russia

NH*AO Wilks 0.792 3 27 1116.279 <0.001 Table 6 displays the p-values indicating significance levels
for the pairs of averages.
From Table 3 one can see that the global Wilks’ multi-
dimensional test at significance level 0.05 demonstrates the
importance of the arrangement of orders in heijunka pitch Table 6. LSD test results
times and the number of heijunka pitch times for efficiency
Performance
of the system. Also the interaction between the arrangement I II III IV
parameter AO
of the orders and the number of heijunka pitch times has a
I 0.626 0.002 0.724
significant impact on system efficiency. There are very Number of
valuable conclusions that are not straightforward to see II 0.626 0.008 0.401
finished products
directly from all the gathered data. By observing only the p- III 0.002 0.008 <0.001
value, it can be assumed that AO has a greater impact on IV 0.724 0.401 <0.001
performance than NH. To examine this, one-way ANOVA I <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
tests were carried out. The results are presented in Table 5. II <0.001 <0.001 0.259
Throughput time
III <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Table 5. ANOVA results IV <0.001 0.259 <0.001
Effect – I <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Variable Value degrees of Mean Square F0 p-value WIP II <0.001 <0.001 0.520
freedom
III <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Number of finished products IV <0.001 0.520 <0.001
NH 6.44E+04 3 2.15E+04 0 0.863
NH 6 8 10 12
AO 1.34E+06 3 4.45E+05 5 0.002
6 0.495 0.076 0.036
NH*AO 2.01E+05 9 2.23E+04 0 0.985 Number of 8 0.495 0.046 0.476
Error 3.33E+07 384 8.68E+04 finished products
10 0.076 0.046 1.000
Throughput time 12 0.476 1.000
0.036
NH 42 3 14 2.1 0.095
6 0.481 0.017 0.033
AO 1295 3 432 65.6 <0.001
8 0.481 0.039 0.039
NH*AO 201 9 22 3.4 0.001 Throughput time
10 0.017 0.039 1.000
Error 2528 384 7
12 0.033 0.039 1.000
WIP 6 0.648 0.047 0.347
NH 14520 3 4840 1.0 0.041
WIP 8 0.648 0.013 0.016
AO 376929 3 125643 25.5 <0.001
10 0.047 0.013 1.000
NH*AO 69523 9 7725 1.6 0.023
12 0.347 0.016 1.000
Error 1890590 384 4923

If the results of F0 obtained from ANOVA are much bigger 65 NH 8, AO II

than the results of F0=F.(a-1)(b-1),ab(n-1) from Snedecor NH 10, AO III

distribution (where  is the level of confidence, a,b,c are 60

degrees of freedom for factors NH, AO and n is the number

avg thr ou gh pu t ti me

55
of all experiments) then the given factor is recognized as
having a significant effect on value of the performance 50

measure. Comparing the results of F0 obtained from ANOVA

to the results of F from Snedecor distribution, one can see 45

that for WIP, both factors are also statistically significant 40

with two-factor interactions between them. For number of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

finished goods and throughput time only AO appears as a replication number

relevant parameter, NH is not as meaningful.

After finding the statistical significance of multivariate and
univariate tests for the main effect or interaction, we
conducted post-hoc analysis for each variable to interpret the
respective effect. We used LSD (least significant differences)
tests. The idea is to determine the least significant difference
and compare what those differences mean (Rencher, 2002). If
the absolute value of the difference of the sample is greater
than the LSD, we can say that it is important statistically.
Values from Table 6 showed that, at significance level 0.05,
there are significant differences between some values of AO
(arrangement of orders in heijunka pitch time) and NH
(numbers of heijunka pitch times) for certain output
parameters. For AO almost all changes from one arrangement
to another had relevant impact (in bold) on throughput time
and WIP. For NH a small change in this parameter had a
significant influence on performance parameters. It can be

1558
2013 IFAC MIM
June 19-21, 2013. Saint Petersburg, Russia

seen that for all performances, changing AO from type II to System: A Case Study, International Federation For
III and changing NH from 8 to 10 pitch times, were Information Processing, 105–112.
significant differences. These relations are presented in Bohnen, F., Maschek, T., Deuse, J., (2011). Leveling of low
Figures 2 and 3. volume and high mix production based on a Group
Technology approach, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing
Science and Technology, 4(3), 247–251.
1540 NH 8, AO II
Coleman, B.J., Vaghefi, M.R. (1994). Heijunka: A key to the
1490 NH 10, AO III

1440
Toyota production system, Production and Inventory
1390
Management Journal, 4, 31–35.
1340 Everitt, B., Hothorn, T. (2011). An Introduction to Applied
avg WIP

1290 Multivariate Analysis with R, Springer, London

1240
Furmans, K. (2005). Models of heijunka-levelled kanban-
1190
systems, 5th International conference on analysis of
1140

1090
manufacturing systems - Production management.
1040
Hopp, W., Spearman, M. (2000). Factory Physics, McGraw-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hill/Irwin, New York.
replication number
Huttmeir, A., Treville, S., Ackere, A., Monnier, L. and
Prenninger, J. (2009). Trading off between Heijunka and
Figure 3. WIP vs number of replications just-in-time sequence, International Journal of
Production Economics, 118(2), 501-507.
Figures 2 and 3 show average throughput time and average Jones, D.T. (2006). Heijunka: leveling production (lean
WIP for 25 replications, data were collected every 10 min. production system), Manufacturing Engineering, 137(2),
From the presented figures one can observe that better results 29–36.
were obtained for 10 heijunka pitch times and arrangement of Liker, J.K., (2004). The Toyota Way, McGraw-Hill, New
orders to type III for all replication. York.
Matzka, J., Di Mascolo, M., Furmans, K. (2012). Buffer
6. CONCLUSIONS sizing of a Heijunka Kanban system, Journal of
Leveling workload is a key factor to sustain better Intelligent Manufacturing, 23(1), 49–60.
performance in job shop production. Based on a full factorial Oja, H., (2010), Multivariate Nonparametric Methods with R,
design, the simulation model, which was developed using Springer, London.
Arena, has been used to find out which key factors have a Pool, A., Wijngaard, J., van der Zee, D.-J. (2011) Lean
great impact on the current operational problems. planning in the semi-process industry, a case study,
International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1),
Heijunka is used to level the release of production kanbans in 194–203.
order to achieve an even production program over all possible Powell, D., Alfnes, E., Semini, M. (2010). The Application of
types of products thus reducing or eliminating the bullwhip Lean Production Control Methods within a Process-Type
effect. Industry : The Case of Hydro Automotive Structures,
International Federation for Information Processing,
The presented statistical analysis, with MANOVA, ANOVA 243–250.
and post-hoc analysis, shows that use of heijunka has Rencher, A.C. (2002). Methods of multivariate analysis, 2ed.,
significant positive impact on system efficiency. Changing Wiley, New York.
various heijunka characteristics can give better results in Roy, B., (2005). Paradigms and Challenges [in]: Multiple
performance parameters. Gains in work-in-progress and Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the art surveys,
throughput time could reach up to 10%. The next step may be Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (Eds.), Springer, New
to examine optimal Heijunka characteristics, e.g. York.
arrangements of the order in each pitch time using Runkler, T.A. (2011). Controlling discrete manufacturing
metaheuristic optimization methods. processes using Kanban and Heijunka approaches, 9th
IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics,
REFERENCES 181–186.
Abdulmalek, F.A., Rajgopal, J., (2007). Analyzing the Shimizu, Y., Waki, T., Yoo, J.-K. (2011). Multi-Objective
benefits of lean manufacturing and value stream Optimization on a Sequencing Planning of Mixed-Model
mapping via simulation: a process sector case study, Assembly Line, Journal of Advanced Mechanical
International Journal of Production Economics, 107, Design, Systems, and Manufacturing 5(4), 274.-283.
223–236. Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A., (1997). Dynamic
Al-Aomar, R. (2011). Handling multi-lean measures with capabilities and strategic management, Strategic
simulation and simulated annealing, Journal of the Management Journal, 18 (7), 509–533.
Franklin Institute, 348, 1506–1522.
Araujo, L.F.D., Queiroz, A.A.D. (2010). Production Leveling
(Heijunka) Implementation in a Batch Production

1559