Int. J. Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 10, No.

2, 2012 197

Production capabilities using takt times,

requirements analysis and simulation

Jun Duanmu*
Old Dominion University,
Virginia Modeling Analysis and Simulation Center,
1030 University BLVD,
Suffolk, VA 23435, USA
Fax: +1 757 686 6214
E-mail: jduanmu@odu.edu
*Corresponding author

Kevin Taaffe
Clemson University,
Department of Industrial Engineering,
130-A Freeman Hall,
Clemson, SC 29634, USA
Fax: +1 864 656 0795
E-mail: taaffe@clemson.edu

Abstract: This paper is motivated by a firm that manufactures two main types
of products. In an effort to increase their throughput, the company created a
production scheme using takt times. To achieve a smooth flow of production,
they desired low work-in-process inventory in order to make all components
move simultaneously. However, the process includes parallel assembly lines
that converge to or diverge from common resources. A simple takt time
calculation cannot provide enough information to achieve the desired
throughput. The authors identify solutions that improve throughput. One
solution, based on takt times or each station’s processing times (PTs) for a zero
waste schedule, can be used in many other scheduling problems. With the aid
of Little’s Law and simulation, the authors also show how the system flow can
be influenced via managerial settings. Across all production configurations, a
10–15% increase in throughput over the original design can be achieved.

Keywords: takt time; Little’s Law; throughput; one-piece-flow; simulation;

lean production.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Duanmu, J. and Taaffe, K.

(2012) ‘Production capabilities using takt times, requirements analysis and
simulation’, Int. J. Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 2,
pp.197–216.

Biographical notes: Jun Duanmu is a Postdoctoral Researcher in Virginia

Modelling, Analysis and Simulation Center (VMASC) at Old Dominion
University. He received his PhD degree from Clemson University in August
2010. His research interests include production planning, transportation,
simulation and system optimisation. He has more than eight years of experience
with theory and practice in manufacturing systems, quality control and
transportation system research.

Copyright © 2012 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

198 J. Duanmu and K. Taaffe

Kevin Taaffe is an Associate Professor of Industrial Engineering at Clemson

University. He has been conducting research in inventory management,
transportation systems analysis, healthcare logistics and emergency
preparedness. He supports the Clemson site for CELDi, the Center for
Engineering Logistics and Distribution, where he works on industry-sponsored
projects that bridge the gap between theoretical research and application. He is
a member of IIE, INFORMS, SHS and Transportation Research Board, and he
serves as an Associated Editor for IIE Transactions.

1 Introduction

Many firms today have initiatives to reduce waste and improve product flow, and a
common solution or implementation approach is to apply lean principles within the firm’s
production system. This revolution in the production and manufacturing environment
began many years ago when Womack et al. (1990) created the lean production system, a
method of measuring a company’s manufacturing effectiveness. It is most commonly
known as a systematic approach to reducing (or eliminating) seven critical wastes, which
will ultimately lead to reducing variability in supply, processing time (PT) and demand
(Shah and Ward, 2007). For many manufacturers, lean is the set of ‘tools’ that assist in
the identification and steady elimination of waste. Examples of such tools are value
stream mapping (VSM), Five S, Kanban (pull systems), takt time and poka-yoke (error-
proofing). These tools have been so well adopted across the manufacturing industry that
Womack and Jones (2003) believe the lean production system would be the predominant
method for conducting any manufacturing operation in the 21st century. However, it is
important to note that the individual application of any of the above tools will not always
yield the improvement in performance that the company seeks.
In the motivating example provided in this research paper, one such company wanted
to arrange a new production layout to support a significant increase in the throughput of
their two main products. The company’s two product lines could have extensive
customisation, which further complicated the ability to maintain the philosophy of lean
thinking. With subgoals of having synchronised production, one-piece-flow and low
WIP, a production design based on takt times was adopted, however desired throughput
levels could not be confirmed. In this paper, the authors describe some key aspects of
lean, takt time analysis, Little’s Law and how these concepts can be combined with
simulation to address complex manufacturing issues. Implementation of a single lean
principle tool can be insufficient without considering a more rigorous mathematical
analysis and, in this research, a process flow simulation.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a brief
overview of the literature related to the research. Section 3 describes the production
scheme. Section 4 presents the base simulation model and the initial issues that were
faced. A throughput analysis follows in Section 5, which then provided motivation for the
sensitivity analyses performed in Section 6. The research conclusions are shown
in Section 7.
 Production capabilities using takt times, requirements analysis and simulation 199

2 Related literature

Takt time only defines the synchronised production pace in a company under a complex
manufacturing environment. Such an environment can include assembly lines that merge
or diverge and multiple products that use the same assembly lines yet they require unique
PTs. Often a detailed production schedule is necessary to fulfil the goal of lean
production, and research has been carried out in the modelling of such problems
(Balakrishnan and Vanderbeck, 1999; Lee and Vairaktarakis, 1997; Miltenburg, 2007).
In fact, improving the productivity of manufacturing has been well studied, without a
consensus on the best method for attaining the desired improvements (Gershwin, 2000).
Muthiah and Huang (2006) provide a review of the various measurement systems in
place, and how metrics-based diagnosis and productivity measurement can achieve
improvements in manufacturing. Using a survey and analysis of four unique industry
partners, Guinery et al. (2010) present a toolkit for improving or redesigning the
production planning, scheduling and control practices.
There can be different goals in the modelling of a manufacturing process. Heike et al.
(2001) summarise the general types and approaches to solve these problems. They also
put forward a model for a low volume, mixed one-piece-flow model for an aerospace
company. This model has similarities with the model in this paper.
Researchers have used many methods in identifying the interrelationship between
resources, components and the underlying stochastic process. In queuing theory, the most
fundamental relationship is Little’s Law, which is expressed as
WIP = TH × CT (1)
where WIP is the work-in-process inventory (WIP), TH represents the throughput of the
system, and CT represents the cycle time per unit processed in the system. This
relationship is the basis for Hopp and Spearman’s (1999) Factory Physics approach to
managing a manufacturing process. It is clear that even though one system may have
higher WIP, if each unit requires a longer cycle time, then the system loses any benefit of
the increased WIP. If the system is very complex and Equation (1) is difficult to use
directly, simulation is often used. AlDurgham and Barghash (2008) highlight the nature
of relationships between different decision areas and how simulation can be used in a
more systematic way to support decision-making. They present a framework for applying
simulation in areas ranging from layout to scheduling and how to use a feedback-
adjustment procedure with progressive improvement. Ali et al. (2005) analyse a lean
production environment, which combines product mix and production volume with the
aid of simulation. The performance under different production scenarios is developed to
find the optimal combination of product mix to meet future customer demands. This
research provides a re-configurable assembly system modelling by adding flexibility and
evaluates alternative designs. In the authors’ research, a similar methodology is used in
creating different production schemes as well as incorporating an optimisation function to
identify the best parameters.
Czarnecki and Loyd (2001) present the application of simulation in a lean assembly
line for high-volume manufacturing. Using concepts such as one-piece-flow and takt
times, they provide a simple example about two different models based on both
traditional and lean systems. However, it is difficult to determine exactly how beneficial
any new policies or changes to process flows would be for more complex problems.
Schroer (2004) also used simulation to understand lean manufacturing. Using a software
200 J. Duanmu and K. Taaffe

product called Modular Manufacturing Simulator, they illustrate the relationship between
cycle time, WIP and resource allocation. Although they didn’t directly analyse the
problem with the theory of Little’s Law, their work indicates the relationship between
these variables and why lean is so effective.
There are several examples of researchers using simulation in various production
environments. Lian and Van Landeghem (2002) compare pull and MRP systems based
on two simulation models. Park et al. (1998) presents a simulation model to assess
maximum throughput at the Mercedes Benz AAV production facility. While buffer sizes
were calculated and bottleneck analysis was performed, knowledge of Little’s Law and
lean on their model was not directly applied. Hung and Liker (2007) also address how
various production conditions (e.g. batching, reliability and sequencing) can have a
significant impact on the ability of a pull system to maintain the expected production
responsiveness and throughput capability.
Adams et al. (1999) introduce how simulation can be used as a tool for continuous
process improvement. They presented several model structures to represent different
improvement plans and compared their effects. While simulation is often chosen as a tool
to evaluate process improvement, firms understand that time and modelling expertise are
essential in conducting sound projects. Through a parametric approach, Farr et al. (2010)
also show how simulation can be effectively implemented without the typical investment
in time and modelling resources.
A new trend in simulation modelling research is to combine design of experiments
(DOE) with simulation to identify the significant system factors and develop a
mathematic regression model representation. In particular, Sandanayake and Oduoza
(2009) estimate throughput, using takt times and process times obtained from a
regression model. Our research differs from this approach in that an exact mathematical
sequencing analysis is conducted to provide an understanding of the limits on achievable
throughput. In addition, the simulation-optimisation approach within this paper indicates
how process times and takt times can be manipulated to reach maximum throughput
while adhering to constraints in the production process.
All in all, there is a great deal of literature in several areas within production
planning. However, combining these issues in greater detail has been less explored.
Moreover, little documented research exists in combining these topics with an
optimisation approach. In fact, simulation is a powerful tool for understanding how these
various tools and concepts work together.

3 The production scheme

3.1 The firm’s base production plan

The firm produces two types of products which are called P1 and P2. The daily
throughput requirements are 3 P1 and 12 P2, for a total of 15 daily units. This may seem
like a low volume of production, but the unit costs and revenues are extremely high.
Thus, the impact of not achieving throughput near this level can be very costly. There are
mainly five major components flowing inside the production lines as follows:
• product P1 requires components 1a, 1b and 1c
• product P2 requires components 2a and 2b.
 Production capabilities using takt times, requirements analysis and simulation 201

In addition, there are two types of component 1c, depending on the level of specialisation
equipped, namely 1ch (high-spec) and 1cl (low-spec), which represent 25% and 75% of
the component c, respectively. Figure 1 depicts this process flow for each component and
product type. There are roughly eight stages of production as identified in Figure 1 by the
bottom row. The main stages and component process flows are described next.
1 Components a, b and c enter the production system from their own pre-treat lines,
however 1b and 2b share the same resource of pre-treatment.
2 After the pre-treat, 1a, 2a and 1c enter the metal work stage, where they are
processed separately.
3 After the metal work stage, all components will converge and undergo processing
one-by-one during the Common stage (a case in which the components will be
batched as a group of two will be discussed also in later parts).
4 After the Common stage, 1a and 1c enter the Type 1 Paint stage, 2a enters the Type 2
Paint stage and 1b and 2b proceed directly to the Custom 1 stage. Note that all 1a’s
might flow through Type 1 Paint twice, i.e. in some cases this station has a re-entrant
flow of 1a. After Paint, 1c, 1a and 2a enter their respective custom stages.
5 After the Custom 1 stage, components a and b are assembled together for each
product and form component ab. Component 1c awaits the matched 1ab coming
from the Check stage.
6 The assembled ab components share the resources at the Check Stage, and then they
continue to Custom 2 for their own product types. After Custom 2 stage, Product P2
completes a Final check, while Product P1 will be created in Assembly 2 by
combining component 1ab with 1c. The assembled Product 1abc then proceeds to the
Final check.

Figure 1 Flow chart for products and processes

202 J. Duanmu and K. Taaffe

There are no queues between each stage. However, the stage can have multiple stations
for processing by allowing multiple parts to be processed within the same stage. It is a
single-flow process, where the next task cannot be performed until the component in
front finishes its processing and moves forward. Using this as motivation, the company
calculated appropriate station PTs based on takt time calculations.

3.2 Takt time calculations

Takt time is the available work time divided by the number of finished units required in
that time period. Normally, it is a theoretical time that a factory must meet to achieve the
planned throughput every day. In addition, it is the pace that the company needs to
synchronise all the production steps. If any production stage is left behind or move faster
than the pace, the throughput will be affected. For the individual workstation, the takt
time might include setup time, working time and transportation time, these times in total
are called PT in this paper. Thus, the PT for a workstation can be different from takt time,
but it must be less than the takt time. To apply the lean philosophy in the production, the
station can be carefully designed, and thus there is no redundant time in the work and
the unitisation is almost 100% along with a zero waste time. Consequently, here in this
paper, the production planners used this takt-time framework for their production in an
effort to eliminate any unnecessary inventory and operate with a smooth production flow.
Considering component 2a in the Pre-treat stage, its throughput is 12 units per day
and the available time to process these 12 units is 450 min, exclusive of scheduled breaks
during the shift. This results in a takt time for each workstation in Pre-treat of 450/12 or
37.5 min. This is the time used as a PT input to the model.
All takt times, concerning different stages are calculated by the same method. Table 1
summarises the throughput requirements and takt time calculations for each stage in the
production, assuming no re-enter paint for Type 1 paint.

3.3 Alternate product flows

Two optional product flows were under consideration, one in an effort to improve station
utilisations, and the other to accommodate the required steps to properly paint and seal a
component. They are described in detail in the next sections.

3.3.1 Batch in production

After components 1a, 1c and 2a finish the metal work, they will be batched in a group of
two and sent to the Common stage. There are no special requirements for the batch
content, that is, any two finished components can be batched together. Upon completion
of the second of five consecutive workstations in Common stage, any batch containing
component 2a will be separated, and component 2a will be immediately moved to Type 2
Paint. All other components will continue with Common stage processing.
Assuming there are two components available for batching between 1a, 2a and 1c, the
total number to process is
N batch 3 + 3 + 12
+ N not batch = + 3 + 12 = 24 (2)
Batch size 2
 Production capabilities using takt times, requirements analysis and simulation 203

Table 1 Throughput and takt time requirements

Station name Daily throughput Takt time Item list

Pre-treat 3 (same as metal process) 150 1a
3 (same as metal process) 150 1c
12 (same as metal process) 37.5 2a
15 30 (3) of 1b, (12) of 2b
Common stage 33 13.6 (3) of 1a, (3) of 1b, (3) of 1c, (12)
of 2a, (12) of 2b
Type 1 paint 6 75 (3) of 1a, (3) of 1c
Type 2 paint 12 37.5 12 of 2a
Custom 1 3 150 1a
3 150 1b
0.75 (25% of 3) 300 1ch (1/2 of the real takt time)
2.25 (75% of 3) 100 1cl (1/2 of the real takt time)
12 37.5 2a
12 37.5 2b
Assembly 1 3 150 1ab
12 37.5 2ab (or just 2)
Check 15 30 (3) of 1ab, (12) of 2
Custom 2 3 150 1ab
12 37.5 2
Assembly 2 3 150 3 P1 abc
Final check 3 150 1
12 37.5 2

where Nbatch is the number of components that need to be batched, while Nnot batch is the
number that are not batched. This results in a takt time of 450/24 = 18.75 min.
After step 2 in the Common stage, component 2a will immediately move to its Paint
stage. It is assumed that each batch has a 2a and all batches which have 2a split
into individual components after step 2. The new takt time from station 3 is 450/(3 + 3 +
3 + 12) = 21.42 min. The real time can be longer since more components might be
batched together throughout the whole stage.

3.3.2 Reentrant cycle in the Type 1 paint process

In addition to the batch, the firm plans to paint component 1a two times in the Type 1
Paint stage. Consequently, the paint number becomes nine components as opposed to six
components per day. This results in a new takt time of 450/(3 × 2 + 3) = 50 min.
204 J. Duanmu and K. Taaffe

4 Base models

4.1 Model description

The approach in simulation is to replicate the production system. The model uses
conveyor logic to simulate the process of synchronised movements since it is a single-
flow line. The conveyor is accumulative, which means components at upstream
workstations continue to move until they reach a stopped component. Variables are
defined to control the values of each PT. In addition, another group of variables that set
the allowable part, buffers at the interfaces of each stage, is embedded. This will help
simulate the effect of additional WIP; if there are no buffers, these variables are set to
zero. In performing the analysis, the authors use Rockwell Software’s Arena simulation
software, along with OptQuest (an optimisation tool within Arena) to perform the
simulation-optimisation by searching the best point, which combines different values of
those variables in the model.
As described in Section 2.3, there are three models depending on whether batch flow
and re-enter cycle are included. They are:
• Model NBNC: ‘no batch no cycle’
• Model HBNC: ‘has batch no cycle’
• Model HBHC: ‘has batch has cycle’.

4.2 Simulation of NBNC

The model was simulated for a total of 3,000 hr with the first 100 hr being the warm-up
time. As this was a takt time planning mode, there is no variance in process timings (i.e.
the model is deterministic, requiring only one simulation run). However, the need for
simulation is still great, since the production system has several dependencies and
interactions between stages.
Using their takt-time-based PTs and buffer structures as the firm had planned, the
entire production process reaches a gridlocked state after 70 hr. One cause of system
imbalance is that arrival of one component does not always result in immediate
processing of the component. In addition, if component 1b is waiting for component 1a at
Assembly 1, and the number of 1b in a stage is big enough to extend back to the
Common stage, then it is possible that 1a could be blocked by too many 1b’s, and a
gridlock state forms. Consequently, the component numbers that are permitted in the
system need to be controlled via WIP level monitoring.

4.3 Controlling the WIP

To avoid system gridlock, the total number of components held inside the production line
for each stage must be controlled, thus they will not obstruct the shared production lines.
A range of WIP for each of the components is defined and OptQuest is run to search the
good values that create high throughput in the model. Table 2 indicates that the system
can achieve 90% utilisation (or 90% of desired throughput) after optimising the WIP.
This time, the model’s output is high and similar as the factory’s average daily
throughput and by inputting the daily production schedule, the model gave a correct
 Production capabilities using takt times, requirements analysis and simulation 205

stable output as it was expected. Given that the production facility did not exist yet, a
review by expert team members was conducted. Using a walk-through of modelling
assumptions and preliminary results, the team was able to provide a validation of the
modelling approach.
Table 2 LimWIP base throughput (12/3 throughput)

Base limited WIP model Product 1 Product 2 Total throughput Planned throughput Utilisation
Throughput 2.65 10.83 13.48 15 0.9

5 Throughput analysis

Next, station-by-station production process is investigated to understand what factors

contribute the most to increasing (or decreasing) throughput. The following key factors
are considered:
• planned production levels (for each product type)
• component sequencing (scheduling)
• station takt times.

5.1 Comparing production plans

Using the NBNC model, the following production levels are tested:
1 P1, 12 P2
3 P1, 12 P2 (base case)
6 P1, 12 P2
12 P1, 12 P2.
Table 3 shows the achievable throughput for the four production ratios.
Note how throughput efficiency decreases as the number of P1 units increases.
Throughput is reduced due to additional delays that occur at the interface of two stages.
Among those interfaces, the Common stage accounts for most of the wait time, and it
also contributes to a lower efficiency. A detailed analysis of how this occurs is provided
at the followed sections.
Table 3 Throughput and efficiency across several throughput plans

P1/P2 desired throughput Total P1 P2 Efficiency (%)

1/12 11.75 0.84 10.92 97.92
3/12 13.48 2.65 10.83 89.87
6/12 15.88 5.27 10.61 88.22
12/12 20.54 10.27 10.27 85.58
206 J. Duanmu and K. Taaffe

5.2 The interface between connected stages causes wastes

Given a 12/12 production system under evaluation, the following takt times is used for
workstations within the following specific stages:
Common stage: 7.5 min
Type 1 paint: 18.75 min
Type 2 paint: 37.5 min
Custom 1b: 37.5 min
Custom 2b: 37.5 min
Note that one component 1b will finish processing every 37.5 min. This assumes that the
production line can provide one 1b from the Common stage at that same interval time
(i.e. every 37.5 min). On the other hand, there may have components requesting service
at the upstream station before downstream station is ready to accept the arriving
component. For example, if 1a and 1c are processed continuously in the Common stage,
after 1a leaves the Common stage, 1a enters Type 1 paint and the paint process takes
18.75 min to finish. However, in Common stage, 1c only needs 7.5 min to finish the
processing, and then it has to wait for 18.75 − 7.5 = 11.25 min when 1a leaves Type 1
paint. Thus, 11.25 min are wasted on waiting. To avoid such mismatches, takt time and
careful sequence schedule need to be set up so that adjacent stations handoff components
at synchronised times.
There are two approaches in solving this issue. First, the researchers can work with
the given takt times in identifying the best component production sequence that
minimises delays (i.e. down time or work stoppage). Alternatively, a new set of takt times
and work schedule that synchronise neighbouring stations can be created. This will also
be considered.

5.3 Controlling the entering sequence

5.3.1 Sequence enumeration
Identifying a schedule for accepting new parts can be accelerated by developing an
algorithm to enumerate this permutation process to simulate the entering sequence. To
create the sequence permutations; firstly, the whole production must be divided by
repetitive cycles, and the requirement of each component within an entering cycle should
be determined. For 12/12 model, below are the steps:
Step 1: Determine the components per cycle:
Considering only the Common stage and its downstream stage, components 1a, 1ch and
1cl all enter Type 1 Paint under the same takt time and go to the same paint station. Thus,
they can be regarded as the same component, and the new set of components are named
1ac (including 1a, 1ch and 1cl), 1b, 2a and 2b. Table 4 presents the new minimum
requirement of each component in a cycle.
 Production capabilities using takt times, requirements analysis and simulation 207

Step 2: Determine the sequencing of components in each cycle:

Now the production efficiency is examined by enumerating all possible sequences based
on the minimum divisible requirement. It is interesting to see that the utilisation only has
two possible outcomes based on the sequencing shown in Table 5.

5.3.2 Permutations and maximum utilisation

In comparing the utilisations of each permutation, component 1ac is classified as A, and
all other components (1b, 2a and 2b) are denoted as B, the 3 component B will enter
different downstream stage, so, if the PT at their individual stage is equal to the cycle
time for each five-component cycle needed in common stage, there will be no delay and
wait in the interface. On the contrary, since A will enter the same downstream stage, the
relationship between downstream stage PT and cycle time in common stage need to be
analysed. There are 2 A’s and 3 B’s to arrange in the permutation, which implies that
there are only two unique permutations:
1 AABBB
2 ABABB
In defining the loss in throughput, the amount of time that one station is not working is
quantified. Consider the interface between the two successive stages, where Station 1 is
the Common stage station and Station 2 is the downstream stage station. Then let t1
represent the takt time at station 1 and t2i denote the takt time at the downstream station
for component i.
In Sequence 1, the components start with two consecutive A components, followed
by three consecutive B components. In order for the Common stage to operate
continuously, components must be advanced from the stage upon process completion.
The A components are destined for the same station, while the B components each
proceed to a unique downstream station. Denoting the delay as d, the cycle time loss in
the Common stage is denoted as:
d = max ( 0, t2A − t1, t2B − 5t1 )
Table 4 Minimum number of components in each Common stage cycle

Component name 1ac 1b 2a 2b

Requirement per cycle 24 12 12 12
Minimum divisible requirement 2 1 1 1

Table 5 Utilisation values for two permutations

Permutation 1 Permutation 2
ac1 utilisation 0.909 0.769
a2 utilisation 0.909 0.769
b1 utilisation 0.909 0.769
b2 utilisation 0.909 0.769
Common stage utilisation 0.909 0.769
208 J. Duanmu and K. Taaffe

Alternatively, for the second permutation, two A’s are separated by one B, again with
each B going to a unique downstream station. Now the cycle loss can be quantified as:
d = max ( 0, t2 A − 2t1, t2B − 5t1 )

Based on the above equations, it can be found that wait times equal to 11.25 min for
Sequence 1 and 3.75 min for Sequence 2. Quantifying utilisation as CT/(CT + d), each
wait time (or loss) then translates into a utilisation of 0.769 and 0.909, respectively,
which is exactly the same result achieved in Table 5. Such analysis can be performed
when the total number of components is not large. Otherwise, the sheer number of
permutations becomes overwhelming, and heuristic approaches to identify a preferred
sequence are necessary.

5.3.3 Takt time design can reach 100% throughput utilisation

In this section, a mathematic method to ensure a takt time production schedule with no
idle production time is proposed. One principle of this method is: to accomplish such a
production schedule, different components must be introduced ‘evenly’ into the system.
Here are some rules to help define how this will work. Assuming there are several
components with unique throughput requirements, where each component will fall into
one of the following sets:

{ } { }
S1 = {a1 , !, aα } , S2 = b1 , !, bβ , S3 = c1 , !, cγ , !, S n = {m1 , ! , mω }

For example, there are α components in set S1, β components in set S2, etc. Each
component in set Si has a throughput of Ti. In order to reach a ‘0’ waste time at the stage
interfaces, the following mathematic relationship should be obeyed:
1 For the throughput relationship of sets S1 and S2:
T2 = S1 × T1 = α T1

2 For any set beyond S2, the following throughput rule should be applied:

Ti = ( Si −1 + Ti −2 ) × Ti −1 , i = 3,…, n

Using the firm’s 3/12 production plan, the throughput of each component group after
Common stage is:
1ac = 6, 1b = 3, 2a = 12, 2b = 12

so the throughput ratio can be written as:

3 : 6 :12 :12 = 1: 2 : 4 : 4
which does not obey the above structure. The utilisation can be improved by adjusting the
production plan by producing three more 1b components, which results in a throughput
ratio of 6:6:12:12 = 1:1:2:2. This time the utilisation can reach to 100% and there is no
time wasted. This is only appropriate as a decision support mechanism, since the
additional components are not integral in meeting the firm’s production requirements.
However, if PTs at workstations are somewhat fixed, and the company can justify a use
for such additional components, this approach may be justifiable.
 Production capabilities using takt times, requirements analysis and simulation 209

6 Throughput improvement via simulation

For simpler assembly lines, an analytical calculation might help engineers directly reach
the desired throughput result. However, more complex systems involving batching,
splitting and re-entrant flow may be better suited for analysis, using a simulation model
along with production system knowledge based on Little’s Law. In this section a brief
summary about factors that might affect the throughput and utilisation is shown.

6.1 Overview
According to Little’s Law (see Equation (1)), if we want to increase throughput, we can
either increase WIP or shorten the cycle time. However, the relationship between WIP
and cycle time (CT) is non-linear since they have a complex interaction with throughput;
the change is contingent upon how WIP and cycle time interact, and this change and
interaction can be checked by simulation.
In setting up the alternatives, WIP and CT are manipulated by either adding buffer
areas or reducing station PTs. The motivation here was to identify how much PT
reduction is associated with a particular throughput level. Then, the company can
determine whether the reduction is possible.

6.2 Scenarios
In this section, several scenarios are defined based on a relatively wide range of settings
for the buffer and PT parameters. Then OptQuest is used to perform simulation-
optimisation to find the maximum throughput. The following is a description of the five
scenarios that were examined.
S1: Add buffers: By adding buffers, components are allowed to move downstream to a
buffer when otherwise they would have been held at an upstream station. This would also
allow one line to accumulate components even when the other line does not have a
matching component that is ready. This may result in smooth flow or possible higher
throughput, but it is opposite to the rules proposed in lean production. In Arena, the range
of buffer is defined from 0 to 8 units.
S2: Reduce PTs through Common stage: From Little’s Law, it is expected that shortening
the cycle time would improve throughput. Two possible ways to reduce cycle time are to
1 decrease the PT for the workstation and
2 lower the WIP.
The authors first consider only PT reductions before and including the shared resource
(i.e. the Common stage). The downstream station PTs are untouched and are still the
same as shown in the takt times. Arena (and OptQuest) is programmed to select between
50% and 100% of the current takt time values for a cycle time reduction. Specifically, a
lower bound PT of 50% or 90% of the original PT is enforced two separate simulation
optimisation tests.
S3: Reduce PTs after Common stage: This is an effort to compare the effect of obtaining
PT reductions before and after Common stage. The allowable processing reduction is the
same as in S2.
210 J. Duanmu and K. Taaffe

S4: Combine WIP and PT factors before and including Common stage: In this scenario,
OptQuest can determine the best combination of buffer size and PT before and including
the Common stage to maximise throughput. Buffer size is also allowed to increase (but
not PT reductions) after the Common stage.
S5: Simulation-optimisation of all parameters: Here, all input parameter options are
allowed to be set within the simulation-optimisation model. The authors want to see
whether a 100% throughput (based on the amount of orders being sent through the
system) could be obtained. The ranges for buffer and PTs are the same as in earlier
scenarios.

6.3 Summary of results

Tables 6 and 7 present the scenario results for the three system configurations (NBNC,
HBNC and HBHC) and the achievable throughput for the 3/12 and 12/12 throughput
requirements, respectively. Across all three model configurations, the following
observations are made. The 3/12 production schedule experiences a 7–12% throughput
improvement above the base case when conducting the scenario tests. For the 12/12
production schedule, the throughput increases by 10–13% across all cases. While neither
production schedule is fully achievable, a significant throughput improvement does exist.
It is also noticed that batching components in Common stage (HBNC, HBHC) is actually
more beneficial when operating in the 12/12 production requirement (an increase from
20.5 to 21.2 units per day). The effects of batching appear to be masked by the low
volume of product 1 when operating in a 3/12 production setting (where daily production
decreases by one unit per day). Each scenario is summarised in further detail.
S1: Add buffers: Adding buffers did not provide any improvement. As readers will see
with the other scenarios, if the downstream stages clear components more quickly than
the components can arrive, no queues form for these stages – and increasing buffer sizes
will have a limited effect. In addition, following Little’s Law, the contribution of an
increased buffer size can actually be offset by a longer cycle time.
S2: Reduce PTs through Common stage: Reducing PTs through the Common stage
provides the largest system improvements, with gains of 10% in product throughput. In
this scenario, downstream stages are no longer waiting on the arrival of upstream
components, thus allowing the latter stages in the process to operate at a higher
utilised state.
Another good discovery is that no matter how fast the stations work, total throughput
increase is almost the same. Since the 10% improvement in product throughput is gained
with only a 10% reduction in stations’ PT, further reductions in PT are not necessary.
There is no need to sacrifice workstation utilisations by overestimating the required PT
reductions; what’s more, a well defined and balanced production can achieve a similar
outcome.
S3: Reduce PTs after Common stage: In this case, the common stage’s production rate is
not increased. In fact, the Common stage delay cannot be reduced by only accelerating
the work at the downstream stations since the sequence of the connected three stages are:
‘merging’, ‘serial processing (Common stage)’ and ‘diverging’. The delay and wait are
symmetrically replicated on the merging process. In case S2, if both the upstream
 Production capabilities using takt times, requirements analysis and simulation 211

merging and Common stage are accelerated a little, they can easily act off the idle time
on the diverging stages. However, if we keep any two stages including the Common stage
unchanged, the interface delay will still exist no matter how fast the other stations
function. Given that the production loss occurs in the stations prior to and including
Common stage, this scenario provides little improvement to overall throughput.
Table 6 Scenario results for 3/12 throughput

3/12 NBNC Type 1 Type 2

Base throughput 13.5 2.7 10.8
S1: Add buffer only 13.5 2.7 10.8
S2: Reduced PT through common stage 10% 14.1 2.8 11.3
50% 14.1 2.8 11.3
S3: Reduced PT after common stage 10% 13.5 2.7 10.8
50% 13.5 2.7 10.9
S4: Add buffer; reduced PT through common 10% 14.1 2.8 11.3
50% 14.1 2.8 11.3
S5: Add buffer and reduce all PTs 10% 14.5 2.9 11.6
50% 14.5 2.9 11.7
3/12 HBNC
Base throughput 12.5 2.5 10.0
S1: Add buffer only 12.7 2.5 10.2
S2: Reduced PT through common stage 10% 14.1 2.8 11.3
50% 14.1 2.8 11.3
S3: Reduced PT after common stage 10% 12.6 2.5 10.1
50% 12.9 2.6 10.4
S4: Add buffer; reduced PT through common 10% 13.9 2.7 11.2
50% 14.1 2.8 11.3
S5: Add buffer and reduce all PTs 10% 13.8 2.7 11.1
50% 14.5 2.9 11.7
3/12 HBHC
Base throughput 12.5 2.5 10.0
S1: Add buffer only 12.7 2.5 10.2
S2: Reduced PT through common stage 10% 14.1 2.8 11.3
50% 14.1 2.8 11.3
S3: Reduced PT after common stage 10% 12.9 2.5 10.3
50% 12.9 2.5 10.4
S4: Add buffer; reduced PT through common 10% 13.9 2.7 11.1
50% 14.1 2.8 11.3
S5: Add buffer and reduce all PTs 10% 14.0 2.8 11.3
50% 14.5 2.9 11.7
212 J. Duanmu and K. Taaffe

Table 7 Scenario results for 12/12 throughput

12/12 NBNC Type 1 Type 2

Base throughput 20.5 10.3 10.3
S1: Add buffer only 20.6 10.3 10.3
S2: Reduced PT through common stage 10% 22.1 11.1 11.1
50% 22.1 11.1 11.1
S3: Reduced PT after common stage 10% 20.6 10.3 10.3
50% 20.6 10.3 10.3
S4: Add buffer; reduced PT through common 10% 22.1 11.1 11.1
50% 22.1 11.1 11.1
S5: Add buffer and reduce all PTs 10% 23.3 11.7 11.7
50% 22.7 11.7 11.1
12/12 HBNC
Base throughput 21.2 10.6 10.6
S1: Add buffer only 21.2 10.6 10.6
S2: Reduced PT through common stage 10% 22.1 11.1 11.1
50% 22.1 11.1 11.1
S3: Reduced PT after common stage 10% 21.2 10.6 10.6
50% 21.3 10.7 10.6
S4: Add buffer; reduced PT through common 10% 22.1 11.1 11.1
50% 22.2 11.1 11.1
S5: Add buffer and reduce all PTs 10% 23.3 11.7 11.7
50% 23.3 11.7 11.7
12/12 HBHC
Base throughput 21.2 10.6 10.6
S1: Add buffer only 21.2 10.6 10.6
S2: Reduced PT through common stage 10% 21.6 10.8 10.8
50% 21.6 10.8 10.8
S3: Reduced PT after common stage 10% 21.2 10.6 10.6
50% 21.2 10.6 10.6
S4: Add buffer; reduced PT through common 10% 21.6 10.8 10.8
50% 21.6 10.8 10.8
S5: Add buffer and reduce all PTs 10% 23.3 11.6 11.7
50% 23.3 11.7 11.7

S4: Combine WIP and PT factors before and including Common stage: There is no clear
difference when compared against Scenario 2. The buffer helps smooth the production.
However, the buffer actually causes a longer cycle time, which works against throughput.
In takt time design, the buffer is not as important a factor in throughput control. This
scenario also shows the same recommendation as in Scenario 2 – a slightly reduced PT
works just as well as a much smaller PT.
 Production capabilities using takt times, requirements analysis and simulation 213

S5: Simulation-optimisation of all parameters: Across all system configurations and

desired throughput levels, the greatest throughput increase is achieved in this scenario.
Production increases to anywhere between 92% and 97% of the desired maximum level.
With a 3/12 production setting, batching configurations are more sensitive to the process
time reduction. A significant throughput increase occurs when allowing up to a 50%
reduction in PT. This same PT reduction is less helpful in a 12/12 production setting as
the more balanced component arrival rate takes advantage of batching even at a 10% PT
reduction.
In addition to the prior results, Figures 2 and 3 provide a graphic comparison of
throughput among different scenarios and structures for 3/12 and 12/12 throughput
requirements, respectively. Since the systems are not very sensitive to large PT
reductions, only the 10% reduction values are included (except that the 50% PT reduction
is included for Scenario 5). It can be seen more easily in Figure 2 how the throughput
limitations under the HBNC and HBHC configurations are overcome with a small
decrease in recommended PTs in early stages (Scenario 2). In fact, only a slight increase
in throughput is achieved when using the full simulation-optimisation available under
Scenario 5. In Figure 3 (the 12/12 production setting), however, the throughput benefits
most when moving to a buffer and PT design with Scenario 5.

Figure 2 Throughput comparison for all configurations based on 3/12 desired production
(see online version for colours)
214 J. Duanmu and K. Taaffe

Figure 3 Throughput comparison for all configurations based on 12/12 desired production
(see online version for colours)

7 Conclusions

Through the significant testing and analysis conducted on this problem, the contributions
of both a mathematical and simulation approach is presented to improve production
throughput in an assembly line system. In adhering to a design that is driven by takt
times, engineers must be aware of the throughput loss between stages when each stage
cannot provide a seamless handoff to the subsequent stage. While this may seem to be a
small issue on the surface (simply reduce all PTs), it is critical to be able to measure the
required PT reductions, as well as to understand the extent by which throughput is
reduced due to the delay-or-wait nature of the stages.
Using simulation, engineers can find that a theoretical takt time plan cannot be
fulfilled under a complex assembly and manufacturing process. Even if the utilisation can
be calculated by hand, such systems ultimately require a combination of simulation and
takt time analysis to achieve maximum throughput and utilisation. Moreover, for systems
with many components and many stages, using a mathematical approach to component
sequencing becomes extremely difficult.
Across all production configurations tested in the case study, a 10–15% increase in
throughput is achieved over the firm’s original design. The batching and re-entrant loop
configurations (HBNC, HBHC) provide additional throughput complications, and that a
batching configuration seems to work well when both products are produced in more
balanced quantities (i.e. the 3/12 production is not as efficient as the 12/12 production for
the batching configurations). Additional areas for future work include the consideration
 Production capabilities using takt times, requirements analysis and simulation 215

of additional product types being produced on the same line, and the comparison of
throughput (and machine/labour requirements) when the component production is more
(less) dedicated.

References
Adams, M., Componation, P., Czarnecki, H. and Schroer, B.J. (1999) ‘Simulation as a tool for
continuous process improvement’, in P.A. Farrington, H.B. Nembhard, D.T. Sturrock and
G.W. Evans (Eds). In Proceedings of Winter Simulation Conference, pp.766–773, The
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, NJ.
AlDurgham, M.M. and Barghash, M.A. (2008) ‘A generalized framework for simulation-based
decision support for manufacturing’, Production Planning and Control: The Management of
Operations, 1366-5876, Vol. 19, pp.518–534.
Ali, S.A., Seifoddini, H. and Sun, H. (2005) ‘Intelligent modeling and simulation of flexible
assembly system’, in M.E. Kuhl, N.M. Steiger, F.B. Armstrong and J.A. Joines (Eds).
Proceedings of Winter Simulation Conference, 2005, pp.1350–1358, Orlando, Florida.
Balakrishnan, A. and Vanderbeck, F. (1999) ‘A tactical planning model for mixed-model
electronics assembly operations’, Operations Research, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp.395–409.
Czarnecki, H. and Loyd, N. (2001) ‘Simulation of lean assembly line for high volume
manufacturing’, In Proceedings of the Huntsville Simulation Conference, 2001, Available at:
http://www.scs.org/confernc/hsc/hsc02/hsc/papers/hsc037.pdf, Accessed on 2 Feburary 2009.
Farr, R., Tannock, J. and Almgren, T. (2010) ‘A parametric approach to logistic control within
manufacturing simulation’, Int. J. Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 3,
pp.313–326.
Gershwin, S.B. (2000) ‘Design and operation of manufacturing systems: the control-point policy’,
IIE Transactions, Vol. 32, No. 100, pp.891–906.
Guinery, J., Wang, K. and Maccarthy, B. (2010) ‘Development and evaluation of a production
planning, scheduling and control re-design Toolkit’, Int. J. Industrial and Systems
Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.251–267.
Heike, G., Ramulu, M., Sorenson, E., Shanahan, P. and Moinzadeh, K. (2001) ‘Mixed model
assembly alternatives for low-volume manufacturing: the case of the aerospace industry’,
Int. J. Production Economics, Vol. 72, No. 2, pp.103–120.
Hopp, W.J. and Spearman, M.L. (1999) Factory Physics (2nd ed). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Hung, K.T. and Liker, J.K. (2007) ‘A simulation study of pull system responsiveness considering
production condition influences’, Int. J. Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 2,
pp.123–136.
Lee, C. and Vairaktarakis, G. (1997) ‘Workforce planning in mixed model assembly systems’,
Operations Research, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp.553–567.
Lian, Y. and Van Landeghem, H. (2002) ‘An application of simulation and value stream mapping
in lean manufacturing’, In Proceedings of 14th European Simulation Symposium, 2002,
Dresden, Germany, Available at: http://www.scs-europe.net/services/ess2002/PDF/log-11.pdf,
Accessed 20 March 2007.
Miltenburg, J. (2007) ‘Level schedules for mixed-model JIT production lines: characteristics of the
largest instances that can be solved optimally’, Int. J. Production Research, Vol. 45, No. 16,
pp.3555–3577.
Muthiah, K.M.N. and Huang, S.H. (2006) ‘A review of literature on manufacturing systems
productivity measurement and improvement’, Int. J. Industrial and Systems Engineering,
Vol. 1, No. 4, pp.461–484.
216 J. Duanmu and K. Taaffe

Park, Y.H., Matson, J.E. and Miller, D.M. (1998) ‘Simulation and analysis of the Mercedes-Benz
all activity vehicle (AAV) production facility’, in D.J. Medeiros, E.F. Watson, J.S. Carson and
M.S. Manivannan (Eds). In proceedings of Winter Simulation Conference, 1998, Vol. 2,
pp.915–920, SCS, San Diego.
Sandanayake, Y.G. and Oduoza, C.F. (2009) ‘Dynamic simulation for performance optimization in
just-in-time-enabled manufacturing processes’, Int. J. Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
Vol. 42, Nos. 3–4, pp.372–380.
Schroer, B.J. (2004) ‘Simulation as a tool in understanding the concepts of lean manufacturing’,
Simulation, Vol. 80, No. 3, pp.171–175.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2007) ‘Defining and developing measures of lean production’, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 25, pp.785–805.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (2003) Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your
Corporation (2nd ed.). New York: Simon and Schuster.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990) The Machine That Changed the World, New York:
Harper Perennial.