COMPARISON OF MACHINE ALLOCATION INTER-RELATIONSHIP
ALGORITHM AND DELAYED PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION IN LAYOUT
DESIGNS
LIJO JOHN SHIBIN K T
Graduate student Graduate student
Department of Mechanical Engg
National Institute of Technology Calicut
Abstract— Group Technology has been applied for
generating the machine groups and corresponding part
families for the cellular manufacturing. There is a close
relationship between the products to be manufactured
and the layout for its manufacturing. In the present day
volatile market, the demand variation is a big challenge
faced by the manufacturing companies. Therefore, the
companies are constantly trying to improvise their
layouts to cope up with the demand variation. There is
a continuous effort to design better layouts which are
technologically feasible and economically viable. But,
one cannot forget the amount of design variation
demanded by the customers. In such cases, it becomes
difficult to design a layout which will give larger
product variation. In this research, two cellular layouts
that include the demand and design variation are
compared. The first layout is generated by using the
Machine Allocation Interrelationship (MAIN)
algorithm. The MAIN algorithm considers the demand
variation over the given period to generate a layout
which minimizes the cost. In the second layout, a
biological taxonomical technique called cladistics is
used for generating the layout. The layout thus obtained
incorporates delayed product differentiation to optimize
the layout for design variations by considering the
similarity between the parts. Further, based on the
inferences made, suggestions have been provided to
develop layouts which will have both demand and
design flexibility.
Keywords Cellular manufacturing, Group technology,
Delayed Product Differentiation, layout design, Cladistics
1. Introduction
Group technology is a manufacturing philosophy that
advocates identifying similar parts and grouping them into
families and taking advantage of the similarities in their
design or the manufacturing methods. Cellular
manufacturing is the practical application to this philosophy
where the functionally dissimilar machines are grouped
together to make parts that are similar. The cellular
manufacturing is an important technological innovation
which provides both responsiveness and efficiency in the
manufacturing (Wicks and Reasor, 1999). Responsiveness
is effectiveness with which the manufacturing system
Dr. R.SRIDHARAN,
Professor
responds to the changes in the demand, whereas efficiency
is a measure of the cost effectiveness of the manufacturing
system. Responsiveness is a measure of demand flexibility
and efficiency a measure of the design flexibility.
In a manufacturing system, during the layout
design, there is always a trade-off between volume and
variety. If the layout is designed for the manufacturing
system which can handle a wide range of demand
fluctuation, then the system will not be able to incorporate
much changes in the design, whereas the layout which can
handle a wide variety of design changes will not respond
effectively to changes in the demand. Under these
circumstances, it becomes extremely important to generate
new algorithms for the layout design which can handle both
the design and the demand flexibility.
A comparative study between two layout design
procedures has been done here. The MAIN layout design
(Chan et.al,2004) deals with the quantitative demand
variation. The demand variability in the given multi-period
planning horizon is being tried to capture. Both Static
Machine Cellular Layout (SMCL) and Dynamic Machine
Cellular layout (DMCL) has been considered. In SMCL, if
n machines are grouped into a cell, there are as many as n!
potential layouts. In case of DMCL, the same machine
group may have to be rearranged to suit for m periods in a
planning horizon. As the result, the probable combinations
are as large as (n!)m and it is difficult to obtain the optimal
solution based on QAP approach (Rosenblatt 1986,
Balakrishnan and Chun 1998). Rosenblatt (1986) first
introduced a layout problem-solving technique for multiple
planning periods. His dynamic programming model
attempts to find out the best layout for each predetermined
period. Balakrishnan et al. (1992) added the budget
constraint for machine rearrangements and solved the
problem by using the shortest path algorithm.
Delaying Product Differentiation (DPD) can
increase flexibility, reduce uncertainties and decrease the
cost of complexity (Shao and Ji 2008). The benefits of
postponement strategies include achieving economies of
scale and mitigating risks by placing buffers of work-in-
process (WIP) at points of products differentiation (Aviv
and Federgruen 2001). In order to attain production
flexibility without sacrificing efficiency, some design
principles were recommended, ranging in complexity from
convincing the customer to accept less product variety, to
increasing parts standardization, building the capability for
variety into the product rather than the production system by
using different combinations of the same parts, and
identifying the sources of variety changeover time/cost and
seeking ways to eliminate them through product design.
Modularity is the main enabler for production in a DPD
environment. Modularity is a relative property that depends
on the degree of similarity between the physical and
functional architecture of the design and how much
interactions between components are minimized.
Standardized components and interchangeable units are two
facets that relate to modularity in design and manufacturing,
when creating product variants (Ulrich and Tung 1991).
ElMaraghy (2008) introduced a hierarchy of variations from
products features to parts, modules, sub-assemblies and
parts and products families and platforms to illustrate the
propagation of variety at all levels and discussed techniques
and methods for coping with these variations in products
and systems design.
In this research we have compared two layouts, and have
combined the concepts to come out with a new algorithm for
incorporating the design and the demand flexibility in the
system. The first layout that we have considered is the
Machine Allocation Interrelationship (MAIN). In MAIN
algorithm the layout has been generated with the help of
heuristics. The MAIN algorithm tries to investigate the
Dynamic Machine Cellular Layout in the multiple periods
planning horizon. Initially, a layout is generated with fixed
quantitative demand profile referred to as Static Machine
Cellular Layout (SMCL). This layout is the best for the give
period and the given demand. Then the SMCL’s for all the
periods are considered and a dynamic layout is being
generated which allows machine relocation between periods
(Chang et. al 2004). In the second layout the concept of
delayed product differentiation is being used. By delaying
the product differentiation point we can incorporate the
design flexibility in the layout. The precedence constraints
are being incorporated into the system by using a biological
taxonomical technique called as the cladistics. The
precedence constraints are represented diagrammatically
with the help of the cladograms. Each node in the
cladograms represents the point of differentiation, each
character represents the machines and the end taxa represent
the products, as shown in figure (AlGeddawy et. al. 2010)
Figure 1. A cladogram commonality representation of a five-
taxa example
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The
problem defenition is defined in section 2. The detail of the
solution methodology is described in the section 3. The
section 4 provides the illustration of the algorithm suggested.
Section 5 gives a discussion on the results whereas section 6
provides the conclusion
2. Problem Definition
This research aims on developing a layout considering both
the demand and design variations. The manufacturing cell,
where the machine location sites are regular grids as
considered by Chan et. al 2004. Here in this research we
have restricted ourselves to consider the layout as a 3 x 2
grid with six potential machine location sites where five
machines has to located and the empty cell can be either
used if we have to opt for machine duplication or for
material storage. We also assume that, a machine can be
assigned to any location and the part traveling distance is
estimated by measuring the rectilinear distance from the
centre of the source machine to the centre of the destination
machine. The size of the machine location zone should be
able to accommodate the largest machine in the group. The
machine with larger number of in flows must be place
together. The MAIN algorithm aims in generating a layout
which will be best suited for the demand variation. The
DMCL which is an extension of SMCL gives the best
layout. The generated layout can be either single DMCL
which has a unique layout throughout the periods or
multiple-DMCL which has a changing configuration.
In layout generation with DPD, the layout is being
generated by considering the precedence constraints. The
precedence constraints can be best depicted with the help of
the cladograms. By selecting the best cladogram we can get
a rough idea about the layout which can further developed
to reduce the cost. Nevertheless the cladograms prove to be

Figure 2: six zone location site
a very important tool for generating an initial layout.
3. Solution Methodology
In this section a brief description of the procedure for
generating the layout by considering the both demand and
design variation is presented.
Notations
Zp – Total part traveling score
Dj,k – Distance between two locations
Fp,jk - merged part flow weight for period p
Tp,jk ,Tp,kj - the unidirectional basic part flow weights
Qp,i - quantitative demand of a part (i) in a family in a
period
Hi,jk - transportation quantity per move
λi,jk - part handling factor
ω - cost per unit traveling score
α- the total cell layout cost
Rp,p +1 - period-to-period machine rearrangement cost
Mj - setup/installation cost
Cj - cost per unit machine movement
The static stage of the MAIN algorithm is to determine the
total part traveling score (T) in a cell in a period Zp with a
particular layout. The purpose is to minimize the total
traveling score and this is analogue to the cost on making
part movements. The objective function is defined as:
Where
Dj,k = | Xj - Xk | + | Yj - Yk
The Manhattan method has been chosen for calculating the
distance (Djk) between two points where (Xj,Yj) and (Xk,Yk )
are the coordinates of the measuring points of machines j
and k with reference to the 3x2 grid.
Fp,jk=Tp,j,k+Tp,k,j
where Fp,jk is the merged part flow weight for period p. It
combines the unidirectional basic part flow weights (Tp,jk
and Tp,kj) to form a generic correlation of two machines.
The determination of the basic and the merged part flow
weights are intimately related to the quantitative demand of
a part (i) in a family in a period (Qp,i ) and the part
transportation quantity per move (Hi,jk). Where λi,jk gives the
part handling factor which is a measure of the ease with
which the parts can be transported between the machines
after the operations.
In dynamic stage the total cell layout cost (α) over multiple
periods is:
ω represents the cost per unit traveling score and it is a
constant. In the period-to-period machine rearrangement
cost (Rp,p +1), it consists of two portions; they are the basic
cost for machine relocation such as the setup/installation
cost (Mj) and the cost per unit machine movement (Cj). The
calculation of this cost is based on:
The next step in the proposed algorithm is to draw the
cladogram, which gives us the information contained in the
machine-part matrix. While drawing the cladogram it should
be kept in mind that the length of the cladogram should be
tried to reduce as much as possible. Also, while drawing the
cladogram the precedence constraints should be included in
such a way that the points of differentiation should be
pushed as lower as possible. After drawing the cladogram,
depending upon the information contained in it, a
preliminary layout is being generated and by using the
traveling score equation the total score for the layout is
being calculated. In most cases the initial layout generated
will not be the optimal one. So a pair wise interchanging of
the machines can be done to bring those machines together
which have large amount of flow between them. For each
layout generated the total traveling score is being calculated
and the layout which yields the lowest score is being
selected.
The same procedure is repeated for all the periods and
the layout with the least score for all the periods put together
is being selected. This is similar to the single DMCL, which
considers the demand of all the periods in the planning
horizon. We can also opt for the multiple DMCL wherein
we go for the machine relocation in between periods.
static stage of the MAIN when dealing with the period ( p1)
are presented in the third column in table 3. After the part
flow weights were ranked, the layout designer can start
pulling the machines to form a 3x2 machine layout grid
according the rankings. Once the pulling operations have
been completed, the distances among machines (Dj,k) can be
obtained by referring to the Manhattan method. Then, the
traveling score for each machine pair can be determined
accordingly and the summation of these traveling scores
give the total part traveling score. The results have been
summarized in the table 3

Table 3: Iteration results for period 1

iteration 1 iteration 2
Fp,jk x Fp,jk x
j,k Fp,jk RANKING Djk Djk Djk Djk
3,4 50 5 2 100 1 50
4,2 50 2 100 2 100
2,1 95 2 1 95 1 95
1,5 50 2 100 2 100
1,4 160 1 1 160 1 160
Figure 3 : Cladogram for the given data 4,5 160 1 160 1 160
5,3 60 3 1 60 2 120
3,2 60 2 120 1 60
4. Numerical establishments 2,5 55 4 3 120 3 165
1,3 55 3 165 2 110
The data used for the research is being randomly generated
total 1180 1120
and the calculations are being done and summarized. In the
process operation side, there were four parts processed by
The layout conforming to iteration 1 is as shown in the
five machines. For each part the machining sequence and table 4. When we consider the Fp,jk x Djk the largest value is
demand over a four period planning horizon is as tabulated 165, so as a rule of thumb, we try to reduce this value by
below. bringing to machines 1 and 3 closer. This is shown in the
Table 1: Machining sequence table 5. Thus in second iteration the value reduces to 110.
PARTS MACHINING SEQUENCE Therefore the total traveling score reduces to 1120 from
1180, which shows that the layout generated by iteration 2 is
A 3 4 2 1 5 better. In most cases the optimal layout can be obtained in
B 2 1 4 5 0 two iterations
C 1 4 5 3 2 Table 4: Results of iteration 1 for all periods
D 2 5 4 1 3 p1 score p2 score p3 score = p4 score
=1180 =1070 1720 =1925
Table 2 : Demand over the planning horizon
1 4 5 1 4 5 1 4 5 1 4 5
DEMAND 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3
PERIOD A B C D
P1 50 45 60 55
Table 5: Results of iteration 2 for all periods
P2 70 40 50 40
P3 80 90 75 85 p1 score p2 score p3 score = p4 score
=1120 =1180 1720 =1785
P4 85 80 90 70
1 4 5 1 4 5 1 4 3 1 4

In the static stage, all the part transportation 2 3 2 3 2 5 2 5 3

quantity per move and the part handling factors were set to
‘1s’. The part flow weights (Fp,j,k) generated by applying the
Next, the cladogram for the given machine-part matrix is During the analysis we considered the both part
being generated. By considering the precedence constraints handling factor and the transportation quantity as 1. Thus
the machines which have maximum interaction is being two important elements were not being used during the
identified. Based on the inferences, layouts are generated and analysis. We have also not considered the machine
the part traveling score for each layout is being calculated. duplication cost. The machine duplication cost will also be
Further, the machine locations are being interchanged and added to the total cost equation. In some cases the layout
the layout which gives the least score is being selected. The generated by both the MAIN and the DPD yielded the same
part traveling score for the selected layout in all the periods layout under such cases we can very well take the layout to
is being calculated. The results are tabulated in the tables
be the optimal for the given period.
below
Table 6: Results for DPD layout
For the single DMCL we can go for the layout which
yields the least score. In this case except for the second
iteration 1 iteration 2
period we can see that the layout generated by the DPD gives
Fp,jk Fp,jk the least traveling cost. In case of the multiple DMCL,
j,k Fp,jk RANKING Djk x Djk Djk x Djk relocation cost of machines between periods is also
3,4 50 5 1 50 2 100 considered. Thus for the each given period the best layout
4,2 50 2 100 2 100 can be selected from the layouts which yield the least
2,1 95 2 1 95 1 95 traveling score.
1,5 50 2 100 2 100 6. Conclusion
1,4 160 1 1 160 1 160
4,5 160 1 160 1 160 Machine layout problems in manufacturing have received
5,3 60 3 2 120 1 60 considerable attention The proposed MAIN-DPD algorithm
addresses the problems in both static and dynamic layouts
3,2 60 3 180 2 120
by incorporating practical factors such as the part-handling
2,5 55 4 1 55 1 55 factor, the basic cost for machine relocation and the cost per
1,3 55 2 110 3 165 unit machine movement, etc. MAIN makes a best
total score 1130 1115 compromise of the above-mentioned factors with the
closeness of machines in order to minimize the total cell
layout cost. This algorithm also caters for the possibility of
Table 7: Layout generated by DPD allowing a single layout for multiple periods with demand
iteration 1 iteration 2 fluctuation. On the other hand the DPD considers the design
similarity of the parts that are being grouped into one cell.
2 5 2 5 3 The proposed methodology borrows the well-known
1 4 3 1 4 Cladistics classification analysis from biology, where
commonalities in different entities are used, and modifies it
The part traveling score for all the periods is for the layout to impose precedence constraints that must be considered in
obtained for DPD in second iteration is being given in the sequencing operations. This technique results in an optimum
table below. layout for DPD, determines the differentiation points,
Table 8: Part traveling score for all periods provides a feasible processes-sequence, and reduces
processes repetition, without using any prior assumptions or
period period 2 period 3 period 4 conditions regarding the number and locations of the
differentiation points.
1115 1100 1700 1725 A combination of these two concepts together in
layout design gives a better control over the factors affecting
it. Thus depending upon demand or design, which ever has a
5. Results and Discussion
larger impact on the system can be identified and can be
captured. For instance if the variation in demand is to be
For the randomly generated data, both MAIN algorithm and
controlled then MAIN will generate a better layout. In cases
the DPD is being used to generate a suitable layout. From
where design has to be controlled DPD yields a better result.
the results tabulated above we can see that the initial layout
By the proposed algorithm, depending upon which factor
obtained by the MAIN algorithm may not be optimal. When
has to be controlled the MAIN or the DPD will yield the
we analyze the results it can be found the layouts obtained
layout.
by the DPD yielded better results on an average basis. But
when we consider the period two the iteration 1 of MAIN
algorithm yielded better results. But in all the other periods
the layout generated by the DPD yielded better results.
 Reference
Wicks, E.M and Reasor, R.J, 1999, Designing cellular
manufacturing systems with dynamic part populations, IIE
Transactions,31,11-20
Chan W.M, Chan,C.Y, Kwong,2004, C.K Development of
the MAIN algorithm for a cellular manufacturing machine
layout ,International Journal of Production Research,42, 51-
65
AlGeddawy, Tarek, ElMaraghy, Hooda, 2010, Assembly
systems layout design model for delayed products
differentiation, International Journal of Production
Research,48, 5281-5305
Balakrishnan J, Chun H.C,1998, Dynamic layout
algorithms: a state-of-the-art survey. Omega, International
Journal Management Science, 26, 507–521
Shao, X. and Ji, J., 2008. Evaluation of postponement
strategies in mass customization with service guarantees.
International Journal of Production Research, 46, 153–171
Aviv, Y. and Federgruen, A., 2001. Design for
postponement: a comprehensive characterization of its
benefits under unknown demands distributions. Operations
Research, 49, 578–598.
Ulrich, K. and Tung, K., 1991. Fundamentals of product
modularity. Issues in Design Manufacturing/Integration,
ASME, 39, 73–79.
ElMaraghy, H., 2008. Changing and evolving products and
systems – models and enablers, In: H. ElMaraghy, ed.
Changeable and reconfigurable manufacturing systems.
London: Springer-Verlag, 25–45

Rosenblatt, M. J., 1986, The dynamics of plant layout.

Management Science, 32, 76–85

Balakrishnan, J., Jacaobs, F. R. and Venkataraman, M. A.,

1992, Solution for the constrained dynamic facility layout
problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 57,
280–286