Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Shortcomings of MRP II and a New Planning Meta—Method

  • Chapter
Industrial Applications of Combinatorial Optimization

Part of the book series: Applied Optimization ((APOP,volume 16))

  • 269 Accesses

Abstract

Lot sizing when done for the short-term heavily interacts with the sequencing decisions for the operations to be performed. Especially for real-world situations where capacities are scarce, demand is dynamic, and precedence relations among the operations have to be taken into account the MRP II logic which is implemented in most production planning systems does not satisfy. In this paper, we will reveal the shortcomings of MRP II by means of an example. A mixed-integer programming model is then defined to specify the problem of capacitated, dynamic, multi-level lot sizing and scheduling. Also, we present a generic solution method (a so-called meta-method) which may be used as a basis of more advanced implementations that may replace the traditional MRP II systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Production and Inventory Control Society Inc., 1995, MRP II Software/Vendor Directory, APICS — The Performance Advantage, 9, 3848.

    Google Scholar 

  2. American Production and Inventory Control Society Inc., 1995, MRP II Software/Vendor Directory Addendum, APICS — The Performance Advantage, 11, 54–56.

    Google Scholar 

  3. G.R. Bitran and H. Matsuo, 1986, Approximation Formulations for the Single–Product Capacitated Lot Size Problem, Operations Research, 34, 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. M. Diaby, H.C. Bahl, M.H. Karwan, and S. Zionts, 1992, A Lagrangean Relaxation Approach for Very–Large–Scale Capacitated Lot–Sizing, Management Science, 38, 1329–1340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. W. Dinkelbach, 1964, Zum Problem der Produktionsplanung in Ein — und Mehrproduktunternehmen, Würzburg, Physica, 2nd edition.

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. Drexl, B. Fleischmann, H.O. Günther, H. Stadtler, and H. Tempelmeier, 1994, Konzeptionelle Grundlagen kapazitätsorientierter PPS—Systeme, Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 46, 1022–1045.

    Google Scholar 

  7. A. Drexl and K. Haase, 1995, Proportional Lotsizing and Scheduling, International Journal of Production Economics, 40, 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. A. Drexl, K. Haase, and A. Kimms, 1995, Losgrössen— und Ablaufplanung in PPS—Systemen auf der Basis rando misierter Opportunitätskosten, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 65, 267–285.

    Google Scholar 

  9. A. Drexl and A. Kimms, 1996, Lot Sizing and Scheduling: Survey and Extensions, European Journal of Operational Research, to appear.

    Google Scholar 

  10. G.D. Eppen and R.K. Martin, 1987, Solving Multi—Item Capacitated Lot—Sizing Problems Using Variable Redefinition, Operations Research, 35, 83 2848.

    Google Scholar 

  11. B. Fleischmann, 1988, Operations—Research- Modelle und —Verfahren in der Produktionsplanung, Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 58, 347–372.

    Google Scholar 

  12. B. Fleischmann, 1990, The Discrete Lot—Sizing and Scheduling Problem, European Journal of Operational Research, 44, 337–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. K. Haase, 1993, Capacitated Lot—Sizing with Linked Production Quantities of Adjacent Periods, Working Paper 334, University of Kiel.

    Google Scholar 

  14. K. Haase, 1994, Lotsizing and Scheduling for Production Planning, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, 408, Berlin, Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. K. Haase and A. Kimms, 1996, Lot Sizing and Scheduling with Sequence Dependent Setup Costs and Times and Efficient Rescheduling Opportunities, Working Paper 393, University of Kiel.

    Google Scholar 

  16. K.S. Hindi, 1996, Solving the CLSP by a Tabu Search Heuristic, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47, 151–161.

    Google Scholar 

  17. S. van Hoesel and A. Kolen, 1994, A Linear Description of the Discrete Lot—Sizing and Scheduling Problem, European Journal of Operational Research, 75, 342–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. U.S. Karmarkar, S. Kekre, and S. Kekre, 1987, The Deterministic Lotsizing Problem with Startup and Reservation Costs, Operations Research, 35, 389–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. U.S. Karmarkar and L. Schrage, 1985, The Deterministic Dynamic Product Cycling Problem, Operations Research, 33, 326–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. A. Kimms, 1993, A Cellular Automaton Based Heuristic for Multi–Level Lot Sizing and Scheduling, Working Paper 331, University of Kiel.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. Kimms, 1994, Optimal Multi–Level Lot Sizing and Scheduling with Dedicated Machines, Working Paper 351, University of Kiel.

    Google Scholar 

  22. A. Kimms, 1994, Demand Shuffle — A Method for Multi–Level Proportional Lot Sizing and Scheduling, Naval Research Logistics, to appear.

    Google Scholar 

  23. A. Kimms, 1996, Multi–Level, Single–Machine Lot Sizing and Scheduling (with Initial Inventory), European Journal of Operational Research, 89, 86–99.

    Google Scholar 

  24. A. Kimms, 1996, Competitive Methods for Multi–Level Lot Sizing and Scheduling: Tabu Search and Randomized Regrets, International Journal of Production Research, 34, 2279–2298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. A. Kimms, 1997, Multi–Level Lot Sizing and Scheduling — Methods for Capacitated, Dynamic, and Deterministic Models, Heidelberg, Physica.

    Google Scholar 

  26. O. Kirca and M. Kökten, 1994, A New Heuristic Approach for the Multi–Item Dynamic Lot Sizing Problem, European Journal of Operational Research, 75, 332–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. L.S. Lasdon and R.C. Terjung, 1971, An Efficient Algorithm for Multi–Item Scheduling, Operations Research, 19, 946–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. V. Lotfi and W.H. Chen, 1991, An Optimal Algorithm for the Multi–Item Capacitated Production Planning Problem, European Journal of Operational Research, 52, 179–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. J. Maes and L.N. van Wassenhove, 1988, Multi–Item Single–Level Capacitated Dynamic Lot–Sizing Heuristics: A General Review, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 39, 991–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  30. M. Salomon, L.G. Kroon, R. Kuik, and L.N. van Wassenhove, 1991, Some Extensions of the Discrete Lotsizing and Scheduling Problem, Management Science, 37, 801–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. V. Söhner and C. Schneeweiss, 1995, Hierarchically Integrated Lot Size Optimization, European Journal of Operational Research, 86, 73–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. H. Stadtler, 1988, Hierarchische Produktionsplanung bei losweiser Fertigung, Heidelberg, Physica.

    Google Scholar 

  33. M. Switalski, 1989, Hierarchische Produktionsplanung - — Konzeption und Einsatzbereich, Heidelberg, Physica.

    Google Scholar 

  34. A. Vazsonyi, 1958, Scientific Programming in Business and Industry, New York, Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  35. A. Villa, 1989, Decision Architectures for Production Planning in Multi—Stage Multi—Product Manufacturing Systems, Annals of Operations Research, 17, 51–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. G. Zäpfel and H. Missbauer, 1993, New Concepts for Production Planning and Control, European Journal of Operational Research, 67, 297–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lehrstuhl für Produktion und Logistik Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Olshausenstr. 40, 24118, Kiel, Germany

    Alf Kimms & Andreas Drexl

Authors
  1. Alf Kimms
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas Drexl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management Science & Information Systems, and the Center for Management of Operations and Logistics, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA

    Gang Yu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kimms, A., Drexl, A. (1998). Shortcomings of MRP II and a New Planning Meta—Method. In: Yu, G. (eds) Industrial Applications of Combinatorial Optimization. Applied Optimization, vol 16. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2876-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2876-7_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-4797-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-2876-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation