The Impact of Forecast Errors in Multistage Production Systems
In their pioneering work on aggregate production planning, Holt, Modigliani, and Simon (1955) and Bowman (1963) demonstrated that forecast errors can significantly increase manufacturing costs. Without having a perfect forecast, total costs increased by 10 percent. More recent work on the cost of forecast errors goes beyond the simplifying assumptions of a single product and single homogeneous work force. Forecast errors are being studied in the more realistic multistage manufacturing setting where parent-component relationships exist and there are capacitated work stations. However, the results to date imply that the impact of forecast errors depends on the manufacturing environment. The purpose of this paper is to find out more about these contingencies in realistic manufacturing settings, thereby adding to the growing literature base on how forecast errors affect manufacturing performance.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Biggs, Joseph R. and William M. Campion, “The Effect and Cost of Forecast Error Bias for Multiple-Stage Production-Inventory Systems,” Decision Sci. 13, 4 (October 1982), 570–584.Google Scholar
- Lee, T.S., Everett E. Adam, Jr., and Ronald J. Ebert, “An Evaluation of Forecast Error in Master Production Scheduling for Material Requirements Planning Systems,” Decision Sci. 18, 2 (Spring 1987 ), 292–307.Google Scholar
- Malhotra, Manoj K. and Larry P. Ritzman, “Resource Flexibility Issues in Multistage Manufacturing,” Decision Sci. 21, 4 (Fall 1990 ).Google Scholar
- Sharma, Deven, “Manufacturing Strategy: An Empirical Analysis,” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1987.Google Scholar
- Ritzman, Larry P., Barry E. King, and Lee J. Krajewski, “Manufacturing Performance - Pulling the Right Levers,” Harvard Business Rev. 84, 2 (March–April 1984 ), 143–152.Google Scholar
- Wemmerlov, Urban, “Comments on ‘Cost Increases Due to Demand Uncertainty in MRP Lot Sizing’: A Verification of Ordering Probabilities,” Decision Sci. 16, 4 (Fall 1985), 410–419.Google Scholar