Issues in Specifying Planning Horizons for Production Planning within CIM Environments

  • S. D. Thompson
  • J. A. Jewell
  • W. J. Davis

Abstract

The development of production plans for the CIM hierarchy directs the firm’s manufacturing activities over an extended time horizon. All of the subordinate CIM functions (e.g. production scheduling, material and capacity requirements planning, purchasing, and others) are impacted by this plan. The first step in the development of a production plan is the specification of an appropriate planning horizon--a complex task that is plagued with numerous uncertainties. To address this task, this paper views the production planning problem as a two-point boundary value problem where boundary conditions must be specified at both the beginning and at the end of the planning horizon. A difficulty arises in the specification of the ending boundary conditions since they are generally unknown. Furthermore, an incorrect specification can have a significant, perhaps detrimental, effect upon the quality of the developed plan. An additional requirement for the planning horizon is that it be of suitable duration to permit an effective integration of production planning with the other CIM functions.

The reported research addresses the uncertainties in specifying the boundary conditions. An integrated solution approach that employs both Monte Carlo simulation and mathematical programming is used to consider the inherent uncertainties associated with the production planning problem. For the considered computational examples, it is shown that the specification of boundary conditions do effect the quality of the derived production plan. Furthermore, the results also suggest that planning epochs exist. The observation of planning epochs implies that a variable length planning horizon, rather than a constant length horizon, should be employed within the context of a rolling horizon implementation of production planning. Using this approach, the planning would be performed to the end of the current epoch where boundary conditions can be specified with greater accuracy. Finally, the issue of establishing the length of an epoch is discussed.

Keywords

Transportation Haas Plague 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, G. R., and Peterson, D. W., “An Analytic Framework for Evaluating Rolling Schedules,” Management Science, Vol. 25, 1979, pp. 341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Britran, G. R., Haas, E. A., and Hax, A. C., “Hierarchical Production Planning: Single Stage System,” Operations Research, Vol. 29, 1981, pp. 717–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bitran, G. R., Haas, E. A., and Hax, A. C., “Hierarchical Production Planning: A Two-Stage Systems,” Operations Research, Vol. 30, 1982, pp. 232–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Britran, G. R., and Hax, A. C., “On the Design of Hierarchical Production Planning Systems,” Decision Sciences, Vol.8, 1977, pp. 38–55.Google Scholar
  5. Bookbinder, J. H., and H’ng, B. T., “Rolling Horizon Production Planning for Probabilistic Time-Varying Demands,” International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 24, 1986, pp. 1439–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlson, R. C., Beckman S. L., and Kropp, D. H., “The Effectiveness of Extending the Horizon in Rolling Production Scheduling,” Decision Sciences, Vol. 13, 1982, pp. 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chung, C., Chen, I., and Cheng G. L. Y.,“Planning Horizons for Multi-Item Hierarchical Production Scheduling Problems: A Heuristic Search Procedure,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 37, 1988, pp. 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, W. J., Thompson, S. D., and White, L. R., “The Importance of Decompositions in CIM Control Architectures,” in Proceedings of CIMCON ’90, ed. Albert Jones, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 785, Gaithersburg, MD, May 1990, pp. 466–486.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, W. J., Thompson, S. D., and White, L. R., “Decision Making and Control Schema for Production Planning in CIM Systems”, Joint US/German Conference on New Directions for Operations Research in Manufacturing, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1991 (in press).Google Scholar
  10. Eppen, G.D., Gould, F.J., and Pashigian, B.P., “Extensions of the Planning Horizon Theorem in the Dynamic Lot Size Model,” Management Science, Vol. 15, 1968, pp. 268–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kunreuther, H. C., and Morton, T. E., “Planning Horizons for Production Smoothing with Deterministic Demands - I. All Demand Met from Regular Production,” Management Science, Vol. 20, 1973, pp. 110–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kunreuther, H. C., and Morton, T. E., “General Planning Horizons for Production Smoothing with Deterministic Demands - II. Extensions to Overtime, Undertime, and Backlogging,” Management Science Vol. 20, 1974, pp. 1037–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marsten, R. E., “The Design of the XMP Linear Programming Library,” ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, Vol. 7, 1981, pp. 481–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McClain, J. O., and Thomas, J., “Horizon Effects in Aggregate Production Planning with Seasonal Demand,” Management Science, Vol. 23, 1977, pp. 728–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller, L. W., “Using Linear Programming to Derive Planning Horizons for a Production Smoothing Problem,” Management Science, Vol. 25, 1979, pp. 1232–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nagasawa, H., Nishiyama, N., and Hitomi, K., “Decision Analysis for Determining the Optimum Planning Horizon in Aggregate Production Planning,” International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 20, 1982, pp. 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nagasawa, H., Nishiyama, N., and Hitomi, K., “Decision Analysis for Determining the Optimum Planning Horizon in Aggregate Production Planning. Part 2: Difference Between Planning Horizons in Weekly and in Monthly Schedulings,” International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 23, 1985, pp. 423–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pekelman, D., “Production Smoothing with Fluctuating Price,” Management Science, Vol. 21, 1975, pp. 576–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sastri, T., and Feiring, B. R., “Sequential Optimization and Revision of Production Plans Over Time,” Computers in Industrial Engineering, Vol. 17, 1989, pp. 372–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sridharan, V., Berry, W. L., and Udayabhanu, V., “Freezing the Master Production Schedule Under Rolling Planning Horizons,” Management Science, Vol. 33, 1987, pp. 1137–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thompson, S. D., and Davis, W. J., “An Integrated Approach for Modeling Uncertainty in Aggregate Production Planning,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 20, 1990, pp. 1000–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wagner, H.M., and Whitin, T.M., “Dynamic Version of the Economic Lot Size Model,” Management Science, Vol. 5, 1958, pp. 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin· Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. D. Thompson
    • 1
  • J. A. Jewell
    • 1
  • W. J. Davis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General EngineeringUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations