4.7 Article

The application of workload control in assembly job shops: an assessment by simulation

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
卷 50, 期 18, 页码 5048-5062

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2011.631600

关键词

workload control; assembly job shop; job shop control; customer enquiry management; order release method

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Workload control (WLC) is a production planning and control concept developed to meet the needs of small- and medium-sized make-to-order companies, where a job shop configuration is common. Although simulation has shown WLC can improve job shop performance, field researchers have encountered significant implementation challenges. One of the most notable challenges is the presence of 'assembly job shops' where product structures are more complex than typically modelled in simulation and where the final product consists of several sub-assemblies (or work orders) which have to be co-ordinated. WLC theory has not been developed sufficiently to handle such contexts, and the available literature on assembly job shops is limited. In response, this paper extends the applicability of WLC to assembly job shops by determining the best combination of: (i) WLC due date (DD) setting policy, (ii) release method and (iii) policy for coordinating the progress of work orders. When DDs are predominantly set by the company, the DD setting policy should play the leading role while the role of order release should be limited and the progress of work orders should not be co-ordinated in accordance with the DD of the final product. But when DDs are predominantly specified by customers, the importance of order release as a second workload balancing mechanism increases and work orders should be coordinated by backward scheduling from the DD of the final product. Results indicate that WLC can improve performance in assembly job shops and outperform alternative control policies. Future research should implement these findings in practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据