Logistics Research

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 207–219 | Cite as

Applying multidisciplinary logistic techniques to improve operations productivity at a mine

Original Paper

Abstract

This case study uses a surface mine to investigate multidisciplinary logistics analysis methods for improving refinery operations. Existing resource scheduling, inventory forecasting, and economic production quantity procedures have not been able to identify how to improve productivity. The objective was to locate and demonstrate proven techniques from operations research (and other related disciplines) which could be applied to solve logistics problems. Historical operations data along with a new sample (n = 140) were utilized for the analysis. Preliminary parametric tests failed, but later a multiple server queue model was developed by integrating nonparametric techniques, waiting line theory, stochastic probabilities, and break-even scenario analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed, resulting in a solution to increase truck arrival rates by 10% which was projected to increase refinery utilization by 7–77%, thereby generating a potential productivity savings of $161,223.31 per year.

Keywords

Decision making Logistics Surface mining Multidisciplinary mixed methods Case study Statistical distributions Waiting line theory Queues 

References

  1. 1.
    Klaus P (2010) What’s interesting? Logist Res 2(3):121–122MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bettonvil B, del Castillo E, Kleijnen JPC (2009) Statistical testing of optimality conditions in multiresponse simulation-based optimization. Eur J Oper Res 199(2):448–458MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gamache M, Grimard R, Cohen P (2005) A shortest-path algorithm for solving the fleet management problem in underground mines. Eur J Oper Res 166(2):497–506MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Strang KD (2008) Collaborative synergy and leadership in e-business. In: Salmons J, Wilson L (eds) Handbook of research on electronic collaboration and organizational synergy. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 409–429Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benton WC, Shin H (1998) Manufacturing planning and control: the evolution of MRP and JIT integration. Eur J Oper Res 110(3):411–440MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ngai EWT, Law CCH, Wat FKT (2008) Examining the critical success factors in the adoption of enterprise resource planning. Comput Ind 59:548–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sturgul JR (1999) Discrete mine system simulation in the United States. Int J Surf Min Reclam Environ 13(1):37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klaus P (2010) Logistics as a science of networks and flows. Logist Res 2(2):55–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cochran JJ et al (eds) (2011) Wiley encyclopedia of operations research and management science, vol 8. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 1–6408Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Otto A, Obermaier R (2009) How can supply networks increase firm value? A causal framework to structure the answer. Logist Res 1(3–4):131–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ngwenyama O, Guergachi A, McLaren T (2007) Using the learing curve to maximize IT productivity: a decision analysis model for timing software upgrades. Int J Prod Econ 105(2):524–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Temeng VA, Otuonye FO, Frendewey JO (1998) A nonpreemptive goal programming approach to truck dispatching in open pit mines. Mineral Resour Eng 7(1):59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Argus (2011) Argus coal daily international. Argus Media Ltd. (Argus), London. http://www.argusmedia.com. Retrieved 8 Aug 2011
  14. 14.
    Strang KD (2011) Logistic planning with nonlinear goal programming models in spreadsheets. Int J Appl Logist 2(3):101–121MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shakeri S, Logendran R (2007) A mathematical programming-based scheduling framework for multitasking environments. Eur J Oper Res 176(1):193–209MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stecke KE, Toczylowski E (1992) Profit-based FMS dynamic part type selection over time for mid-term production planning. Eur J Oper Res 63(1):54–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang J, Xu C (2010) Inverse optimization for linearly constrained convex separable programming problems. Eur J Oper Res 200(3):671–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mendoza A, Ventura JA (2009) Estimating freight rates in inventory replenishment and supplier selection decisions. Logist Res 1(3–4):185–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen J, Askin RG (2009) Project selection scheduling and resource allocation with time dependent returns. Eur J Oper Res 193(1):23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Souza MJF et al (2010) A hybrid heuristic algorithm for the open-pit-mining operational planning problem. Eur J Oper Res 207(2):1041–1051Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gupta A, Albright SC (1992) Steady-state approximations for a multi-echelon multi-indentured repairable-item inventory system. Eur J Oper Res 62(3):340–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yeh RH (1997) Optimal inspection and replacement policies for multi-state deteriorating systems. Eur J Oper Res 96(2):248–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mati Y, Dauzère-Pérès S, Lahlou C (2011) A general approach for optimizing regular criteria in the job-shop scheduling problem. Eur J Oper Res 212(1):33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Patriksson M (2008) A survey on the continuous nonlinear resource allocation problem. Eur J Oper Res 185(1):1–46MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chen L et al (2007) A tabu search algorithm for the integrated scheduling problem of container handling systems in a maritime terminal. Eur J Oper Res 181(1):40–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Davies MN (1997) A generic model for simulating office process flows. Eur J Oper Res 99(2):267–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Proth J-M, Sauer N (1998) Scheduling of piecewise constant product flows: a Petri net approach. Eur J Oper Res 106(1):45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fukunari M, Malmborg CJ (2009) A network queuing approach for evaluation of performance measures in autonomous vehicle storage and retrieval systems. Eur J Oper Res 193(1):152–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Azadeh A, Haghnevis M, Khodadadegan Y (2009) An improved model for production systems with mixed queuing priorities: an integrated simulation. AHP and value engineering approach. Int J Ind Syst Eng 4(5):536–553Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kleijnen JPC (1995) Verification and validation of simulation models. Eur J Oper Res 82(1):145–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kleijnen JPC, Sargent RG (2000) A methodology for fitting and validating metamodels in simulation. Eur J Oper Res 120(1):14–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Strang KD (2011) Portfolio selection methodology for a nuclear project. Project Manag J 42(2):81–93Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Strang KD (2010) Radiology manufacturing projects and politics: scientist and politician normalized risk decision processes. Int J Manag Decision Making 11(3):94–106MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Strang KD, Chan CEL (2010) Simulating e-business innovation process improvement with virtual teams across Europe and Asia. Int J E-Entrepreneurship Innov 1(1):22–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dragut AB, Bertrand JWM (2008) A representation model for the solving-time distribution of a set of design tasks in new product development (NPD). Eur J Oper Res 189(3):1217–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Worthington D (2009) Reflections on queue modelling from the last 50 years. J Oper Res Soc 60:S83–S92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sharp RG, Dando MR (1979) Decision resource management and practical intervention in conflicts–a model and its implications. Eur J Oper Res 3(4):283–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mercer A (1977) An education in operational research: a personal viewpoint. Eur J Oper Res 1(6):352–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mangan J, Lalwani C, Gardner B (2004) Combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies in logistics research. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 34(7):565–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Little JDC (2004) Models and managers: the concept of a decision calculus. Manag Sci J 50(12):1841–1853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ellram LM (1996) The use of the case study method in logistics research. J Bus Logist 17(2):93–138Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Little JDC (1961) A proof of the queuing formula: L = AW. Oper Res 9(3):383–387MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Creswell JW, Tashakkori A (2007) Differing perspectives on mixed methods research. J Mixed Methods Res 1(4):303–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dorell O et al (2010) W.Va. mine blast disaster kills at least 25, in USA today, McLean, p1Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Strang KD (2009) Using recursive regression to explore nonlinear relationships and interactions: a tutorial applied to a multicultural education study. Pract Assess Res Eval 14(3):1–13MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hair JF et al (2006) Multivariate data analysis, 6th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State University of New YorkPlattsburghUSA
  2. 2.APPC ResearchSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations