Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing different strategies for the allocation of improvement programmes in a flow shop environment

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We conducted a simulation to compare the following two strategies for the allocation of improvement programmes in a flow shop environment with a single product type: (i) the allocation of improvement programmes focused on the capacity constraint resource and (ii) the allocation of improvement programmes distributed along the production line. Our results show that when the utilisation of the restrained resource is high and the difference in the processing time between the restrained resource and the non-constrained resource is significant (higher than 5 %), the allocation of improvement programmes focused on the capacity constraint resource is the best choice. Because utilisation of the restrained resource and the difference between the restrained resource and the non-constrained resource diminish, there are a growing number of cases in which the distributed strategy prevails. Based on our results, a third strategy is proposed, as follows: the allocation of improvement programmes distributed equally upstream from the restrained resource, including the restrained resource itself. Our results suggest that the third strategy is an interesting choice for situations in which focusing large improvements on the constrained resource is impracticable and the utilisation of this resource is high. Finally, we present an algorithm that enables production managers in a practical situation to make a proper choice among the three allocation strategies tested in this paper.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Betterton CF, Cox JF (2008) Espoused drum-buffer-rope flow control in serial lines: a comparative study of simulation models. Int J Prod Econ 117:66–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Blackstone JH Jr, Cox JF (2002) Designing unbalanced lines—understanding protective capacity and protective inventory. Prod Plan Control 13(4):416–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Caridi M, Cigolini R, Farina V (2006) Designing unbalanced paced lines: a conceptual model and an experimental campaign. Prod Plan Control 17(5):464–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Craighead CW, Patterson JW, Fredendall LD (2001) Protective capacity positioning: impact on manufacturing cell performance. Eur J Oper Res 134(v.2):425–438

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Chakravorty SS, Atwater JB (2006) Bottleneck management: theory and practice. Prod Plan Control 17(5):441–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chelbi A, Rezg N (2006) Analysis of production/ inventory system with randomly failing production unit subjected to a minimum required availability level. Int J Prod Econ 99(1-2):131–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chica M, Cordón O, Damas S, Bautista J (2013) A robustness information and visualization model for time and space assembly line balancing under uncertain demand. Int J Prod Econ 143:761–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Davis LE (1966) Pacing effects of manned assembly lines. Int J Prod Res 4(3):171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ericksen PD, Stoflet NJ, Suri R (2007) Manufacturing Critical-path Time (MCT): the QRM metric for Lead time. Technical Report, Center for QRM, Wisconsin-Madison

  10. Enns JT (2000) Evaluating shop floor input control using rapid modelling. Int J Prod Econ 229–241

  11. Fenton NE (1999) A critique of software defect prediction models. IEEE Trans 25(5):675–689

    Google Scholar 

  12. Forrester JW (1961) Industrial dynamics. Productivity Press, Portland, p 464p

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gerchak Y (2000) On the allocation of uncertainty-reduction effort to minimize total variability. IEEE Trans, [SI] 32(5):403–407

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Godinho Filho M, Uzsoy R (2011) The effect of shop floor continuous improvement programs on lot size—cycle time relationship for a multi- product single-machine environment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 52(5-8):669–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Godinho Filho M (2012) Effect of lot-size reduction and continuous improvement programs on work in process and utilization: a study for single-machine and flow-shop environments. Int J Logist Res Appl 15(5):285–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Godinho Filho M, Uzsoy R (2012) The impact of simultaneous continuous improvement in set up time and repair time on manufacturing cycle times under uncertain conditions. Int J Prod Res 51(2):447–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Godinho Filho M, Uzsoy R (2013) Assessing the impact of alternative continuous improvement programs in a flow shop. Int J Prod Res submitted, 2013

  18. Goldratt E, Cox J (1984) The goal: excellence in manufacturing. North River Press, Croton-on-Hudson

    Google Scholar 

  19. Guimaraes AA, Godinho Filho M, Oprime P (2013) Guiding improvement programs towards lead-time reduction in a single-machine environment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. doi:10.1007/s00170-012-4475-7

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hadjinicola GC, Soteriou AC (2003) Reducing the cost of defects in multistage production systems: a budget allocation perspective. Eur J Oper Res 145:621–634

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Hillier FS, Boling RW (1966) The effect of some design factors on the efficiency of production lines with variable operations. J Ind Eng 17(12):651–658

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hillier FS, So KC (1996) On the robustness of the bowl phenomenon. Eur J Oper Res 89(3):496–515

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Hong JD, Hayya JC (1995) Joint investment in quality improvement and setup reduction. Comput Oper Res 22:567–574

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Hopp WJ, Spearman ML (2001) Factory physics: foundations of manufacturing management. Irwin, Nova Iorque, 698p

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hopp WJ, Spearman ML (2008) Factory physics: foundations of manufacturing management, 3ªth edn. McGraw Hill Higher Education, Nova York, 720p

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kadipasaoglu SN, Xiang W, Hurley SF, Khumawala BM (2000) A study on the effect of the extent and location of protective capacity in flow systems. Int J Prod Econ 63:217–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Payne S, Slack N, Wild R (1972) A note on the operating characteristics of “balanced” and “unbalanced” production flow lines. Int J Prod Res 10(1):93–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Petrick IJ, Echols AE (2004) Technology roadmapping in review: a tool for making sustainable nem product development decisions. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 71:81–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Probert DR, Farrukh CJP, Phaal R (2003) Technology roadmapping—developing a practical approach for linking resources to strategic goals. Proc IMechE B J Eng Manuf 217:1183–1195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rau H, Chu YH, Cho KH (2005) Layer modelling for the inspection allocation problem in re-entrant production systems. Int J Prod Res 43(17):3633–3655

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Shingo S (1986) Zero quality control: source inspection and the Poka-yoke system. Productivity Press, Cambridge, p 303

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shingo S (2003) Sistema de troca rápida de ferramenta: uma revolução nos sistemas produtivos. Bookman, Porto Alegre, 327p

    Google Scholar 

  33. Slack N, Chambers S, Johnston R (2002) Administração da produção. Atlas, São Paulo

  34. Smunt TL, Perkins WC (1985) Stochastic unpaced line design—review and further experimental results. J Oper Manag 5(3):351–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Smunt TL, Perkins WC (1989) Stochastic unpaced line design—a reply. J Oper Manag 8(1):55–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Suri R (2010) The power of time. Productivity, New York

  37. Thawesaengskulthai N, Tannock JDT (2008) A decision aid for selecting improvement methodologies. Int J Prod Res 46(23):6721–6737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Thomson WW Jr, Burford RL (1988) Some observations on the bowl phenomenon. Int J Prod Res 26(8):1367–1373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Womack JP, Jones DT, Ross D (1990) The machine that changed the world. Harper Perennial, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Production Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos, Via Washington Luiz, Km 235, CEP 13565-905, São Carlos, SP, Brazil

    Moacir Godinho Filho & Marcel Heimar Ribeiro Utiyama

Authors
  1. Moacir Godinho Filho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcel Heimar Ribeiro Utiyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Moacir Godinho Filho.

Appendices

Appendices

1.1 Appendix 1: Results for scenario 1

Table 8 CCR with 99.8 % of utilization
Full size table
Table 9 CCR with 95.5 % of utilization
Full size table
Table 10 CCR with 90.5 % of utilization
Full size table

1.2 Appendix 2: Results for scenario 2

Table 11 CCR with 99.8 % of utilization
Full size table
Table 12 CCR with 95.5 % of utilization
Full size table
Table 13 CCR with 90.5 % of utilization
Full size table

1.3 Appendix 3: Results for scenario 3

Table 14 CCR with 99.8 % of utilization
Full size table
Table 15 CCR with 95.5 % of utilization
Full size table
Table 16 CCR with 90.5 % of utilization
Full size table

1.4 Appendix 4: Results for scenario 4

Table 17 CCR with 99.8 % of utilization
Full size table
Table 18 CCR with 95.5 % of utilization
Full size table
Table 19 CCR with 90.5 % of utilization
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Godinho Filho, M., Utiyama, M.H.R. Comparing different strategies for the allocation of improvement programmes in a flow shop environment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 77, 1365–1385 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-6553-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-6553-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation