Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Keywords
Production Planning; Order Acceptance; Clearing Functions; Congestion; Robust Optimization;
1. Introduction
Models of production and inventory systems have been developed since the early days of the Operations Research
and Management Science field. A major concern in the area has been to formulate models that can be solved
efficiently, yet these models should not be based on over simplifying assumptions. Classical production planning
models determine the minimum cost or maximum profit production plans in order to meet pre-specified demands. In
classical production planning models, three common simplistic assumptions are usually made: (1) The demand is
deterministic and known in advance. (2) The production rate or throughput, and consequently the lead time, does not
depend on the utilization of the resources. That is, even if the utilization is very high congestion effects that result in
increasing lead times is not taken into consideration. (3) The demand is an aggregation of several customer orders
without distinction. This means that even if backlogging or shortages are accepted, the customers are not
distinguished.
With respect to the first assumption, it is well known that orders are usually subject to great uncertainty in
terms of order size and due date which can be critical especially for manufacturers with long production lead times.
In the case of semiconductor manufacturing for example, well in advance of the ultimate due date, customers provide
586
587
(1)
where
represents the resource load for period t, or the total amount of work that becomes available
for processing during the period. Given that the same proportion,
for example 25%, of the WIP is always
produced (cleared from the stage), the last unit to enter the stage and hence added to the WIP should wait L = 4
periods in the stage before it is produced.
Now, in order to model the high utilization mode, a CF, denoted by
, that is increasing and concave with
to relate the throughput to the WIP as follows,
(2)
We followed [7] in writing our CF as a function of the resource load for period t, or, the total amount of work that
becomes available for processing during the period. It is also assumed that under low utilization, i.e.,
, we have
. This assumption will make sure that the congestion reflected by the clearing
function constraints can be binding only for the high utilization mode. This assumption is not really restrictive
because the CF does not play any role under low utilization. Following [8,9] and for tractability reasons, we
approximate the CF using an outer linearization. In fact,
can be approximated by the convex hull of a set of
affine functions of the form,
(3)
{
}
with
is a strictly decreasing series and
. Given initial inventories
and and assuming no initial
backlogs, the production planning model with congestion is formulated as
(PPC):
Minimize
(4)
Subject to:
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
The objective function in equation (4) minimizes total cost over the planning horizon. Constraints (5) and (6) define
WIP and finished goods inventory balances respectively for each period. Constraints (7) represent the linear control
rule and make sure that units spend L units of time as WIP before being cleared from the production stage and will
be binding in periods under low utilization. Constraints (8) represent capacity constraints on the throughput based on
the CF, and will be active for the case of high utilization. Constraints (9) define the measure of WIP as the total
amount of work that becomes available for processing for a given period.
588
(14)
(15)
The inventory balance for the case of holding can be written as,
where
(16)
(17)
(18)
Subject to:
(19)
and
are the dual variables corresponding to constraints 18 and 19, respectively. The quantity
is
the maximum deviation that is admissible, i.e. within the budget limit forced by constraint (18). This deviation serves
as a protection for the inventory constraint not to be violated. Following similar arguments, one can write the
inventory balance in the case of shortage for each period as follows,
(20)
Now, if we consider problem (16 - 18) as a primal problem that is a feasible and bounded linear program, by strong
duality the primals optimal value is equal to the optimal value of its dual. Therefore, the maximum admissible
deviation
can be replaced by
. Furthermore, only one of the two constraints (12) or
(13) should be active, i.e., in each period t either a shortage cost or an inventory cost will be incurred. To tackle this
modeling issue we introduce the new variable
. The robust counterpart of the CPP problem,
i.e., the robust production planning model with congestion RPPC is formulated as follows,
(RPPC):
]
Minimize
Subject to:
(21)
(22)
(23)
)
(24)
(25)
(26)
The robust counterpart of the PP problem, i.e., the robust production planning model without congestion (RPP) is
formulated in the same way as the RPPC except that constraints (7) (9) are replaced by constraints a regular
capacity constraint on the throughput. The uncertainty budgets are increasing in time since uncertainty increases with
the number of future time periods considered. Also, the uncertainty budgets cannot increase by more than 1 at each
time period, i.e.,
,
. This means that the increase should not exceed the number of new
parameters added at each time period. We suggest the use of
, where
is referred to as the budget
factor. The case of
corresponds to the worst case where all demands before period t are set either to their
maximum or minimum values and the case of
corresponds to the nominal case.
589
(29)
(
with
(30)
)
(31)
being the optimal solution of the following problem for each (n,t)
Maximize
(32)
(33)
Subject to:
For each period t and for each customer class n, the quantity
(34)
is the maximum deviation that is
admissible and represents the protection from violation of the constraint, given the acceptance fraction
. The
linear program (32 - 34) is feasible and bounded, hence by strong duality the optimal objective of this problem is
equal to the optimal objective of its dual formulated as follows,
Minimize
590
(35)
Subject to:
(38)
(39)
(40)
[
(
])
(41)
])
(42)
(43)
(44)
on the right hand side in equations (43) allows for the planner to trade-off
between variability or risk and profit in the objective function (38). When the variability of a customer class is too
high, the planner can choose to sacrifice profit for less risk or inability to meet demand by decreasing
. Similarly,
the robust production planning and order acceptance problem without congestion (RPP-OA) can be formulated
simply by replacing constraints (7) (9) by regular capacity constraints.
5. Experimental Results
In this section, we present a numerical example along with a simulation study to illustrate the proposed models
characteristics, show the effects of various parameters on the optimal acceptance fraction, and evaluate the added
value from integrating production and order acceptance decisions. The optimization models have been implemented
in GAMS and solved using CPLEX 11.0.
5.1 A Numerical Example
Customer demand is forecasted over a horizon of three months, each consisting of four working weeks (12 weeks
horizon). We assume that expected demand during months 1, 2, and 3 are equal to 80, 100, and 200 respectively with
a coefficient of variation equal to 0.2. Because of limited production capacity, production takes place ahead of time
during early periods. The choice of values for
and
can be arbitrary, but the values we use are those
The capacity is
(160% of the average demand), and the unit costs are given by
,
,
Based on [7], the following functional form of the clearing function is adopted:
where
,
=0.8, and L = 2 weeks. We consider four customer classes distinguished by
their marginal revenue
(high/low profit margins) and their demand coefficient of variation
(high/low) as
represented in Table 2. Specifically,
,
=
=
,
=
= 0.3, and
=
= 0.1. We also assume that demand forecasts from the four classes are equal, that is
.
Variance
Marginal
Revenue
n1
High
High
n2
Low
Low
n3
High
Low
591
, and for the entire system, . In order to reflect the effect of congestion the two
integrated production planning and order acceptance models with congestion, RPPC-OA, and without congestion,
RPP-OA, are compared . Figure 4 plots the optimal acceptance fraction of each class, , and the average acceptance
fraction, , while the internal parameters ( and ) are varied from low to high in order to reflect the level of
conservatism of the planner. As expected, the average acceptance fraction is lower when congestion is taken into
account. Also, as the conservatism of the planner increases a lower fraction of orders are accepted and less order
from customer classes n1 and n3 are accepted as their orders have higher variability. When congestion is modeled,
although orders from customer class n1 have higher marginal revenue, fewer orders are accepted since they are
considered risky. On the contrary more orders from customer class 2 are accepted as their variance is lower
Acceptance Fractions
(with congestion)
Acceptance Fractions
(without congestion)
0,8
0,8
0,6
0,6
0,4
0,4
0,2
0,2
0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
n1
n2
n3
n4
Avg.
n1
n2
n3
n4
Avg.
592
TC for RPPC-OA
TC for RPPC
500000
400000
400000
300000
300000
200000
200000
100000
100000
0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
D/C= 0.9
D/C = 0.6
D/C= 1.2
D/C= 0.9
D/C= 1.2
TP for RPPC
TP for RPPC-OA
200000
200000
100000
100000
0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
-100000
-100000
D/C = 0.6
D/C= 0.9
D/C= 1.2
D/C = 0.6
593
D/C= 0.9
D/C= 1.2
FR for RPPC-OA
FR for RPPC
1,00
1,00
0,80
0,80
0,60
0,60
0,40
0,40
0,20
0,20
0,00
0,00
D/C= 0.9
D/C = 0.6
D/C= 1.2
D/C= 0.9
D/C= 1.2
6. Conclusion
A capacitated production stage serving customer orders from multiple demand classes characterized by different
marginal revenues and variability in their order quantities was considered in this paper. The proposed integrated
model jointly determines production planning decisions and order acceptance decisions while capturing uncertainty
in order quantities and workload dependent lead times. A robust optimization approach is followed to capture
demand uncertainty while clearing functions are adopted to capture the non-linear dependency between lead time and
utilization and reflect the effects of congestion. Orders/customers are classified into classes based on their marginal
revenue and their level of variability in order quantity (demand variance). In this paper we show that the main value
of integrating the two decisions is that the planner has the flexibility to select a reasonable number of orders that the
company commits to satisfy and hence release quantities and utilization can be maintained at desirable levels. This
flexibility leads to high profits and high levels of customer satisfaction, measured by the fill rate.
References
1.
2.
Higle, J. L. and K. G. Kempf (2010). Production Planning under Supply and Demand Uncertainty: A
Stochastic Programming Approach Stochastic Programming: The State of the Art. G. Infanger. Berlin,
Springer.
Bertsimas, D., M. Sim. 2004. The price of robustness. Operations Research 52: 3553.
Bertsimas, D. and Thiele, A., 2006, A robust optimization approach to inventory theory. Operations
Research 54: 150-158.
Hopp, W. J. and M. L. Spearman (2001). Factory Physics : Foundations of Manufacturing Management.
Boston, Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Graves, S. C. (1986). A Tactical Planning Model for a Job Shop. Operations Research 34: 552-533
Karmarkar, U. S. (1989). Capacity Loading and Release Planning with Work-in-Progress (Wip) and LeadTimes. Journal of Manufacturing and Operations Management 2: 105-123.
Asmundsson, J. M., R. L. Rardin, C. H. Turkseven and R. Uzsoy (2009). Production Planning Models with
Resources Subject to Congestion. Naval Research Logistics 56: 142-157.
Asmundsson, J. M., R. L. Rardin and R. Uzsoy (2006). Tractable Nonlinear Production Planning Models
for Semiconductor Wafer Fabrication Facilities. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 19:
95-111.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
594
595