Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Available
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
online atonline
www.sciencedirect.com
Available at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia CIRP 00 (2017)

Procedia CIRP 000–000
81 (2019) 69–74
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

52nd
52nd CIRP
CIRP Conference
Conference on
on Manufacturing
Manufacturing Systems
Systems

Predictive
Predictive control
control
28th of
of aaConference,
CIRP Design synchronized
synchronized individual
individual
May 2018, production
production
Nantes, France
a, a,b
Heutmann,T.a,*, *, Schmitt,
Schmitt, R. H.
A new methodology to analyze Heutmann,T. the functional R.andH.a,b physical architecture of
existing products for anforassembly
Engineering (WZL) oforiented product family 30,identification
Fraunhofer Institute for Production Technology IPT, Steinbachstrasse 17, Aachen, 52074,Germany
a
Fraunhofer
a
Institute Production Technology IPT, Steinbachstrasse 17, Aachen, 52074,Germany
Laboratory for
b
Machine Tools and Production RWTH Aachen University, Campus-Boulevard Aachen, 52074, Germany
Laboratory for Machine Tools and Production Engineering (WZL) of RWTH Aachen University, Campus-Boulevard 30, Aachen, 52074, Germany
b

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-241-8904-245; fax: +49-241-8904-6245. E-mail address: timo.heutmann@ipt.fraunhofer.de

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-241-8904-245; fax: +49-241-8904-6245. E-mail address: timo.heutmann@ipt.fraunhofer.de
Paul Stief *, Jean-Yves Dantan, Alain Etienne, Ali Siadat
École Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et Métiers, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, LCFC EA 4495, 4 Rue Augustin Fresnel, Metz 57078, France
Abstract
Abstract
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 3 87 37 54 30; E-mail address: paul.stief@ensam.eu
Due to market competition, the synchronized individual production principle penetrates industrial companies with single- or small-series pro-
Due to market competition, the synchronized individual production principle penetrates industrial companies with single- or small-series pro-
duction promising more efficient and reliable production processes. The general principle and scheduling algorithms have been introduced in
duction promising more efficient and reliable production processes. The general principle and scheduling algorithms have been introduced in
the past, however without implementing production control. Therefore, this paper introduces the control of a synchronized individual produc-
the past, however without implementing production control. Therefore, this paper introduces the control of a synchronized individual produc-
tion aiming to act proactively. First, a literature review demonstrates the scientific relevance. Second, a predictive control concept is designed
Abstract
tion aiming to act proactively. First, a literature review demonstrates the scientific relevance. Second, a predictive control concept is designed
and its components are introduced. Compared with conventional job-shop control, the approach considers the characteristics of the synchro-
and its components are introduced. Compared with conventional job-shop control, the approach considers the characteristics of the synchro-
Innized
nized
individual
today’s
individual
principle
business
principle
and bridges
environment,
and bridges
the gap
the trend
the gap
that inhibits
towards its successful
more product
that inhibits varietyindustrial
its successful
application.
and customization
industrial is unbroken. Due to this development, the need of
application.
© 2019
agile and The Authors. Published
reconfigurable production by Elsevier
systems Ltd. This is
emerged to an open
cope access
with article
various under the
products andCC BY-NC-ND
product families.license (http://creativecom-
To design and optimize production
©
© 2019
2019 as The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the
Ltd. matches, product analysis methods are needed. CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecom-
mons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
systems well as to choose the optimal product Indeed, most of the known methods aim to
mons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
This is an open access article under
Peer-review
analyze a under
product or responsibility
one product of the
family
CC
the on BY-NC-ND
scientific
the physical
license
committee
level. of (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
the 52ndproduct
Different CIRP Conference
families, on Manufacturing
however, may differ Systems.
largely in terms of the number and
Peer-review under
Peer-review under responsibility
responsibility of of the
the scientific
scientific committee
committee of of the
the 52nd
52nd CIRP
CIRP Conference
Conference onon Manufacturing
Manufacturing Systems.
Systems.
nature of components. This fact impedes an efficient comparison and choice of appropriate product family combinations for the production
Keywords:
system. A newProduction control; is
methodology Synchronized
proposed to jobanalyze
shop production; Control loop
existing products in view of their functional and physical architecture. The aim is to cluster
Keywords: Production control; Synchronized job shop production; Control loop
these products in new assembly oriented product families for the optimization of existing assembly lines and the creation of future reconfigurable
assembly systems. Based on Datum Flow Chain, the physical structure of the products is analyzed. Functional subassemblies are identified, and
a functional analysis is performed. Moreover, a hybrid functional and physical architecture graph (HyFPAG) is the output which depicts the
between product families by providing design support to both,time
1. Introduction
similarity
1. Introduction
is the principle’s
production
time
core,and
system planners
is the principle’s
determining the time An
product designers.
core, determining
during
the time during
which
illustrative
which
example of a nail-clipper is used to explain the proposed methodology. An one production
industrial case steponistwo
study finished.
product The synchronized
families of steering
one production step is finished. The synchronized individual
individual
columns of
For the past
thyssenkrupp decades,
Presta France thethen
is unique selling
carried out topreposition
give a first of west- evaluation
industrial production
of the applies this
proposed to a job-shop production by bounding
approach.
For the past decades, the unique selling preposition of west- production applies this to a job-shop production by bounding
©ern industrial
2017 companies
The Authors. Published thatbyproduce complex, unique prod-
Elsevier B.V. different production orders with the same production process
ern industrial companies that produce complex, unique prod- different production orders with the same production process
ucts (e.g. tool
Peer-review undermanufacturing)
responsibility ofhas the been to deliver
scientific committeehighofquality
the 28th CIRP logistically. The result
Design Conference is a so-called tact pallet that equates the
2018.
ucts (e.g. tool manufacturing) has been to deliver high quality logistically. The result is a so-called tact pallet that equates the
products made by an economic production. The increasing cost sum of the orders’ cycle times with the tact time [7, 8]. Each
products made by an economic production. The increasing cost sum of the orders’ cycle times with the tact time [7, 8]. Each
pressure Assembly;
Keywords: as well asDesign method;
product Family
quality byidentification
Asian companies forces tact pallet has a predefined manufacturing process chain,
pressure as well as product quality by Asian companies forces tact pallet has a predefined manufacturing process chain,
those industries to enhance the focus on logistical performance named tact line. Typical characteristics of an industrial job-
those industries to enhance the focus on logistical performance named tact line. Typical characteristics of an industrial job-
to compete in the market [1–3]. Therefore, the aim is to mini- shop production, including the synchronized individual pro-
to compete in the market [1–3]. Therefore, the aim is to mini- shop production, including the synchronized individual pro-
1.mize
mize
lead time and increase adherence to delivery [4–6]. As
Introduction
lead time and increase adherence to delivery [4–6]. As
duction,
of are therange
the product
duction,
application of small batchmanufactured
and characteristics
are the application
sizes to single prod-
of small batch sizes to singleand/or prod-
minimized lead time, if disturbed by discontinuities, influences ucts [10] and make-to-order or engineer-to-order principles
minimized lead time, if disturbed by discontinuities, influences assembled
ucts [10] in andthismake-to-order
system. In thisorcontext, the main challenge
engineer-to-order principlesin
the delivery date (assumption: no buffers planned or buffers al- [11].
theDue to date
delivery the (assumption:
fast developmentno buffersinplannedthe or domain
buffers al-of modelling
[11]. and analysis is now not only to cope with single
ready consumed) and consequently the adherence to delivery, Consequently, the principle of a synchronized individual
communication
ready consumed)and andan ongoing trend
consequently of digitization
the adherence and
to delivery, products, a limited the
Consequently, product rangeoforaexisting
principle productindividual
synchronized families,
the latter is further considered as the relevant performance in- production penetrates single-series- and small-series-manufac-
digitalization, manufacturing
the latter is further consideredenterprises are facing
as the relevant important
performance in- but also to bepenetrates
production able to analyze and to compare
single-series- products to define
and small-series-manufac-
dicator. However, the individual production with a job-shop- turing companies to compete successfully in the market. As-
challenges in today’s
dicator. However, market environments:
the individual production with a acontinuing
job-shop- new
turingproduct families.
companies It can besuccessfully
to compete observed thatinclassical existing
the market. As-
production principle requires an adjusted approach due to its suming that discontinuities, which affect the cycle time or wait-
tendency
production towards reduction
principle of an
requires product development
adjusted approach times due toandits product
suming families are regrouped
that discontinuities, in function
which of cycle
affect the clientstime
or features.
or wait-
characteristics, like high share of set-up time, lack of flow prin- ing time are always present in a production, a concept for a pre-
shortened product
characteristics, lifecycles.
like high share Inofaddition, therelack
set-up time, is anofincreasing
flow prin- However,
ing time are assembly
always oriented
present inproduct familiesa are
a production, hardly
concept fortoafind.
pre-
ciple, significant volatile cycle times, and lack of tact-time de- dictive control of the synchronized individual production prin-
demand of customization,
ciple, significant beingtimes,
volatile cycle at theandsame
lacktime in a global
of tact-time de- On the
dictive product
control family
of the level, products
synchronized differproduction
individual mainly inprin-two
termination [7, 8]. ciple is required.
competition
termination with [7, 8].competitors all over the world. This trend, main
ciple characteristics:
is required. (i) the number of components and (ii) the
Considering this, the principle of synchronization has been The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 details the re-
which is inducing
Considering this,the
the development from macro tohasmicro
principle of synchronization been typeThe of components (e.g. mechanical,
paper is organized as follows.electrical,
Section 2electronical).
details the re-
introduced. Synchronization in production is the timing of all lated scientific work and derives the necessity for a new control
markets,
introduced. results in diminished
Synchronization lot sizes due
in production to timing
is the augmentingof all Classical
lated methodologies
scientific work and derivesconsidering mainlyfor
the necessity single
a newproducts
control
production steps of one product [9]. A production-wide tact
product
productionvarieties
steps(high-volume
of one product to low-volume production) [1].
[9]. A production-wide tact or solitary, already existing product families analyze the
To cope with this augmenting variety as well as to be able to product structure on a physical level (components level) which
2212-8271 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
identify
2212-8271possible
© 2019 The optimization
Authors. Published potentials in
by Elsevier Ltd.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) the
This is existing
an open access causes difficulties
article under regarding
the CC BY-NC-ND licensean efficient definition and
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
production system, it is important to have a precise knowledge comparison of different product families. Addressing this
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 52nd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 52nd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems.
2212-8271 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an©open
2212-8271 2017access article Published
The Authors. under theby CC BY-NC-ND
Elsevier B.V. license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of scientific
of the the scientific committee
committee of the of theCIRP
28th 52ndDesign
CIRPConference
Conference2018.
on Manufacturing Systems.
10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.013
70 T. Heutmann et al. / Procedia CIRP 81 (2019) 69–74
2 Heutmann et al./ Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
concept. Following, section 3 introduces and details the con-
cept to control a synchronized individual production predic-
tively. Section 4 concludes the paper.
2. Literature review
2.1. Synchronized individual production
Transferring the synchronization to job-shop production by
introducing a tact time has first been achieved by Baecke-
Heger [12]. Besides that, Gruss [13] introduces a two-stage
timing model by formulating macro- and micro-tacts, accord-
ing to lean production. A macro-tact may represent the lead
time of one process step and aims to be a superior control unit;
a micro-tact is one time-limited task within a macro tact [13].
However, macro-tacts are not equal production wide because
they represent the longest time of any process competence cen-
ter. These are defined as optimized processes with defined task
sequences, results, and standardized interfaces [13]. Namely,
they form the product-individual production-process chain.
Zwanzig [14] focuses on the timing in an individual production
itself by investigating influence factors, determining the tact
time, and developing a procedure for implementation. Never-
theless, none of them can satisfy the requirements of a synchro-
nized individual production due to its special characteristics,
which is allocation to tact pallets with fixed tact lines and buffer
possibilities [15]. Therefore, the synchronized individual pro-
duction has been achieved by Ziskoven [15] ultimately.
However, this approach only focuses on providing the gen-
eral principle and on an initial scheduling algorithm but not on
providing adaptive scheduling and control methods. Hence,
Humphrey [16] transfers the theoretical concept in industrial
application by developing mapping and scheduling algorithms
for the synchronized individual production. This approach in-
cludes disturbances like express orders but focuses generally
on rescheduling when discontinuities appear [17].
When implementing the synchronized individual production
in toolmaking, Schuh et al. [18] identify that more than 75 %
of tool components to be produced can be considered for a tact
pallet. Aiming to provide a more practical approach, which is
applicable to more than 75 % of tool components, a principle
to combine the synchronized job-shop production with the clas-
sical job-shop production has been suggested [18]. However,
the parallel application of both methods may lead to increased
flexibility, but requires a high degree of coordination in order
to avoid losses in machine utilization.
Other works in the field of the synchronized individual pro-
duction are the optimization of tact lines using cluster analysis
[19] and the improvement of process quality by focusing on
involving employees in decision making processes [20].
Consequently, the works present in the field of synchronized
individual production focus on planning and scheduling but not
on predictive controlling. Requirements on a predictive control
approach for a synchronized individual production are:
 Determination of hierarchical control levels
 Prediction of disturbances and their effects on each adher-
ence to delivery level
 Determination of suitable measure strategies considering
limitations due to tact pallets and tact lines
2.2. Production-control loop
Production control is typically implemented by formulating
control loops [6]. The production process represents the con-
trolled system. Principally, manipulated variables are influ-
enced by disturbance values and thereon controlled by the con-
trol unit. Deviations to be controlled are identified by a (yet
simple) as-is-comparison. Manufacturing Execution Systems
(MES) are often used in production for this purpose. The nom-
inal value is provided by reference variables that, in the case of
a production, are typically orders and their respective infor-
mation (e.g., delivery dates). The actual value is represented by
the control variable, providing a feedback whether the refer-
ence variable has been achieved. The approaches present in
section 2.3 often focus on one control-loop component and its
specification but find different ways to approach the same
problem: controlling a job-shop production.
2.3. Job-shop control
Generally, job-shop-control approaches can be classified by
the reference variable: either it is a complete reactive approach
reacting to disturbances on a given schedule or it is a predic-
tive/reactive approach aiming to adjust the production pro-
gramm with regard to due dates [21]. Based on this, existing
approaches to control a job-shop production can be classified
into five categories, depending on the reference variable, the
controlled variable, and the correcting variable that results in
the controller type [22] :
 Control of inventory (complete reactive)
 Control of capacity (complete reactive)
 Control of load (complete reactive)
 Knowledge-based control (predictive/reactive)
 Control by rescheduling (predictive/reactive)
However, none of these approaches consider the character-
istics of a synchronized individual production. Consequently,
typical approaches like reallocating one order to another ma-
chine, providing additional machines for rework, or late release
of orders are insufficient because the tact pallet would be
changed. The equation of the sum of the orders’ cycle times
with the tact time on the new tact pallet could be disproportion-
ate at downstream process steps. Furthermore, existing ap-
proaches of the predictive/reactive category knowledge-based
control use root-cause analyses or downtime durations to select
measures. A linkage from existing disturbance situations to fu-
ture similar situation using context information has not been
found in existing approaches.
2.4. Self-optimizing job-shop control
In addition to classic job-shop control, control concepts for
individual production are also used in self-optimizing produc-
tion planning and control. The aim is that the system decides
independently on goals and measures to achieve them [23].
 T. Heutmann et al. / Procedia CIRP 81 (2019) 69–74 71
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000 3

Mueller, Roeber and Bauernhansl [24] classify existing ap- Disturbance

proaches according to their primary goal and their maturity detection
level. Production
Using a self-optimizing approach for job-shop control, control Disturbance
Schlick et al. [25] adjust the production using simulated sce- prediction
narios results. This cognition-enhanced method suggests the
best possible reaction to an identified disturbance that affects

Correcting
variables
the production process. However, this approach also does not

information
cover the characteristics (see section 2.1) that are typical for the

Context
Actual
values
synchronized individual production. Especially the given limi-
tations due to tact pallets and tact lines would require an ad-
justed model. Ultimately, self-optimizing job-shop control still
responds to disruptions and is not proactive as desired, even Production Production
though an underlying expert system evaluates the effectiveness scheduling monitoring
of historical control decisions.

2.5. Flow-production control

In flow production, approaches to control the production can Input Output

also be distinguished between proactive and reactive measures.
Proactive measures like the Single Minute Exchange of Die
(SMED) provide a proactive possibility to increase flexibility
to react to discontinuities by reducing setup time [26]. Also,
parallel lines for subcomponents can be established to manu-
facture more complex parts with different tact times. Reactive
measures require a real-time control to identify and react
quickly to a disturbance. This is supported by the acquisition
and procession of data, leading to the cyber-physical produc-
tion control [27].
However, the low repetition rate of the products in a syn-
chronized individual production plus the requirements for a
high adherence to delivery and machine utilization make typi-
cal approaches of flow-production control often inappropriate
(e.g. parallel lines for subcomponents). Nevertheless, some ap-
proaches like SMED are also useful.
Simply, a sufficient control approach for a synchronized in-
dividual production has not been achieved yet. Introduced
methods of job-shop production (classic and self-optimizing)
and flow production need to be adjusted to the principle syn-
chronized individual production, if at all applicable. Further-
more, existing approaches do not provide a sufficient solution
to act proactively before a disturbance affect the production.
3. The concept of synchronized individual production
control
Following the need to develop an adjusted production con-
trol, the predictive control concept for the principle of a syn-
chronized individual production has been generated (cf. Fig. 1).
This concepts’ primary aim is to increase the adherence to de-
livery either by reactive measures, if a disturbance occurred, or
by proactive measures, if the risk of a disturbance occurrence
exceeds the defined threshold. Inferior aims are a high machine
utilization and reducing planning efforts compared to re-sched-
uling whenever a disturbance occur.
Its elements are described in more detail in the following
sections.
Orders Order Actual
delivery dates Tact pallet delivery dates
Tact line
Synchronized individual production
Disturbances
Fig. 1. Control concept for a synchronized individual production control.
3.1. Input
A production plan that is based on delivery dates from or-
ders is the reference variable for the manipulated variable, the
production scheduling. Based on this information, the control
loop can be determined as a predictive/reactive control ap-
proach according to Schwartz [21] and a knowledge-based con-
trol according to Niehues [22].
3.2. Production scheduling
The delivery dates of each order are transferred into a pro-
duction-scheduling system using a MES. There are six varia-
bles that can be influenced. Elementary production factors rep-
resent manipulated variables: machine capacity (1) and em-
ployee capacity (2). In addition, a production-wide tact time (3)
needs to be determined for a synchronized individual produc-
tion. It therefore serves also as a manipulated variable. Another
one is the allocation of orders to a tact pallet (4) according to
their delivery date and their process chain. Within one tact pal-
let, the sequence (5) can also be influenced by the schedule.
Lastly, buffers (6) can be set up before the delivery date at the
end of production and/or between two tacts. They can be varied
in their capacity by the scheduler. A change of orders from one
tact line to another is only appropriate if the corresponding
manufacturing technologies are interchangeable, which is often
not the case due to limited technologically different machines
72 T. Heutmann et al. / Procedia CIRP 81 (2019) 69–74
4 Heutmann et al./ Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
in small and medium companies in areas such as tool manufac-
turing. Furthermore, higher manufacturing costs need to be val-
ued in practice against the actual costs of delay.
Due to the nature of a synchronized individual production,
adherence to delivery can be interpreted internally as well as
externally on in total four levels (Fig. 2). This differentiation is
necessary due to the determination of consequences if an effect
is identified or predicted. However, this is only relevant for
controlling the synchronized individual production. The exter-
nal customer-delivery date can be split up into internal delivery
dates for each tact lines, tact time, and single cycle times for
each part. These are the adherence to delivery interpretation
levels in a synchronized individual production and be used as
internal reference variables (Fig 2).
1 Customer delivery date external
2 Tact line delivery date internal
Level
3 Each (production wide) tact internal
4 Cycle time of each order within each tact internal
Fig. 2. Interpretation levels of adherence to delivery for orders.
3.3. System: Synchronized individual production
The controlled system is a synchronized individual produc-
tion with relevant characteristics as described in section 1 and
section 2.1.
3.4. Output
The primary control variable is the actual delivery date for
each order. It is used for comparison with the reference variable
and formulation of the adherence to delivery indicators.
The applicable evaluation whether an order is on time can
only be executed by the tact line delivery date (level 2 in Fig. 2)
since packaging and shipping cannot be influenced by produc-
tion control. Consequently, level 2, 3, and 4 can be referred to
as internal control variables and level 1 as external control var-
iable.
3.5. Disturbances
The principle of a thermodynamic system is useful to iden-
tify relevant types of influence. Such a system is described as a
space separated from its environment by a system boundary,
which is characterized by state variables [28]. In addition to the
state variables ‘temperature’ and ‘pressure’, within the exam-
ple in Fig. 3, various currents occur beyond the system bound-
ary, such as the mass flows demonstrate.
In the figurative sense, necessary production factors can be
used that drive the manufacturing process. Gutenberg [29]
distinguishes dispositive and elementary factors. The former
are necessary actions to enable a combination of the latter.
Typically, these factors are organizational/managerial [29]. El-
ementary factors are directly involved in the transformation
process and are identified as operating resources like machines
or workshops, employees, and work pieces [30].
Piston Workshop Element boundary
Cylinder
W
Q
T, p
mo mi
Organization/
System boundary
management
mo: outflowing mass flow Q: heat flux
mi: inflowing mass flow T: temperature
p: pressure W: work conducted
Fig. 3. Derivation of influence types using thermodynamic analogy.
A workshop represents the separated space and its elemen-
tary boundary, the system boundary. Machines, employees, and
work pieces are an integral part of the system as state variables.
Dispositive factors in form of managerial and organizational
influences can be interpreted as flow variables. Together they
characterize the processes and procedures in a workshop, so
that they are defined as the four relevant disturbing value types
(DVT).
3.6. Disturbance detection
Employees or machines provide a feedback to the system
about actual cycle times. This is done using of a production-
data-acquisition system. A terminal to manually record the time
can be provided to the employees. Sensors can be integrated
into machines to acquire the necessary data automatically. Be-
sides that, the product can also be enabled to provide the infor-
mation by the use of radio frequency identification (RFID)
[31].
Based on the information provided, an as-is-comparison of
the cycle time can identify whether any disturbance affects the
schedule (level 1 in Fig. 2). If there is any negative deviation
from standard, the consequences on the adherence to delivery
on level 2 and 3 can be derived. Furthermore, side effects on
other orders designated to a different tact pallet and their ad-
herence to delivery can be deduced.
3.7. Disturbance prediction
Predicted effects influencing the production schedule can be
quantified by the use of the risk priority number (RPN). Gen-
erally, the RPN combines the estimated severity 𝑆𝑆 of an effect
with the occurrence 𝑂𝑂 and the detection 𝐷𝐷 [32]:
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝑆𝑆 × 𝑂𝑂 × 𝐷𝐷 (1)
The detection of a disruption is neglected due to the general
allocation of possible correction measures (see section 3.8) to
DVT (see section 3.5) by their effectiveness. Single root causes
are aggregated to the DVT.
Because of the lack of possibilities to subsequently identify
a deviation’s severity from standard when predicting any dis-
turbance and attempting to diminish it proactively, measuring
the cycle time by sensors is an ineffective approach. However,
applying their potential customer-related consequence in form
 T. Heutmann et al. / Procedia CIRP 81 (2019) 69–74
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
of cost of delay is appropriate for all orders when it is inter-
preted as risk costs, named 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷,𝑅𝑅,𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 . Determining the oc-
curring costs is possible due to the specific figures stated in the
contracts. Therefore, a possibility to address adherence to de-
livery on level 2 is achieved. If a disturbance and its conse-
quences affect only the manufacturing process in any produc-
tion-process step (level 3 and 4) but not the production-lead
time, internal risk costs for a delay 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷,𝑅𝑅,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 appear to any
costs directly related to the customer. Effects on machine utili-
zation, personal costs, or additional waiting time that does not
influence the adherence to delivery in this case but increases
costs for e.g. buffers may be present. Consequently, the indi-
vidual severity 𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖 for each DVT 𝑖𝑖 in form of risk cost of delay
𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷,𝑅𝑅,𝑖𝑖 is defined for all affected orders 𝑗𝑗 as:
𝑛𝑛
𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖 = 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷,𝑅𝑅,𝑖𝑖 = ∑(𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷,𝑅𝑅,𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐,𝑖𝑖 + 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷,𝑅𝑅,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖 )
𝑖𝑖=1
𝑚𝑚
𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷,𝑅𝑅,𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐,𝑖𝑖 = ∑ 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷,𝑅𝑅,𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐,𝑗𝑗
𝑗𝑗=1
𝑚𝑚
𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷,𝑅𝑅,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖 = ∑(𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷,𝑅𝑅,𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠−𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢,𝑗𝑗 + 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷,𝑅𝑅,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡,𝑗𝑗
𝑗𝑗=1
+ 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷,𝑅𝑅,𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛−𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢,𝑗𝑗 )
with 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷,𝑅𝑅,𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠−𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 = Risk cost for necessary set-ups
𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷,𝑅𝑅,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = Risk cost for necessary transport
𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷,𝑅𝑅,𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛−𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 = Risk cost for resulting non-utilization
The determination whether a disturbance affects only inter-
nal delivery dates or also customer delivery dates can be
achieved by risk consequences.
Besides calculating the severity, the occurrence of a disturb-
ance affecting the production process also needs to be predica-
ble. Heutmann, Tils and Schmitt [8] identify relevant data to
consider for each DVT. Then, the occurrence can be calculated
taking the performance of the DVT (see section 3.5) into ac-
count. The underlying assumption is: The higher the perfor-
mance, the lower the probability of occurrence of a DVT. The
performance of the DVTs machine, employees, and work piece
can be calculated by the formulas of Bilsing [2]. The disposi-
tive factors are represented by the organizational performance
𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 and can be calculated as:
1 ure(s) is due to its effectiveness and availability (i.e. for out-
𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 = × (𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 + 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹)
2 sourcing). Long-term measures are applied also by their effec-
with the process quality 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 for each production-process
step 𝑘𝑘 as
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = ∑(𝑤𝑤𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃,𝑘𝑘 × 𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃,𝑘𝑘 ) , for ∑ 𝑤𝑤𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃,𝑘𝑘 = 1
and the fulfilment degree 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 of the defined requirements
as:
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = ∑(𝑤𝑤𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹,𝑘𝑘 × 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹,𝑘𝑘 ) , for ∑ 𝑤𝑤𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹,𝑘𝑘 = 1
73
5
𝑤𝑤𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃,𝑘𝑘 and 𝑤𝑤𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹,𝑘𝑘 are weighting factors that need to be deter-
mined by experts for each production-process step. It applies:
𝑤𝑤𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃,𝑘𝑘 , 𝑤𝑤𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹,𝑘𝑘 ∈ [0,1] (8)
The factor 𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃,𝑘𝑘 is determined by intervals and characteris-
tics of the company. As an example, the internal reliability of
material provision by logistics is characterized by the failure
rate, including wrong, too early, or too late supplied goods. The
interval may be high for 𝑥𝑥 ≥ 2 (evaluation = 1), medium for
2 < 𝑥𝑥 ≥ 0.5 (evaluation = 2), and low for 𝑥𝑥 < 0.5 (evalua-
tion = 3). Characteristics and intervals of factor 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹,𝑗𝑗 need to
be determined by experts in the same way.
If the severity and/or the occurrence of one disturbance
value type exceeds a defined threshold, correction measures are
applied to prevent the disturbance’s occurrence generally. The
(2) threshold is an upper action limit (UAL), which is determined
by company experts.
(3) 3.8. Correcting variables
Corrective measures represent the controller’s result and can
be applied reactively as well as proactively. Typically, the for-
(4) mer are short-term actions to diminish any effects that have had
an influence already. The latter are often long-term strategies
to improve the robustness of the production process against dis-
turbances but can also be ad-hoc activities preventing any fore-
casted negative influence.
Short-term measures are (e.g.):
 Overtime and additional shift
 Temporary workers and jumpers
 Rescheduling
 Outsourcing, if a competent and trustworthy partner exists
Long-term measures are (e.g.):
 Additional machines
 Alternative production schedules
 Late schedule release and late production start
 Safety stocks in form of semi-finished products that are
equal for some product variants
 Establishing partnerships for outsourcing on a short notice
The selection of one or more appropriate short-term meas-
(5)
tiveness but also according to a cost-benefit determination.
4. Conclusion
(6)
This paper introduces a concept for the predictive control of
a synchronized individual production. Its aim is to increase the
indicator adherence to delivery. As control variables, external
delivery dates from orders and internal delivery dates from cy-
cle time, tact time, and tact line are used.
The typical conditions of a synchronized individual produc-
(7)
tion are considered by determining the manipulated values: ca-
pacity of machines, capacity of personnel, capacities of buffers,
74 T. Heutmann et al. / Procedia CIRP 81 (2019) 69–74
6 Heutmann et al./ Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
tact time, allocation to tact pallets, and sequence on one tact
pallet. Disturbances that influence the tact time and thus the
lead time are classified into four categories: machine, part, per-
sonnel and organization/management. The as-is-comparison to
identify any discontinuity is achieved by the use of a time re-
cording for the cycle time. Furthermore, risks are quantified
and evaluated to predict time deviations. Based on this, proac-
tive as well as reactive measures are established to handle dis-
continuities appropriately. Their selection is achieved due to
determining the effectiveness and efficiency for each measure.
Compared to classical job-shop-control approaches, the
method promises to be more adequate by considering the con-
ditions of a synchronized individual production. Furthermore,
the predictive approach considering context information aims
to react knowledge-based before a disturbance affects the
schedule. Based on this, the successful industrial application of
the principle is possible.
5. Outlook
To validate the approach, two different industrial applica-
tions from tool and die manufacturing are selected. The first
focuses on injection molding tools with the process steps: mill-
ing, grinding, eroding and assembling. The second company
concentrates on punching tools, forming tools and injection
molding tools with the following process steps: cutting, pre-
grinding, milling, grinding, eroding and assembly. The concept
is implemented in a simulation and various scenarios are car-
ried out in order to influence the system. Based on historical
data and event validity tests, common risk types are set to ex-
treme values to verify the approach. In addition, the simulation
is used by production schedulers and production employees as
well as validated by expert interviews. Results of the validation
will be published in future papers.
Acknowledgements
This paper is a result of the research project PARSyP − Pre-
dictive Analytics for Robust Synchronized Production. It is
funded within the BMBF funding measure KMU-innovative:
Information and Communication Technologies under the grant
number 01IS16034A-F.
References
[1] Fuchs S. Wertstromorientierte Auftragsfreigabe bei dyamischen
Engpaessen in der Produktion nach dem Werkstattprinzip. Dissertation,
Aachen; 2013.
[2] Bilsing A. Kennzahlengestützte Bewertung der technologischen Leis-
tungsfähigkeit der Fertigung im Werkzeug- und Formenbau. Disserta-
tion, Aachen; 2007.
[3] Klocke F, Schuh G, Sauer A, Frick L, Klotzbach C. Werkzeugbau in
China - Chance oder Bedrohung? Aachen: WZL RWTH Aachen; 2006.
[4] Schuh G, Stich V, editors. Produktion am Standort Deutschland. FIR an
der RWTH Aachen; 2011.
[5] Bornhaeuser M. Reifegradbasierte Werkstattsteuerung. Dissertation,
Stuttgart; 2009.
[6] Wiendahl HP. Betriebsorganisation für Ingenieure. 8th ed. München:
Hanser; 2014.
[7] Heutmann T, Tils A, Schmitt R. Time-related uncertainties in individual
manufacture. Zeitschrift für wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb ZWF
2017;112:877-880.
[8] Heutmann T, Tils A, Schmitt RH. Beruecksichtigung der Zeitunsicher-
heit für eine robuste, synchronisierte Einzelfertigung. In: Riedel R, edi-
tor. Smarte Produktion und digitale Vernetzung. Chemnitz: TU Chem-
nitz IBF, Wissenschaftliche Schriftenreihe des Institutes für Be-
triebswissenschaften und Fabriksysteme, Sonderheft 24; 2018. p. 123-
132.
[9] Albach H, editor. Industrielles Management. Wiesbaden: Gabler; 1993.
[10] Hirsch BE, editor. CIM in der Unikatfertigung und -montage. Heidel-
berg: Springer; 1992.
[11] Wikner J, Rudberg M. Integrating production and engineering perspec-
tives on the customer order decoupling point. In: IJOPM 2005;25:623-
641.
[12] Baecke-Heger F. Produzieren im Takt. Markt und Mittelstand; 2008.
48-51.
[13] Gruss R. Schlanke Unikatfertigung. Dissertation, Cottbus; 2010.
[14] Zwanzig F. Taktung der Unikatfertigung am Beispiel des Werkzeug-
baus. Dissertation, Aachen; 2009.
[15] Ziskoven H. Methodik zur Gestaltung und Auftragseinplanung einer
getakteten Fertigung im Werkzeugbau. Dissertation, Aachen; 2013.
[16] Humphrey SE. Mapping and scheduling algorithms for synchronized
individual production. Dissertation, Aachen; 2016.
[17] Schmitt RH, Ellerich M, Humphrey S. Multi-objective allocation of
customized orders to production-line networks. CIRP Annals
2016;65:429-432.
[18] Schuh G, Pitch M, Ziskoven H, Lieb H, Kelzenberg C. Getaktete Fer-
tigung im Werkzeugbau. Aachen: WZL RWTH Aachen; 2015.
[19] Fels A, Ellerich M, Schmitt R. Cluster analysis for enhancing process
quality in job shop production. In: Silva Gomes JF, Meguid SA, editors.
Proceedings IRF2018. Porto: FEUP-INEGI; 2018. p. 1413-1422.
[20] Elser H, Fimmers C, Groggert S, Schmitt RH, Brecher C. Process qual-
ity improvement through collaboration in synchronized individual pro-
duction companies. Procedia CIRP 2018;67:589-594.
[21] Schwartz F. Stoerungsmanagement in Produktionssystemen. Disserta-
tion, Hamburg; 2004.
[22] Niehues M, Blum M, Teschemacher U, Reinhart G. Adaptive job shop
control based on permanent order sequencing. Production Engineering
2018;12:65-71.
[23] Permin E, Bertelsmeier F, Blum M, Buetzler J, Haag S, Kuz S,
Oezdemnir D, Stemmler S, Thombansen U, Schmitt R, Brecher C,
Schlick C, Abel D, Poprawe R, Loosen P, Schulz W, Schuh G. Self-
optimizing production systems. Procedia CIRP 2016;41:417-422.
[24] Mueller F, Roeber T, Bauernhansl T. Classification of self-optimization
approaches for manufacturing systems for discrete goods production.
WT Werkstattstechnik 2017;107:154-162.
[25] Schlick C, Stich V, Schmitt R, Schuh G, Ziefle M, Brecher C, Blum M,
Mertens A, Faber M, Kuz S, Petruck H, Fuhrmann M, Luckert M,
Brambring F, Reuter C, Hering N, Groten M, Korall S, Pause D,
Brauner P, Herfs W, Odenbusch M, Wein S, Stiller S, Berthold M. Cog-
nition-enhanced, self-optimizing production networks. Integrative pro-
duction technology. Cham: Springer; 2017. p. 645-743.
[26] Gade PA, Chavan RG, Bhavsar DN. Reduction in set up time by single
minute exchange of dies SMED methodology. IJSTR 2015;5:364-366.
[27] Schuh G, Stich V, Nyhuis P, Franzkoch B Hempel T, Hering N, Ort-
linghaus P, Potente T, Schiemann D, Troeger K. Cyber physical pro-
duction control. Integrative Produktion, Aachen: Shaker; 2014. p. 121-
141.
[28] Moran MJ, Shapiro HN, Boettner DD, Bailey MB. Fundamentals of en-
gineering thermodynamics. 8th ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2014.
[29] Gutenberg E. Grundlagen der Betriebswirtschaftslehre. 5th ed. Berlin,
Heidelberg, New York, London, Paris, Tokyo: Springer; 1960.
[30] Dyckhoff H. Produktionstheorie. 5th ed. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer;
2006.
[31] Niehues M, Buschle F, Reinhart G. Adaptive job-shop control based on
permanent order sequencing. Procedia CIRP 2015;33:127-132.
[32] Sellappan N, Palanikumar K. Modified prioritization methodology for
risk priority number in failure mode and effects analysis. IJAST
2013;3:27-36.