Process planning

Long
range Strategic capacity planning

Intermediate Forecasting
& demand Sales and operations (aggregate) planning
range management
Sales plan Aggregate operations plan
Manufacturing
Services
Master scheduling

Material requirements planning

Weekly workforce and

Order scheduling customer scheduling
Short
range Daily workforce and customer scheduling
 What is Scheduling?

After MRP, short-range production

scheduling needs to be done
Last stage/opportunity of planning
before production occurs
Specifies when labor, equipment,
facilities are needed to produce a
product or provide a service
 Goals of Production Scheduling

High Customer Service: on-time delivery

Low Inventory Levels: WIP and FGI

High Utilization: of machines

3
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 What about utilization?
Utilization is a top management decision

More variability, need lower utilization to achieve same

performance levels.

Both variability (types of jobs to accept, process technologies)

and utilization decision taken infrequently

From scheduling POV, can consider utilization and variability

of a line to be fixed

So, what should the goal of scheduling be?

4
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 Meeting Due Dates – Measures

Service Level: Lateness:

• Used typically in make to • Used in shop floor control.
order systems. • Difference between order due date
• Fraction of orders which are and completion date.
filled on or before their due • Average lateness has little meaning.
dates. • Better measure is lateness variance.

Fill Rate: Tardiness:

• Used typically in make to
stock systems.
• Fraction of demands met
from stock.
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002
• Used in shop floor control.
• Is equal to the lateness of a job if it
is late and zero, otherwise.
• Average tardiness is meaningful but
unintuitive.
5
http://www.factory-physics.com
 Classic Scheduling – Assumptions

Classic Scheduling:
Benefits – “Optimal” schedules

• Problems – Bad assumptions.

– All jobs available at the start of the problem.
– Deterministic processing times.
– No setups.
– No machine breakdowns.
– No preemption.
– No cancellation.

6
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 Classic Single Machine Results

Minimizing Average Throughput Time:

• Minimize by performing in “shortest process time” (SPT) order.
• Makespan is not affected.

Minimizing Maximum Lateness (or Tardiness):

• Minimize by performing in “earliest due date” (EDD) order.
• Makespan is not affected.

Minimizing Average Tardiness:

• No simple sequencing rule will work. Problem is NP Hard.
• Makespan is not affected.

7
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 Classic Multi Machine Results

Minimizing “Makespan” on Two Machines: given a set of jobs that

must go through a sequence of two machines, what sequence will yield the
minimum makespan?
• Mapespan is sequence dependent.
• Simple algorithm (Johnson 1954):
1. Sort the times of the jobs on the two machines in two lists.
2. Find the shortest time in either list and remove job from both lists.
– If time came from first list, place job in first available position.
– If time came from second list, place job in last available
position in sequence.
3. Repeat until lists are exhausted.

The resulting sequence will minimize makespan.

8
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
2-Machine Scheduling

Job Machine 1 Machine 2

1 5 2
2 1 6
3 9 7
4 3 8
5 10 4

M1 M2

What sequence of jobs will minimize makespan in this setup?

Johnson’s rule

Job Machine 1 Machine 2

1 5 2
2 1 6
3 9 7
4 3 8
5 10 4
Johnson’s rule

Job Machine 1 Machine 2

1 5 2
2 1 6
3 9 7
4 3 8
5 10 4

Among remaining jobs minimum of 1 time unit occurs for job 2 on machine
1.

So, schedule it at the beginning.

2– – – –
Johnson’s rule

Job Machine 1 Machine 2

1 5 2
2 1 6
3 9 7
4 3 8
5 10 4

Among remaining jobs minimum of 2 time units occurs for job 1 on machine
2.

So, schedule it at the end.

2– – – –1
Johnson’s rule

Job Machine 1 Machine 2

1 5 2
2 1 6
3 9 7
4 3 8
5 10 4

Among remaining jobs minimum of 3 time units occurs for job 4 on machine
1.

So, schedule it at the beginning.

2–4– – –1
Johnson’s rule

Job Machine 1 Machine 2

1 5 2
2 1 6
3 9 7
4 3 8
5 10 4

Among remaining jobs minimum of 4 time units occurs for job 5 on machine
2.

So, schedule it at the end.

2–4– –5–1
Johnson’s rule

Job Machine 1 Machine 2

1 5 2
2 1 6
3 9 7
4 3 8
5 10 4

2–4–3–5–1
 Gantt Chart for Johnson’s Algorithm Example

Machine 1 1 2 3

Machine 2 1 2 3

Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Short task on M1 to Short task on M2 to

“load up” quickly. “clear out” quickly.

16
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 Classic Dispatching Results

Optimal Schedules: Impossible to find for most real problems.

Dispatching: sorts jobs as they arrive at a machine.
Dispatching rules:
• FIFO – simplest, seems “fair”.
• SPT – Actually works quite well with tight due dates.
• EDD – Works well when jobs are mostly the same size.
• Many (100?) others.
Problems with Dispatching:
• Cannot be optimal (can be bad).
• Tends to be myopic.

17
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 The Bad News
Violation of Assumptions: Most “real-world” scheduling problems
violate the assumptions made in the classic literature:
• There are always more than two machines.
• Process times are not deterministic.
• All jobs are not ready at the beginning of the problem.
• Process time are sequence dependent.

Problem Difficulty: Most “real-world” production scheduling

problems are NP-hard.
• We cannot hope to find optimal solutions of
realistic sized scheduling problems.
• Polynomial approaches, like dispatching, may
not work well.
18
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 The Good News

Due Dates: We can set the due dates.

Job Splitting: We can get smaller jobs by splitting larger ones.

• Single machine SPT results imply small jobs “clear out” more
quickly than larger jobs.
• Mechanics of Johnson’s algorithm implies we should start with a
small job and end with a small job.
• Small jobs make for small “move” batches and can be combined to
form larger “process” batches.

19
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 The Good News (cont.)

Feasible Schedules: We do not need to find an optimal schedule, only a

good feasible one.

Focus on Bottleneck: We can often concentrate on scheduling the

bottleneck process, which simplifies problem closer to single machine
case.

Capacity: Capacity can be adjusted dynamically (overtime, floating

workers, use of vendors, etc.) to adapt facility (somewhat) to
schedule.

20
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 A Sequencing Example

Problem Description:
• 16 jobs
• Each job takes 1 hour on single machine (bottleneck resource)
• 4 hour setup to change families
• Fixed due dates
• Find feasible solution if possible

21
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 A Sequencing Example (cont.)
EDD Sequence:
Job Due Completion
Number Family Date Time Lateness
1 1 5.00 5.00 0.00
2 1 6.00 6.00 0.00
3 1 10.00 7.00 -3.00
4 2 13.00 12.00 -1.00
5 1 15.00 17.00 2.00
6 2 15.00 22.00 7.00
7 1 22.00 27.00 5.00
8 2 22.00 32.00 10.00
9 1 23.00 37.00 14.00
10 3 29.00 42.00 13.00
11 2 30.00 47.00 17.00
12 2 31.00 48.00 17.00
13 3 32.00 53.00 21.00
14 3 32.00 54.00 22.00
15 3 33.00 55.00 22.00
16 3 40.00 56.00 16.00

Average Tardiness: 10.375

22
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 Sequencing Example (cont.)

Greedy Approach:
• Consider all pairwise interchanges
• Choose one that reduces average tardiness by maximum amount
• Continue until no further improvement is possible

23
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 Sequencing Example (cont.)
First Interchange: Exchange jobs 4 and 5.
Job Due Completion
Number Family Date Time Lateness
1 1 5.00 5.00 0.00
2 1 6.00 6.00 0.00
3 1 10.00 7.00 -3.00
5 1 15.00 8.00 -7.00
4 2 13.00 13.00 0.00
6 2 15.00 14.00 -1.00
7 1 22.00 19.00 -3.00
8 2 22.00 24.00 2.00
9 1 23.00 29.00 6.00
10 3 29.00 34.00 5.00
11 2 30.00 39.00 9.00
12 2 31.00 40.00 9.00
13 3 32.00 45.00 13.00
14 3 32.00 46.00 14.00
15 3 33.00 47.00 14.00
16 3 40.00 48.00 8.00
Average Tardiness: 5.0 (reduction of 5.375!)
24
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 Sequencing Example (cont.)
Configuration After Greedy Search:
Job Due Completion
Number Family Date Time Lateness
1 1 5.00 5.00 0.00
2 1 6.00 6.00 0.00
3 1 10.00 7.00 -3.00
5 1 15.00 8.00 -7.00
4 2 13.00 13.00 0.00
6 2 15.00 14.00 -1.00
8 2 22.00 15.00 -7.00
7 1 22.00 20.00 -2.00
9 1 23.00 21.00 -2.00
11 2 30.00 26.00 -4.00
12 2 31.00 27.00 -4.00
10 3 29.00 32.00 3.00
13 3 32.00 33.00 1.00
14 3 32.00 34.00 2.00
15 3 33.00 35.00 2.00
16 3 40.00 36.00 -4.00

Average Tardiness: 0.5 (9.875 lower than EDD)

25
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 Sequencing Example (cont.)
A Better (Feasible) Sequence:
Job Due Completion
Number Family Date Time Lateness
1 1 5.00 5.00 0.00
2 1 6.00 6.00 0.00
3 1 10.00 7.00 -3.00
5 1 15.00 8.00 -7.00
4 2 13.00 13.00 0.00
6 2 15.00 14.00 -1.00
8 2 22.00 15.00 -7.00
11 2 30.00 16.00 -14.00
12 2 31.00 17.00 -14.00
7 1 22.00 22.00 0.00
9 1 23.00 23.00 0.00
13 3 32.00 28.00 -4.00
10 3 29.00 29.00 0.00
16 3 40.00 30.00 -10.00
14 3 32.00 31.00 -1.00
15 3 33.00 32.00 -1.00

Average Tardiness: 0
26
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 In Summary

• By simplifying the environment (CONWIP line, for e.g.)

and using heuristics, can obtain reasonably good schedules
• In pull systems, (CONWIP lines), simple sequences are
usually sufficient
• If no setups involved, EDD schedule usually good.
• If there are significant setups, EDD rule no longer good
• Optimal rule still simple and reasonably good solutions can
be obtained using easy to implement heuristics
• Good idea to focus on bottleneck resource and schedule this
first using single machine results

27
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 Diagnostic Scheduling
Goals:
• Schedule at appropriate level of detail for environment.
• Make use of realistic, obtainable data.
• Accommodate “intangibles” in decision-support mode and suggest
improvement alternatives
Types of Infeasibility:
• WIP (must move out due dates).
• Capacity (can move due dates or increase capacity).

28
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 Scheduling Infeasibilities Example

Problem Description:
• Capacity = 100/day
• Minimum Practical Lead Time = 3 days
• WIP in system with 1, 2, 3 days to go = 95, 90, 115

• Little’s Law?

29
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 Problem Description:
• Capacity = 100/day
• Minimum Practical Lead Time = 3 days
• WIP in system with 1, 2, 3 days to go = 95, 90, 115

Days from Amount Cumulative Cumulative

Start Due Amount Due Capacity Cause of
1 90 90 95
2 100 190 185* infeasibility?
3 90 280 285
4 80 360 385
5 70 430 485
6 130 560 585
7 120 680 685
8 110 790 785**
9 110 900 885
1190 units 10 110 1010 985
11 100 1110 1085
12 90 1200 1185
13 90 1290 1285
14 90 1380 1385
15 90 1470 1485

30
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 Cumulative Demand vs. Cumulative Capacity

1600

1400

1200

1000
Uints

Cum Due
800
Cum Capacity
600

400

200

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Day from Start

31
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 Surplus

60
50
40
30
Surplus Units

20
10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-10
-20
-30
WIP Days from Start Capacity
Infeasibility Infeasibility
32
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 Problem Description:
• Capacity = 100/day
• Minimum Practical Lead Time = 3 days
• WIP in system with 1, 2, 3 days to go = 95, 90, 115

Days from Amount Cumulative Cumulative

Start Due Amount Due Capacity Cause of
1 90 90 95
2 100 190 185* infeasibility?
3 90 280 285
4 80 360 385
5 70 430 485
6 130 560 585
7 120 680 685
8 110 790 785**
9 110 900 885
1190 units 10 110 1010 985 Add 25 units of
11 100 1110 1085
12 90 1200 1185 capacity before
13 90 1290 1285
14 90 1380 1385
15 90 1470 1485

33
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com
 Scheduling Takeaways
Scheduling is hard!
• Even simple toy problems generate complicated mathematics.

Scheduling can be simplified through the environment:

• due date quoting
• flow simplification ⇒ sequencing in place of scheduling

Diagnostics are important in scheduling.

• pure optimization generally impossible
• need good interface to allow human intervention

34
© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996-2002 http://www.factory-physics.com