Exploring the compatibility of dampening procedures and lot-sizing rules in MRP systems under uncertain operating environments

There are two important operational procedures, dampening procedures and lot-sizing rules, considered in the design of material requirement planning (MRP) systems. Lot-sizing rules have been extensively studied, and dampening procedures are relatively unfamiliar to MRP users. Dampening procedures are heuristic rules that serve as information filters to screen out excessive rescheduling messages generated by MRP in response to uncertain events occurring within or outside of production systems. There are distinctive characteristics of various lot-sizing rules, such as the just-in-time feature of lot-for-lot rules in which no inventories are carried. Similarly, dampening procedures contain certain operational characteristics that are compatible with that of lot-sizing rules. Due to this compatibility, the system performance of MRP is expected to improve if compatible dampening procedure and lot-sizing rule are used in an MRP system. The purpose of this paper is to explore this interesting compatibility by a simulation experiment to see whether it leads to better system performance under such deviations in operating environments as lead time uncertainty or scrap variations. Research results show that the performance of an MRP system is significantly affected by the dampening procedure and lot-sizing rule selected. We provide a general guideline to help MRP users determine how to select a dampening procedure and lot-sizing rule in tandem in order to generate better system performance in MRP systems.

[1]  Urban Wemmerlöv,et al.  The behavior of lot-sizing procedures in the presence of forecast errors , 1989 .

[2]  Roberta J Minifie,et al.  Survey of MRP nervousness issues , 1986 .

[3]  V. Sridharan,et al.  Master production scheduling make-to-stock products: a framework for analysis , 1990 .

[4]  Chrwan-Jyh Ho,et al.  A diagnostic analysis of the impact of forecast errors on production planning via MRP system nervousness , 1993 .

[5]  D. Clay Whybark,et al.  MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS PLANNING UNDER UNCERTAINTY , 1976 .

[6]  H Mather,et al.  Reschedule the reschedules you just rescheduled - Way of life for MRP? , 1977 .

[7]  R. C. Carlson,et al.  Less Nervous MRP Systems: A Dynamic Economic Lot-Sizing Approach , 1979 .

[8]  C. Jones.  An Economic Evaluation of Job Shop Dispatching Rules , 1973 .

[9]  William L. Berry,et al.  Open Order Due Date Maintenance in MRP Systems , 1989 .

[10]  Brian Shorrock,et al.  Material Requirements Planning , 1978 .

[11]  Donald F. Morrison,et al.  Applied linear statistical methods , 1983 .

[12]  Mj Mark Euwe,et al.  The value of rescheduling functionality within standard MRP packages , 1998 .

[13]  R. C. Carlson,et al.  An analysis of scheduling policies in multiechelon production systems , 1985 .

[14]  Everett E. Adam,et al.  Forecasting error evaluation in material requirements planning (MRP) production-inventory systems , 1986 .

[15]  Joseph D. Blackburn,et al.  Improved heuristics for multistage requirements planning systems , 1982 .

[16]  Russell Schechter,et al.  Introduction to Simulation and SLAM , 1979 .

[17]  Dean H. Kropp,et al.  A comparison of strategies to dampen nervousness in MRP systems , 1986 .

[18]  James D. Culley,et al.  Computer Augmented Cases in Operations and Logistics Management , 1973 .

[19]  B. W. Taylor,et al.  A simulation-based experimental investigation of supply/timing uncertainty in MRP systems , 1984 .

[20]  Alan J. Mayne,et al.  Introduction to Simulation and SLAM , 1979 .

[21]  Chrwan-Jyh Ho,et al.  An investigation of alternative dampening procedures to cope with MRP system nervousness , 1996 .