Sequencing rules and due date setting procedures in flow line cells with family setups

Abstract The purpose of this study is to investigate due date setting procedures and dispatching decisions in a flow line cell with family setups. In this environment, setups are not required when switching from a job in a given family to a job in the same family. However, switching from a job in one family to a job in another family requires a setup. Family setups in this shop are sequence independent. The dispatching decisions in this shop are threefold: (1) when should the decision to switch from one part family to another be made; (2) once the decision to switch families is made, how should the next part family be chosen (next family decision); and (3) how should the jobs within a family be prioritized (next job decision)? If the decision to switch classes can only be made after the current family is exhausted, the rule is called a class exhaustion rule. Otherwise the rule is a truncated rule. The results indicate that the due date setting procedure has a major impact on how dispatching should be performed in the shop. The family exhaustion procedure using the APT next family rule and the SPT next job rule is the best performer for mean flow time. When setup times are long, the SEQ due date rule using the family exhaustion procedure with the FCFS next family and the EDD next job rules performed well for due date criteria. When setup times are short, the EDD/T, Sawicki truncation rule and the family exhaustion rules performed well for due date criteria.

[1]  Kenneth R. Baker,et al.  Sequencing Rules and Due-Date Assignments in a Job Shop , 1984 .

[2]  John D. Sawicki.  The Problems of Tardiness and Saturation in a Multi-Class Queue with Sequence-Dependent Setups , 1973 .

[3]  Inyong Ham,et al.  A heuristic algorithm for the m-machine, n-job flow-shop sequencing problem , 1983 .

[4]  Joseph El Gomayel,et al.  GROUP TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTIVITY , 1986 .

[5]  Charles T. Mosier,et al.  Analysis of group technology scheduling heuristics , 1984 .

[6]  Andrew Kusiak,et al.  Group technology , 1987 .

[7]  G. Ragatz,et al.  A simulation analysis of due date assignment rules , 1984 .

[8]  Timothy D. Fry,et al.  A simulation study of processing time dispatching rules , 1988 .

[9]  William L. Maxwell,et al.  Theory of scheduling , 1967 .

[10]  Michael H. Kutner.  Applied Linear Statistical Models , 1974 .

[11]  Bernard W. Taylor,et al.  AN EVALUATION OF SEQUENCING RULES FOR AN ASSEMBLY SHOP , 1985 .

[12]  K. R. Baker,et al.  An investigation of due-date assignment rules with constrained tightness , 1981 .

[13]  R. A. Dudek,et al.  A Heuristic Algorithm for the n Job, m Machine Sequencing Problem , 1970 .

[14]  James K. Weeks.  A Simulation Study of Predictable Due-Dates , 1979 .

[15]  Averill M. Law,et al.  Simulation Modeling and Analysis , 1982 .

[16]  Keith L. McRoberts,et al.  On scheduling in a GT environment , 1982 .

[17]  John J. Kankt,et al.  Manufacturing systems with forbidden early order departure , 1984 .

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

[19]  R. M. Hodgson,et al.  JOB SHOPS SCHEDULING WITH DUE DATES , 1967 .

[20]  Yih-Long Chang,et al.  A simulated annealing approach to scheduling a manufacturing cell , 1990 .

[21]  T. J. Greene,et al.  A review of cellular manufacturing assumptions, advantages and design techniques , 1984 .

[22]  Asoo J. Vakharia,et al.  Job and Family Scheduling of a Flow-Line Manufacturing Cell: A Simulation Study , 1991 .

[23]  Samuel Eilon,et al.  Due dates in job shop scheduling , 1976 .

[24]  Samuel Eilon,et al.  AN EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE INVENTORY CONTROL POLICIES , 1968 .

[25]  Ezey M. Dar-El,et al.  Job shop scheduling—A systematic approach , 1982 .

[26]  Nancy Lea Hyer,et al.  MRP/GT: a framework for production planning and control of cellular manufacturing , 1982 .