Annals of Operations Research 93 (2000) 4169 41

Comparison among three pull control policies: kanban,

base stock, and generalized kanban

C. Duri, Y. Frein

and M. Di Mascolo
Laboratoire dAutomatique de Grenoble (CNRS-INPG-UJF), ENSIEG/INPG, BP 46,
F-38402 Saint Martin dH` eres, France
E-mail: yannick.frein@gilco.inpg.fr
E-mail: maria.di-mascolo@lag.ensieg.inpg.fr
This paper is concerned with make-to-stock pull control policies. A classical policy is
the kanban policy. Another policy, very easy to implement, is the base stock policy. These
two policies contain one design parameter per stage. A general control policy, known as
the generalized kanban policy, can also be used to implement the pull mechanism. The
generalized kanban policy includes, as special cases, the kanban and the base stock policies.
This policy uses two parameters for each stage of the production system. The aim of
this paper is to provide qualitative and quantitative comparisons of these three policies.
The results of our study will help to choose the policy to implement in order to control a
production system. We give practical rules. We also show that if there is no delay in lling
orders, all three policies have similar costs. However, for the systems studied, we show
that, if there is a delay in lling orders, generalized kanban systems and base stock systems
yield close to optimal costs, which are lower than costs of kanban systems for the same
service quality.
Keywords: generalized kanban policy, kanban policy, base stock policy, queueing networks,
performance evaluation, design
1. Introduction
The aim of just-in-time policies is to produce exactly what is needed at the right
time. A classical solution is to produce according to real demands using a pull control
policy. However, when the delay in lling orders is shorter than the lead time, buffers
containing semi-nished and/or nished products are required. This paper is concerned
with these make-to-stock pull control policies. An efcient control of a pull system
must provide a good trade-off between the cost of backordered demands and the cost
of inventories.
In most cases, to implement such a policy, the initial step is to locate the dif-
ferent buffers containing semi-nished parts. This choice implies a decomposition of
the production system into stages, each stage consisting of an output buffer which

Work partially supported by the R egion Rh one-Alpes through the ORGALEA project.

GILCO, ENSGI/INPG, 46 Avenue F elix Viallet, F-38031 Grenoble, France.

J.C. Baltzer AG, Science Publishers
42 C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies
contains the nished parts of the stage and a manufacturing process which is used
to supply the output buffer of the stage. In each manufacturing process, we use a
push control, but the coordination between the different stages is achieved using a pull
mechanism.
A pull mechanism can be implemented in several ways. The best known is
the kanban policy [21], which contains one design parameter per stage and for each
type of product: the number of kanbans in the stage. This parameter allows us to
limit the maximum level of work-in-process (WIP) and nished parts of the stage.
Another policy, very easy to implement, is the base stock policy [8,20]. This policy
contains one design parameter per stage and for each type of product: the maximal
number of nished parts in the stage. This policy is very reactive: when an external
demand arrives, the information is immediately transferred to all the stages. How-
ever, the disadvantage of this method is that the maximum number of WIP is not
limited.
A general control policy, known as the generalized kanban policy, can also be
used to implement the pull mechanism [7,28]. The generalized kanban system (GKS)
includes, as special cases, the kanban system (KS) and the base stock system (BSS).
This policy uses two parameters for each stage of the production system and for each
type of product. One of the parameters limits the maximum level of WIP in the
stage and the other determines the maximum number of nished parts in the stage.
The values of these parameters considerably affect the performance measures of the
production system [19]. Let us note that other policies, not covered in this paper, have
recently been introduced in [10] (extended kanban) and in [5] (hybrid policies). These
policies are combinations of kanban, base stock, or CONWIP policies.
Much work has been carried out on each of these individual operating disci-
plines (kanban, generalized kanban and base stock), but relatively few comparison
studies have been conducted. [6,9,22] introduce and compare various generalizations
or combinations of kanban and base stock. In [1,2], dominance results comparing
some policies are given. [25] shows that the base stock policy is never exactly optimal
for a two-machine line with Poisson demand and exponential processing times.
The aim of this paper is to compare the three policies presented above. We study
single-product, multi-stage systems with each stage consisting of one or more stations
in series. Processing times are exponentially distributed and demand is Poisson. For
this class of systems, we can use approximate analytical methods to rapidly evaluate
performance measures, allowing us to nd the optimal parameters by search when
the number of stages is moderate. We also use a new constraint on the service level
through a xed delay. We nd parameter values for each of the three policies to mini-
mize holding costs under a service quality constraint. Two constraints are considered:
a certain proportion of orders must be lled immediately or within an order lead time
(OLT). The OLT is approximated by a constraint on the number of backorders. In
many industrial situations, the supplier has an OLT. For the applications we consider,
the OLT is less than the manufacturing lead time. Our approximate analytic method
evaluates these constraints for the three policies. For our examples with an OLT, GKS
C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies 43
and BSS give similar costs, which are signicantly lower than costs of a KS for the
same service quality.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a description of each policy
we consider. We present the modeling by queueing networks of a production system
for the different policies we study. This allows us to obtain a qualitative comparison
of the policies. Section 3 gives a brief presentation of the analytical methods used to
evaluate system performance measures. In section 4, we present the design procedure
and we explain how to evaluate the performance measures that appear in the design
criteria. Finally, in section 5, we present some results of comparisons between the
three pull control policies, illustrated by examples.
2. Presentation of the three pull control policies
2.1. General remarks
To implement a make-to-stock pull control policy, we must rst choose the various
buffers containing semi-nished parts. This choice implies a decomposition of the
system into stages, each stage consisting of an output buffer which contains the nished
parts of the stage, and a manufacturing process. The manufacturing process contains
products which are in service or waiting for a service. These parts represent the WIP
of the stage and are used to supply the output buffer (see gure 1).
The production of a new part is ordered by the arrival of a demand. This in-
formation is transmitted from the downstream stages to the upstream stages. The
coordination between the different stages must allow the transfer of products and in-
formation throughout the production system. There is a ow of parts moving from
upstream stages to downstream stages, and a ow of demands moving from down-
stream stages to upstream stages.
We now provide a brief description of the coordination mechanism for the three
pull control policies that we consider.
In this paper we consider production systems made up of N stages in series
and producing only one type of product. For each Stage i, the manufacturing process
contains m
i
machines, which can be in series, in parallel, or in any other conguration.
We assume that there are always raw parts in front of the rst stage of the system and
Figure 1. An example of production systems made up of three stages in series.
44 C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies
Figure 2. Queueing network corresponding to a KS made up of three stages in series.
that the external demands are backordered when no nished part is present in the last
stage.
2.2. Kanban policy
Since the kanban policy is a well-known pull control policy, we shall not describe
the behavior of a KS in detail. Figure 2 shows the queueing network corresponding
to the production system of gure 1 for a kanban policy.
The manufacturing process of Stage i is represented by an oval denoted by MP
i
,
for i = 1, . . . , N. In a KS, let us recall that a xed number of kanbans, K
i
, is
associated with Stage i. Each part which is present in MP
i
is assigned a kanban from
Stage i. The link between the Stages i and i +1 is represented by a synchronization
station consisting of two queues:
queue P
i
, which represents the output buffer and contains the nished parts of
Stage i with their associated kanban (Stage i kanban);
queue D
i+1
, which contains the demands for the processing of products by Stage
i +1 and their associated kanban (Stage i +1 kanban).
For the synchronization station of Stage N, queue P
N
contains the nished parts
of the production system, which will be used to satisfy customer demands, and queue
D
N+1
contains the external demands.
Note that if we stop the arrival process of external demands and if we wait long
enough, queues P
i
will return to their maximum level K
i
and the other queues will
be empty.
2.3. Base stock policy
The base stock policy is a very easy to implement pull control policy. Figure 3
shows the queueing network corresponding to the production system represented in
gure 1 for a base stock policy.
C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies 45
Figure 3. Queueing network corresponding to a BSS made up of three stages in series.
Each manufacturing process is again represented by an oval denoted by MP
i
,
and the link between stages is modeled by a synchronization station at the output of
each stage. The synchronization station is made up of two queues, one containing the
nished parts of the stage (P
i
) and the other (A
i+1
) containing demands for products
from the next stage. Note that when a demand arrives in the system, an entity is
simultaneously transferred to MP
1
, as raw material is always available, as well as
to A
2
, A
3
and A
4
.
The purpose of a BSS is to satisfy demands and to lead P
i
to its maximum
level S
i
. Thus, if we stop the demand arrival process and if we wait long enough,
the nal state of the system will be: S
i
products in queues P
i
, and the other queues
(and MP
i
) empty for i = 1 to 3. Moreover, we have proved (see [16]) the following
property for the state of the queues at each time:
Q
A
i
+Q
MP
i
+Q
P
i
= Q
A
i+1
+S
i
for i > 1,
Q
MP
1
+Q
P
1
= Q
A
2
+S
1
,
where the notation Q
X
stands for the number of customers (or parts or kanbans) in
any queue X. This notation will be used in the remainder of the paper.
2.4. Generalized kanban policy
The generalized kanban policy is an extension of the kanban policy. To simplify
the presentation, we shall introduce this policy from the kanban policy.
In a GKS, the link between Stages i and i + 1 is also represented by a syn-
chronization mechanism (see gure 4). However, this mechanism is made up of two
synchronization stations, each containing two queues: P
i
and A
i+1
on the one hand,
D
i+1
and B
i
on the other. The entities of queue P
i
represent the nished parts from
Stage i. In queue A
i+1
we place the kanbans associated with Stage i +1 which repre-
sent the authorizations to transfer nished parts of Stage i to Stage i +1. The entities
of queue D
i+1
represent the demands for the processing of new parts in Stage i. Fi-
46 C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies
Figure 4. Queueing network representing a GKS made up of three stages in series.
nally, B
i
contains the kanbans of Stage i which authorize information to move to the
upstream stage.
The GKS can be seen to be an extension of a KS by noting that
(1) queue P
i
of the KS is split into two queues, P
i
and B
i
, in the GKS: we separate
the product from its associated kanban at the output of the manufacturing process
MP
i
;
(2) queue D
i+1
of the KS is split into two queues, D
i+1
and A
i+1
, in the GKS: we
separate the demand from its associated kanban.
The last station is special because it models the link with the external demands.
The two simple synchronization stations are made up of the queues P
N
and A
N+1
on
the one hand, and D
N+1
and B
N
on the other, where
P
N
contains the nished parts of the production system,
A
N+1
contains the backordered demands,
D
N+1
contains the demands for production of new parts by Stage N,
B
N
contains the authorizations to transfer processing orders to Stage N 1 (free
kanbans of Stage N).
We shall now describe the behavior of the GKS, which depends on the values
of the parameters of the different stages. Note that if we stop the arrival process of
external demands and if we wait long enough, queues P
i
will contain parts, and queues
B
i
will contain kanbans. All the other queues will be empty. A single-product GKS
has two parameters per stage: S
i
, which is the number of parts in queue P
i
(at the
latence state), and corresponds to the maximum number of parts in queue P
i
, and K
i
,
which is the number of kanbans in queue B
i
(at the latence state), and represents the
number of kanbans associated with Stage i. A GKS tries to bring back queues P
i
to
their maximum level while satisfying the demands and controlling the WIP.
The behavior of the production system is the following. Let us rst consider the
ith linkage station (i = 1, . . . , N 1). As soon as there is at least one product in P
i
C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies 47
and at least one kanban associated with Stage i + 1 in A
i+1
, a product/kanban pair
is transferred to the manufacturing process MP
i+1
, where it will be treated. When
processing is complete, the kanban is separated from the product to join queue B
i+1
and the product is transferred to queue P
i+1
. Now, let us consider the synchronization
between queues D
i+1
and B
i
. As soon as there is at least one demand in D
i+1
and
at least one Stage i kanban present in B
i
, a demand/kanban pair will be transferred
to the preceding stage. The demand will then join queue D
i
and the kanban will
join queue A
i
. In a GKS, consumption of parts and transfer of information are not
simultaneous.
The last synchronization station, which receives the external demands, is special.
An external demand gives two pieces of information when it arrives: a customer
demand must be satised, which is indicated by an entity joining queue A
N+1
, and
a new product must be processed, which is represented by an entity joining queue
D
N+1
before being transferred to the upstream stage (as soon as there is a kanban in
queue B
N
). If a nished part is present in P
N
when a demand arrives, the demand is
immediately satised and a nished part leaves the system. Otherwise, the demand is
backordered in A
N+1
until a product becomes available.
Let us describe the routing of the entities in the network for a GKS or a KS. In
both cases, the parts move from the upstream stages to the downstream stages, visiting
in turn the manufacturing process MP
1
, queue P
1
, and then MP
2
, P
2
, . . . , MP
N
, P
N
.
The demands move from the downstream part to the upstream part of the system
visiting in turn queues D
N+1
, D
N
, . . . , D
2
. However, in a GKS, unlike a KS, the
products and the demands are not always associated with a kanban.
Let us describe the routing of the Stage i kanbans. In a GKS, the kanbans move
in a closed network made up of queues A
i
, MP
i
, and B
i
. Note that, in a KS, the
closed network is made up of the queues D
i
, MP
i
, and P
i
. Thus, in each case, we can
associate a closed queueing network with each type of kanban. For a GKS, we thus
obtain the following relation:
Q
A
i
+Q
MP
i
+Q
B
i
= K
i
for i = 1, . . . , N. (1)
Remark. As we consider that there are always raw parts in front of the rst stage of
the system, we have Q
A
1
= 0.
Other closed sub-networks appear in this model (see gure 4). The number of
customers in these sub-networks is constant and equal to the number of customers
present at the initial state. We can then deduce some properties. All the properties
and their proofs are presented in [19]. Here, we give only a few important properties
and some comments.
In a GKS, we can give limits for the various queues of the network. Let us
mention some of these limits:
Q
MP
i
K
i
for i = 1, . . . , N, (2)
Q
P
i
S
i
for i = 1, . . . , N, (3)
48 C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies
Q
B
i
K
i
S
i
K
i+1
for i = 1, . . . , N 1. (4)
Relation (2) implies that the WIP of Stage i is limited by K
i
, which shows the
existence of a WIP control. Relation (3) states that the nished parts of queue P
i
are
limited by S
i
.
Moreover, relation (4) implies that if K
i
> S
i
+ K
i+1
then K
i
S
i
K
i+1
kanbans will always stay in B
i
and will not affect the behavior of the production
system. Thus, as already pointed out in [7], these kanbans are useless and we will
therefore only consider the following congurations:
K
i
K
i+1
+S
i
for i = 1, . . . , N 1. (5)
Finally, as shown in [18], a GKS with K
i
= S
i
(>0) for i = 1, . . . , N is
equivalent to the KS with the same K
i
, and a GKS with K
i
= + for i = 1, . . . , N
is equivalent to the BSS with the same S
i
.
As KS and BSS are special cases of GKS, we can conclude that GKS can always
be at least as good as KS and BSS. We shall now conduct a quantitative comparison
of these policies in order to see, on examples, whether or not the difference between
the policies is signicant. We shall use analytical methods to estimate the performance
measures of GKS, KS and BSS.
3. Analytical methods for performance evaluation
We now summarize analytical methods which allow us to analyze GKS, KS and
BSS corresponding to the class of systems we study in this paper: stages in series,
Poisson demand arrival process and stations with exponentially distributed processing
times.
For all the policies, performance measures depend on manufacturing processes,
arrival process of external demands, and parameters of the different stages.
3.1. Kanban and generalized kanban systems
To obtain stationary performance measures, we use an approximation analytical
method, which has been developed for KS [13,15] and extended to GKS [14,19].
These methods allow us to study systems under the following hypothesis: in a
given stage, all the queues have a capacity higher than the number of kanbans of the
stage, thus avoiding blocking; the routing throughout each stage is probabilistic; the
service time distribution of each machine and the arrival process of external demands
are general and are represented by phase-type distributions. The phase-type distribu-
tions, introduced by Neuts [23, pp. 4180], allow us to characterize the behavior of the
system by a Markov chain. In all the examples considered in this paper, the service
time distribution of each machine and the interarrival process of external demands
are represented by exponential distributions, which are a special case of phase-type
distributions. We can thus apply the above methods to the analysis of the systems
studied in this paper.
C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies 49
The queueing networks of a KS and a GKS can be seen as closed multi-class
queueing networks by considering each type of kanban as one class of customers.
To analyze these queueing networks, we use an approximation method based on
product-form approximation. The idea of the method is to approximate the perfor-
mance measures of the multi-class queueing network using a set of closed single-class
product-form queueing networks.
These methods [14,15] enable us to obtain several stationary performance mea-
sures, such as average WIP and mean number of nished parts at each stage, mean
number of waiting demands or proportion of backordered demands. These methods
have been tested on many numerical examples. The results obtained were compared
with simulation ones. The methods appear to be very accurate (a few percents of
relative error on the performance measures, in general), and very rapid (around one
second on a SUN/SPARC station). For numerical results see [15] for KS and [19] for
GKS. In the present paper, we need a new performance measure (probability of having
n demands waiting for nished parts). In appendix A, we describe how this measure
can be obtained.
3.2. Base stock systems
We have examined two analytical methods encountered in the literature for per-
formance evaluation of BSS made up of stages in series. One of them is Buzacott
et al.s method [8] and the other is Svoronos and Zipkins method [24]. These two
methods have been applied to stages made up of one station with an exponential ser-
vice time distribution and yield the same results [17]. Thus, for the design, we use
Svoronos and Zipkins method, which is the easiest to extend to more complex stages.
At the end of this section, we give the extensions we performed.
We now summarize the method initially proposed by Svoronos and Zipkin.
Let us consider the ith manufacturing process with its upstream and downstream
synchronization stations (gure 5).
The notations we use are listed below. We have already dened
Q
P
i
: number of nished parts in synchronization station i,
Q
A
i+1
: number of waiting demands in synchronization station i,
S
i
: maximum number of nished parts in synchronization station i.
Let us now dene

i
: waiting time of demands in synchronization station i,
T
i
: ow time of the ith manufacturing process
and some combinations of these quantities:
L
i
: L
i
=
i1
+T
i
,
E
i
: E
i
= S
i
Q
P
i
+Q
A
i+1
.
50 C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies
Figure 5. ith manufacturing process with its upstream and downstream synchronization stations.
This method is based on the properties of phase-type distributions. We can thus
only use it if the ow times of the different stages have continuous phase-type distri-
butions (called CPH). In this case, using the representation introduced by Neuts [23,
p. 45], the ow time distribution of Stage i, F
T
i
, is denoted by
F
T
i
CPH(
i
, H
i
),
where
i
: vector of initial probabilities and H
i
: transition matrix.
We shall now briey explain the method. The reader can nd details in [24]
which uses properties of phase-type distributions demonstrated in [23]. First of all,
the authors consider that they know the distribution of L
i
denoted by
F
L
i
CPH(
i
, C
i
).
The authors use the following key result: The discrete variable E
i
has the same
distribution as the number of demands in a random time L
i
with distribution F
L
i
.
From this key result and from the properties of phase-type distributions [23,
p. 59], they obtain the discrete phase-type distribution (called DPH) of E
i
:
F
E
i
DPH(
i
, R
i
) with R
i
= (I C
i
)
1
and
i
=
i
.R
i
.
Furthermore, Q
A
i+1
= max(0, E
i
S
i
) and phase-type properties allow us to
dene
F
Q
A
i+1
DPH
_

i
.R
S
i
i
, R
i
_
.
The authors use another key result: The variable Q
A
i+1
has the same distribution
as the number of demands in a random time
i
with a distribution F

i
. Therefore,
using phase-type distribution properties [23, p. 59], it can be deduced that
F

i
CPH
_

i
.R
S
i
i
, C
i
_
.
Moreover, L
i+1
is the sum of
i
(waiting time of demands in synchronization
station i) and T
i+1
(ow time of the (i + 1)th manufacturing process). Therefore,
C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies 51
assuming the independence of the random variables, they obtain F
L
i+1
= F

i
F
T
i+1
(where represents the convolution operator). The phase-type distribution convolution
formula is then written as
F
L
i+1
CPH(
i+1
, C
i+1
)
with

i+1
=
_

i
.R
S
i
i
,
_
1
i
.R
S
i
i
.e
_
.
i+1

, C
i+1
=
_
C
i
C
i
.e.
i+1
0 H
i+1
_
.
In conclusion, knowing F
L
i
(CPH), F
E
i
, F
Q
A
i+1
(DPH), F

i
, and F
L
i+1
(CPH)
are obtained. Moreover, L
1
is equal to T
1
(because
0
= 0) and F
T
1
is known, so
F
L
1
is known. This allows, by induction, F
L
i
, F
E
i
, F
Q
A
i+1
, and F

i
to be evaluated
for i = 2, . . . , N. Then, from these distributions, the performance measures of the
production system can be obtained.
Let us recall that F
T
i
must be known in order to apply the method, and one of
the main difculties of the method is to obtain F
T
i
.
Lee and Zipkin [20] have applied the method to a system with one exponential
station in each stage. To obtain the distribution F
T
i
, the authors have assumed that the
arrival process at each stage is a Poisson arrival process. Thus, if Stage i is made up
of an exponential machine (with a service rate of
i
) and if the demand arrival process
is a Poisson arrival process (with an arrival rate of ), the manufacturing process MP
i
can be studied in the same way as an M/M/1 queue with an arrival rate of and a
service rate of
i
. Therefore, T
i
has an exponential distribution with a rate of
i
.
As we know the rate
i
(for i = 1 to N) and , the distribution F
T
i
is known for
i = 1 to N.
We then extended the analysis to several exponential machines and a probabilistic
routing in a stage. We also proposed another extension which allows us to take into
account more complex service time distributions. The machines can have a Coxian-2
service time distribution. We can then identify the rst two moments of a general
distribution (if the squared coefcient of variation is greater than or equal to 0.5). This
extended method yields good results (for numerical results see [17]).
4. Optimization
To compare the policies, we must rst design the system for each one of the
policies. Many papers in the literature deal with KS design, and more particularly
optimization of the number of kanbans in each stage. See for example [3,4,11,26].
Details on these papers are given in [12]. These optimizations aim to provide a good
trade-off between the cost of producing ahead of what is needed and therefore building
up inventory (which implies a holding cost) and the cost of not being able to satisfy
the demands on time (i.e., service quality). For example in [12], the author designs KS
by minimizing a cost function equal to the weighted sum of the number of kanbans
52 C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies
in each stage (as a measure of the holding cost) and the mean number of waiting
demands (as a measure of service quality). He also looks for the conguration with
the proportion of backordered demands lower than a given level with the minimal cost
(the cost function is equal to the weighted sum of the number of kanbans in each stage).
To the best of our knowledge, such optimization methods do not exist for gen-
eralized kanban systems. Therefore we must rst develop a new design method. This
method will be adapted for kanban and base stock systems, since they are particular
cases of generalized kanban systems. Let us begin by presenting the design criteria
that we have chosen.
4.1. Criteria
We produce a design under a service quality constraint with minimization of a
cost function, i.e., we search for the conguration satisfying a given constraint and
which has the minimum cost. We use the following two service quality performance
measures:
(1) the probability that an arriving demand is backordered (denoted by P
A
rupt
),
(2) the probability that an arriving demand sees more than n waiting demands, ex-
cluding itself (denoted by P
A
(Q > n)).
Performance measure 1 is used when we are concerned with demands that must
be immediately satised and performance measure 2 allows us to introduce a delay
in lling orders. Giving a delay in lling orders is equivalent to authorizing some
demands to wait. We have chosen to introduce performance measure 2 because, in
many industries, when a customer sends an order, the industry has a delay (which
depends on the type of industries) in which it must be satised. However, at the
end of the delay, virtually all the demands must be satised if possible. Likewise, in
subcontracting relations, the subcontractor has a delay in lling orders.
As our aim in this paper is to compare the three policies in steady-state behavior,
we shall try to include the estimation of these performance measures in the two analyt-
ical methods described in subsections 3.1 and 3.2. We limited our study to exponential
demand arrival distributions. To obtain the performance measures, we must study the
last station of the production system for the three policies.
P
A
rupt
is the probability that an arriving demand is backordered, which is equal, in
our case of a Poisson demand arrival process, to the stationary probability of having
no nished parts in the station (Arrival theorem [27]), denoted by P
rupt
.
Similarly, P
A
(Q > n) is equal to the stationary probability of having more than
n customers which are waiting (Arrival theorem), denoted by P(Q > n).
4.1.1. Calculation of P
rupt
and P(Q > n) in KS and GKS
P
rupt
is directly obtained using the method described in subsection 3.1 and
P(Q > n) is equal to
C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies 53
P(Q > n) =

x=n+1
P(Q
D
N+1
= x) for a KS,
P(Q > n) =

x=n+1
P(Q
A
N+1
= x) for a GKS.
We describe in appendix A how to obtain P(Q
A
N+1
= n) for a GKS, and
P(Q
D
N+1
= n) for a KS.
4.1.2. Calculation of P
rupt
and P(Q > n) in BSS
In subsection 3.2 we saw that:
F
Q
Ai+1
DPH
_

i
.R
S
i
i
, R
i
_
for i = 1, . . . , N,
F

i
CPH
_

i
.R
S
i
i
, C
i
_
for i = 1, . . . , N.
Using these two denitions and some properties of phase-type distributions [23],
we can evaluate the two performance measures.
We denote by e the column vector where all the components are equal to 1.
First, using a result given in [23, p. 46] on discrete phase-type distributions we
can directly obtain P(Q > n):
P(Q > n) = P(Q
A
N+1
> n) =
_

N
.R
S
N
N
_
.R
n
N
e =
N
R
n+S
N
N
.e.
To obtain P
rupt
, we use F

i
because P
rupt
is equal to the probability of no delay.
Moreover, using a result given in [23, p. 45] on continuous phase-type distributions,
we know that
P(
i
t) = 1
i
.R
S
i
i
. exp(C
i
t).e.
We can thus deduce P
rupt
:
P
rupt
= P(
N
= 0) = P(
N
0) = 1
N
.R
S
N
N
.e.
Then, if we denote by Lim the maximum accepted value for the performance
measures P
rupt
or P(Q > n), the constraints are: P
rupt
Lim or P(Q > n) Lim.
The cost function depends on the number of entities in the various buffers. We have
chosen the following cost function:
N

i=1
c
i
.Q
MP
i
+h
i
.Q
P
i
,
where c
i
represents the holding cost associated with the WIP of Stage i, h
i
represents
the holding cost associated with the nished parts of Stage i.
With this function, we can associate a cost with each conguration and then
compare the different congurations that satisfy the constraint. We will use the word
solution for a conguration which satises the chosen constraint (for example P(Q >
10) 0.01), and optimal solution (or optimal conguration) for the solution with
54 C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies
the minimum cost. Let us specify that since the performance evaluation methods
(described in section 3) are approximate ones, the optimal solution could be slightly
different if we used an exact performance evaluation method. In the following we will
nevertheless call optimal conguration the solution obtained using our procedure.
We shall now see how it can be found without testing all the congurations.
4.2. Design procedure for generalized kanban systems
First we must set the initial conguration and limits of the parameters values.
We have chosen 100 as the maximum value of each parameter. We initialize the
parameters S
i
to 0 (for i = 1 to N). To obtain the initial values of the parameters K
i
,
we can, for example, study each stage separately. For each stage, we calculate the
production capacity of the stage for different values of the number of kanbans in the
stage. Indeed, if we study a single stage the production capacity depends only on this
parameter [19]. The initial value of K
i
is set to the minimum number of kanbans for
which the production capacity of Stage i (operated in isolation) is strictly higher than
the arrival rate of demands.
To nd the optimal conguration, we use an enumerative method: we test all the
possible congurations (K
i
varying from its initial value to 100 and S
i
varying from
its initial value to 100 for i = 1, . . . , N) in the order given by algorithm 1. We shall
later show that many congurations can be excluded due to special properties of the
problem.
Algorithm 1.
For S
N
= initial value to 100 do
. . .
For S
1
= initial value to 100 do
For K
N
= initial value to 100 do
. . .
For K
1
= initial value to 100 do
Performance evaluation of the current conguration
End for
. . .
End for
End for
. . .
End for
For each conguration, we estimate the performance measures using the analytical
method described in subsection 3.1 to determine the congurations which are solutions
(i.e., satisfy the constraint). Then, among the congurations that are solutions, we
choose the conguration with the lowest cost.
C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies 55
In reality, we do not test all the congurations. We now describe two conditions,
which allow us to eliminate congurations without testing them because they cannot
be an optimal conguration:
For all the parameters, before the rst incrementation we go to the maximal value
of the parameter. If we cannot obtain a solution for this value, it means that we
can move to the following parameter (for example, we move to K
i+1
if the current
parameter is K
i
) because the incrementation of the current parameter will not lead
to a solution. On the other hand, if we obtain a solution, we return to the initial
conguration and continue the execution of the algorithm.
The second point concerns the value of the incrementation. For the parameters S
i
(for i = 1 to N in a GKS), the value is 1, but for the parameters K
i
the value of the
incrementation can be greater than 1, which allows us to skip some congurations
and thus to save time. If we are interested in parameter K
i
, when we have two
values of the design performance measures Pb
1
and Pb
2
, which correspond to two
successive values of K
i
, we can deduce that an incrementation of 1 of K
i
(with
the current value of K
i
) allows us to obtain a variation Pb = Pb
1
Pb
2
. We
have observed that, when K
i
increases, the value of the variation Pb decreases
(concavity of the performance measures). Thus, the value of the variation is lower
than or equal to Pb for a variation of K
i
of 1. Thus, we can carry out a skip
equal to x without dropping below Lim, with the following denition of x:
x = ENT
_
Pb
2
Lim
Pb
_
,
where ENT(y) is the lowest integer closest to y.
Finally, let us note that the developed design procedure, which is based on an
enumeration, is well adapted to the systems studied in section 5. However, for systems
containing a large number of parameters, there will be too many congurations to test.
4.3. Design procedure for kanban and base stock systems
To design a KS or a BSS, the principle is the same as for a GKS (see sub-
section 4.2). Thus, the algorithm that summarizes the different steps of the de-
sign is the same with some simplications. The main simplication stems from the
fact that a KS contains only parameters K
i
and a BSS uses only parameters S
i
for
i = 1, . . . , N.
To evaluate the performance measures of the system, we use the method described
in subsection 3.1 for a KS and in subsection 3.2 for a BSS.
We have also made the modication proposed for GKS, which consists of testing
the maximum value of a parameter before beginning its incrementation. If no solution
exists with this maximum value, the incrementation of this parameter in the current
context is useless and we must increment the following parameter.
56 C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies
5. Comparisons
We compare the optimal costs of the three policies, C
GKS
, C
KS
, C
BSS
for the
same service quality constraint. As GKS includes KS and BSS as special cases, the
following inequalities hold: C
GKS
C
KS
and C
GKS
C
BSS
. We consider successively
examples made up of one stage to four stages. Let us note that for the cases 1, 2 and 4
stages the production system is the same (four stations in series). This will help us to
see the inuence of the number of stages for a given production system. For all our
designs, the service level constraint is P
rupt
or P(Q > n) less than or equal to 0.02
(i.e., Lim = 0.02), and n varying from 1 to 10.
5.1. Production systems made up of one stage, containing four machines
Let us rst study a stage made up of four stations in series; the service time of
each station has an exponential distribution with a mean service time equal to 1. The
arrival process of demands is Poisson, and we are concerned with two values of the
arrival rate of demands denoted by : 0.5 and 0.8.
With a make-to-order policy, we obtain the following probabilities:
For = 0.5, P(Q > 1) = 0.812, P(Q > 5) = 0.254, P(Q > 10) = 0.029.
For = 0.8, P(Q > 1) = 0.993, P(Q > 5) = 0.914, P(Q > 10) = 0.698.
Therefore, make-to-order policies do not satisfy the service quality constraint.
5.1.1. Optimal congurations
For each value of , we design the production system for a kanban policy (KS),
a generalized kanban policy (GKS) and a base stock policy (BSS) with, in turn, the
performance measures P
rupt
and P(Q > n) for n = 0, 2, 5, and 10. Note that the cost
function used for the design is dened as follows for a single-stage production system:
c.Q
MP
1
+ h.Q
P
1
. For our study, we have set c to 1 and we have studied the design
for several values of h greater than or equal to 1 (cost of nished parts greater than
or equal to the cost of WIP). For h equal to 1, the optimal congurations are given in
table 1.
Table 1
Optimal congurations for a single-stage production system composed of four exponential stations in
series.
Design = 0.5 = 0.8
criterion KS BSS GKS KS BSS GKS
Prupt 0.02 K = 12 S = 12 K = 11, S = 12 K = 40 S = 40 K = 37, S = 40
P(Q > 0) 0.02 K = 11 S = 11 K = 11, S = 11 K = 39 S = 39 K = 37, S = 39
P(Q > 2) 0.02 K = 10 S = 9 K = 11, S = 9 K = 37 S = 37 K = 37, S = 37
P(Q > 5) 0.02 K = 8 S = 6 K = 11, S = 6 K = 35 S = 34 K = 37, S = 34
P(Q > 10) 0.02 K = 6 S = 1 K = 11, S = 1 K = 31 S = 29 K = 37, S = 29
C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies 57
First, for the chosen criteria, we have always observed that S in the GKS is equal
to S in the BSS for the optimal congurations.
We can also see that, for a KS, the higher the number of demands that can
wait (n high), the lower the optimal number of kanbans. Similarly, for the GKS and
the BSS, the higher n, the lower the optimal value of S. When we increase n, we
can decrease the maximum number of nished parts which are necessary to satisfy
the design criteria as we will need parts later. Moreover, we can see that, when
increases, the values of the optimal conguration parameters increase.
We have experimentally observed that, for each of the three policies, the optimal
congurations are the same whatever h 1. Let us try to intuitively explain this
result.
For a single-stage KS, we have only one parameter (K) to design: we therefore
search for the minimum value of K satisfying the design criteria. For a greater value
of K, the WIP and the nished parts will increase and the cost of the solution will
be greater. Thus, the minimum value of K, which is a solution, is independent of h.
h will only change the value of the cost.
For a BSS, we also have only one parameter (S) to design, thus we look for the
minimum value of S which is a solution. For a higher value of S, the WIP is the same
but the number of nished parts increases and implies that the cost of the solution is
greater. The design is thus independent of the value of h.
For a GKS, we have observed that, for h equal to 1, the rst solution obtained
is the optimal solution. If we look at the classication of the parameters (see subsec-
tion 5.2), we can conclude that the optimal conguration is the conguration that is a
solution and has the smallest value of S. This implies that, if for h equal to 1 the rst
solution is (K
1
, S
1
) with an associated cost C
1
, then for any other solution (K
k
, S
k
)
with an associated cost C
k
, we have C
k
C
1
and S
k
S
1
. When we increase h,
we add a cost to nished parts. We shall thus try to decrease the number of nished
parts. Moreover, experimentally, we have observed that, in order to decrease the mean
number of nished parts, we must decrease S. Thus, the optimal conguration will
have a value S S
1
. Furthermore we have seen above that the optimal conguration
for h equal to 1 is the conguration that is a solution and has the minimum value of S.
Therefore, the optimal conguration is the same whatever h 1.
5.1.2. Optimal costs
Let us now compare the optimal cost of the three policies. Let us consider, for
example, the cost obtained for n = 5 and = 0.5. For the optimal conguration, the
values of the WIP and mean number of nished parts are given in table 2.
We can then write the following relations:
C
GKS
= 3.97 +h 2.47, C
KS
= 3.87 +h 4.13, C
BSS
= 4 +h 2.48,
C
KS
C
GKS
= 0.10 +h 1.66, C
BSS
C
GKS
= 0.03 +h 0.01,
C
KS
C
BSS
= 0.126923 +h 1.65.
58 C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies
Table 2
WIP and mean number of nished parts corresponding to the
optimal conguration obtained for = 0.5 and n = 5.
WIP Finished parts
KS 3.87 4.13
BSS 4.00 2.48
GKS 3.97 2.47
Table 3
Costs associated with the optimal congurations given in table 1, for h = 10.
Design = 0.5 = 0.8
criterion KS BSS GKS KS BSS GKS
Prupt 0.02 84.2 84.3 84.1 256.7 257.0 256.4
P(Q > 0) 0.02 74.3 74.4 74.3 246.8 247.2 246.6
P(Q > 2) 0.02 64.4 55.2 55.1 227.1 227.6 227.1
P(Q > 5) 0.02 45.2 28.8 28.7 207.5 198.6 198.1
P(Q > 10) 0.02 26.7 4.62 4.59 168.8 151.7 151.3
The latter relation allows us to conclude that, for this example and for h 1, the
base stock policy is better than the kanban policy since C
KS
C
BSS
is always positive.
These relations also show that the generalized kanban policy is better than the kanban
policy and the base stock policy. We can also deduce that the higher h is, the more
important the difference between the policies becomes. However, we can note that the
costs of GKS and BSS are very close.
More generally, table 3 lists the costs associated with the optimal congurations
given in table 1 for h equal to 10.
For the chosen criteria, the optimal costs are very close for the base stock policy
and the generalized kanban policy. However, with a cost depending on the maximum
value of WIP, the difference between BSS and GKS would be greater. Indeed, in a
BSS, there is no limit for the WIP.
We can also note that, when parameter S of the GKS is equal to parameter K of
the KS, the costs of the optimal congurations for GKS and for KS are very close; the
generalized kanban policy allows us only to remove the kanbans that may be useless.
We can also see that the difference between GKS and KS is signicant when, in the
optimal conguration, parameter S of the GKS is strictly less than parameter K of
the KS. In this case, the generalized kanban policy allows us to reduce the number
of nished parts by counterbalancing with kanbans, which makes the system more
reactive. For example, when we take a high value of n, for instance 10, the generalized
kanban policy allows us to decrease the cost by 83% for = 0.5.
Finally, we can see that, when increases, the difference between the generalized
kanban policy and the kanban policy decreases.
The one-stage system studied here contains four exponential stations, however
the same type of observation can be made for other systems. We carried out exten-
C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies 59
Table 4
Optimal congurations and associated costs for h = 1 and = 0.5.
Design criterion KS BSS GKS
Prupt 0.02 K = (3, 11) S = (0, 12) K = (6, 13), S = (0, 12)
C = 13.3 C = 12.0 C = 11.9
P(Q > 1) 0.02 K = (3, 9) S = (0, 10) K = (6, 13), S = (0, 10)
C = 11.4 C = 10.1 C = 9.98
P(Q > 5) 0.02 K = (3, 6) S = (0, 6) K = (6, 13), S = (0, 6)
C = 8.46 C = 6.48 C = 6.40
P(Q > 10) 0.02 K = (3, 4) S = (0, 1) K = (6, 13), S = (0, 1)
C = 6.59 C = 4.06 C = 3.99
sive numerical tests with two, four and six stations in the stage, which conrmed
this.
5.2. Production systems made up of two stages, each containing two machines
We shall now consider the same production system (made up of four stations in
series) but with the additional possibility of stocking semi-nished parts at the output
of the second machine. The service rate of each machine is 1. Many cost functions
can be used for the design. We have chosen to present results obtained with the cost
function Q
MP
1
+ Q
MP
2
+ Q
P
1
+ hQ
P
2
for h 1. We put a higher cost only on the
nished parts of the production system.
5.2.1. Design for h = 1
Let us begin by the design of the system for each of the three policies and for
h = 1. First, let us set the arrival rate of demands to 0.5. Table 4 contains the
optimal congurations and the associated costs. We denote by K the vector with
the two components K
1
and K
2
, and by S the vector with the two components S
1
and S
2
.
We carry out the same study for =0.8 and we report the results in table 5.
We can see that, when we authorize a large number of waiting demands (n high),
we need fewer nished parts in the output buffer of the second stage. This implies
that, when n increases, in a KS the optimal value of K
2
decreases and, in a GKS or
in a BSS the optimal value of S
2
decreases.
For both designs, h is equal to 1: WIP, semi-nished parts and nished parts have
the same stocking cost. Thus, for GKS and BSS, the optimal conguration contains no
semi-nished parts (S
1
= 0); indeed, it is better to stock products close to the external
demands to ensure service quality. We can thus note that the optimal BSS is the same
as the optimal BSS obtained with only one stage. For KS, K
1
cannot be equal to 0
because it must provide the production capacity necessary, in the rst stage, to satisfy
demands.
60 C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies
Table 5
Optimal congurations and associated costs for h = 1 and = 0.8.
Design criterion KS BSS GKS
Prupt 0.02 K = (12, 32) S = (0, 40) K = (20, 41), S = (0, 40)
C = 42.4 C = 40.1 C = 39.7
P(Q > 1) 0.02 K = (12, 30) S = (0, 38) K = (20, 41), S = (0, 38)
C = 40.4 C = 38.1 C = 37.8
P(Q > 5) 0.02 K = (12, 26) S = (0, 34) K = (20, 41), S = (0, 34)
C = 36.5 C = 34.3 C = 33.9
P(Q > 10) 0.02 K = (11, 23) S = (0, 29) K = (20, 41), S = (0, 29)
C = 32.2 C = 29.6 C = 29.2
Table 6
Optimal congurations and associated costs for h = 10 and = 0.5.
Design criterion KS BSS GKS
Prupt 0.02 K = (5, 9) S = (10, 8) K = (7, 11), S = (10, 8)
C = 75.46 C = 72.18 C = 72.11
P(Q > 1) 0.02 K = (5, 7) S = (10, 6) K = (7, 11), S = (10, 6)
C = 55.81 C = 52.73 C = 52.66
P(Q > 5) 0.02 K = (5, 4) S = (4, 3) K = (6, 8), S = (4, 3)
C = 27.75 C = 19.47 C = 19.32
P(Q > 10) 0.02 K = (4, 3) S = (1, 0) K = (6, 12), S = (1, 0)
C = 17.53 C = 4.25 C = 4.18
Moreover, we can see in tables 4 and 5 that the vector of parameters K in the
GKS depends on and not on n. The kanbans are used to provide the production
capacity necessary to satisfy demands.
We also note that S
1
plus S
2
in the GKS is less than K
1
plus K
2
in the KS.
We can verify that, as increases, the values of the optimal conguration para-
meters increase.
The difference between the cost of the optimal congurations of GKS and KS
increases signicantly when n increases. More precisely, in table 4 we see that this
difference varies from 10.5% (P
rupt
) to 39.4% (P(Q > 10)) for h = 1 and = 0.5.
5.2.2. Design for h = 10
We shall now study the inuence of h with the design of GKS, KS and BSS.
First, let us give the optimal congurations and the associated costs for the previous
production system with h = 10 and = 0.5 (table 6) then 0.8 (table 7).
When h is equal to 10, the cost of stocking nished parts is ten times higher
than for the other parts. This implies that it is cheaper to stock products in the output
buffer of the rst stage than in the output buffer of the second stage. The policies thus
C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies 61
Table 7
Optimal congurations and associated costs for h = 10 and = 0.8.
Design criterion KS BSS GKS
Prupt 0.02 K = (20, 27) S = (25, 26) K = (64, 54), S = (25, 26)
C = 215.6449 C = 212.9951 C = 212.9946
P(Q > 1) 0.02 K = (20, 25) S = (25, 24) K = (64, 54), S = (25, 24)
C = 195.9895 C = 193.4362 C = 193.4358
P(Q > 5) 0.02 K = (22, 21) S = (25, 20) K = (64, 54), S = (25, 20)
C = 160.0293 C = 154.9999 C = 154.9994
P(Q > 10) 0.02 K = (21, 17) S = (25, 15) K = (30, 34), S = (18, 16)
C = 120.8944 C = 109.4413 C = 109.3692
try to decrease S
2
. However, there must be enough nished parts in the second stage
to ensure service quality.
Again, we can note that in most cases, parameters S for the GKS are equal to
parameters S for the BSS and the costs are very close for these two policies.
Finally, note that for n = 10 and = 0.5, we obtain S
2
= 0 for BSS and GKS.
This means that the second stage works with a make-to-order policy.
5.2.3. Inuence of the number of stages
Let us recall that the production system we have just studied (two stages in
series and two machines in tandem in each stage) corresponds physically to the rst
production system we have considered in this part (one stage made up of four stations
in series). Indeed, the two systems contain four exponential stations in series. We can
note that for h equal to 10 and for the three policies, it is better to divide the system
into two stages (see table 3 for the one stage case and tables 6 and 7 for the two-stage
case). This is because, with two stages, we can stock semi-nished parts, which are
less expensive than nished parts.
For h equal to 1, the previous remark on the decomposition of the system still
applies for a GKS, but not for a KS, for which it is better to have only one stage. For
a BSS, we obtain the same cost with one or two stages because we can see in table 5
that in the case of two stages, S
1
is always equal to 0: the system is equivalent to a
single-stage system.
5.3. Production systems made up of three stages, each containing one machine
We now consider a production system made up of three stages, each containing
one machine. The service rate of each machine is 1. We consider the cost function
cQ
MP
1
+ Q
MP
2
+ Q
MP
3
+ Q
P
1
+ Q
P
2
+ Q
P
3
, where c = 0 or c = 1. Let us set the
arrival rate of demands to 0.5. Table 8 contains the optimal congurations and the
associated costs when c = 1 and table 9 gives the same information for c = 0. We
denote by K the vector with the three components K
1
, K
2
, and K
3
, and by S the
vector with the three components S
1
, S
2
, and S
3
.
62 C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies
Table 8
Optimal congurations and associated costs for c = 1 and = 0.5.
Design criterion KS BSS GKS
Prupt 0.02 K = (1, 2, 9) S = (0, 0, 10) K = (1, 8, 12), S = (0, 0, 10)
C = 11.02 C = 10.0 C = 9.51
P(Q > 1) 0.02 K = (1, 2, 7) S = (0, 0, 8) K = (1, 8, 12), S = (0, 0, 8)
C = 9.05 C = 8.08 C = 7.56
P(Q > 5) 0.02 K = (1, 2, 3) S = (0, 0, 4) K = (1, 8, 12), S = (0, 0, 4)
C = 5.27 C = 4.60 C = 4.08
P(Q > 10) 0.02 K = (1, 2, 1) S = (0, 0, 0) K = (1, 5, 7), S = (0, 0, 0)
C = 3.54 C = 3.00 C = 2.40
Table 9
Optimal congurations and associated costs for c = 0 and = 0.5.
Design criterion KS BSS GKS
Prupt 0.02 K = (2, 1, 9) S = (0, 0, 10) K = (1, 8, 12), S = (0, 0, 10)
C = 10.4 C = 9.03 C = 9.01
P(Q>1)0.02 K = (2, 1, 7) S = (0, 0, 8) K = (1, 8, 12), S = (0, 0, 8)
C = 8.43 C = 7.08 C = 7.06
P(Q > 5) 0.02 K = (1, 2, 3) S = (0, 0, 4) K = (1, 8, 12), S = (0, 0, 4)
C = 4.77 C = 3.60 C = 3.58
P(Q > 10) 0.02 K = (1, 2, 1) S = (0, 0, 0) K = (1, 5, 7), S = (0, 0, 0)
C = 3.04 C = 2.00 C = 1.90
Based on the results given in table 8, we can make similar remarks to those of the
previous cases (with one or two stages). In particular, GKS becomes more interesting
when we authorize a large number of waiting demands (n high). Since the cost of
the nished parts of each stage (Q
P
1
, Q
P
2
, Q
P
3
) is the same in the considered cost
function, we observe that for the BSS and the GKS, S
1
= S
2
= 0. That means that
no semi-nished parts are stored in the rst two stages.
Note that table 9 is the rst time we consider that the cost of the parts present
in the rst machine is equal to zero. Nevertheless, we can again observe the same
kind of behavior as before. In particular, the difference between the costs of GKS
and KS is as great as before. However, the BSS costs are very close to GKS costs.
Indeed, a drawback of the BSS is the non-limitation of the WIP, particularly on the
rst machine. Also, in the cost function used for table 9, there is no cost on the WIP
of the rst machine.
5.4. Production systems made up of four stages, each containing one machine
We now consider a production system made up of four stages, each containing
one machine. The service rate of each machine is 1. We consider the cost function
C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies 63
Table 10
Optimal congurations and associated costs for c = 1 and = 0.5.
Design criterion KS BSS GKS
Prupt 0.02 K = (1, 2, 2, 9) S = (0, 0, 0, 12) K = (1, 6, 10, 14), S = (0, 0, 0, 12)
C = 12.7 C = 12.0 C = 11.46
P(Q > 1) 0.02 K = (1, 2, 2, 7) S = (0, 0, 0, 10) K = (1, 6, 10, 14), S = (0, 0, 0, 10)
C = 10.7 C = 10.1 C = 9.51
P(Q > 5) 0.02 K = (1, 1, 4, 2) S = (0, 0, 0, 6) K = (1, 6, 10, 14), S = (0, 0, 0, 6)
C = 6.61 C = 6.48 C = 5.93
P(Q > 10) 0.02 K = (1, 1, 3, 1) S = (0, 0, 0, 1) K = (1, 6, 10, 14), S = (0, 0, 0, 1)
C = 4.84 C = 4.06 C = 3.52
Q
MP
1
+Q
MP
2
+Q
MP
3
+Q
MP
4
+Q
P
1
+Q
P
2
+Q
P
3
+Q
P
4
. The arrival rate of demands
is equal to 0.5. Table 10 contains the optimal congurations and the associated costs.
We denote by K the vector with the four components K
1
, K
2
, K
3
and K
4
, and by S
the vector with the four components S
1
, S
2
, S
3
and S
4
.
Again GKS becomes very interesting when we authorize a large number of wait-
ing demands (n high). We observe that for the BSS and the GKS, S
1
= S
2
= S
3
= 0.
That means that no semi-nished parts are stored in the rst two stages. This is be-
cause the cost of the nished parts of each stage is the same in the considered cost
function.
The production system we have just studied (four stages in series, each containing
one machine) corresponds physically to the production system we have considered in
subsections 5.1 and 5.2. For the BSS, we obtain the same cost with one, two or four
stages. Indeed we can see in tables 4 and 10 S
i
= 0, i = 1, N 1, and therefore,
in the two cases, the system is equivalent to a single-stage system. Let us recall that
is because the cost of the nished parts of each stage is the same in the considered
cost function. We have already observed (see subsection 5.2) that this remark does
not hold if h is greater than 1 (the cost of the nished parts in the last stage is greater
than the cost of the nished parts in the previous stages). But for a GKS, even in the
case of identical costs of the nished parts in each stage, we observe that it is better
to divide the system into four stages than into two stages (we have already observed
that the cost was lower in the two-stage case than in the one-stage case).
6. Conclusion
First, as KS and BSS are particular cases of GKS, the GKS can always give costs
which are not greater than the other two. However, the generalized kanban policy is
more difcult to implement than kanban and base stock policies.
On the examples studied, we noted that, if there is no delay in lling orders, the
costs of the three policies are similar. It thus seems more natural to use a KS, which
is easier to implement and limits the maximum amount of WIP.
64 C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies
If there is a delay in lling orders, GKS and BSS give close optimal costs, which
are lower than KS costs for the same service quality. This difference increases when
storage cost of nished parts increases or when the arrival rate of demands decreases.
We shall thus choose the BSS if it is not important to limit the maximum level of WIP,
and otherwise choose the GKS.
Finally, we studied the inuence of the cost of products in the various buffers
on the optimal values of the design parameters. We also observed that for a storage
cost of nished parts greater than the storage cost of the other parts, it is better to
decompose the system into several stages for the three policies.
In future research, it would be interesting to see if the remarks we have made on
our examples continue to apply for more complex production systems (for example,
production systems with assembly). Another interesting work would consist in the
comparison with other policies such as, for example, the extended kanban [10] which
is a combination of kanban and base stock policies.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the anonymous referees and to the associate editor for their
helpful and constructive comments.
Appendix A: Calculation of the probability P(Q = n) for a kanban system or a
generalized kanban system [18]
Firstly, we shall see how to evaluate the probability P(Q = n) in a KS and then
we shall examine the GKS.
Kanban systems
When we study a KS or a GKS, we use an approximation analytical method
(see subsection 3.1 for references). For the studied conguration, when the analytical
method has converged, we obtain the performance measures of the system. Moreover,
on convergence of the method used, we obtain in particular the arrival rates of cus-
tomers (kanbans from Stage N) in the last synchronization station. These arrival rates,
denoted by (n
P
), depend on the number n
P
of customers in the station. In gure 6,
we can see the station to study for the calculation of P(Q = n) in a KS: the Nth
synchronization station.
We shall now calculate the probability P(n
D
= n), where n > 0, which repre-
sents the probability of having n waiting demands (i.e., P(Q = n)).
The Markov chain corresponding to the synchronization station of gure 6 is a
birthdeath process, with state vector (n
P
, n
D
).
Its stationary distribution has the following expression of P(0, 0):
P(0, 0) =
1
1
1

(0)
+

K
x=1
_
1

x1
i=0
(i)
_
C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies 65
Figure 6. Last synchronization station of a KS.
Figure 7. Last synchronization station of a GKS.
and the probability of having n waiting demands (n > 0) is given by:
P(Q = n) = P(0, n) =
_

(0)
_
n
P(0, 0).
Generalized kanban systems
Just as for the KS, when the analytical method has converged, we know the
load-dependent arrival rates of kanbans in queue B
N
(see gure 7) denoted by (n
B
).
In gure 7, we have represented the last station of a GKS. This station is made up of
two synchronization stations containing two queues: P
N
and A
N+1
on the one hand,
D
N+1
and B
N
on the other. The entities of queue P
N
represent the nished parts
of the system. The customers demands are placed in queue A
N+1
. The entities of
queue D
N+1
represent the processing orders for products of Stage N. Finally, B
N
contains the kanbans of Stage N which represent authorizations to transfer demands
in Stage N 1. To simplify the presentation, K denotes the number of kanbans
associated with the last stage, and S denotes the maximum number of nished parts
in the last stage.
To obtain the performance measures needed for the design, we must evaluate
P(n
A
= n), which corresponds to the probability of having n waiting demands.
Therefore, let us construct the Markov chain modeling the behavior of the station rep-
resented in gure 7. The chosen state vector is (n
B
, n
D
, n
A
, n
P
). For the construction
of the Markov chain, two cases must be distinguished according to the values of K
66 C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies
Figure 8. Markov chain associated with the station in gure 7 for K S.
and S:
First case: K S. The Markov chain is represented in gure 8.
To calculate P(n
A
= n), we must distinguish two cases according to the value
of n:
If 0 < n < K S (quadrant at the top and on the right)
P(n
A
= n) =

KSn1
i=0
(i)

KSn
P(0, 0, K S, 0);
If n K S (quadrant at the top and on the left)
P(n
A
= n) =
_

(0)
_
nK+S
P(0, 0, K S, 0).
To evaluate these probabilities, we must know P(0, 0, K S, 0). Writing all
the states of the Markov chain as functions of this probability and using the property
C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies 67
Figure 9. Markov chain associated with the station in gure A2 for K S.
that the sum of the probabilities of all the possible states must be equal to 1, we
deduce:
P(0, 0, K S, 0) =
1
1
1

(0)
+

K
x=1
_
1

x1
i=0
(i)
_.
Second case: K S. We obtain the Markov chain of gure 9.
Using the same steps as for the rst case, we obtain:
P(n
A
= n) =
_

(0)
_
n
P(0, S K, 0, 0) for n > 0,
where
P(0, S K, 0, 0) =
_

(0)
_
SK
1
1

(0)
+

K
x=1
_
1

x1
i=0
(i)
_.
68 C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies
References
[1] S. Axs ater and K. Rosling, Installation vs. echelon stock policies for multi-level inventory control,
Management Science 39 (1993) 12741280.
[2] S. Axs ater and K. Rosling, Ranking of generalized multi-stage kanban policies, European Journal
of Operational Research (to appear).
[3] J.F. Bard and B. Golany, Determining the number of kanbans in a multiproduct, multistage produc-
tion system, International Journal of Production Research 29(5) (1991) 881895.
[4] B. Berkley, Setting minimum performance levels for two-card kanban-controlled lines, International
Journal of Production Research 31(5) (1993) 10031021.
[5] A.M. Bonvik, Performance analysis of manufacturing systems under hybrid control policies, Ph.D.
thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139 (1996).
[6] A.M. Bonvik, C. Couch and S.B. Gershwin, A comparison of production line control mechanisms,
International Journal of Production Research 35 (1996) 789804.
[7] J.A. Buzacott, Queueing models of kanban and MRP controlled production systems, Engineering
Cost and Production Economics 17 (1989) 320.
[8] J.A. Buzacott, S.M. Price and J.G. Shanthikumar, Service level in multistage MRP and base stock
controlled production systems, in: Proceedings of the Conference on New Directions for Operations
Research in Manufacturing (1991).
[9] J.A. Buzacott and J.G. Shanthikumar, A general approach for coordinating production in multiple-
cell manufacturing systems, Production and Operations Management 1(1) (1992) 3452.
[10] Y. Dallery and G. Liberopoulos, A new kanban-type pull control mechanism for multi-stage man-
ufacturing systems, in: Proceedings of the European Control Conference (ECC95), Rome, Italy
(September 1995).
[11] W.J. Davis and S.J. Stubitz, Conguring a kanban system using a discrete optimization of mutiple
stochastic responses, International Journal of Production Research 25(5) (1987) 721740.
[12] S.L. De Araujo, Sur lanalyse et le dimensionnement des syst` emes de production g er es en kanban,
Ph.D. thesis of INPG at Laboratoire dAutomatique de Grenoble (1994).
[13] M. Di Mascolo, Mod elisation et evaluation de performances de syst` emes de production g er es en
kanban, Ph.D. thesis of INPG at Laboratoire dAutomatique de Grenoble (1990).
[14] M. Di Mascolo, Y. Frein, B. Baynat and Y. Dallery, Queueing network modeling and analysis
of generalized kanban systems, in: 2nd European Control Conference (ECC93), Groningen, The
Netherlands (1993) pp. 170175.
[15] M. Di Mascolo, Y. Frein and Y. Dallery, An analytical method for performance evaluation of kanban
controlled production systems, Operations Research 44(1) (1996).
[16] C. Duri, M. Di Mascolo and Y. Frein, Etude dun cas particulier de la gestion kanban g en eralis e,
Internal report LAG (1995).
[17] C. Duri, M. Di Mascolo and Y. Frein, On the analysis of base stock systems, in: Computer Integrated
Manufacturing and Automation Technology (CIMAT96), Grenoble (2931 May 1996) pp. 290295.
[18] C. Duri, Etude comparative de gestions ` a ux tir e, Ph.D. thesis of INPG at Laboratoire dAuto-
matique de Grenoble (1997).
[19] Y. Frein, M. Di Mascolo and Y. Dallery, On the design of generalized kanban control systems,
International Journal of Operation and Production Management 15(9) (1995).
[20] Y.J. Lee and P. Zipkin, Tandem queues with planned inventories, Operations Research 40(5) (1992).
[21] Y. Monden, Toyota Production System (Industrial Engineering and Management Press, 1983).
[22] J.A. Muckstadt and S.R. Tayur, A comparison of alternative kanban control mechanisms, IIE Trans-
actions 27 (1995) 140161.
[23] M.F. Neuts, Matrix Geometric Solutions in Stochastic Models (The Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, London, 1981).
[24] A. Svoronos and P. Zipkin, Evaluation of one-for-one replenishment policies for multi-echelon
inventory systems, Management Science 37(1) (1991).
C. Duri et al. / Comparison among three pull control policies 69
[25] M. Veatch and L. Wein, Optimal control of a two-station tandem production/inventory system,
Operations Research 42(2) (1994) 337350.
[26] H. Wang and H.P. Wang, Determining the number of kanbans: a step toward non-stock-production,
International Journal of Production Research 28(11) (1990) 21012115.
[27] R.W. Wolf, Poisson arrival see time averages, Operations Research 30 (1982) 223231.
[28] P. Zipkin, A kanban-like production control system: analysis of simple models, Research working
paper no. 89-1, Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027 (1989).