Morita, D. and Suwa, H.

Paper:

An Exact Method for Robust Capacity Requirements Planning

Daisuke Morita∗ and Haruhiko Suwa∗∗
∗ Takachiho University

2-19-1 Ohmiya, Suginami-ku, Tokyo 168-8508, Japan

E-mail: morita@takachiho.ac.jp
∗∗
Setsunan University
17-8 Ikeda-naka-machi, Neyagawa, Osaka 572-8508, Japan
E-mail: suwa@mec.setsunan.ac.jp
[Received December 1, 2014; accepted February 24, 2015]

This paper proposes a robust method of capacity re-
quirements planning (CRP) that can generate a stable
load plan against dynamic changes in a manufactur-
ing environment. In our study, robustness refers to the
degree of stability in the load plan for the occurrence
of unexpected events. The purpose of the proposed
method is to determine the processing periods of op-
eration orders with the aim of minimizing the proba-
bility that the resource requirement of each operation
order will exceed the capacity of corresponding re-
sources. Through numerical experiments, we demon-
strate the effectiveness of the proposed CRP method in
terms of its robustness.
Keywords: capacity requirements planning, robust load
plan, dynamic environment, uncertainty, exact method
1. Introduction
In a dynamic manufacturing environment, it is impor-
tant to generate a robust plan to facilitate responses to cus-
tomers quickly and highly productively [1, 2]. It seems to
recognized that production/machine scheduling is key to
solving such difficult challenges. Daniels et al. have pre-
sented exact and heuristic solution procedures for min-
imizing robustness measures. This solution was based
on a worst-case absolute deviation (or percentage devi-
ation) of total flow time from the optimal solution in a
single-machine environment [3]. Kouvelis et al. pro-
posed a method of minimizing the measurement of sched-
ule robustness obtained from worst-case absolute devia-
tion from the optimal makespan in a two-machine flow
shop environment [4]. Leon developed a genetic algo-
rithm to generate a robust schedule in job shop environ-
ments [5]. Briskorn et al. proposed a method for deter-
mining a buffer time in order to protect a schedule from
disruptions [6]. Yang presented an algorithm based on
dynamic programming to find an optimal robust solution
that minimizes total completion time [7]. In recent stud-
ies regarding scheduling, environmental issues and man-
ufacturing sustainability were addressed [8, 9], and then
scheduling techniques combined with an evaluation sys-
tem and analysis method for the environmental burden
were proposed [10–12].
The citations above show that studies on schedule ro-
bustness have mainly addressed shop-floor scheduling
problems; however, only focusing on the scheduling issue
is not enough because a schedule is generated based on
the load plan obtained from the results of capacity require-
ments planning (CRP) [13, 14]. In other words, the out-
come (load plan) of CRP limits the range of the schedul-
ing decisions. Rom et al. provided a model considering
CRP and material requirements planning (MRP) under
job shop environments and based on resource-constrained
project scheduling concepts [15]. Wortman et al. re-
viewed the capacity planning techniques of standard soft-
ware packages [16]. Billington et al. presented a compre-
hensive review of previous works in order to deal with
linear and integer programming approaches to capacity
constraint MRP systems [17]. Matsuura et al. devel-
oped a method for setting appropriate lead times in order
to minimize capacity requirement variations in the CRP
phase [18]. Hastings et al. summarized traditional MRP
logic and difficulties with lead time MRP and CRP [19].
Various CRP methods have been proposed and reviewed
in the literature, including those mentioned above, but no
CRP methods directing the robustness of a plan have been
discussed. If a robust load plan could be generated at the
CRP phase, it would be expected to be able to predict
productivity under dynamic manufacturing circumstances
and to conduct an effective scheduling decision flexibly.
From the aforementioned point of view, we have pro-
posed a heuristic method for CRP in uncertain environ-
ments [20]. The proposed heuristic method determines
the processing periods of the operation orders with the
aim of minimizing the robustness measurement, which is
calculated from the probability that the resource require-
ment of each of given operation orders exceeds the capac-
ity of the corresponding machine resource. This study, as
an extension of our conventional work, proposes an ex-
act method in order to minimize the robustness measure-
ment. We first describe a robust CRP model for generat-
ing a robust load plan and then propose our robust CRP
method. In computational experiments, we demonstrate
the effectiveness of the proposed CRP method in terms
of its robustness by comparing it with some conventional
methods.

216 Int. J. of Automation Technology Vol.9 No.3, 2015

 An Exact Method for Robust Capacity Requirements Planning

Table 1. CRP instance (N = 17).

M11 M21
i Qi nO
i diO Wi Ri1 Ri2 Di
1 2 8 1 16 0 1 M12 M22
2 2 4 1 8 0 2
3 6 3 4 2 0 12 3 Work Center 1 Work Center 2
4 1 8 1 8 0 2
5 1 8 2 0 8 3 Load Unload
6 2 4 2 0 8 3
7 2 4 1 8 0 1 Fig. 1. Example of manufacturing system.
8 16 1 8 1 8 0 2
9 2 4 2 0 8 3
10 1 8 1 8 0 3 Work Center 1
C1=24
11 2 8 1 16 0 4
2
12 1 8 1 8 0 3 1 11
13 3 4 2 0 12 4 4 10
14 15 1 12 2 0 12 4
7 8 12 15
15 2 4 1 8 0 4
1 2 3 4 period t
16 2 4 2 0 8 3
17 3 4 2 0 12 4

2. Description of Target Problem
2.1. CRP
We consider the time period t = 1, 2, . . ., T during
which operation orders are to be processed. The pro-
cessing period of each operation order is determined so
that the total resource requirements for each manufactur-
ing resource incurred by operation orders at every unit
time never exceeds the predetermined capacity. Let W =
{1, . . ., c} denote a set of work centers in the manufactur-
ing system. Work center k(k = 1, . . . , c) consists of NkW
identical parallel machines; Mk1 , . . . , MkNW . Production
k
capacity over a finite planning horizon, Ck , at work center
k can be expressed by
Ck = ck NkW , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
where ck denotes the maximum production capacity per
machine in work center k.
Let A = {1, · · ·, N} denote a set of operation orders
which have to be processed and finished within the plan-
ning horizon [1, T ]. Each operation order, i ∈ A , specifies
production of nO O
i products (or parts) taking di unit time.
Let Si (1 ≤ Si ≤ T ) denote the processing period of op-
eration order i, which is a decision variable of focusing
CRP. Suppose that operation order i has to be processed in
the manufacturing system so that each of operation order
i(i = 1, · · · , N) is completed by the deadline Di . The tech-
nological order in each operation order can be expressed
by a set, Q i , of its successive operation orders. Suppose
that resource requirement for operation order i, denoted
by Ri , is given by
Ri = nO
i di . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
O
Note that Rik will be utilized instead of Ri in the remainder
of this paper to specify the work center where operation
order i is to be processed, i.e., Rik = Ri , and Rik = 0 for
Work Center 2
C2=24
13
3 6 14
17
5 9 16
1 2 3 4 period t
Fig. 2. Feasible load plan of the CRP scheme in Table 1.
k = k, k ∈ W .
Table 1 shows a CRP instance for a flexible job-shop
system consisting of two work centers, as depicted in
Fig. 1. In this manufacturing system, work centers 1 and
2 both consist of two identical parallel machines. Fig. 2
shows a feasible load plan in the CRP instance appearing
in Table 1. According to this load plan, for example, or-
der 1 is to be processed in the period 1 since its due date
is one.
2.2. Machine Scheduling
At the phase of machine scheduling after CRP, a de-
tailed shop-floor schedule is generated based on the load
plan as follows. First, an operation order i is divided into
nOi tasks, and then each task is assigned to a machine in
work center Wi . The processing time of each task in op-
eration order i agrees with diO . The number of tasks to be
processed in work center k over the period [ck (t − 1), ckt]
(t = 1, · · ·, T ) can be given by
∑i∈AAt Rik
nkt = , . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
diO
where At = {i | Si = t} expresses a set of operation orders
that are processed over a period t(= 1, · · ·, T ).
For each period t, a detailed schedule is supposed to
be generated through the use of a scheduling method. In
this study, we propose the exact optimization method in-

Int. J. of Automation Technology Vol.9 No.3, 2015 217

Morita, D. and Suwa, H.

time
M11 7 1 4 2 10 15 11
M12 7 1 8 2 12 15 11
M21 3 3 6 9 14 13 17 17
M22 3 5 6 9 16 16 13 13 17
period 1 period 2 period 3 period 4
0 12 24 36 48
Fig. 3. Shop-floor schedule obtained from the load plan depicted in Fig. 2.

troduced in the next section. Fig. 3 shows an example of center k exceeds τ (Ck+1 ≤ τ ≤ Ukt ), and Ukt denotes
a shop-floor schedule obtained from the load plan illus- the upper limit of available manufacturing resources (i.e.,
trated in Fig. 2. From the result of scheduling, we have production capacity) of work center k during period t. The
(n11 , n12 , n13 , n14 ) = (4, 4, 2, 4) and (n21 , n22 , n23 , n24 ) = above CRP problem is to find a feasible load plan that
(4, 4, 3, 6). We can see idle times in the shop-floor sched- minimizes C. The precedence relations between opera-
ule, existing before processing the production orders 6, tions is expressed by Eq. (5). Eq. (6) represents a con-
13, 14, 15, and 16, due to a waiting time for their respec- straint that operation order i has to be finished by its dead-
tive preceding production orders to be finished. line Di . Eq. (7) also expresses a constraint that all opera-
tion orders have to be finished over the planning horizon
[1, T ], and Eq. (8) describes the production capacity of the
3. Robust CRP Method manufacturing system. Eq. (9) means the operation orders
have to be processed only one time, and, finally, Eq. (10)
3.1. Mathematical Model defines the decision variables xit .
Each task of given operation orders is processed ac-
cording to a released shop-floor schedule. However, in 3.2. Exact Method for Robust CRP Model
real manufacturing situations, the processing time of tasks We here propose an exact method to solve the CRP
are often extended due to unforeseen events. If we could problem defined in the previous section. Its procedure can
specify the processing period of each operation as well as be summarized as follows:
forecast the frequency of such unexpected events and the
delayed operation times beforehand in CRP, it would be Step 1 Set λ = 0. Initialize a set of solutions, Oλ = {X 0 }
expected to realize stable manufacturing. and O λ +1 = {0},
/ where X 0 indicates a matrix of
To describe the CRP problem, we use a binary decision decision variables x0it = 0 (i ∈ A ,t = 1, · · ·T ).
variable xit , which takes one if operations order i is pro-
∗
cessed over the period t and otherwise takes zero. With Step 2 If λ = T , then stop and output the solution X y ,
this notation, a CRP problem to find a robust load plan which is the best in O λ . Otherwise, select a solu-
can be described as follows: tion X y from O λ and calculate F y = {i | ∑t=1
Di
xit =
W T
k∈W Ukt 1}.
min . C= ∑∑ ∑ Gkt (τ ) . . . . . (4)
t=1 τ =Ck +1 Step 3 Identify all subsets E 1 , · · ·, E ξ ⊆ A \ F y and gen-
Dj 1 ξ
Di erate new solutions X y , · · ·, X y . The decision
s.t. ∑ txit < ∑ tx jt , (i ∈ A, j ∈ Q i ) . . . (5) z z
variable xyit in X y satisfies the following equation
t=1 t=1
Di
(z = 1, · · · ξ ):
∑ txit ≤ Di , (i ∈ A ) . . . . . . (6)
z

1 if i ∈ E z and t = λ + 1
t=1
  xyit = (11)
Di xyit otherwise
max
i∈A
∑ txit ≤ T, . . . . . . . (7)
t=1 ξ
Step 4 Set O λ +1 ← O λ +1 ∪ {X y , · · ·, X y } and O λ ←
1

∑ xit Rik ≤ Ck , (k ∈ W ,t = 1, · · · , T ) (8) Oλ \ X y .

A
i∈A
T
Step 5 If any one of the following conditions holds, then
∑ xit = 1, (i ∈ A ) . . . . . . (9) 
O λ +1 ← O λ +1 \ {X y }.
t=1
xit ∈ {0, 1}, (i ∈ A ,t = 1, · · · , T ) (10) 
a) Two solutions X y and X y , in O λ +1 satisfy
where Gkt (τ ) in Eq. (4) expresses the probability that the F y = F y and Cy ≤ Cy where Cy is the total
total amount of resource required during period t on work probability obtained from the solution X y .

218 Int. J. of Automation Technology Vol.9 No.3, 2015

 An Exact Method for Robust Capacity Requirements Planning


T
b) Both of the equations ∑t=1 xyit = 0 and λ + 1 ≥ Table 2. The number of problems solved optimally and

Di hold for X y . average CPU-time.

c) ∑i∈A xyiλ +1 Rik > Ck holds (k ∈ W ). Parameter Performance
(N1W , N2W ) N No. of solved CPU-time [sec.]
Step 6 If O λ = {0},
/ then set λ ← λ + 1. Go back to
(1,1) 45 5 2.2
Step 2.
50 5 43.5
55 5 1038.6
60 0 –
4. Computational Experiments (1,2) 45 5 2.5
50 5 193.6
4.1. Simulation Schemes
55 5 2137.4
The proposed method was applied to flexible job-shop 60 0 –
systems with two work centers (c = 2), each of which has (1,3) 45 5 6.4
a single machine or two machines in parallel. The pro- 50 5 66.7
duction capacity c1 at work center 1 (WC1) was set to 12, 55 4 3182.2
and c2 = 12 at WC2 as well. The requirement of resource 60 0 –
Rik and the number of products, nO i of operation order i (2,2) 45 5 2.2
were given by a discrete uniform distribution over [1, 12]. 50 5 6.1
The due date Di of operation order i was set to 3, 6, 9, or 55 5 433.4
12. We considered four time windows of the period, i.e., 60 0 –
[1, 3], [4, 6], [7, 9], and [10, 12], within the planning hori-
zon. The end of each time window, 3, 6, 9 or, 12, indicates
the due date of the corresponding operation orders. For
example, The operation orders with due date is 3 (Di = 3) schedules were executed. The unexpected events refer
are supposed to be assigned over the time window [1, 3]. to delays in material procurements, machine breakdowns,
etc. We postulate a delay time following an exponential
distribution with mean 1/λ . In other words, the proba-
4.2. Number of Problems Solved Optimally bility density function fX (≥ 0) with regard to a random
We considered four different problem groups which variable X denoting a delay time is defined by the follow-
have, respectively, (N1W , N2W ) = (1, 1), (1, 2), (1, 3) and ing:
(2, 2) in order to investigate the performance of our pro- 
posed method. Five instances for each problem group λ e−λ x , (x ≥ 0)
fX (x) = . . . . . . . (12)
were randomly generated. We also considered the num- 0. (x < 0)
ber of operation orders N = 45, 50, 55, and 60, yielding
80 instances in total. Table 2 summarizes the number of Parameter λ was set to 2 in the computational experi-
problems solved optimally within one hour and also the ments.
average CPU time to find the optimal solution using the The proposed CRP method was compared to the fol-
proposed method. lowing two methods, which can be regarded as typical
Table 2 shows that 59 instances were solved optimally heuristics in practical use.
within one hour by using the proposed method. The time • Forward method: Determines the processing periods
needed to solve them using the proposed method tends Si of operation order i (∈ A) so that operation order
to increase with the number of operation orders N due to i is processed as early as possible; each operation
an increase in the number of existing feasible load plans. order is to be assigned with its earliest processing
In the case of the instances with N = 55, the average CPU periods on the load plan.
time becomes longer than those with N = 45 and 50. Note
that all of the instances with N = 45 were solved within • Backward method: Determines the processing peri-
several seconds while it took from seven to 53 minutes ods Si of operation order i (∈ A ) so that operation or-
to solve the instances with N = 55. One of the instances der i is processed as late as possible while still meet-
even took 1.5 hours (N1W , N2W ) = (2, 2), to obtain an op- ing its due date. This approach allocates each op-
timal load plan. For the instances with 60 orders, no op- eration order to the corresponding work center with
timal solutions were obtained within one hour using our its latest processing periods without violating its own
method. Considering this observation, we employed the due date.
instances with N = 45, 50, and 55 but not N = 60 for the
computational simulations described in the next section. For each instance, we applied the above delay schemes
for 100 times to the shop-floor schedule obtained from the
load plan by each CRP method. Note that the production
4.3. Comparison to Conventional Method schedule was generated by using Earliest Due Date (EDD)
We carried out scheduling simulations under situations first. Then, for each task, j, we calculated the deviation
with unexpected delays occurring randomly while the from the actual starting time sj from the planned starting

Int. J. of Automation Technology Vol.9 No.3, 2015 219

Morita, D. and Suwa, H.

Table 3. Average delay time in the instances with number Table 4. Average delay time in the instances with number
of machine (N1W , N2W ) = (1, 1), (1, 2). of machine (N1W , N2W ) = (1, 3), (2, 2).

(N1W , N2W ) N No. (P) (F) (B) (N1W , N2W ) N No. (P) (F) (B)
(1,1) 45 1 190.8 423.0 209.9 (1,3) 45 1 442.9 725.2 509.0
2 179.8 308.6 216.4 2 224.3 374.6 297.2
3 439.7 665.5 405.5 3 470.8 816.8 518.3
4 315.7 401.2 315.8 4 342.3 428.6 358.0
5 134.0 339.9 146.9 5 428.6 962.7 812.4
50 1 222.8 391.7 213.0 50 1 319.8 426.7 356.4
2 227.9 528.1 285.3 2 336.8 425.4 217.9
3 172.2 338.0 249.8 3 291.2 715.0 421.2
4 170.0 483.7 285.3 4 354.2 532.1 447.3
5 330.7 558.3 334.6 5 308.2 372.7 232.7
55 1 151.9 442.5 337.7 55 1 465.3 625.5 472.8
2 401.7 571.2 452.0 2 245.0 586.8 326.5
3 244.6 600.1 254.8 3 229.1 362.1 267.1
4 350.4 799.3 505.2 4 383.2 452.7 389.3
5 357.8 766.3 475.5 5 545.3 923.4 560.7
(1,2) 45 1 155.3 324.1 204.5 (2,2) 45 1 251.9 375.3 283.4
2 344.4 376.3 268.2 2 325.5 442.5 351.4
3 89.2 136.1 88.4 3 408.6 567.1 445.1
4 242.2 345.5 207.7 4 264.1 410.0 258.7
5 448.9 587.4 288.5 5 334.4 761.4 670.4
50 1 266.6 487.2 274.7 50 1 551.9 1265.3 1117.3
2 337.8 517.4 492.1 2 199.3 606.9 291.8
3 412.2 723.5 510.0 3 383.8 614.1 616.7
4 502.1 1040.1 810.9 4 520.4 596.8 513.7
5 312.2 530.3 418.6 5 712.6 659.7 590.9
55 1 264.1 453.4 224.0 55 1 302.3 546.5 449.7
2 365.7 459.0 381.8 2 419.3 1043.4 548.1
3 366.3 609.3 239.1 3 357.9 451.4 422.1
4 310.0 525.2 315.9 4 555.8 721.1 603.9
5 390.0 609.5 332.9 5 436.3 836.0 628.9

and forward methods in 45 instances with regards to the

time s j , which is defined by the following:
h(sj , s j ) = max(0, sj − s j ). . . . . . . . . (13)
Table 3 shows the average delay time for the 100 simu-
lation runs in the instances with the number of machine
(N1W , N2W ) = (1, 1), (1, 2) for each method, and Table 4
summarizes the average delay time in the instances with
the (N1W , N2W ) = (1, 3), (2, 2) number of machine as well.
The average delay time by the forward method is larger
than the times by the other two methods, regardless of
the number of orders and machines. This is because, by
the forward method, the load plans with less production
capacity at every period were generated. The average de-
lay time by the backward method is shorter than those by
both the proposed method and the forward method for a
few instances. The backward method tends to allocate
the operation orders based on their deadline, so the re-
sulting load plans have longer time buffers than do those
obtained by the forward method. This is why stable load
plans against uncertainties were generated by the back-
ward method. Finally, judging by the results in Tables 3
and 4, the proposed method outperforms the backward
reduction of the delay times. As a whole, it is revealed
that the proposed method is the most effective in terms of
the reduction in the delay time.
5. Conclusion
We have proposed an exact method for CRP that can
produce a robust load plan. The proposed CRP method
determines the period during which the operation or-
der is to be processed so as to minimize the probabil-
ity that the resource requirement of each of given op-
eration orders exceeds the capacity of the correspond-
ing machine resource. In computational experiments, the
load plans generated by the proposed method were com-
pared to those generated using the conventional method,
and the effectiveness of the proposed method was demon-
strated. The proposed method was compared to two con-
ventional methods, and it was demonstrated that the pro-
posed method outperforms them. Future work is to im-
prove the performance of the proposed method in order to
produce solutions for cases that are the larger in scale.

220 Int. J. of Automation Technology Vol.9 No.3, 2015


References:
[1] M. Sugi, M. Cheng, M. Yamamoto, H. Ito, K. Inoue, and J. Ota,
“Online Rescheduling in Semiconductor Manufacturing,” Interna-
tional Journal of Automation Technology, Vol.4, No.2, pp. 184–197,
2010.
[2] J. Y. Chai, T. Sakaguchi, and K. Shirase, “Dynamic Controls of Ge-
netic Algorithm Scheduling in Supply Chain,” International Journal
of Automation Technology, Vol.4, No.2, pp. 169–177, 2010.
[3] R. L. Daniels and P. Kouvelis, “Robust Scheduling to Hedge
Against Processing Time Uncertainty in Single-stage Production,”
Management Science, Vol.41, No.2, pp. 363–376, 1995.
[4] A. Kouvelis, R. L. Daniels, and G. Vairaktarakis, “Robust schedul-
ing of a two-machine flow shop with uncertain processing times,”
IIE Transactions, Vol.32, pp. 421–432, 2000.
[5] V. J. Leon, “Measures and robust scheduling for job shops,” IIE
Transactions, Vol.26, No.5, pp. 32–43, 1994.
[6] D. Briskorn, J. Leung, and M. Pinedo, “Robust scheduling on a
single machine using time buffers,” IIE Transactions, Vol.43, No.6,
pp. 383–398, 2011.
[7] J. Yang and G. Yu, “On the Robust Single Machine Scheduling
Problem,” Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Vol.6, pp. 17–33,
2002.
[8] Y. Tanimizu, K. Amano, and K. Harada, “Multi-Objective Produc-
tion and Transportation Scheduling Considering Carbon Dioxide
Emissions Reductions in Dynamic Supply Chains,” International
Journal of Automation Technology, Vol.6, No.3, pp. 322–330, 2012.
[9] D. Morita and H. Suwa, “An Optimization Method for Critical
Chain Scheduling Toward Project Greenality,” International Journal
of Automation Technology, Vol.6, No.3, pp. 331–337, 2012.
[10] H. Hibino, T. Sakuma, and M. Yamaguchi, “Evaluation System
for Energy Consumption and Productivity in Manufacturing Sys-
tem Simulation,” International Journal of Automation Technology,
Vol.6, No.3, pp. 279–288, 2012.
[11] H. Narita and H. Fujimoto, “Analysis of Environmental Impact due
to Machine Tool Operation,” International Journal of Automation
Technology, Vol.3, No.1, pp. 49–55, 2009.
[12] S. Kondoh, N. Mishima, Y. Hotta, K. Watari, T. Kurita and K. Ma-
sui, “Total Performance Analysis of Manufacturing Processes,” In-
ternational Journal of Automation Technology, Vol.3, No.1, pp. 56–
62, 2009.
[13] H. Oden, G. Langenwalter and R. Lucier, “Handbook of Material
and Capacity Requirements Planning,” McGraw-Hill, New York,
1993.
[14] T. Wuttipornpun and P. Yenradee, “A New Approach for a Finite Ca-
pacityMaterial Requirement Planning System,” International Jour-
nal of Science and Technology, Vol.12, No.2, pp. 28–51, 2007.
[15] W. O. Rom, O. I. Tukel, and J. R. Muscatello, “MRP in a job
shop environment using a resource constrained project scheduling
model,” Omega, Vol.30, pp. 275–286, 2002.
[16] J. C. Wortman, M. J. Euwe, M. Taal, and V. C. S. Wires, “A review
of capacity planning technique within standard software packages,”
Production Planning & Control, Vol.7, No.2, pp. 117–128, 1996.
[17] P. J. Billington, J. O. McClain, and L. J. Thomas, “Mathematical
Programming Approaches to Capacity-Constrained MRP Systems:
Review, Formulation and Problem Reduction,” Management Sci-
ence, Vol.29, No.10, pp. 1126–1141, 1983.
[18] H. Matsuura and H. Tsubone, “Setting Planned Leadtimes in Ca-
pacity Requirements Planning,” The Journal of the Operational Re-
search Society, Vol.44, No.8, pp. 809–816, 1993.
[19] N. A. J. Hastings, P. Marshall, and R. J. Willis, “Schedule Based
M.R.P.: An Integrated Approach to Production Scheduling and Ma-
terial Requirements Planning,” The Journal of the Operational Re-
search Society, Vol.33, No.11, pp. 1021–1029, 1982.
[20] H. Suwa and D. Morita, “A study on stability-directed capacity re-
quirements planning(Application to flexible job shops),” Transac-
tions of the JSME, Vol.80, No.814, 2014.
Int. J. of Automation Technology Vol.9 No.3, 2015
An Exact Method for Robust Capacity Requirements Planning
Name:
Daisuke Morita
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Business Admin-
istration, Takachiho University
Address:
2-19-1 Ohmiya, Suginami-ku, Tokyo 168-8508, Japan
Brief Biographical History:
2008 Bachelor of Engineering degree from Setsunan University
2010 Master of Engineering degree from the Graduate School of Setsunan
University
2013 Ph.D. in Engineering from the Graduate School of Setsunan
University
2014- Assistant Professor, Takachiho University
Main Works:
• “A New Slack Protection Strategy in Dynamic Project Scheduling,”
Electronic Proceedings of the 21th International Conference on Production
Research, 2011.
• “Dummy-Based Critical Chain Scheduling in Project Management,”
Transactions of the Institute of Systems, Control and Information
Engineers, Vol.22, No.12, pp. 407–415, 2009.
Membership in Academic Societies:
• Institute of Systems, Control and Information Engineers (ISCIE)
• Japan Industrial and Management Association (JIMA)
Name:
Haruhiko Suwa
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineer-
ing, Setsunan University
Address:
17-8 Ikeda-naka-machi, Neyagawa, Osaka 572-8508, Japan
Brief Biographical History:
1997 Ph.D in Eng. from Kobe University
1997- Assistant Professor, Setsunan University
2001- Associate Professor, Setsunan University
2010- Professor, Setsunan University
2012-2013 Visiting Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Main Works:
• “Capability of Cumulative Delay Based Reactive Scheduling for Job
Shops with Machine Breakdowns,” Computers and Industrial Engineering,
Vol.53, pp.63–78, 2007.
Membership in Academic Societies:
• Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers (JSME)
• Institute of Systems, Control and Information Engineers (ISCIE)
• American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
221