DRUM-BUFFER-ROPE SHOP FLOOR CONTROL Eu SCHRACENHEM The AY, Golda insite, 42 Orange Stet New Haver, CE OSS Boaz RONEN Faculty Of Mesegemet, Tel Asia ‘The drum-butfer-rope (DBR) methodology now ‘being implemented ina growing numberof manufac- turing organizations enables better scheduling and decision making on the shop foot * It's based on the theory of constraints (TOC) [1,2], global managerial ‘methodology that helps the manager to éoncentrate ‘on the mest critical issues, TOC focuses onthe system's constraints, their exploitation acording to the goal of the organization, and the implications of exploiting ‘these constraints on the rest of the syste. ‘The concepts of optimized production technology, DBR, and TOC were developed in 2,3, and 4]. Gold ratt [2] delineates the connection of the OPT principles to the steps of TOC, and a system overview of DBR, ‘TOC, and OPT is proposed in (6). “The focus of OFT was the identiation of botle- necks in the manufacturing process, withthe objective fof basing the scheduling effets on these bottlenecks. ‘The essence of OPT philosophy was axpeessed by nine rules [6], which have been replaced by Gve more gen= eral and accurate steps constituting TOC, The term “potteneck’ isreplaced by a broader term: constraint, efined as anything that mits system from achieving 1igher performance relative tits goal. “The five steps: ‘Step 1. Identify the system constraint(s) Step 2, Decide how to exploit the consrait(s) Step 3. Subordinate everything ese to the above de- Step 4. Elevate the system constraints). Step 5 If inthe previous steps, a constraint has been. broken, go back lo Step 1, but do not let “ine tia” become the system constraint Drum-Buffer-Rope—A Scheduling Technique ‘A “drum isthe exploitation of the constant of, the system: the constraint dictates the overall pace of the system. The constraint may bea resource, market * EOFTORS NOTE Ihave pont vere two sacetl i ‘lenentors in pn era, one of oc gear company esl, Tel Anta 69978 nel demand, sarce aw material, of management policy Inmany cates, a drumhastoinclude a detailed Sehed- ule of the constraint in order to ensure the exploitation ofthe constraint A “butler” is protection time, Buffers are used to protect something from adjacent disruptions, The protection is expressed in time units, since the parts planned to reach the protected area some tine be- fore they are scheduled to be processed, Disruptions ‘might sem from a variety of reasons breakdowns, absenteeism, Guctuations in setup Himes, unreliable vendors, sap, of just unavadabilty of a certain re source because ti being used in other jobs. Bulfers are planned only in crtcal areas that need tobe pro: tected; it is obvious that the drum (Le, the schedule fof a capacity constraint resource) should be protected from disruptions on adjacent operations, ‘A “rope” is a mechanlem to force all the pets of the system to work up to the pace dictated by the drum and no mote. This is done, in DBR implemen- tations, by creating a detailed schedule for releasing raw materi into the shop Boor. ‘Scheduling in DBR ‘There are tree basic steps: ‘Step (a) Schedule your constraint(s) (in order to do this you wil have to determine the master production schedule atthe same tine). The MPS is subjected to the capabilities of the system constraints only. Next exploit the Constraints according tothe organizational goal. (A bottleneck that works all the time {8 not necestanly exploited. lt should work ‘on products that are the most profitable and only on those which are going to be sold scon) Step (9) Determine the buffer sizes, Step (c) Derive the materials release schedule ac- cording to steps (2) and (b). ‘These three base steps are repeated every time the planning proceasis executed, Two mere general aeons fare assumed tobe taken whenever necessary: " [PRODUCTION AND INVENTORY MANACEMENT JOURNAL—Thind Quer, 190,+ Identify the system constraints, : ‘Determine a general subordination policy’ which concerns the way the nonconstraints should be ace tivated, This stepmay ormay not include a detailed cor patial schedule forthe nonconstraint work cen= ters. Exploitation Step 2 is exaclly the definition of a drum—if the constraint Hes in the marke, then a detailed shipping schedule isto be derived in order to satafy the whole market. In this ase scheduling the shipping i the es- sence ofthe constraints exploitation, and the detailed shipping schedule isthe drum, Step (a) of DER implies constructing the MPS and the detailed shipping schedule according tothe con- straint capabilites and maximizing the contribution the bottom line of the constraints avalable time (1, 4]. Scheduling the constraint [Step a] is a farther im pleation of the constraints exploitation. Inthe case ‘ofan internal constraint a detailed schedule is needed ‘because improvisations are risky to the exploitation, and also because the subordination areas have to be aware in advance, of the drum needs, Subordination ‘The purpose of Step 3 isto keep the exploitation intact. In a stochastic envionment, there is the risk that the drum willbe exposed to disruptions that occur elsewhere. The iamediate action that can be taken is to plan butfers in front of the drum and the shipping dock, The buffer sizes reflect the amount ofthe Hc: tuations and the capscity level at nonconstraint re sources, The capacity level is crucial because it deter~ ‘ines the time needed fora nonconstraint resource to catch up after a disruption, Ropes, another mechanism derived from Step 3, censure that the nonconstant wil be subordinate 0 ‘he drum by forcing the system to contain only material that is scheduled by a drum in the next buffer time fame. A nonconstraint resource that is engaged in processing parts that are not scheduled by a drum be- haves in contradiction to the subordination rule, be- cause it does not take advantage ofits exces capacity to protect the drum. ‘The Environment Simulated ‘The simulation handles a plant with stable market demand. The horizon is two weeks. ‘The Plant Resources ‘The plant uses six different machines. The physical Jayout is shown in Figure 1 and the routing layout is siven in Figure 2, DRUM-AUFFER-ROPE SHOP FLOOR CONTROL Product is made from raw materials A,B, and D. Machine N processes mA (raw material A) 13 rain con average (TPP), and delivers the part tothe W ma- chine for 11 min, ete. Reeource Ris an assembly ma- chine, each assembly operation beinga simple I: as sembly. The upper row specifies the total weekly de- sand for product (60 per week) and] (40 per week). ‘There are 20 pieces of WIP past E2 operation (ready to-be processed by M at E3). Another 10 le past the G2 operation, and another 10 past the G3 operation. ‘A table ofthe work load on the resources, along, with more simulation details, can be obtained upon written request ta ether author. APPLYING THE DBR TECHNIQUE Mis cleanly a capacty constraint ofthe system. The ‘market demand for the most proftable product is 3 ‘constraint 2s well For a discussion of profitability see uae Step (a): Schedule /Exploit the Constraint Exploitation decisions and the MPS must be deter- mined. The current weekly demand reflects the max- {mam capacity of M. A possible MPS for two weeks ‘would be 120 1 products and 80 J products, Shipping wil be done in four equally spread shipments. The total work load (not Inuding downtime) required from M during the two weeks, including 12 setup, is 44760 min out of the 4800 min avaiable, The market demand sto be exploited by supplying everything on ue date, lInscheduling the constraint itis ear that E3 should Derthe fst operation, since it already has the pars for wee VT) tee =] [R] wom NF] mae ML moe YZ] meme Wag] Frcune Resource layout Apart from the average ‘setup times, thor downtime mesoclated ‘wth each resource. The dowatine is 0% ‘on average excepten the Mmachine, which has only 1% downtime, Downline in peo- portional to the time he resource be busy, In producton or setup. wle TE Product 1 Product J Weekly Demand eae 40 [eee] 5 Y to |ixaniio| 6 R 4 R LT, 3 M10 M12] M 25 w 8 mo [enon] fomgule Eman 2 wo w 4 {woos v2 io f= 4 R98 1s] Raw Matertals rmA rnb rm rmF mG A Bc Do «£ FOG FIGURE 2: Layout ofthe routings for two products | ands ow a Bottom up Each box Is wn operation, done by a rasource denoted by ts capital etr. Numbers Ganote average ane per part (TPP), Each operation fe recognizable by its column/row, La the lafenest W operation, being in column A and row 2 fv A2. PRODUCTION AND INVENTORY MANAGEMENT JOURAL—Mhind Qute,1990the fst batch, Developing the rest i straightorward. ‘The M schedule is given in Table 1. The lat line (for 3) is the demand for the third week, Its included because the rope needs to beset a the second week for week 3 demand. ‘Step (b) of DBR: Determine the Buffer Sizes Only thre types of buffers are needed: + Constraint butfer: protecting M's operations Size chosen: 9 he. The inal size ofthe constraint buffer twas choaen intuitively onthe basis of several initial "Smulated runs made to gve some sor of "gu fel- ing.” The inital decision has to take isto consider- aaton thatthe bufer size should be equal 08 fairly Jong, yet sil realistic lead time tothe constraint. In a stable envizonment, operating under DBR meth- ‘dology, where WIP is being limited by the rope schedule, the butfer size may be three ties the av= cxage lead time to the constraint. The “thre times {based on experince and depends on realistic ead time distibuton «Shipping buffer protecting the dive dates. Size ‘chosen: 6h, Ths butfer protects the due dates from disruptions on the way from the constaint bulfer to the shipping dock. * Assembly butfer Size chosen: 9 he. Ths type of Dbatferis needed in eevain envizonments, Here itis created for the F4 assembly operation only. Assem- Diy operation i has two feding legs: one caries a part that was processed by the constraint and the ther caries a "nonconstant part.” The leg with the nonconstant part neds buffering (protection), otherwise the carly constraint parts will have to wait for the nonconstalnt o reach the assembly. ABLE 1: The M (Oram Schecule Propcod Operation unity ‘sett s = 3 & 2 a o 2 “ ‘DRUM-BUFTER.ROFE SHOP FLOOR CONTROL ‘TABLE 2_ Rope Purchasing Schedule Tew Maer nny * . = ° x Ey 5 8 2 % 6 B ° e 2 = 5 Fy = : 2 2 ‘Step (c): The Rope Schedule ‘The calculation Is apparently simple: The M's schedule minus the bulfer size, The rope for the G rawematerial parts are tiggered by the assembly buffer. The derived schedule for that buffer isthe same as the schedule forthe E3 constraint operation. The rope purchase schedule is given in Table 2." ‘As C3has to stat at about hour 8, the release should bbedone at hour ~1. This means that forthe frst C3 ‘operation, the actual buffers only 8h. This concludes the scheduling stage according to DBR. Subordination Policy f the Nonconstraiat Resources ‘The W resource is quite loaded, in spite of the fact that its nota constraint. For this simulation run, a schedule for W was derived bated on the constraint and the extra operation on G3. A contol technique tiled "buffer management” is usually used to monitor the execution of the schedule and for spoting prob- Jems which led tothe decision to teat W diferently from the other nonconstaint (ste 7). Tn order to keep full exbiity in subordinating the ‘other resources, the following working policy was in corporatd into the simslaton‘you don’t have anything o do, do nothing! ‘= lf work appears somewhere and you are not busy, setup to the new job. ‘If you have mote than one job to choose from, chooce the one with the biggest work load, This rule, ‘which is oppeste tothe shortest processing Sine decision rule, was chosen because it appears natural toa foreman. The fact thatthe resource has excess capacity enables usto let the foreman take decisions inva simple manner. If and when this leads to a ‘wrong dedsion which might affect the system, baler -management technique is supposed to reveal it on time to make corrections. ‘= Once you start an operation, switch to another job only if you are idle atthe moment. Scheduling the capacity constaint did not include the lead time from the constraint to the shipping dock. “The only concem isthe last shipment. The shipping buffer was chosen tobe 6hr and thus it was estimated ‘hat the average ead time, from the capacity constraint to the shipping dock, will be less than that. The lst M operation takes about 5 hr, 30 we can expect that about half of the last shipment wil arrive when no overtime is added (the average led time is estinated tobe? 02.5 hr). ‘The Simulation Runt Sinteen discrete runs were performed under the above rules. On average 11.5 units, out of 30, were ‘missingin the last shipment Allinall the expectations were met it was expected that the last shipment of, product I would not be fished, Overtime of Ito 4 hr (in the R and Y work centers and sometimes also 1M), was needed in order to finish everything. The results confirm the expectations af having, on average, more than half of the shipment ready, even without overtime. ANALYSIS ‘The basie approach of DERis of exploiting the sys- tem constraints and subordinatng the rst ofthe sy3- tem to the exploitation of the constrains. This i the ‘essence of Steps 2 and 3 of TOC. How Good Is the DBR Solution? ‘Any optimal solution regarding system performance has to conform to Steps 2 and 3, This is logialy de- rived from the definition ofa constraint (anything that limits the system's performance). Any optimal sched tule has to exploit the constraint and to protect the explotation—subordinating tot. A DBR schedule cn be improved by + Improving the exploitation. ' Improving the subordination. ‘Can the Exploitation be Improved? “There are trade-offs which depend on the market behavior and how the goal deiniion teats short-term, profits elative to long-term pots (assuming profs the system's objective function). One tadeatf con cera the numberof shipments per week. If we ship only one into weeks the plant wl be 2c pro- duce more. On the other hand, a ead tine of two ‘weeks might cause a loss of market in the furre. This trade-off decision & a key factor in the exploitation stage Step (8). (Can Subordination be Improved? ‘There is 4 need to find the balance in the buifer sizes to ace that they are the smallest that protect the ‘constraint schedule (the drum). The way the noncor straints are actualy activated might induence the nec ‘esary minimum size of the buffers, Buffer mana ‘ment Isa contol technique, which provides a better way to handle the nonconstraints (7). ACKNOWLEDGMENT ‘The authors wish to thank Eli Goldtat fr his en= Lightening comments, [REFERENCES 1, Fou RE, "Tee Const They” NAA Coforc 1988, Monnaie (1988). 2. Gaunt EM, “Conpeteid Shop Rane Schad” ‘ero oa of Precin Rae VoL 3,8, 3 (1988), 3 Clee Mand Cox}, The Gat Nath ive Pre tone tudo, (1985), 4, Cou EM. and Fox RE, The ac, Nach Rv Pres ‘Cees, NY 98), 5. Hone Band Poy 5, "MMS: Manag Managenent lnfroton Syste” working pape Fey of Management ‘Teany Univerty (1989), (6 Ronen Band Sat, MLK, “Syed Manuacurg #8 {Wopr,feem Pncce t Thea” Comptes and Ideal Engrg (989), 7, Shrngenein EM. and Ronen, 8, “Blfer Management A ‘uaa Toso Proc Cn wen esl of Management Tate Unie (1989). [Note:The two working papers [8] and {7] 25 well as the ‘Smulton deals, may be obtained yp request ro ther thor (adarese on tile page). PRODUCTION AND INVENTORY MANAGEMENT JOURNAL—Thind Quer, 1950,