Evaluation of Manufacturing and Scheduling Practices in the Automotive Industry 1

Evaluation of Manufacturing and Scheduling Practices in the Automotive Industry

ISE-514: Advanced Production Planning and Scheduling

Professor: Dr. Shalini Gupta, Due-Date: 16 April 2019

Robert Garlinghouse (ID-9407949211)

Chen Cai (ID- 7519544635)
Shuvam Sinha (ID-6043580983)

University of Southern California (USC)

Viterbi School of Engineering
Los Angeles, CA

Abstract: The automotive industry is a mature, hypercompetitive market with high product variation and
uncertain demand. Pioneered by Toyota, manufacturers of finished-good automobiles have had to adapt
flexible systems to remain efficient in these conditions. While many of the concepts around lean
manufacturing were popularized in the mid-20th century, companies face several challenges when executing
these strategies. With an emphasis on production scheduling, this paper examines examples of challenges
faced by five different companies: Ford, Toyota, Renault, Tata, and Nissan and evaluates the effectiveness
of their solutions. Topics covered include general concepts of the Flexible Manufacturing System, car
sequencing for the mixed-model assembly line, In-Line-Vehicle Sequencing (ILVS), and standard time
measurement (using Maynard Operation Standard Techniques).
Evaluation of Manufacturing and Scheduling Practices in the Automotive Industry 2

Introduction

The automotive industry has long been at the forefront of innovation in terms of efficient
manufacturing, supply chain, and inventory management practices. The Ford Motor Company pioneered
the use of the moving assembly line for mass production with its Model-T in the early 1900’s. At that time,
the Ford Company benefited from the simplicity and standardization that could be achieved in producing a
single product with little variation. Over the course of the century, however, product development evolved
introducing several different makes, models, and options for customers to choose from, and competition
increased significantly. As a result, car manufacturers have had to adapt their operations to meet a customer
demand representing thousands of a product variants in a hyper-competitive market with thin margins. [9]
One major shift occurred in the mid-20th century as Toyota developed the “Just-in-Time” (JIT) production
system and several other practices that collectively make up the well-known concept of “lean
manufacturing” that manufacturers of all industries strive to emulate today. JIT enables car manufacturers
to meet customer demand for high product variation without having to deal with large inventories or
shortages [14]. While the concepts of the Toyota Production System have revolutionized manufacturing
practices of the automotive industry, companies still face several challenges when implementing and
executing these strategies. This paper discusses some of those challenges, particularly those related to
production scheduling, and the efforts that have been made by both academic researchers and companies
to address them. Examples from five different companies are examined in-depth and suggestions are made
to further improve upon their practices.

Background

For most car manufacturers, there a three main stages in the vehicle manufacturing processes: body,
paint, and assembly. In terms of production scheduling, the most important of these is the assembly stage.
At the assembly stage, a variety of different options (interior accessories, engine types, etc.) can be installed
on the vehicle. The combinations of options to be installed come from a higher-level production plan, which
may be based on forecasted demand and/or on customer order depending on the manufacturer. This
assembly stage is known as a Mixed-Model Assembly Line, which involves the assembly of several
different models of a similar product on the same assembly line without having to perform changeovers or
setups for different model types. Mixed-model assembly lines deal with greater material and workload
variability than a standard assembly line. Planning strategies for mixed-model assembly lines fall into two
categories: level-scheduling and sequencing. [6]. This paper will focus more on the latter, as it is more
closely related to the topics of production scheduling covered in this course.

Level-scheduling is long-term and deals with the coordination of material and resources to achieve a
standard production rate over a period of time. It is considered a to be a foundation of a JIT production
system, which relies heavily on standardization to be successful. JIT systems require delivery of the right
quantities at exactly the right time, which relies on precise coordination with suppliers and amongst work
centers, and would be impractical with high fluctuations in production volume [7]. Some car manufacturers,
including Ford [11] and Renault [8], are taking JIT a step further and implementing Just-in-Sequence (JIS)
systems. Described in greater detail in the Research and Approaches Solutions section below, these systems
involve suppliers delivering parts directly to the assembly line in the order of passing vehicles.
Evaluation of Manufacturing and Scheduling Practices in the Automotive Industry 3

Sequencing is short-term and deals with finding the most efficient sequence of models to be assembled for
a given production run [5]. To better understand the scenario for car sequencing, consider that an assembly
line is moving at a constant rate, workstations are stationary, and some options have higher processing times
than others. If the total processing time at a workstation exceeds the rate of the assembly line, then an
operator will not be able to finish installation before the car passes the workstation. Thus, the goal is to find
a sequence that meets demand and avoids exceeding capacity at any of the workstations by alternating
between options with higher processing times and options with lower processing times. This is a popular
problem in Operations research, known as the “Car Sequencing Problem,” and a considerable amount of
research has revealed several different ways to approach it.

Of those approaches, some simply aim to answer if there exists any feasible solution that satisfies all
constraints. The more useful and practical approach is to frame it as an optimization problem that seeks to
find the best possible sequence, although this may not satisfy all the constraints and is somewhat subjective
depending on the interpretation of “best.” The optimal solution may be defined as the one with the fewest
capacity constraint violations, but often times there is an associated cost or penalty function to be
minimized. [14] A 2005 case study challenge for Renault presents a representative overview of the different
methods for solving Car Sequencing Problems, including Integer Programming, Branch and Bound, and
various heuristic methods, such as Ant Colony Optimization (ACO). Aside from one example in which a
researcher used an Automated Reasoning Program [12], all other research articles found on the car
sequencing problem involved one of those methods. In most cases, it was found that researchers were
attempting to expand upon the problem formulation to incorporate additional features that make the
problem more realistic, and ultimately more useful. No single method was found superior to the rest, rather,
the decision of which method to use was often guided by whichever was best suited to accommodate those
added features.

ACO has been demonstrated as popular technique and useful in practical applications. [6] At car
manufacturer Renault, a model was developed using ACO to solve the car sequencing problem that
outperformed the company’s existing Simulated Annealing approach. The successful formulation
incorporated constraints from the manufacturer’s painting shop, whereas most car sequencing models only
consider the assembly shop and then apply the resulting sequence to the body and paint shops. In this
example for Renault, the optimal sequence found for the assembly stage was not always practical for the
painting operation, so adding these new constraints resulted in a better solution for the overall system. [3]
In another example, a multi-objective ACO algorithm was developed for different Nissan plants, taking
into account physical space constraints of manufacturing facilities. Additionally, the algorithm factored in
managerial preferences to prioritize feasible solutions that a manager would be most interested in
evaluating.

[1] In another example involving Nissan, researchers used actual labor data to incorporate variable
processing times resulting from the effects of worker fatigue according to the time of day. The results
showed that workstation overload could be entirely eliminated by slightly increasing worker productivity
above their normal work pace. Nissan, similar to other car manufacturers, uses auxiliary workers to combat
workstation overload situations. When an operator is not able to finish an operation, an auxiliary worker is
called to provide extra assistance and finish the operation. If an auxiliary worker is already busy, then the
Evaluation of Manufacturing and Scheduling Practices in the Automotive Industry 4

line stops until the operation is finished. Both situations involve added costs that could be avoided by
preventing workstation overloads.

As in the previous example, many car sequencing problems focus on minimizing auxiliary work and line
stoppage time. Most researchers, however, only consider the demand and capacity constraints without
taking into account the objective of maintaining a constant production rate as determined by the level-
scheduling plan. [13] One case study involving Toyota seeks to do both by minimizing the line stoppage
time with an added constraint of contsant part usage. This provides a solution that is more synchronized
with the manufacturing system as a whole.

It is impossible to formulate a problem that considers all the variables applicable to a real-world
manufacturing scenario, but these examples highlight several ways in which mathematical algorithms can
be tailored to improve job shop scheduling for car manufacturers. It is important to note the effectiveness
of an algorithm is dependent on the quality of the data that it is fed. Therefore, manufacturers must be
committed to collecting accurate data from its operations to derive valuable results from tools such as these.
A vital step in this process is determining the standard times for various production tasks. [13] A case study
at Tata Motors highlights the effectiveness of the Maynard Standard Operation Technique for calculating
standard time by breaking down tasks into individual elements. There are also examples of car
manufacturers using technology to integrate data from multiple business functions, such as [2] Ford’s
decision tool that incorporates real-time data from the supply chain, plant, and production floor into is
planning and scheduling operations.

Research Objective/Purpose

The objective of this paper is to evaluate current manufacturing practices in the automotive industry
that relate to improving production efficiencies and scheduling and to propose additional measures for
improvement. As most car manufacturers have sought to adopt the Just-in-Time production system, the
activities discussed can be thought of in the context of how they solve the challenges of operating as a JIT
system. These challenges are identified and the various solutions posed by academic researchers and
companies are compared.

Challenges

The automotive industry is a fast-paced, hypercompetitive market requiring manufacturers to be

flexible and responsive to customer demands. This has driven the adoption of the JIT system, as described
in greater detail above. Operating a JIT system with such high product variation creates several challenges
for auto-manufacturers.

A JIT system seeks to minimize waste and enhance flexibility by delivering exact the quantities of materials
needed at exactly the right time. For this to work in reality requires a consistent rate of production and
excellent coordination between manufacturers and suppliers and amongst internal work centers.

Another major challenge is that the problem of schedule optimization for the mixed-model assembly line
is highly complex. The problem is known to be NP-Hard, meaning there is no known solution that can solve
Evaluation of Manufacturing and Scheduling Practices in the Automotive Industry 5

it in a known amount of time. To address this, many companies use heuristic approaches, such as Ant
Colony Optimization, to find suitable solutions.

Mathematical challenges aside, it is also very difficult for manufacturers to incorporate all of the relevant
factors that ought to be considered into a scheduling algorithm. For example, the actual time to perform
different tasks vary depending on the operator and time of day, while most algorithms assume these times
to be constant. In addition, it is challenging to develop scheduling algorithms that produce solutions that
are synchronized with the manufacturing system as a whole. While an algorithm may produce a good
solution for the assembly stage, it may have a negative impact on other production stages or result in a less
constant production rate.

To be successful, car manufacturers must address all of these challenges simultaneously and quickly enough
to make effective decisions. In the following section, examples from five different companies are
thoroughly evaluated to convey a deeper understanding of the challenges faced and the effectiveness of
their implemented solutions.

Research Approaches and Solutions

1. ILVS at Ford using Batch Sequencing

In-Line Vehicle Sequencing (ILVS), sometimes called Just-in-Sequence (JIS), is a concept used at Ford to
ensure that the manufacturing components or parts arrive at the assembly line just before it is scheduled for
assembly. The required co-ordination needs to be achieved between the parts or component supplier to
ensure that the inventory levels are minimized by aligning the projected/forecasted demand with the actual
assembly schedule.

Case Study: [11]Color-coding was assigned to identify different production systems at the Ford assembly
line to decide the order in which the component supplier, also referred to as the component plant must
release its material to the assembly line. Ford releases a ‘forecasted’ demand schedule, which it expects the
component plant to meet. If not, then the component must be kept in hold, leading to inventory costs and
as a result, a deviation from the Just-in-Sequence criteria.

Goal: To minimize the inventory of number of parts arriving at the Ford assembly plant

Problem that arose: The component plant may not always agree or adhere to the forecasted demand of the
Ford assembly plant. They would prefer to produce components of same type (in this case, the same color-
code) at once, to reduce set-up and installation costs. Ford’s demands for components, on the other hand,
contained a sequence that had different color-codes at various points of the schedule.

Expected Solution and Result:

 Batch Sequencing: The component manufacturer and Ford came to a consensus to batch
sequencing, where the same color-coded component would be shipped to the assembly plant.

 Batch Size: Here the component plant decided to have a maximum Batch size of 3.
Evaluation of Manufacturing and Scheduling Practices in the Automotive Industry 6

Expected Sequence Item Colour-Code Actual Sequence Earliness/Tardiness

1 Blue Blue 0
2 Red Blue +1
3 Blue Blue +2
4 Green Red -2
5 Blue Red +4
6 Green Red +7
7 Green Green -3
8 Blue Green -2
9 Red Green -2
10 Blue Blue -2
11 Blue Blue -1
12 Green Blue -1
13 Red Green -1
14 Blue Green +4
15 Blue Blue -1
16 Red Blue -1
17 Red Red -1
18 Green Red -1

Table 1: Forecasted vs Actual Sequence of Assemblies at Ford

 Sequencing Criteria: [11] The order of the batch would be decided by the ‘Oldest’ order pushed
down the assembly sequence. For example, from the table, the oldest order was ‘Blue’ meaning the
first order would be of three ‘Blue’ items. However, the ‘Red’ item which was second on the list
would now be pushed down the sequence and be replaced by a ‘Blue’ item. However, now, since
Red is the oldest order in the sequence, the next batch would be of ‘Red’ to reduce tardiness caused
by pushing it down the production sequence.

Pros and Cons:

Pros

 Ford batch-sequencing greatly reduced set-up charges both at the component manufacturer and
assembly plant, since a minimum of 3 cars of the same type had to be assembled at once under
Batch Sequencing Criteria.
 There was a likelihood of Earliness through this procedure, as some cars were assembled ahead
of schedule. This would lead to customer satisfaction.

Cons

 Tardiness - though greatly reduced through the ‘oldest’ order criteria - was still evident due to
pushing down the orders in the sequence, though this did not overcome the costs saved by reduced
Evaluation of Manufacturing and Scheduling Practices in the Automotive Industry 7

set-up. From our analysis, it was observed the highest tardiness is -3 units, which is significantly
lower compared to the situation of high installation fees.

2. Mixed Model Sequence formulation using Worker Swimming Method at Nissan’s powertrain
plant, Barcelona

To maintain efficiency at a plant where the same type of model (even with different variants) is not
made - or where there are different assembly modules – it is critical for the industrial management to
optimize workers and assignment of tasks at each module to reduce total production or assembly costs.

Case Study: [1]In the Nissan Power-train plant at Barcelona, the time taken for 4 models of cars, 2
with the demand of 2 items per model and 1 with the demand of 1 per model was taken into
consideration (total of 6). For higher number and more complex models, software such as Gurobi and
IP were used. But for our understanding of the MMS problem, we stick to 6 cars in total.

 Worker Swimming – [1] A scenario where workers can switch from their assigned station to
another if they completed their task before time or were idle before they began their first task. In
this case study, a situation in which worker swimming was not allowed was compared to a
situation in which worker swimming was allowed and the results were compared.

 Overload – A situation where a second job arrives at a station when the worker is still operating
on the previous job.

 Idle Time – The time period during which a worker has no job at his station, and is available to
swim to another station.

Assumptions:

 A swimming worker does not help the regular worker complete the job he is working on, he begins
working on a second job on that station in the case of an overload. Once the swimming worker
realizes that his station is no longer waiting, he stops and immediately returns.
 A swimming worker takes the same time to complete the job as a regular worker, he has already
been trained to work as efficiently as the regular worker.
 The time taken for the swimming worker to travel to another station or to return to his original
station is neglected.

Goal: To reduce the worker overload while completing the tasks in the required time.
Evaluation of Manufacturing and Scheduling Practices in the Automotive Industry 8

Problem that arose: The worker overtimes due to overload were a cost to the company, while at the same
time, employing additional workers with skills on Multiple Models to expedite the assembly process was
also a costly process. Thus, an algorithm needed to be devised in order to optimize the worker capacity by
allowing swimming of workers across stations in order to complete the assembly/production on time.

Fig 1: Station 1 – Worker Swimming not allowed

Fig 2: Station 2 – Worker Swimming not allowed

Evaluation of Manufacturing and Scheduling Practices in the Automotive Industry 9

Fig 3: Station 3 – Worker Swimming not allowed

Expected Solutions:

Fig 4: Station 1 – Worker Swimming allowed

Evaluation of Manufacturing and Scheduling Practices in the Automotive Industry 10

Fig 5: Station 2 – Worker Swimming allowed

Fig 6: Station 3 – Worker swimming allowed

Before Worker Swimming After Worker Swimming

Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 1 Station 2 Station 3
Number of Overloads 5 3 3 0 3 2
Number of Idle-Times 0 2 2 0 0 0

Table 2: Comparison of Overload and Idle-Times before and after worker swimming
Evaluation of Manufacturing and Scheduling Practices in the Automotive Industry 11

Before Worker Swimming was allowed, the total number of overload situations faced at the 3 workstations
was as high as 11, which reduced to 5 when Worker Swimming was introduced into the plant. Moreover,
the prospect of idle-time was totally removed as workers could now utilize idle-times to swim across to
another station and help the regular worker complete his tasks before time. This also helped significantly
reduce flow time of the system from 93 time units to 80. This led to immense cost savings for Nissan at
their Barcelona plant and became an important attribute in their ‘Douki-Seisan’ philosophy.

Pros and Cons:

Pros:

 Worker overload and as a result, overtime costs were saved by the company.
 The assembly and production flow times were also reduced, since workers were now operating in
tandem

Cons:

 In our study, we assumed that a swimming worker had the same ingenuity working in another
station as compared to his own. However, in real-life, this may not always be the case and it is
highly likely that a swimming worker would need more time to complete a job in a station apart
from his designated station unless he was trained to work with equal ease at all stations.

3. MOST(Maynard Operation Standard Technique) in Tata Motors

[10] MOST is a concept that takes into account the motion of the workers, rather than the time-study
of each activity in a production process using a stopwatch, and aims to optimize these motions so that
the time taken to do the same activity at an assembly center is reduced.

Case Study: We use the case of Tata Motors’ Lucknow Plant which applied MOST technique to
improve its productivity and reduce the cycle time so that more output per shift could be scheduled.
We examine the case of the fuel-tank bracket fitment shop at Assembly Line 3 , Tata Motors, Lucknow.

Goal: To reduce the cycle time at the Fuel-Tank Bracket Fitment Shop using MOST techniques and
comparing it to a traditional time-study.

Problem that Arose: The traditional time-study methods were being used to calculate cycle time of
the fitment process. While time-study did contribute to removing the non-productive/non-value added
activities at the manufacturing center, it did not take into account the motion of the workers and how
their movement could be optimized to expedite every process that participated in the fitment procedure.

The idea behind the case study was that because some NVA (Non-Value Added Activities) were
inevitable in a manufacturing process, improving the movement efficiency of the activities of the people
at the shop would be a more reasonable way to reduce cycle time.
Evaluation of Manufacturing and Scheduling Practices in the Automotive Industry 12

[10] As a result, the concept of M.O.S.T. techniques – primarily Simultaneous Motion (SIMO) software
- was introduced to optimize the sequencing of worker movement at the oil-bracket fitment facility to
reduce cycle time and hence, improve productivity.

Expected Solution:

A traditional time study using a stopwatch claimed that the cycle time taken for completing Fuel-Tank
bracket fitment was 606 seconds.

A MOST study concluded that by optimizing the motion of worker activities, the cycle time could be
reduced to 261 seconds, an improvement by 57%.

Activity: Fuel Tank Bracket Fitment M.O.S.T. Study Time (sec)

Grasping rubber pads, placing them on table 9
Dropping adhesive anobond coating on rubber pads 20.4
Grasping brush and pasting anobond 13.2
Placing brush back to the side 1
Grasp Rubber Pads, place on bracket 15
Push and pull pads for fitment 15
Move away, get supporting bracket, fit on initial bracket 25.8
Move away, grasp bolts and fit on bracket 40
Mover away, grasp locking nut, fit on bracket 44.4
Move away, grasp plier and use it to tighten nut 51.6
Tapping nuts using plier for final check, move away 25.8

Total 261.2

Table 3: MOST Study results at TATA Motors’ Fuel Tank bracket fitment shop in Lucknow

Pros and Cons:

Pros:

 Reduction in cycle-time by simulating the most optimized worker movement subsequently improved
the productivity of the fuel-tank assembly shop, allowing more assemblies to be scheduled per shift

Cons:

 A man-oriented over machine-oriented improvement meant that implementing the most optimized
movement of workers may be practically difficult to impossible as it depends on the mood of the
worker, his health and agility on the assembly shop across various times of the shift.
Evaluation of Manufacturing and Scheduling Practices in the Automotive Industry 13

4. Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMS) at Toyota

At Toyota, FMS is considered as a management system of production, logistics and information flow
timely to respond to market changes. [9] Due to the transfer of automotive market (from producer and
forecast to customer oriented) and technology development, FMS can realize expand model
specifications, switch different model rapidly and smoothly.

Case Study: For a case study, Toyota was faced with the drastic change in domestic and overseas
markets. To deal with the consumer oriented trend rather than forecast oriented trend, Toyota reverted
to philosophies like JIT and Kanban to improve their production system.

Goal: Increasing the flexibility of Toyota’s model assembly plants to reduce lead time of
manufacturing, transportation and exchanging information and also to minimize the inventory level and
variation between process capacity and work load level.

Problem that arose: The automotive sector may have unstable demand patterns across models, as a
result of which the plant has to set mixed-model lines.

At Toyota, the Push System was initially used, where the order flow matches that of the information
flow based on previous forecasts of orders. However, with time, order patterns kept differing and the
push system was leading to massive forecast errors as shown in the graph below. With the emerging of
mixed-model lines, the push system made it difficult to fulfill fluctuating orders.

Fig 5: Push System

Expected Solution and Result:

 To achieve flexibility of the whole production system, the management takes into consideration all
functions – both process and planning functions - from procurement of raw material to fulfilling
Evaluation of Manufacturing and Scheduling Practices in the Automotive Industry 14

customer order at regular intervals. They assess a yearly demand and break it into as small as weekly
demands to meet customer demands.

 JIT system: [9] Through finishing required number of components at the required time (Make-to-
Order) and sending to required location, they strive to attain zero to low inventory, in order to save
on warehouse costs. Using a push system had the potential to rack up inventory charges if customer
demands did not meet the forecasted demand.

Fig 6: Planning and Process functions when producing Make-to-Order and JIT Schedule

 Pull System over Push System using Kanban: Kanban is a method to realize timely production,
which became a key attribute in Toyota production system and JIT. [9] In a Kanban system, a
succeeding node – for example, the assembly of body parts - requests information in the form of
components or a sub-assembly from its previous node – for example, painting of the body parts with
a certain color - using Kanban cards to replenish its inventory depending on the order that needs to
be satisfied at that particular time.

Kanban is an example of a Pull-System applied by Toyota to replace the Push System, where the
order flow matched that of the information flow based on previous forecasts of orders. Here, the order
flow depended on the schedule presented by management based on customer demand.
Evaluation of Manufacturing and Scheduling Practices in the Automotive Industry 15

Fig 7: Pull System

[15] The result, according to a report of TMMK (Toyota Motor Mfg. Kentucky) in 2002 was that after
applying their proposed FMS, the following changes were observed:

Feature Improvement from previous year

Time Saving at Body Shop 30%
Reduction in time needed for major model change 70%
Cost reduction in switching models 50%
Reduction in assembly line footprint 50%
Inventory and Maintenance cost reduction 50%

Table 4: Positive effects of FMS in Toyota

Pros and Cons:

Pros:

 The JIT and Pull System philosophy contributed to drastic reduction in inventory costs
 Lower assembly line footprint owing to instantaneous replenishment of items
 Time savings in model changes at the assembly line.

Cons:

 Assembly line workers needed to be trained to work on various models’ assembly owing to
customer oriented demand, any model could be required to be assembled or sub-assembled at any
time of the shift
 Increased planning and co-ordination with suppliers from management’s perspective to ensure all
orders were met within an acceptable lead time.
Evaluation of Manufacturing and Scheduling Practices in the Automotive Industry 16

5. Ant Colony Optimization using Groupe Renault Industrial problems

[6] The industrial issue proposed by Groupe Renault takes into account, solving the car sequencing
problem based on the fact that that every production process goes through three distinct steps – body-
part manufacturing, painting and assembly.

 HPO – High Priority Options are those options characterized in every vehicle which require a high
work- content. Vehicles having a large number of HPOs are equally distributed across the schedule
to reduce work overload at any time of the shift.
 LPO – Low Priority Options are those characterized in vehicles that require a low work-content.
Vehicle assemblies having a high number of LPOs may be batched together.

Case Study: Groupe Renault ran the simulations of their 14 industrial car-sequencing related problems
on three models – Simulated Annealing (SA), Integer Linear Programming (ILP) and Ant Colony
Optimization (ACO) to run their data and return a sequence that would deem it the best in terms of
number of violations of capacity constraints owing to HPO and LPO and color changes at the Paint
Shop.

Goal: The main objectives for Renault to meet while addressing the problem were as follows:-

 Mitigating capacity-constraints violations owing to High Priority Options (HPO) and Low
Priority Options (HPO) in the assembly shop
 To minimize the number of color changes at the painting shop

Problem that arose: From an industrial point of view, the need of the hour was to maximize the
number of vehicles with similar paint colors that could be batched together to minimize the number
of purges (color changes). However, this led to violating capacity constraints in terms of HPO at the
Body Shop and Assembly Lines, leading to increased set-up costs and inevitable stacking of vehicles
with increased HPO. [6] A heuristic model or approach to optimize the number of capacity-constraint
models, while trying to maximize the number of vehicles per paint shop purge was needed.

For our report, we just take into account the first five industrial problems and analyze the solutions.

 #Class refers to the maximum number of cars batched together having the same number of HPO
or LPO
 Max run refers to the maximum number of cars of a particular color that can be painted before
a purge is needed
Evaluation of Manufacturing and Scheduling Practices in the Automotive Industry 17

Expected Solution:

Since ACO technique is inspired by the theory that a group of ants form a self-organized group to
find the quickest way to its destination from its source colony, this technique was expected to give
us the best solution. The industrial data of the first 5 problems were run using SA, ILP and ACO on
the basis of the priority groups – HCO, Paint, LCO.

From the results, it is evident that while ILP returns zero HPO violations in case of some datasets,
it is unstable as it is unable to calculate certain values (marked by ‘unknown’). This suggests ILP
may not be reliable if the number of constraints or objectives are increased. [6] On the other hand,
ACO provides a better solution as it returns zero HPO violations for each industrial set, which was
needed as it was the primary objective. This case study convinced Groupe Renault to utilize ACO
for solving its car sequencing problem in all its plants.

Industrial HPO Color LPO

Set Violations Changes Violations
1 3 487 343
2 1 305 17
3 5 108 37
4 1 199 -
5 1 173 43
Table 5: Solution recommended by Simulated Annealing

Industrial HPO Color LPO

Set Violations Changes Violations
1 0 108 Unknown
2 0 92 0
3 0 59 0
4 Unknown 64 -
5 0 46 0
Table 6: Solution recommended by Xpress ILP

Industrial HPO Color LPO

Set Violations Changes Violations
1 0 483 373
2 0 292 143
3 0 78 77
4 0 82 -
5 0 174 3
Table 7: Solution recommended by ACO
Evaluation of Manufacturing and Scheduling Practices in the Automotive Industry 18

Pros and Cons

Pros:

 ACO could be utilized to solve higher-order car-sequencing problems to give the most optimized
scheduling pattern at an assembly to avoid violation of capacity constraints at high priority settings.

Cons:

 While ACO provides settings for virtually eliminating constraint violations at high priority settings, it
is susceptible to constraint violations for low priority settings, which could lead to additional costs like
set-up change for switching from batch to batch at the body shop. Thus, any organization must choose
its priority order carefully when using ACO techniques to solve its sequencing problem.

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary and evaluation of manufacturing and scheduling practices
in the automotive industry. A brief history of the automotive manufacturing industry is discussed, providing
context for the current state of the automotive industry and the many factors influencing its manufacturing
practices; particularly the shift towards Just-in-Time production as a response to uncertain demand and high
product variation. In pursuit of lean operations, these companies face several challenges, a few of which
are identified and examined in-depth. In each example, we evaluate the effectiveness of the company’s
solution by analyzing the resulting data and specifying the pros and cons. As a result, we have improved
our understanding of efficient manufacturing and scheduling operations and provide a foundation for others
to build upon these solutions.

Bibliography

1. Alghazi, Anas Alsayed, "Balancing and Sequencing of Mixed Model Assembly Lines" (2017). All
Dissertations. 2022. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/2022

2. Barlatt, A. Y., Cohn, A., Gusikhin, O., Fradkin, Y., Davidson, R., & Batey, J. (2012). Ford Motor
Company Implements Integrated Planning and Scheduling in a Complex Automotive
Manufacturing Environment. Interfaces,42(5), 478-491. doi:10.1287/inte.1120.0650

3. Chica, M., Cordón, O., Damas, S., & Bautista, J. (2011). Including different kinds of preferences
in a multi-objective ant algorithm for time and space assembly line balancing on different Nissan
scenarios. Expert Systems with Applications,38(1), 709-720. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.07.023

4. Drexl, A., Kimms, A., & Matthießen, L. (2006). Algorithms for the car sequencing and the level
scheduling problem. Journal of Scheduling,9(2), 153-176. doi:10.1007/s10951-006-7186-9

5. Fliedner, M., & Boysen, N. (2008). Solving the car sequencing problem via Branch &
Bound. European Journal of Operational Research,191(3), 1023-1042.
doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.04.045
Evaluation of Manufacturing and Scheduling Practices in the Automotive Industry 19

6. Gagné, C., Gravel, M., & Price, W. L. (2006). Solving real car sequencing problems with ant colony
optimization. European Journal of Operational Research,174(3), 1427-1448.
doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.02.063

7. Hu, B., Chan, H. K., & Wang, X. (2013). An Account for Implementing Just-in-time: A Case Study
of the Automotive Industry in China. International Journal of Engineering and Technology
Innovation, 3(3), 156-167.

8. Imane, I. E., & Fouad, J. (2017). Synchronous flow in automotive industry: Case study of
RENAULT. 2017 International Colloquium on Logistics and Supply Chain Management
(LOGISTIQUA). doi:10.1109/logistiqua.2017.7962898

9. Masuyama, A. (1995). Idea and practice of flexible manufacturing systems of Toyota. Flexible
Manufacturing Systems: Recent Developments - Reference for Modern Instrumentation,
Techniques, and Technology Manufacturing Research and Technology,305-316.
doi:10.1016/s1572-4417(06)80015-x

10. Mishra, A., Agnihotri, V., & Mahindru, D. V. (2014). Application of Maynard Operation Sequence
Technique (M.O.S.T) at Tata Motors and Adithya Automotive Application Pvt Ltd. Lucknow for
Enhancement of Productivity-A Case Study. Global Journal of Researches in Engineering: B
Automotive Engineering, 14(2), 1st ser.

11. Moeller, R. D. (1997). Optimizing In Line Vehicle Sequencing Systems: Applications to Ford
Component Manufacturing (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Michigan.

12. Parrello, B., Kabat, W., & Wos, L. (1986). Job-shop scheduling using automated reasoning: A case
study of the car-sequencing problem. Journal of Automated Reasoning,2(1), 1-42.
doi:10.1007/bf00246021

13. S. Kotani , T. Ito & K. Ohno (2004) Sequencing problem for a mixed-model assembly line in the
Toyota production system, International Journal of Production Research, 42:23, 4955-4974, DOI:
10.1080/0020754042000270377

14. Solnon, C., Cung, V. D., Nguyen, A., & Artigues, C. (2008). The car sequencing problem:
Overview of state-of-the-art methods and industrial case-study of the ROADEF’2005 challenge
problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 191(3), 912-927.
doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.04.033

15. Visnic, B. (2002). Toyota Adopts New Flexible Assembly System. [online] WardsAuto. Available
at: https://www.wardsauto.com/news-analysis/toyota-adopts-new-flexible-assembly-system.