Proceedings,16th

Proceedings,16th IFAC
IFAC Symposium
Symposium on on
Proceedings,16th
Information ControlIFAC Symposium
Problems in on
Proceedings,16th
Information ControlIFAC
Problems in Manufacturing
Symposium on
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Manufacturing
Information Control
Proceedings,16th
Bergamo, Italy,
Italy,
Information June
Control Problems
IFAC
11-13,
Problems in
Symposium
2018 Manufacturing
on
in Manufacturing
Bergamo, June 11-13, 2018
Bergamo, Italy,
Information June
Control
Bergamo, Italy, 11-13,
JuneProblems2018
in Manufacturing
11-13, 2018
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 ScienceDirect
IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 376–381
Managing Disruptions
Managing Disruptions in
in Inbound
Inbound Logistics
Logistics of of the
the Automotive
Automotive Sector
Sector
Managing
Managing Disruptions
Disruptions in
in Inbound
Inbound Logistics
Logistics of of the
the Automotive
Automotive Sector
Sector
Managing Disruptions in Inbound Logistics
,, of the Automotive
Mohammadtaghi Falsafi * ** Irene Marchiori* Sector
Mohammadtaghi
Mohammadtaghi Falsafi
Falsafi *,** Irene Marchiori*
Mohammadtaghi Rosanna
Rosanna Falsafi **,,**
** Irene
Fornasiero*
Fornasiero* Irene Marchiori*
Marchiori*
Mohammadtaghi Rosanna
Rosanna  Fornasiero*
Falsafi * ** Irene Marchiori*
Fornasiero*
*Institute of of Industrial
Industrial Technologies
Technologies Rosanna  Fornasiero*
and Automation,
Automation, (ITIA-CNR), Milano, Milano, 20133 20133 ITALYITALY
*Institute
*Institute of Industrial Technologies and
and Automation, (ITIA-CNR),
(ITIA-CNR), Milano,
*Institute of Industrial
(e-mail: mohammadtaghi.falsafi@itia.cnr.it,
(e-mail: Technologies
mohammadtaghi.falsafi@itia.cnr.it, irene.marchiori@itia.cnr.it and 
Automation,
irene.marchiori@itia.cnr.it (ITIA-CNR), Milano, 20133 20133 ITALY
, rosanna.fornasiero@itia.cnr.it
, rosanna.fornasiero@itia.cnr.it ITALY )))
(e-mail: mohammadtaghi.falsafi@itia.cnr.it,
(e-mail:*Institute of Industrial**Politecnico
mohammadtaghi.falsafi@itia.cnr.it, Technologiesdiand irene.marchiori@itia.cnr.it
Automation,
irene.marchiori@itia.cnr.it
Milano, Milano, (ITIA-CNR),
20156 ITALY,, rosanna.fornasiero@itia.cnr.it
Milano, 20133 ITALY
rosanna.fornasiero@itia.cnr.it )
(e-mail: mohammadtaghi.falsafi@itia.cnr.it, **Politecnico
**Politecnico di
di Milano,
Milano, Milano,
Milano,
irene.marchiori@itia.cnr.it 20156
20156 ITALY
ITALY , ).rosanna.fornasiero@itia.cnr.it )
**Politecnico
(e-mail:
(e-mail: di Milano, Milano,
mohammadtaghi.falsafi@polimi.it
mohammadtaghi.falsafi@polimi.it 20156 ITALY ).
(e-mail:
(e-mail: mohammadtaghi.falsafi@polimi.it
**Politecnico di Milano, Milano, 20156 ITALY
mohammadtaghi.falsafi@polimi.it ).
).
Abstract:
Abstract: Management
Management of
of the
the (e-mail:
supply
supply mohammadtaghi.falsafi@polimi.it
chain
chain in
in the
the automotive
automotive sector
sector is
is ).
one
one of
of the
the most
most complex
complex tasks
tasks
Abstract:
Abstract:
since it involvesManagement
Management
numerous of
of the
the
partners. supply
supply chain
chain
Managing in
in the
the
the automotive
automotive
inbound flow sector
sector
becomes is
is one
one
more of
of the
the
vital most
most
for largecomplex
complex
automotive tasks
tasks
since
since it
it
Abstract: involves
involves numerous
numerous
Management ofpartners.
partners.
the supplyManaging
Managing
chain inthe
the
the inbound
inbound
automotive flow
flow becomes
becomes
sector is more
more
one ofvital
vital
the for
for
mostlarge
large automotive
automotive
complex tasks
since it involves
manufacturers
manufacturers numerous
with
with hundreds
hundreds partners.
of
of Managing
suppliers
suppliers providing
providingthe inbound
components
components flow becomes
according
according moreto
to vital
just-in-time
just-in-time for large automotive
strategies.
strategies. This
This
manufacturers
since it involves
manufacturers
paper presents with
with
a hundreds
numerous
hundreds
decision-support of
partners.
of suppliers
Managing
suppliers
toolkit providing
providing
for the
monitoring components
inbound
components flow
and according
becomes
according
managing more
the to
to just-in-time
vital
just-in-time
disruptions for strategies.
large
in theautomotive
strategies. inboundThis
This
paper
paper presents
presents
manufacturers a
a
withdecision-support
decision-support
hundreds of toolkit
toolkit
suppliers for
for monitoring
monitoring
providing componentsand
and managing
managing
according the
the to disruptions
disruptions
just-in-time in
in the
the
strategies. inbound
inboundThis
paper
flow of
flow ofpresents
the a decision-support
the automotive
automotive sector. When
sector. When toolkit for monitoring
a disruptive
a disruptive and managing
event happens,
event happens, it affects
it affects the the disruptions
the dock and
dock andintransportation
the inbound
transportation
flow
paper
flow of
of
planning of the
presents
the automotive
a
automotive
of the the manufacturer. sector.
decision-support
sector.
manufacturer. To When
When
To cope a
toolkit
a disruptive
for
disruptive
cope with monitoring
with the event
event
the consequent happens,
and
happens,
consequent order it
managing
it affects
affects the
order displacements, the
the dock
disruptions
dock
displacements, some and
and intransportation
the inbound
transportation
some alternative
alternative
planning
planning of the manufacturer. To cope with the consequent
happens,order displacements, some
flow
planningof the
solutions
solutions of automotive
can
can the
be applied,
be applied, sector.
manufacturer. with each
with
When
each a disruptive
Toalternative
cope
alternative theevent
withincurring
incurring consequent
additional
additional
it affects
order
costs.
costs. Thethe
displacements,
The paper
paper
dock and
some
proposes
proposes aalternative
transportation
a alternative
managing
managing
solutions
planning
solutions
strategy incan
ofwhich
can be
the
be applied,
manufacturer.
applied,
optimization with
with each
each Toalternative
models cope
alternative
for the incurring
withdock the plan
incurring additional
consequent
additional
are utilized costs.
order
costs.
to dealThe
The paper
displacements,
paper
with proposes
proposes
disruptive aaalternative
someorders managing
managing
and to
strategy
strategy
solutions in
incanwhich
which be optimization
optimization
applied, with models
models
each for
for
alternative the
the dock
dock
incurring plan
plan are
are utilized
utilized
additional to
to
costs. deal
dealThe with
with
paper disruptive
disruptive
proposes orders
orders
a and
and
managing to
to
strategy
minimize
minimize in which
the
the optimization
negative
negative impacts
impacts models
on
on time
time for
and
and the
cost
cost dock
in
in plan
the
the are
supply
supply utilized
network.
network. to deal with disruptive orders and to
minimize
strategy in the
whichnegative impacts
optimization on time
models and
for
minimize the negative impacts on time and cost in the supply network. cost
the in
dock the supply
plan are network.
utilized to deal with disruptive orders and to
© 2018, IFAC
minimize
Keywords:
Keywords: the (International
negative
Inbound
Inbound logistics,Federation
impacts
logistics, on time
Disruptive
Disruptive of events,
and Automatic
cost
events, in Control) Hosting
the
Automotive
Automotive supply network.
sector, by Elsevier Ltd.Dock
Optimization,
sector, Optimization, DockAll rights
planning
planning reserved.
Keywords: Inbound
Keywords: Inbound logistics,
logistics, Disruptive
Disruptive events, events, Automotive
Automotive sector, sector, Optimization,
Optimization, Dock Dock planning
planning
Keywords: Inbound logistics, Disruptive events, Automotive  sector, Optimization, Dock planning
 R&D, with with resource-efficiency
resource-efficiency being being one one of of itsits major
major focal focal
1. INTRODUCTION R&D,
R&D, with with resource-efficiency beingonone one of itsits major
majormulti- focal
1. INTRODUCTION  R&D,
points. At the resource-efficiency
the same time, time, it it is being
is based
based of
a complicated
complicated focal
1. INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION points. At same on a multi-
The new era of manufacturing demands optimized plants and points.
R&D, At
with
points.production
stage the
At the samesame process time,
resource-efficiency it
time,relying is based
it is basedbeing
on on one a
onefficient
the complicated
of its
a complicated major
collaboration multi-
focal
multi-
1. INTRODUCTION stage
The
The
The
new
new
new
manufacturing
era
era
era
of
of
of
manufacturing
manufacturing
manufacturing
chain networks,
demands
demands
demands
optimized
optimized
optimized
transforming
plants
plants
plants
them
and
and
and
into stage production
points.
stage
among production
At the same
production
different
process
process
process time,relying
manufacturing relying
it is based
relying
on
on the
on
sites onefficient
the
the
and efficient
acorrespondingcollaboration
collaboration
complicated
efficient collaboration multi-
value
manufacturing
manufacturing chain
chain networks,
networks, transforming
transforming them
them into
into among
among
stage different
different
production manufacturing
manufacturing
process relying sites
sites
on and
and
the corresponding
corresponding
efficient collaboration value
value
The new
manufacturing
flexible era of
factories manufacturing
chainthat networks,
can be demands
quickly optimized
transforming
"reprogrammed" plants
them and
into
to among
chain different
partners. manufacturing
Considering that sites
each and
car corresponding
can have up to value
6000
flexible
flexible factories
factories that
that can
can be
be quickly
quickly "reprogrammed"
"reprogrammed" to
to chain
chain
among partners.
partners.
different Considering
Considering
manufacturing that
that each
each
sites car
car
and can
can have
have
corresponding up
up to
to 6000
6000
value
manufacturing
flexible
provide factories
faster chainthat
time-to-market networks,
can bein quicklytransforming
response "reprogrammed"
to global them
consumer into
to chain
components,partners. the Considering
management that ofeach car
suppliers can ishave
very up to
important 6000
provide
provide faster
faster time-to-market
time-to-market in
in response
response to
to global
global consumer
consumer components,
components,
chain partners. the
the management
management
Considering that of
of suppliers
suppliers
each car can is
is very
very
have up important
important
to 6000
flexible
demand. factories
provide fasterThis new that
time-to-market can
model bein quickly
response
needs "reprogrammed"
to globalproduction
transparent to
consumer components, to assure the the management
delivery of the of suppliers
products in is very
due time. important
In that
demand. This new model needs transparent to
to assure the delivery of the
the products in due time. In
In that
demand.
provide faster
demand.
processes This
This
that new
time-to-market
new
are model
model
responsive toneeds
in response
needs
changes transparent
transparent
or globalproduction
tounexpected production
consumer
production
events assure
components,
to assure
regard, thethe
the delivery
the management
delivery
system will ofenable
of the products
ofbigsuppliers
products data inextraction
in due
is very
due time.
time. important
In
from that
that
the
processes
processes that
that are
are responsive
responsive to
to changes
changes or
or unexpected
unexpected events
events regard,
regard,
to assure the
the system
system
the delivery will
will enable
enable
of the big
big
products data
data inextraction
extraction
due time. from
from
In the
the
that
demand.
processes This
originatingthat new
are responsive
throughout model
the value needs
to changes
value transparent
or unexpected
chain. Moreover,
Moreover, production
events Internet
it requires
requires regard,
Internet of the system
of Things
Things (IoT), will enable
(IoT), advanced big data
advanced data extraction
data analytics
analytics and from the
and
originating
originating
processes throughout
throughout
that are responsivethe
the value
to chain.
chain.
changes Moreover,
or unexpected it
it requires
events Internet
regard, of
the Things
system (IoT),
will enable advanced
big data data
extractionanalytics from and
the
originating throughout
transparent logistics
transparent the
logistics processes value
processes that chain.
that ensure Moreover, it
ensure aa just-in-time requires
just-in-time complex Internet
complex event of Things
event processing, (IoT),
processing, also advanced
also providing data
providing automated analytics
automated control and
control
transparent
originating logistics
throughout
transparentguarantees
paradigm logistics that processes
the material that
value chain.
processes thatflow ensure
Moreover,
ensure
is aa just-in-time
optimized it requires
just-in-time
just-in- complexcyber-physical
Internet
complex
through event
of Things
event processing,
processing, (IoT), also
also
gateways. providingdata
advanced
providing automated
analytics
automated control
and
control
paradigm
paradigm guarantees
guarantees that
that material
material flow
flow is
is optimized
optimized just-in-
just-in- through
through
complex cyber-physical
cyber-physical
event processing, gateways.
gateways.
also providing automated control
transparent
paradigm even
sequence logistics
guarantees
when processes
that material
disruptive that
events flow ensure a just-in-time
is optimized just-in- In
occur. through cyber-physical
this paper, we describe gateways.
the work done to design aa decision
sequence even when disruptive events occur. In
In this
this paper,
paper, we
wefordescribe
describe the
thethe work
work done
done to design
to events
design in decision
sequence
paradigm
sequence
This
This case
case
even
even when
guarantees
when
stems
stems
disruptive
that the
material
disruptive
from
from the
events
events
need
need
flowto
to
occur.
isguarantee
occur. optimizedbusiness
guarantee
just-in- support
business
through
In this
support
cyber-physical
paper,
system
system we fordescribe
managing
managing
gateways.
the work
the done
disruptive
disruptive to design
events inaa decision
decision
inbound
inbound
This
sequence
This case
case
continuity even
in stems
when
stems
the from
from
ever-changing the
disruptive
the need
events
need to
to
contemporary occur.guarantee
guarantee business
business
manufacturing support
In this
support
logistics, system
paper,
system
a we
topic for
for not managing
describe
managing the
elaborated the
work
the disruptive
done
disruptive
extensively to events
design
events
in the in
ina inbound
decision
inbound
literature.
continuity
continuity in
in the
the ever-changing
ever-changing contemporary
contemporary manufacturing
manufacturing logistics,
logistics,
support a
a topic
topic
system for not
not elaborated
elaborated
managing the extensively
extensively
disruptive in
in
events the
the in literature.
literature.
inbound
This case
continuity in the
environment, stems
where from
ever-changing the
production need
goals to
contemporary are guarantee
often business
manufacturing
derailed by logistics,
The a topic not
optimization model elaborated
analyzes extensively
some in the literature.
new aspects related to
environment,
environment, where
where production
production goals
goals are
are often
often derailed
derailed by
by The optimization
Thespecific
optimization
logistics, a topic model
model
not analyzes
analyzes
elaborated some
some new
extensively new aspects
aspects
in the literature.related
related to to
continuity changes,
environment,
late-cycle in the ever-changing
where production
the use of contemporary
goals
unqualified are often
andmanufacturing
derailed
nonstandard by The
the optimization model
characteristics analyzes
of the some
problem. new aspects related to
late-cycle
late-cycle changes,
changes, the
the use
use of
of unqualified
unqualified and
and nonstandard
nonstandard the
the
The specific
specific characteristics
characteristics
optimization model of
of
analyzes the
the problem.
problem.
some new aspects related to
environment,
late-cycle
parts, unexpected
unexpectedwhere
changes, the production
plantuse of floor goals
unqualified are often
events, andlow low derailed
nonstandard by
supplier After the specific
After aa review characteristics
review of of the
the related of the
related literature problem.
literature in in Section
Section 2, 2, SectionSection 3 3
parts, plant floor events, supplier After
parts,
late-cycle
parts,
involvement
involvement
unexpected
changes,
unexpected thethe
and the
and
plant
plant
lack
lack
use
of of
of
floor
unqualified
floor
proper
proper
events,
events, and
decision
decision
low
low
support
support
supplier
nonstandard
supplier
tools to
tools to the After
explains
explains aa review
review
specific
the
of the
problem
problem
the related
thecharacteristics
of related
by classifying
by
literature
of literature
the problem.
classifying the
indisruptive
thein Section 2,
Section
disruptive
2,events
events
Section
Section and33
and
involvement
parts,
involvement
handle and
and the
unexpected
the above. the lack plantof
lack of proper
floor decision
proper events, support
decision low supplier
support tools
tools toto the explains
After
explains the problem
a review
the
alternatives problem
oftothe cope by classifying
by classifying
relatedwith literature
them. the
the
In disruptive
indisruptive
Section 4,
Section events
2,eventsaaSection
general and3
and
handle
handle the
the above.
above. the
the
explainsalternatives
alternatives
the problemto
to cope
cope by with
with
classifyingthem.
them. In
In
the Section
Section
disruptive 4,
4, a
events general
general and
involvement
handle
This and
the applies
case above. to the lack
the of proper
automotive decision
sector, support
and in tools
particular, to the alternatives
architecture of to cope
the solution withapproach
them. Inis Section
explained, 4, afollowed general
This
This case
case applies
applies to
to the
the automotive
automotive sector,
sector, and
and in
in particular,
particular, architecture
architecture
the alternativesof
of the the
to copesolution
solution withapproach
approach
them. Inis explained,
is Section
explained, followed
followed
4,5 adiscussesgeneral
handle
This
to one thethe
case
of above.
applies to
largest the automotive
European car sector,
manufacturers and in particular,
(employing architecture
by the of
mathematical the solution
modelling. approach
Finally, is explained,
Section followed
to
to one
one of
of the
the largest
largest European
European car
car manufacturers
manufacturers (employing
(employing by
by the
the
architecture mathematical
mathematical
of the modelling.
modelling.
solution Finally,
Finally,
approach is Section
Section
explained, 55 discusses
discusses
followed
This
to case
onethan
more applies
of the to the
largestpeople
200,000 automotive
European in sector,
car manufacturers
2014), with and
multiple in particular,
(employing
production by
the the
futuremathematical
improvements modelling.
of Finally, model.
the proposed Section 5 discusses
more the future improvements of
of the
the proposed
Finally, model.
onethan
more
to
more
sites, than
of
than
200,000
200,000
the largest
200,000
including
people
people
European
people
in
in
in
joint-ventures,
2014),
2014), with
with
car manufacturers
2014), with
license
multiple
multiple
multiple
production
production
(employing
productionproduction and the the
by
the future
future improvements
mathematical
improvements modelling.
of the proposed
proposed model.
Section 5 discusses
model.
sites,
sites,
more including
including
than 200,000 joint-ventures,
joint-ventures,
people in 2014), license
license
with production
production
multiple production and
and the future improvements 2. STATE of theOF THE
proposed ART model.
sites, including
outsourced production joint-ventures,
facilities in license
several productionSupply
countries. and 2. STATE
2. STATE
STATE OF OF
OF THETHE
THE ART ART
ART
outsourced
outsourced
sites, production
production
including facilities
facilities
joint-ventures, in
in several
several countries.
countries. Supply
Supply 2.
outsourced
chains and
chains and production
production facilities
plants
plants need
need in license
several
to
to optimize
optimize
production
countries.
operations
operations
and
Supply to Analyzing
to Analyzing the the inbound
inbound 2. STATE logistics
logistics OFin in
THEthe ART
the automotive sector sector is is anan
chains andincreasing
outsourced
chains and productionproduct
production plants
facilities
plants need
need in to to optimize
several
optimize operations
countries.
operationsSupply Analyzing the
to Analyzing
to the inbound logistics logistics in the automotive
in the automotive sector sector is is an
cope with
cope with increasing product variability,
variability, uncertainties
uncertainties in the
in the important issue
important issueinbound
since, on
since, on thethe one hand,automotive
one hand, it accounts
it accounts for for 10% 10% an of
of
cope
supplywith
chains
cope and
with
chain,increasing
production
increasing product
plants need
product
shorter lead-times
lead-times variability,
andtoreduced
variability, reduced uncertainties
optimize operations
uncertainties
working in
in the
the
capital. important
to Analyzing
important
the issue
issue
manufacturing since,
the inbound
since, costs.on
on the
logistics
the
On one one hand,
theinhand,
other it
it accounts
the automotive
accounts
hand, for 10%
sector
this costfor
cost 10%
is isin
inanofa
of
supply chain, shorter and working capital. the
the manufacturing
manufacturing costs.
costs. On
On the
the other
other hand,
hand, this
this cost is
is in a
supply
cope
supply chain,
with
Continuous
Continuous
shorter
increasing
chain,optimization
optimization
lead-times
product
shorter lead-times is
is
and
variability,
required
required
reduced
and reduced and
and
working
uncertainties
working
needs
needs
capital.
in the
capital. trade-off
adequate
adequate
important
the issue
manufacturing
trade-off with the
with
since, on
costs. On
the on-time
on-time the one hand,
the other
delivery
delivery
it
of the
of
accounts
hand,
the for
this cost isto
components
components
10% theaa
tointheof
Continuous
supply chain,and optimization
shorter is
lead-times required
and reduced and needs
needs adequate
working capital. trade-off with
the with the the on-time
on-timeOn delivery of the
the components tointhe
thea
Continuous
technology
technology optimization
and methods
methods to
tois perform
required
perform and validation
early
early validation adequate
and
and to
to plantmanufacturing
trade-off
plant (Miemczyk
(Miemczyk etcosts.
et al., 2004).
al., 2004). the
Theother
delivery
The of
latter
latter
hand,
is more
more
thispredominant
is components cost isto
predominant
technology
Continuous
technology and methods
optimization
and methods tois perform
to Withrequired
perform early
and validation
needs
early validation and
adequate
andthatto
to plant plant
trade-off (Miemczyk
with the et al.,
on-time 2004). The
delivery latter
of the is more
components predominant to the
achieve
achieve company
company targets.
targets. aa generated turnover than (Miemczyk formeret since
the former al., 2004).
since mostThe oflatter
the isinbound
more predominant
inbound flows to to
achieve
technology
achieve
represents company
and of
company
6.3% targets.
methods
targets.
EU GDP to With
With
perform
With
and aa generated
ripple generated
early
generated
effects
turnover
turnover
validation
turnover
throughout andthat
that
to plant
that
the
than
than
automotive
the
than (Miemczyk
the former
the formeret since
manufacturers
since
al., 2004).most
mostThe
most
are
of
of
the
oflatter
the isinbound
the
delivered
inbound
more
by a predominant
Just-In-Time
flows
flows to
flows to
represents
represents
achieve 6.3%
6.3%
company of
of EU
EU GDP
GDP
targets. and
and
With ripple
ripple
a effects
effects
generated throughout
throughout
turnover the
the
that automotive
automotive
than the manufacturers
manufacturers
former since are
are
most delivered
delivered
of the by
by
inboundaa Just-In-Time
Just-In-Timeflows to
represents
economy
economy 6.3% of EUaa GDP
supporting
supporting vast
vast and
supply
supply ripple chain
chain effects
and
and throughout
generating
generating the
an
an automotive
(JIT) strategy,
(JIT) strategy,manufacturers
and more
and more recentlyare delivered
recently by a Just-In-Time
by Just-In-Sequence
by Just-In-Sequence (JIS)
(JIS)
economy
represents
economy
array of supporting
supporting
of business
business EUaa GDP
6.3% ofservices, vast
vastthesupply
and
supply
the ripple
automotivechain
chain and
effects
and generating
throughout
generating
industry is highly
highlyan
the
an (JIT) (JIT) strategy,
automotive strategy, and more
manufacturers
and more recently
recently by Just-In-Sequence
are delivered
by Just-In-Sequence
by a partsJust-In-Time (JIS)
(JIS)
array services, automotive industry is delivery
delivery methods
methods which
which amount
amount to
to 40%
40% average
average parts volume
volume
array
economy
array of
of business
supporting
business
competitive, and services,
a
services,
and innovation vast
innovation isthe
the automotive
supply
automotive
is its chain
its driving industry
and
industry
driving force. is
generating
is highly
highly
force. The an
The of delivery
(JIT)
delivery methods
strategy,
methods and which
which more amount
recently
amount to
to 40%
by
40% average
Just-In-Sequence
average parts
parts volume
(JIS)
volume
competitive, of aa car
car (Wagner
(Wagner et et al.,
al., 2012).
2012). Svensson
Svensson (2002) (2002) analyzed
analyzed the the
competitive,
array of business
competitive,
automotive and
industry innovation
and services,
innovation
is the largest is
the automotive its
its driving
isprivate industry
driving
investor force.
force.
in The
isresearch
highly
The time of aa car
delivery
of
time carand (Wagner
methods
(Wagner
functional et al.,
which
et al., amount
2012).
2012).
dependenciesSvensson
to 40% average
Svensson (2002) parts
(2002)
among analyzed
analyzed
firms volume the
the
and
automotive
automotive
competitive, industry
industry
and is
is the
the
innovation largest
largest is private
private
its investor
investor
driving in
in
force.research
research
The time
of a car and
and functional
functional
(Wagner et al., dependencies
dependencies
2012). Svensson among
among
(2002) firms
firms
analyzed and
and
the
automotive
and
and development
development industry in
in is the largest
Europe,
Europe, investing
investingprivate over
over investor
€41.5
€41.5 in research
billion
billion into
into time
emphasized
emphasized and functional
the role
the role of of dependencies
JIT in
JIT in automotive
automotive amongmanufacturing
firms and
manufacturing
and
and development
automotive
development industry in
in Europe,
is the largest
Europe, investing
investingprivate over
over €41.5
€41.5 billion
investor in research
billion into
into time emphasized
emphasized the role
and functional
the role of of dependencies
JIT in
JIT in automotive
automotive manufacturing
amongmanufacturing
firms and
2405-8963
and © 2018, IFAC
development in (International
Europe, investing Federation
over of Automatic
€41.5 billion Control)
into Hosting
emphasized by Elsevier
the Ltd.
role All
of rights
JIT reserved.
in automotive manufacturing
Copyright © 2018 IFAC
Copyright
Copyright ©under
Peer review© 2018 responsibility
2018 IFAC
IFAC 376Control.
376
of International Federation of Automatic 376
Copyright
Copyright ©
© 2018
2018 IFAC
IFAC 376
376
10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.322
Copyright © 2018 IFAC 376
 IFAC INCOM 2018
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 Mohammadtaghi Falsafi et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 376–381 377
when the time dependency aspect is discussed. It analyzed
the role of JIS by focusing on its importance in the
elimination of inventory. Thun et al. (2007) showed three
approaches for components delivery in a JIS system. In the
second approach, where the supplier produces the sequence
based on the manufacturer’s demand and then transports the
products to the manufacturer’s site, it was emphasized that
the most critical issue is the high cost of production re-
scheduling due to disruptions in sequence delivery.
Accordingly, the disruptions in this area cause tremendous
costs, not only because of re-scheduling of the supply chain
plan but also, more importantly, the necessity for the re-
scheduling of the assembly line; this cost may be much
higher than the costs of inbound logistics. Bode et al. (2015)
defined the supply chain disruption as the combination of an
unexpected triggering event that occurs somewhere in the
upstream supply chain, the inbound logistics network, or the
purchasing environment, and a consequential situation which
presents a serious threat to the normal course of business
operations for the focal firm.
To overcome the disruptions in the most effective and
efficient way, Meyer et al. (2017) proposed a solution
framework in four steps: 1. Identifying the disruptive events
2. Analyzing the effect of the event 3. Mitigation actions (i.e.
proposing alternatives) and 4. Communicating the corrective
actions to the decision-maker. The events that cause
disruptions are divided into two main categories: the
problems with suppliers (e.g. in terms of quality or failure)
and the disruptions in transportation modes (e.g. logistic
integration or channel interruption) [Wagner et al. (2012) and
El Abdellaoui et al. (2017)]. Meyer et al. (2017) analyzed the
delays in transport modes and, as an alternative to cope with
such interruptions, proposed the use of faster transport modes
(an additional truck). Boysen et al. (2015) used four
alternatives when a part is delayed. Among these alternatives,
three of them are related to the assembly line; the only
solution which is related to the inbound logistics is the use of
the express delivery method.
Wagner et al. (2012) stated that process optimization is one
of the most effective ways to deal with disruptions. However,
it concluded that there is a gap in the literature to quantify the
impact of disruptions on the total costs for the company.
Boysen et al. (2015) added another aspect of the problem
which is related to the arrival of the delayed components to
the dock doors of the plant. This problem is divided into the
assignment of the trucks to the arrival times at the plant and
the assignment of the docks to the trucks. It was mentioned
that these aspects were not considered in the literature.
However, this problem is partially dealt in the papers which
analyze the problem of cross-docking. Boysen et al. (2010)
emphasized the focus of both input and output docks in the
literature of cross-docking problems. (refer to Yu et al., 2008
for an example). However, for automotive manufacturers, the
problems in cross-docking are not the same as those in the
arrival docks.
3. THE PROBLEM
3.1 Inbound Logistics
377
In the analyzed supply chain, the flow of components moves
from suppliers through the distribution centers and arrives at
the docks of the assembly plants (Figure 1). Then, the
arriving components are transferred to the inventory or
directly to the assembly line. The correct feeding of the
assembly line depends on the timely arrival of the
components since a displacement of the parts may incur
heavy costs for production re-scheduling. The main events
that cause delays can happen at different points in the supply
chain (Figure 1):
A. Supplier: There might be problems at the suppliers’
warehouse due to events such as the quality of the
components or the delayed delivery of the orders.
B. Means of transport: The means of transport might
experience a delay during the trip from suppliers to the
assembly plant. In this case, the order is already on the
container and is traveling when some problems occur
(e.g. traffic or problems at the distribution center).
C. Dock: Even though the components arrive on time, there
might be some problems at the docks due to issues with
handling and unloading equipment, or the dock situation.
Fig. 1: Flows in the inbound logistics and the corresponding
delay events
3.2 Feasible Alternatives
When one of the three delay events occurs, it is possible to
apply two strategies to solve the problem, as follows:
1. Transport management. This alternative is considered
when the supplier is late or there are problems during
transportation (e.g., problems of loading / unloading at
distribution centers). In such a case, the module for the
optimization will evaluate the use of faster modes, e.g.
express delivery, in order to speed up delivery and, if
possible, achieve the planned arrival time taking into
consideration trade-offs between cost and delivery time.
2. Dock management. This alternative is considered for any
kind of disruptive event. The module will optimize the
assignment of the arriving orders to the docks taking into
consideration different strategies:
a. Stay in the same dock, changing the time window.
This offers the advantage that there is no change in
the dock; once it has arrived, the truck waits at the
dock until a free-time window arises.
b. Change dock. This strategy has the advantage of
avoiding further delays. If in a dock, different from
the planned one, the time window is free when the
truck arrives, the truck can be unloaded at the free
dock.
c. Open a reserved dock. In the set of available docks,
the company always reserves one free dock during
IFAC INCOM 2018
378
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 Mohammadtaghi Falsafi et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 376–381

the entire time horizon. Based on necessity, this

dock can be opened with the related costs of setup.
d. Increase the number of resources. If the resources
available are not sufficient, it is possible to add new
resources for the unloading process.
4. SOLUTION METHODOLOGY

4.1 General Architecture

To manage the disruptive events which occur in the inbound

logistics process, different levels of analysis are required. In
figure 2, a general architecture is presented to integrate the
data which comes from four important different tools to
minimize the impact of the disruptions on the entire supply
chain. The tools are Complex Event Processing (CEP),
database (DB), a simulation module, and an optimization
module which is formed by two sub-modules: one for the
transportation and dock management, the other for the
production re-scheduling.
1. The CEP module, based on data collected from trucks,
docks and suppliers, allows the detection of the delay
events; the output of this module is an alert for each type
of delay.
2. DB allows a firm to manage all the data derived from the
enterprise information system (including ERP, SCM
WMS) and collects all the information needed for the
simulation and optimization.
3. The simulation module allows a firm to measure the
impact of delays identified by CEP on the production
plant KPIs. Simulation results are not applied to the
optimization module, but comparing the KPIs with the
company targets for those KPIs, it is possible to
understand if it is necessary to activate the optimization
module to mitigate the impact of the delays.
4. The optimization module allows a firm to take the
following decisions:
a. Transport and docks management based on input data
such as unloading cost, transport cost, and dock
assignment. The results are a new transportation plan
and dock assignment.
b. Re-scheduling production management based on input
data such as re-scheduling cost, inventory costs,
production planning, etc. The output is a new
production plan.
The two sub-modules for the optimization are linked to
each other. In fact, the transport and dock management
require the cost of the production re-scheduling while the
second sub-module requires new transport and dock
plans. Once the optimization module has calculated a
solution to reduce the impact of delay, these results can be
used as inputs for a new simulation to measure the impact
of the new solutions on the KPIs.
This architecture allows a firm to manage the disruptive
events with real-time integration of the data from different
sources. This strategy represents a novel use of digital
platforms.
In relation to the two sub-modules for the optimization,
different use cases (UC) have been defined within the
company to describe how the modules address the related use
Fig. 2. General architecture
cases. These cases are useful to explain how the digital
platform can communicate and interact with the user to
support the decision process in the context of production re-
scheduling and inbound logistics.
 UC_1: Provide alternatives for optimal production
scheduling. The optimization module provides a holistic
production scheduling tool that, given the input (events,
horizon, shop-floor configuration), handles all the
corresponding running flows and produces a feasible
schedule that addresses the selected events based on user-
specified optimization criteria.
 UC_2: Provide alternatives for delays in delivery. In this
use case, the optimization module produces feasible
alternatives to handle delays in the delivery of
components, in order to provide a new transportation and
dock management plan, minimizing the impact of the
delay on the production schedule. The strategies
employed include the alternatives presented in section
3.2.
 UC_3: Provide a combination of production schedule,
transportation plan and plan for activities at docking
stations. This use case enables a firm to select alternatives
to handle delays in the delivery of components by
providing alternatives in the transportation plan or the
activities at the dock stations. Subsequently, this strategy
allows a firm to obtain an optimal schedule given the
changes proposed in the delivery of components by the
various alternatives, as well as other events that the user
may choose to handle.
 UC_4 Evaluate the transportation plan and activities at
docking stations. For this use case, optimization offers an
evaluation of the set of feasible alternatives in the
transportation plan or the activities at the dock stations to
handle delays in the delivery of components. This
evaluation includes the following impact estimation
metrics:
o New transportation and dock plan
o Total cost of the implemented solutions
o Number of solved delays
o Number of delays not solved (treated by production
re-scheduling)
In the following sub-sections, we focus on the optimization
module and, in particular, we propose a model to address the
management of the dock’s assignment when some disruptive
events occur.

378
 IFAC INCOM 2018
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 Mohammadtaghi Falsafi et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 376–381 379
4.2 Dock Management Model
The model implements the second alternative proposed in
section 3.2. The following assumptions have been defined:
1. Each arriving truck is associated to one order.
2. Each time window is equal to one hour.
3. The unloading process for all the orders is fixed to one
hour (15 minutes of preparation and 45 minutes of
unloading).
4. To unload each truck, one resource is required.
5. Two types of docks are available:
a. Standard docks, where the orders are normally
unloaded.
b. Reserved docks, where usually no order is assigned to
them. These docks are reserved so that they are
opened in case of necessity.
The model manages the incoming disruptive events and
minimizes the total cost to update the dock assignment in
order to find a new optimal solution for the dock
management.
The most important aim is to respect the “actual production
time” which indicates the time when the incoming order is
required on the assembly line. Based on this time, it is
possible to calculate when, at maximum, the order must be
ready at the dock (due time) (Figure 3). Due time is the
difference between the “actual production time” and the time
needed to transport the order from the warehouse which is
close to the docks to the assembly line. It is possible to
manage the transfer of the components from the warehouse to
the assembly line in different ways: the standard method
(used to define the “due time”) and two faster strategies
which feature more expedient transport and more costs and
which are used to compensate for the delay when the delayed
orders arrive after the “due time”. Therefore, the two
strategies define two moments (acceptable due time_S1 and
_S2): these are calculated as the difference between the
“actual production time” and the respective transfer time by
applying each transfer equipment. If the delayed orders arrive
after these two moments, the only solution to accommodate
the delay is production re-scheduling. Consequently, it is
possible to define the buffer time as the time between the
“due time” and the specific time window when the
production re-scheduling is required. If the order arrives after
the buffer time, it is considered to be within the re-scheduling
time.
When a disruption occurs, the order will arrive after the
planned arrival time, a period known as the estimated arrival
time. After the arrival of an order to the dock, it takes a
specific amount of time to be unloaded and transferred to the
warehouse (unloading duration). After unloading, the order is
ready to be transferred to the assembly line (readiness time).
If the estimated readiness time is before the due time, there is
no additional cost. But if it is later than the due time, it would
have the cost related to the buffer time or re-scheduling cost
according to the delay amount (Figure 3).
Based on this information, we list the set and parameters used
in the model. The sets are defined as follows:
i : orders ( i  1.. I )
k : docks ( k  1.. K )
379
Fig. 3: Calculation of the buffer and re-scheduling time
t : time window, the unit of time which the planning is based
on ( t  1..T )
s : strategies for the transferring of the orders to the assembly
line ( s  1, 2 )
Based on the dock assignment and the amount of delay,
which respectively come from DB and CEP, it is possible to
define the following parameters:
PDA i , k ,t : Planned dock assignment for order i assigned to
dock k at time t
DDA i , k ,t : Dock assignment after the disruptive events; it
shows the impact of the events A and B on the dock plan; it is
possible to see some overlaps between orders since some
orders could arrive at the same dock in the same time window
AD i : Assigned dock for order i . It is calculated from
PDA i , k ,t
AT i :Arrival time of order i ; it considers the amount of the
delay per each order. If a specific order is affected by a
disruptive event, it is calculated from DDA i , k ,t
DP k , t : Dock problem for dock k at time t
N A Rt : Number of available resources at each time t
BT i , s , t : Buffer time for time t of each order i with each of
the transferring strategies (S1, S2). It is one when, in the
arrival of an order, it is required to use one of the strategies to
speed up the transferring.
RT i , t : Re-scheduling time at time t for each order i
DSC : Dock setup cost for each dock k ; this cost occurs
k
when the order i is unloaded in a new dock (standard or
reserved) which is different from the planned one.
ARC : Cost of the additional resources required to guarantee
the unloading process at each time window t
WC : Waiting cost; it depends on how many time windows
one order has to wait between its arrival time and the
assigned time window in the new dock assignment because of
the lack of free docks.
BC s : Buffer cost for strategy s; the cost of transferring the
orders from the warehouse to the assembly line for each
buffer strategy.
RC i : Re-scheduling cost for order i ; The main cost is due to
the production re-scheduling and therefore, losses in job-per
hour (JPH).
IFAC INCOM 2018
380
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018
The decision variable is defined as:
N D Ai , k , t : New dock assignment for order i to dock k at
time t
The objective function minimizes the total cost:
M in  ( N D Ai , k ,t  D C S k ) 
i , k  A D i ,t
 
 
 NDA  BC s  BTi , s , t  1    RC i  RTi , t  1  
i , k ,t
i , k ,t  s
 A R C  m ax {  ( N D Ai , k , t )  N A R t , 0} 
t i ,k
 (W C     t  N D A   A T  ) i , k ,t
i t ,k
(1.1) shows the calculation of the setup cost. This cost is
considered just when the assigned dock in the new dock
assignment is different from the assigned dock in the planned
dock assignment. (1.2) calculates the buffer and re-
scheduling costs. (1.3) calculates the additional resource cost
when the number of available resources is not enough for the
incoming orders in the new dock assignment. When the
number of orders is less than the number of available
resources in each time window, no additional resource cost
should be considered, and therefore, this line should be zero.
(1.4) calculates the waiting cost when, in the new dock
assignment, the order is assigned to a later time than its
arrival time.
The constraints are as follows:
 1   1  D Pk , t 
 NDA i , k ,t
i
 NDA i , k ,t
1 i
k ,t
 N D Ai , k , t  0
i , k , t   A Ti  1 
Constraint (2) ensures that, in the new dock assignment, there
should be maximum one order assigned to a specific dock in
a specific time; but in case of dock problems, no order can be
assigned. Constraint (3) ensures that one order cannot be
assigned to more than one dock and one time window. The
last constraint (4) ensures that each order cannot be assigned
to an earlier time than its arrival time at the dock.
To avoid the cases for which the model cannot find a
solution, a condition has been developed which has to be
checked before running the optimization. In the constraints
(2), (3), and (4), the total number of orders assigned to a
specific time window, considering the delay per each order,
has to be less than or equal to the number of time windows
available from that specific window to the end of the time
horizon ( T ). It is also necessary to consider the problems at
the docks which make them unavailable:
 DDAi , k ,t  k   T  t1  1   k ,t  t  T DPk ,t
i , k , t1  t  T
Mohammadtaghi Falsafi et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 376–381
If this condition is verified per each time window, the model
can provide a solution; otherwise, the model sends the list of
orders to be solved in the next time horizon.
4.3 Preliminary results
1.1 In Table 1, the most important input data is summarized
(from A to D): these data create an overview of the problem
to deal with the proposed model and derives from the
processing of the parameters listed in section 4.2. The input
 1.2
 data are as follows:
A. Number of arriving orders: Number of the total orders
1.3
dealt with the model (represented by i )
B. Disruptive orders: Number of orders which have a delay
caused by one of the three events listed in section 3.1.
i 1.4 “b1” are the orders affected by event A, B and/or C, and
“b2” are the orders affected only by event C (it derives
from the comparison between PDA i , k ,t and DDA i , k ,t )
C. Number of time windows with more than one orders:
indicates when there are overlaps between orders that
have to be solved (it derives from DDA i , k ,t )
D. Initial delay: the total amount of delay of the disruptive
orders (it derives from the comparison between
PDA i , k ,t and DDA i , k ,t )
From the row E to L, the solution of NDA i , k ,t has been
aggregated in appropriate KPIs to support the company in
understanding the results and comparing different scenarios.
In particular:
E. Total waiting time: the sum of time that some orders
have to wait once they arrive at the docks
F. Final delay: the sum of D and E
k ,t (2) G. Total cost of solution: the cost to implement the new
dock assignment provided by the model (derives from
(3) (1))
H. Number of orders solved in buffer time (S1 or S2): the
total number of orders which are unloaded in a time
window inside the buffer time implementing strategy 1
(4) or 2
I. Number of orders solved with re-scheduling: the total
amount of orders which are unloaded after the re-
scheduling time and for which production re-scheduling
is required
J. Number of orders assigned to the reserved dock: the total
number of orders which are unloaded at the reserved
dock
K. Time windows with extra resources: the number of time
windows when an extra resource is required to unload
the orders assigned to a specific time window
L. Number of extra resources: the total number of extra
resources required to unload the arriving orders
To test the model, we assume that the company uses the
model to manage the disruptive events which affect the
orders in one day. There are three standard docks and one
reserved dock. In addition, the company works on two eight-
hours shifts, so the model manages 16 time windows per each
dock. Cases 1, 2 and 3 are differentiated by the number of
arriving orders: Case 1 is the worst because it has the
 t1  t
1 maximum number of arriving orders (48, 3 standard docks
per 16 time windows): the results show that (Figure 4) if the
380
 IFAC INCOM 2018
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 Mohammadtaghi Falsafi et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 376–381 381

Table 1. Comparison of the results simplified problem; future research aims at increasing the
dimension of the problem and measuring the impact on the
Input case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4
most important KPIs of the company. The model, in fact, is
A 48 32 36 36
expected to influence the following dimensions: job-per-hour
B 21 19 23 21
(JPH), OEE, stock-out, and the capability to respond properly
b1 20 19 23 19
to disruptive events. Furthermore, in the proposed model in
b2 1 0 0 2
this paper, the dock management does not have strategies for
C 13 10 10 10
reducing the delay caused by disruptive events. The model
D 33 33 33 61
could be further refined by considering the transport
KPIs case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4
E 21 2 3 10
management strategies to reduce this amount.
F 54 35 36 71
G 3689 2482 2148 4238 Acknowledgements: The work on this paper is funded
H 17 13 23 12 mainly by the European Commission through the DISRUPT
I 5 5 1 8 project H2020 FOF-11-2016, RIA project n. 723541, 2016-
J 8 2 2 3 2018). The authors would like to thank the contributions of
K 4 - - 1 the different partners of the DISRUPT project.
L 4 - - 2 REFERENCES
company has to deal with the maximum number of orders, it
becomes necessary to implement all the strategies listed in Bode, C., & Wagner, S. M. (2015). Structural drivers of
section 3.2 to manage the disruptive events and in particular upstream supply chain complexity and the frequency of
the waiting cost, the re-scheduling cost and the cost for extra supply chain disruptions. Journal of Operations
docks and resources are higher than the costs in the other two Management, 36, 215-228.
cases. In cases 2 and 3, for example, no extra resources are Boysen, N., Emde, S., Hoeck, M. and Kauderer, M., 2015.
required and the waiting cost is very low. Part logistics in the automotive industry: Decision
problems, literature review and research
agenda. European Journal of Operational
Research, 242(1), pp.107-120.
Boysen, N., & Fliedner, M. (2010). Cross dock scheduling:
Classification, literature review and research
agenda. Omega, 38(6), 413-422.
Meyer, A., Sejdovic, S., Glock, K., Bender, M., Kleiner, N.,
& Riemer, D. (2017). A disruption management system
for automotive inbound networks: concepts and
challenges. EURO Journal on Transportation and
Logistics, 1-32.
Fig. 4: Results comparison Miemczyk, J., & Holweg, M. (2004). Building Cars to
Customer Order—What Does it Mean for Inbound
Comparing cases 3 and 4, the model manages the same Logistics Operations?. Journal of Business
number of arriving orders but the total delay in case 4 is Logistics, 25(2), 171-197.
almost doubled compared to case 3. This higher amount of Svensson, G. (2002). A conceptual framework of
delay causes the use of the re-scheduling strategy for most of vulnerability in firms’ inbound and outbound logistics
the disruptive orders: in case 3 the percentage of orders flows. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
solved with the re-scheduling is 4% whereas in case 4 it is Logistics Management, 32(2), 110-134.
38%. Thun, J.H., Marble, R.P. and Silveira-Camargos, V., 2007. A
5. CONCLUSION conceptual framework and empirical results of the risk
and potential of just in sequence. Journal of Operations
Every day manufacturing flow interruptions caused by and Logistics, 1(2).
problems in the supply chain management of the analyzed Wagner, S.M. and Silveira-Camargos, V., 2012. Managing
company affect the overall productivity due to micro-stops risks in just-in-sequence supply networks: Exploratory
and macro-stops, accounting for 2-4% of Overall Equipment evidence from automakers. IEEE Transactions on
Effectiveness (OEE). Moreover, changes in production Engineering Management, 59(1), pp.52-64.
schedule as an impact the plant resources (manpower, El Abdellaoui Mohamed , M. Moflih Youssef , Analysis of
consumption, material scheduling) constitute 4% of operating Risk Factors and Events Linked to the Supply Chain:
costs. The main objectives for the company are to reduce Case of Automotive Sector in Morocco, Journal of
manufacturing downtimes due to the external events which Logistics Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, 2017, pp. 41-51.
immobilize capital throughout the supply chain. doi: 10.5923/j.logistics.20170602.02
For this reason, an optimization model is developed to Yu, W., & Egbelu, P. J. (2008). Scheduling of inbound and
manage the disruptive events that occur during the inbound outbound trucks in cross docking systems with
logistics, and to optimize the alternatives defined according temporary storage. European Journal of Operational
to the company disciplines. The model works with a Research, 184(1), 377-396.

381