Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Simulation-Based Procedure For Implementing Theory of Constraints: Extension For Cases With Multiple Bottlenecks
Simulation-Based Procedure For Implementing Theory of Constraints: Extension For Cases With Multiple Bottlenecks
Simulation-Based Procedure For Implementing Theory of Constraints: Extension For Cases With Multiple Bottlenecks
Abstract.
This paper presents a simulation-based procedure to implement TOC policy in a manufacturing environment
with multiple bottlenecks. The procedure is an extension of the single bottleneck case originally proposed by
Kasemset and Kachitvichyanukul (2005). The procedure uses simulation to identify bottlenecks, set up DBR
system and evaluate the performance of the new system.
The cases with multiple bottlenecks are much more difficult than the cases with single bottleneck. Starting
with bottleneck identification, bottlenecks are identified by conducting simulation experiments to identify all
system bottlenecks. After the real bottlenecks are identified, more simulation experiments are carried out to
determine buffer size for each bottleneck station. The final step is to establish the DBR (Drum-Buffer-Rope).
The performance evaluation is done to verify the effectiveness of the resulting DBR. An example is given to
illustrate the procedure.
Keywords: Theory of Constraints (TOC), Simulation-based Procedure, Multiple Bottlenecks, DBR (Drum-
Buffer-Rope).
________________________________________
† : Corresponding Author
1803
APIEMS 2008 Proceedings of the 9th Asia Pasific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference
defining basic manufacturing data: machines, jobs, significantly higher mean confident interval of throughput
processes, demand target, warehouse limitation etc. than the base case is identified to be the system bottleneck,
The procedure to use the model in accordance with the (see Kasemset 2005 and Kasemset and Kachitvichyanukul
five steps of TOC is described below. 2007).
3. THE EXTENSION FOR MULTIPLE numbers of drums and ropes will increase subsequently as
BOTTLENECK CASE the number of bottlenecks increased.
The fourth and fifth highlighted blocks in steps 2 to 4
As in Figure 1, the blocks with different color are the are for the setting of buffer sizes. In the multiple bottleneck
steps that were modified for the cases with multiple case, each scenario comes from combination of each
bottlenecks. bottleneck’s buffer size. Various buffer size combinations
The first colored block is in bottleneck identification must be tested to find the optimal situation that can meet
step. For the cases with multiple bottlenecks, more than one the target demand by comparing the throughput mean
simulation experiment is required because the result from confident interval with the target throughput.
the first experiment may not distinctly identify the real In case of multiple bottlenecks under flow shop, there
system bottlenecks. The second simulation is carried out are four DBR systems introduced by Gilland (2002) and
while each scenario is created by increasing the capacity of Tanaka et al. (2004); PFB1, PFB2, PFBB1 and PFBB2. In
a pair of bottleneck candidates. Simulation is rerun to job shop cases the DBR is set depended on each product
collect the throughput statistics of each scenario. The sequence because each product may pass through different
comparison and judgment are made similar to the case for bottleneck processes.
single bottleneck. The other steps that were not mentioned above are the
The second and third colored blocks in steps 2 to 4 are same as those for cases with single bottleneck. An
different from the single bottleneck case because the illustrative example will be shown in the next section.
D 50 8.33 0.120
C 30 10.00 0.100
F 25 8.33 0.120
Machine Name A B C D E F
λ (part/min) 0.0595 0.0599 0.047 0.065 0.0748 0.0466
In this experiment, Mean Interval Comparison Test is Same as previous step, Mean Interval Comparison
set to observe how the throughput increases in different Test is used again to compare each scenario throughput.
situation. The result is shown in Figure 2 The result is shown in Figure 3.
As can be seen in Figure 2, No test scenario is As can be seen in Figure 3, among all means of
distinctly different from one another at 75% confident scenario, only the scenario that machine A and E is added
interval, so additional tests must be performed. is significantly different from others and higher than based
The number of machines for these candidate stations scenario. Therefore, A and E are identified to be the
will be varied in pair in the verification experiments as bottleneck.
described in Table 6.
4.2 DBR Setting
Table 6: Detail of the Bottleneck Experiment for Test
Problem (2nd Step) After machine stations A and E are identified as
bottlenecks, Buffer and Rope can be located. For products
Scenario Detail 1 and 2, their production sequences pass through only one
Based All machines are the same. bottleneck machine, A for product 1 and E for product 2, so
1 Add A and B one machine per type. DBR setting is the same as in case of single bottleneck.
2 Add A and E one machine per type. (See in Figure 4A and 4B)
3 Add A and F one machine per type. The production sequence of Product 3 passes through
4 Add B and E one machine per type. multiple bottlenecks so the DBR setting should be selected
5 Add B and F one machine per type. from among PFB1, PFB2, PFBB1 and PFBB2 methods. In
6 Add E and F one machine per type. this example, PFB 1 is selected to apply. (See Figure 4C)
nd
Figure 3: Comparison of Mean Throughputs for Test Problem (2 Step)
Product 1:
Buffer Location: Before A
Buffer type: Raw material
Rope Location: After A connect to raw material release.
Figure 4A: DBR Setting for Product 1
Product 2:
Buffer Location: Before E
Buffer type: Raw material
Rope Location: After E connect to raw material release.
Product 3:
Buffer Location: Before A
Buffer type: Raw material
Rope Location: After A connect to raw material release.
(Following PFB1 Policy)
Item Detail
Target Throughput 200 parts/week
Tested Throughput 187.5 parts/week (current system)
209 part/week (under TOC)
Bottleneck Station (Drum) Station A (Casting Units) and E
(Shapers)
Buffer Location In front of station A and E
Buffer Size A = 10, B = 19
Machine Sequencing Rule FIFO
Rope 1st Rope is located between
ending of process A and the release of
material.
2nd Rope is located between
ending of process E and the release of
material.
3rd Rope is located between
system output and the release of
material and each machine station.
4.4 Manufacturing Configuration Conclusion production system with multiple bottlenecks: A simulation
analysis. Proceedings of the Fifth Asia Pacific Industrial
After finishing TOC implementation, the Engineering and Management Systems Conference 2004.
manufacturing configuration can be concluded in Table 10.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
5. SUMMARY
Chompoonoot Kasemset is a doctoral student in Industrial
This paper extends the approach from Kasemset and
Engineering and Management, School of Engineering and
Kachitvichyanukul (2005) that uses simulation as a Technology, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. Her
decision support tool to manage manufacturing systems research interests include operation management and
with multiple bottlenecks operated under the TOC policy. simulation and applied operation research. Her email
With the presents of multiple bottlenecks, the procedure to address is <st104182@ait.ac.th>
implement TOC is more complicated than that for the
single bottleneck case. An illustrative example shows how Voratas Kachitvichyanukul is an Associate Professor in
this procedure works in the case with multiple bottlenecks. Industrial Engineering & Management, School of
Simulation is used to identify the bottleneck and set up Engineering and Technology, Asian Institute of
DBR, as well as to evaluate system performance of new Technology, Thailand. He received a Ph. D. from the
configuration. School of Industrial Engineering at Purdue University in
In this study, only FIFO machine sequencing rule is 1982. He has extensive experiences in modeling of
used. Other policies can also be applied and compared to manufacturing systems. He had worked for FORTUNE 500
find the best policy for improving the system under TOC Companies such as Compaq Computer Corporation and
policy. Motorola Incorporated. He had also worked for
SEMATECH as technical coordinator of the future factory
REFERENCES program. His teaching and research interests include
evolutionary algorithms for combinatorial optimization,
Gilland, W.G. (2002) A simulation study comparing planning and scheduling, supply chain and logistics, high
performance of CONWIP and bottleneck-based release rule, performance computing and applied operations research
Production Planning & Control, 13 (2), 211-219. with special emphasis on industrial systems. His email
address is <voratas@ait.ac.th>
Goldratt, E.M. and Cox, J. (1986) The Goal: A
Process of Ongoing Improvement (Revised Edition), North
River Press.
Hopp, W.J. and Spearman, M.L (2001) Factory
Physics (Second Edition), McGraw-Hill Inc.
Kasemset, C. (2005) Simulation-based Tool for
Theory of Constraints (TOC) Implementation, Master’s
Thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.
Kasemset, C. and Kachitvichyanukul, V. (2005),
Simulation-based tool for implementing theory of
constraints. Proceeding of the 6th APIEMS Conference,
Manila, Philippines.
Kasemset, C. and Kachitvichyanukul, V. (2007)
Simulation-based procedure for bottleneck identification.
Proceeding of AsiaSim 2007, Asia Simulation Conference
2007, Seoul, Korea.
Radovilsky, Z.D. (1998) A quantitative approach to
estimate the size of the time buffer in the theory of
constraints, International Journal Production Economics,
55, 113-119.
Tanaka, K., Myreshka, Morikawa, K. and Takahashi,
K. (2004) Effective order release system for a multistage