European Journal of Operational Research 165 (2005) 696–707

www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

Production, Manufacturing and Logistics

Entropy as a measure of operational flexibility

Eyas Shuiabi a, Vince Thomson a,1
, Nadia Bhuiyan b,*

a
Mechanical Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Canada H3A 2K6
b
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada H3G 1M8
Received 1 November 2002; accepted 14 January 2004
Available online 24 March 2004

Abstract

As competition among firms is being based more and more on the level of service, there is a great interest in using a
measure of flexibility to indicate a firm’s capability to respond to customer demands. Entropy is proposed as a measure
of flexibility for manufacturing operations. The properties of entropy that make it a suitable measure of flexibility are
outlined. A computer simulation of a job shop was used to test the measure through a number of different scenarios
using a discrete-event stochastic simulator. Results showed that entropy succeeded in measuring flexibility when the
relative demand for the fabrication of products changed. Entropy was also used to monitor process flexibility as time
progressed.

2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Flexibility; Entropy; Operations; Simulation

1. Introduction tem (FMS). Kumar (1986) used entropy as a

As competition among firms is being based
more and more on the level of service, there is a
great interest in using a measure of flexibility to
indicate a firm’s capability to respond to customer
demands. One metric that has been proposed to
measure flexibility is entropy. Yao (1985) consid-
ered the notions of flexibility and entropy to be
equivalent, and used entropy to measure the
routing flexibility of a flexible manufacturing sys-
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-514-848-3133; fax: +1-514-
848-3175.
E-mail addresses: vince.thomson@mcgill.ca (V. Thomson),
bhuiyan@alcor.concordia.ca (N. Bhuiyan).
1
Tel.: +1-514-398-6307; fax: +1-514-398-7365.
means of measuring the operational flexibility of
an FMS. Rao and Gu (1994) used entropy as a
measure to quantify production volume and the
flexibility to make different products. The question
in this paper is whether entropy is a useful metric
to determine the flexibility of production opera-
tions.
The paper is organized as follows. The
remainder of this section discusses flexibility and
related work. Section 2 defines entropy as a mea-
sure of flexibility and provides a detailed expla-
nation of how it can be used. In Section 3, a
mathematical model is presented. This is followed
by the application of entropy as a measure of
flexibility to a simulation of a job shop in Section
4. The experimental design and results are

0377-2217/$ - see front matter
2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2004.01.033
 E. Shuiabi et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 165 (2005) 696–707
described in Sections 5 and 6, respectively, and the
final section presents conclusions.
1.1. Flexibility––the new challenge
The challenges that face manufacturing and
service environments today are steadily increasing.
To remain competitive, firms must deliver the best
out of their limited resources; they must develop
strategies and tactics that ensure their survival and
growth. For manufacturing managers, achieving
low cost and high quality is no longer enough to
guarantee success (Mohamed, 1994). In the face of
fierce, low-cost competition and an army of high
quality suppliers, companies are increasingly con-
centrating on flexibility as a way to achieve new
forms of competitive advantage. The flexible fac-
tory or firm can respond to customer orders more
quickly, provide a broad range of products, and
introduce new products more effortlessly (Upton,
1995).
As more companies move towards time-based
competition, they require more frequent deliveries
in smaller quantities. The mix of products ordered
by a client is most often not known until the last
minute (Maskell, 1994). Modifying the production
volume of specific products requires the capacity
to use production equipment for many different
tasks and the ability to change output rates of
machines and work cells. The fast pace of tech-
nology and the demands of customers for novel
and better products require companies to be able
to innovate continually and to bring these inno-
vations to the marketplace quickly. Many of the
Table 1
Definitions of flexibility types
Flexibility type
Machine
Material handling
Operation
Process
Product
Routing
Volume
Expansion
Program
Production
Market
697
leading Japanese companies have put much effort
into introducing new products with a minimum of
disruption to their normal activities. Both Kawa-
saki and Honda motorcycle companies, for
example, are able to introduce new models every
month. In this way, they are able to continuously
react to the demands of the marketplace (Maskell,
1994).
Incorporating flexibility requires a huge invest-
ment in new machinery or flexible manufacturing
systems as well as adopting new production tech-
niques. Thus, there is a need for a tool that will aid
in measuring the impact of new installations on the
flexibility of a process, or a tool that will enable the
monitoring of the flexibility of a whole plant.
1.2. Related work
In the context of manufacturing systems, flexi-
bility is widely accepted as the ability of a system to
cope with change (Mandelbaum, 1990). Zelenovic
(1982) defined flexibility as the ability of a system to
adapt itself to various changes. The changes ex-
pected to affect the performance of a manufactur-
ing system might occur for instance in product mix,
product volume, process or raw material. Sethi and
Sethi (1990) defined 11 different types of flexibility
given in Table 1, which assist in classifying flexi-
bility in manufacturing operations. More recently,
Kahyaoglu and Kayaligili (2002) proposed a
qualitative measure of flexibility using an opera-
tional approach that describes the performance
level of a system relative to a base case when a
change takes place. Their measure is proposed to
Definition
Ability of a machine to perform various types of operations
Ability to move different parts efficiently through a manufacturing facility
Ability to produce a part in different ways
Ability to make different parts without a major setup
Ease of adding or substituting new products in a manufacturing facility
Ability to produce a part by alternate routes through a system
Ability to operate profitably at different overall output levels
Ease by which a manufacturing system can increase capacity and capability
Ability of a system to run unattended for a period of time
Ability to produce different parts without adding major capital equipment
Ease with which a manufacturing system can adapt to a changing market
698 E. Shuiabi et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 165 (2005) 696–707
be useful when probabilities of outcomes are not
easily defined; however, their measure must be
redefined for each specific situation and the mea-
sure of change must be defined for each case.
Many researchers have proposed different mea-
sures of flexibility. Most of these have focused on a
particular type of flexibility, a static measure or a
particular situation. Some researchers have used
entropy as the measure of flexibility. Yao (1985)
used an information theory approach to define
entropy and used entropy to measure routing
flexibility. He used the principle of least reduction
of entropy to determine the best routing sequence
for parts in an FMS. Kumar (1986) obtained the
value of entropy for a Markovian process, and then
applied it to closed queuing network models of
flexible manufacturing systems to measure, first,
the loading flexibility that arises due to the avail-
ability of capacity at workstations, and second, the
operational flexibility that arises due to the ability
to choose among workstations that can each per-
form an operation. Total entropy was defined as
the sum of the entropy within operations, i.e., the
available capacity at several workstations, and the
entropy between operations, i.e., the ability to
choose among workstations for a specific opera-
tion. This definition of entropy allowed a measure
of the flexibility of an FMS based on the determi-
nation of the sequence of a set of operations by
using the principle of least reduction of entropy.
In another direction, Rao and Gu (1994) applied
an entropic measure to quantify production volume
and product flexibility. Their approach used prod-
uct demand forecasts and process probability
variations to determine the impact of product de-
mand changes on the performance of manufactur-
ing systems. System entropy was measured along a
required time span; the variation in entropy was
then used to quantify operational flexibility and its
impact on reconfigurability and cell life. By defining
a reconfiguration threshold that incorporated the
costs involved in reconfiguration, inter-cell pro-
cessing and other associated costs, it was possible to
determine the points in time when cell reconfigu-
ration was feasible to enhance operational flexibil-
ity. The interesting aspect of Rao and Gu’s research
was the use of entropy along a specified time line to
quantify operational flexibility. Entropy was cal-
culated using probabilistic product demand, which
was both the ability to handle different products as
well as the capacity of machines to handle pro-
duction volume. This made the measure suitable for
the design and planning of cellular manufacturing
systems to have maximum flexibility.
Neuman et al. (1993) have proposed that com-
panies use capacity, inventory and lead time for
flexibility in uncertain environments in addition to
the flexibility in their processes. This provides
volume flexibility. Pagell et al. (2000), through case
studies, concluded that companies do use different
mechanisms to achieve both plant and machine
level flexibility. Their definition of plant flexibility
is similar to Sethi and Sethi’s product flexibility,
where flexibility is the ability to add or substitute
new products. Thus, flexibility can have a technical
component where the capability of people and
equipment can adjust to the differences in the
production of various products, and a capacity
component where the availability of plant or ma-
chine capacity, inventory, and lead time can
accommodate changes in production level.
In the research reported in this paper, entropy
was used as a dynamic measure of flexibility along
a time continuum. This approach was thought to
be useful for monitoring process flexibility at both
the machine and plant level. This was tested by
simulating a job shop and by measuring the ability
of the shop and its machines to adapt to various
changes in demand for different products. The
approach outlined in this paper resembles that of
Rao and Gu in terms of measuring entropy along
a time span, but it differs in that it applies entropy
to actual production processes fulfilling work or-
ders rather than to product demand forecasts. This
makes the proposed measure more suitable for
monitoring operational flexibility.
2. Entropy
Rudolf Clasius, a German physicist, formulated
the second law of thermodynamics in 1865 by
stating that heat flowed spontaneously from hot
bodies to cold ones, never the reverse. He conjec-
tured that matter must have a previously unrec-
ognized property which he called entropy. He
 E. Shuiabi et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 165 (2005) 696–707
further showed that total entropy always increased
for all changes in any natural process. This
observation led him to formulate the second law
as: the entropy of the universe tends to a maxi-
mum. Empirically, Clasius defined entropy, S, in a
differential form:
dS ¼ dQ=dT ;
where dS is the change in entropy in a closed
system due to a physical process in which a
quantity of heat, dQ, flows from a higher to a
lower temperature (dT ). This definition, however,
fails to provide much insight as to how the concept
can be used concretely.
From the perspective of statistical mechanics,
entropy is viewed as the probability that certain
events may occur within the framework of all
possible events. By observing the behaviour of
large numbers of particles, statistical mechanics
has succeeded in providing equations for the cal-
culation of entropy as well as justification for
equating entropy with a degree of disorder.
Shannon (1948) looked at information as a
function of a priori probability of a given state or
outcome among the universe of physically possible
states. He considered entropy as equivalent to
uncertainty. Thus, information theory parallels the
second law of thermodynamics as expressed by
Clasius in claiming that the uncertainty in the
world always tends to increase. Indeed, as our
perception of the world becomes increasingly
complex, the number of phenomena about which
we are uncertain increases and the uncertainty
about each phenomenon also increases. To de-
crease this uncertainty, one collects an ever-
increasing amount of information (Kapur and
Kesavan, 1992).
A system facing uncertainty uses flexibility as
an adaptive response to cope with change. The
flexibility in the action of the system depends on
the decision options or the choices available and
on the freedom with which various choices can be
made (Kumar, 1987). A greater number of choices
leads to more uncertainty of outcomes, and hence,
increased flexibility. This inference has been the
main driver to apply entropy as a measure of
flexibility by different researchers.
699
2.1. Properties of Shannon’s measure of entropy
Consider a situation where there are n possible
outcomes, each with a probability of occurrence of
pi . Let p ¼ ðp1 ; p2 ; . . . ; pn Þ be the probability dis-
tribution, such that
ð1Þ pi P 0
for all i, and
X
pi ¼ 1
i
for i between 1 and n. The measure of entropy for
this distribution is given by
X
S ¼
k pi ln pi ð2Þ
i
for i between 1 and n, and where k is an arbitrary
positive constant.
This measure is derived by using the axiomatic
method of Euclid to quantify the concept of the
uncertainty of a probability distribution. Shannon
used the following properties (Sloane and Wyner,
1993):
• S depends on all probabilities p1 ; p2 ; . . . ; pn .
• Sðp1 ; p2 ; . . . ; pn Þ is a continuous function of
p1 ; p2 ; . . . ; pn .
• Sðp1 ; p2 ; . . . ; pn Þ is permutationally symmetric. It
does not change if p1 ; p2 ; . . . ; pn are re-ordered
among themselves. This property is desirable
since the labeling of outcomes should not affect
the value of entropy.
• Sð1=n; 1=n; . . . ; 1=nÞ should be a monotonic
increasing function of n. As the number of out-
comes increases, then, entropy increases.
• The maximum value of Sðp1 ; p2 ; . . . ; pn Þ occurs
when all the outcomes have an equal probabil-
ity of occurring. This maximum value can be
shown to be equal to ln n.
Jaynes (1957) demonstrated consistency
between the definition of entropy in statistical
mechanics and the definition in information
theory. He showed that the measure of uncer-
tainty defined by Shannon could be taken as
a primitive one and be used to derive state-
probabilities. Jaynes also introduced a formal
700 E. Shuiabi et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 165 (2005) 696–707
entropy-maximization principle, which Tribus
(1961) subsequently used to show that all the laws
of classical thermodynamics could also be derived
from the uncertainty measure. In summary,
information is equivalent to the removal of
uncertainty, and uncertainty and entropy are
essentially identical, not mere analogs.
2.2. Entropy-based measure
Originally, entropy was used to measure the
amount of uncertainty associated with probabi-
listic events. As events increase in number and get
closer in probability of occurrence, the associated
uncertainty within the situation increases, and
thus, entropy increases. This observation of the
nature of entropy leads to the idea of applying
entropy to the relative demand for products, which
is the ratio of time spent in processing a product to
the total processing time of all products. Thus, as
more relative demand exists, entropy will be
higher. This means that processes capable of
handling more products are more flexible. Also, as
relative demands get closer in value, i.e., more
flexible, entropy is higher.
To distinguish the proposed flexibility measure
from previous works, the measure is designed with
the following properties.
• It is a dynamic measure that can be used along a
time continuum to monitor the performance of
a system in terms of its flexibility.
• It is a general measure so that it can be applied
to any process.
2.3. Defining a process
To test entropy as a measure, it is applied to a
process, where a process is defined as an activity or
set of activities that takes a set of inputs and
transforms them into a set of outputs. A single
Number of different demands
Flexibility Entropy
Weight of each demand relative to the set of all demands.
Fig. 1. Factors that are measured by entropy and contribute to the quantification of flexibility.
activity or machine, group of machines or a whole
plant, then, can be defined as a process. The model
of a job shop is used to test entropy as a measure
since the whole shop or part of it acts as a process.
Each activity within a process is composed of set
up and production. A process is considered flexible
when it can handle many jobs, and/or it produces
equal amounts within each job, indicating an equal
ability to handle different products. The more
products that a job shop can produce, the more
flexibility it shows for handling change.
2.4. Application of entropy
In order to measure flexibility, entropy is used
to measure the relative demand for outputs or
products produced by a process. The relative de-
mand for a product is defined as the amount of
time an entity dedicates to handling a task over the
total handling time for all tasks assigned to that
entity. As is shown later in a mathematical model,
this measures the amount of change (variation in
demand) to which an entity is subjected. Entropy
measures the ability to service the number of rel-
ative demands or tasks and the distribution of
these relative demands. Fig. 1 shows this sche-
matically.
3. Mathematical model
A mathematical model is defined as follows. A
job shop of N machines is allowed to run for a
certain period of time, T , during which it is sub-
jected to different product demands. Each product
has a specified sequence of machines through
which it is processed. Each machine in the shop
has the following characteristics:
• the number of products that machine j handles
ðMj Þ,
• the setup time of product i on machine jðtsij Þ,
 E. Shuiabi et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 165 (2005) 696–707 701

• the make time of product i on machine jðtmij Þ, lation software used to build the model was
• the sampling time ðT Þ. FirstSTEPTM (Interfacing Technologies Inc.,
Montreal), which does discrete event process
The relative demand, p, of product i being pro- modeling and simulation based on an object-ori-
cessed by machine j is ented architecture. It performs quantitative anal-
yses such as resource usage, costing, and task
ðtsij þ tmij Þ
pij ¼ PMi : ð3Þ duration.
i¼1 ðtsij þ tmij Þ
4.1. Job shop
The entropy of machine j is
X
Mi The job shop model is composed of 10 different
Si ¼
pij ln pij ; ð4Þ work centers, each of which is capable of pro-
i¼1
cessing more than one product, but one at a time.
where the constant k is set to one. The job shop is assumed to be operating contin-
The utilization of machine j is given by uously, i.e., shifts, breaks and breakdowns are ig-
PMi nored. When an order is received, it is immediately
ðtsij þ tmij Þ routed on a first-in-first-out basis to the proper
Uj ¼ i¼1 : ð5Þ
T machine. An order must wait until the appropriate
machine is available before being processed.
3.1. Numerical illustration of applying entropy Demand consists of 10 different products, A
through J. The processing of a product comprises
From the general properties of entropy in Sec- several steps in a process. Demand is specified as
tion 2, there are a number of expected character- the number of orders arriving per hour. All ten
istics for entropy which make it appropriate as a products have an equal probability of being gen-
measure of flexibility. erated as an incoming order. Products are routed
through specific routes of different machines be-
• Entropy will increase with an increase in the fore being shipped. Product routes range from
number of products or outputs processed. passing through three machines to passing through
• Entropy will increase as the relative demands six machines. Table 2 describes the product routes,
for products move towards being equal. while Table 3 shows what each machine processes.
• Entropy will be a maximum when resources are To produce product A, for example, a part must
equally allocated to the relative demands. successively pass through machines 10, 1, 9, and
finally 7.

4. Simulation model

In this section, the entropic measure outlined in Table 2

previous sections is tested through computer sim- Routes for processing products in the job shop model
ulation. A job shop model was developed and Product Route
validated, and then, used to evaluate the perfor- A M10-M1-M9-M7
mance of a system with various possible values of B M6-M3-M1-M9
relevant parameters, such as product mix, setup C M4-M8-M5-M7-M10
D M9-M3-M2
and processing times, order arrival rate and
E M1-M9-M5-M5-M6-M7
product routes. Computer simulation was used to F M3-M6-M10
precisely define the scenarios which were to be G M5-M4-M2-M8-M10
tested, to control the variation of several param- H M7-M10-M6-M3
eters, and to collect a great deal of data on several I M8-M7-M5-M1-M2
J M2-M8-M9-M4
performance and operations measures. The simu-
702 E. Shuiabi et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 165 (2005) 696–707

Table 3 second configuration, the route for each prod-

Machines and their range of products for the job shop model
Machines Products
M1 ABEI
M2 DGIJ
M3 BDFH
M4 DEGJ
M5 CEGI
M6 ABEFH
M7 ACEHI
M8 CGIJ
M9 ABDEJ
M10 ACFGH
Some simplifying assumptions were used to
build the model. First, transportation time was
assumed to be negligible compared to setup, pro-
cessing and queue times, and second, each order
was processed as one item.
5. Experimental design
Experiments consisted of several scenarios
similar to real life situations, where questions
about flexibility often arise. An experiment was
designed by specifying: setup time and processing
time for each product on each machine, demand
arrival per hour, product pool to be processed, and
length of simulation time. The scenarios tested
were:
• The effect of changing demand. The order arri-
val of the different products was varied, and in-
creased from 5 incrementally to 27.
• The effect of changing processing times. The
processing time for each product was set to 10
minutes; then, this was changed to 5 minutes.
In the third modification, the processing times
were random and ranged between 5 and 10 min-
utes.
• The effect of changing setup times. The setup
time for each machine was set to 1 minute,
changed to 5 minutes, and then to 10 minutes.
• The effect of changing the number of products
(varied from 5, 6, 8, and 10).
• The effect of changing process routes. Two dif-
ferent sets of routes were simulated. The origi-
nal set of routes was simulated; then, in the
uct was altered in such a way as to increase
the load on some machines and decrease it on
others.
Data were recorded every 4 hours over a 24-
hour period during which simulation parameters
were held constant. At each point in time, the
following were measured: the value of entropy for
each machine to measure machine flexibility, the
entropy level of the job shop to measure process
flexibility, the utilization rate of each machine, and
the average utilization of the job shop. The tasks
that each machine performed were classified
according to the products to which they contrib-
uted, as shown in Table 4.
The first column in Table 4 refers to the ma-
chine name. The second column shows the tasks
performed. P-A-M1 is the task of processing
product A on machine M1. SET-A-M1 is the task
of setting up product A on machine M1. T-A-M1-
M9 is the task of transporting product A from M1
to M9, which, as mentioned earlier, is assumed to
be negligible, and therefore, set to zero. Column 3
indicates the number of tasks performed. The
fourth column is time per task. The fifth column is
the total time of each task. The last ten columns
show the processing times for each product. The
last row shows the total amount of time consumed
processing each product. All times are in minutes.
Setup and make times were added up for each
product to calculate the total time the machine was
dedicated to each product. This was used to cal-
culate the relative demands, which were calculated
for each product on each machine as follows
(Table 5):
pA ¼ ðsetup þ make timesÞ=total processing time
¼ ð12Þ=ð12 þ 18 þ 12 þ 12Þ ¼ 0:22:
Entropy was then calculated for each machine as
follows (Table 6):
X
S¼
p lnp;
SM1 ¼
½ pA lnðpA Þ þ pB lnðpB Þ þ pE lnðpE Þ þ pI lnðpI Þ;
SM1 ¼
½0:22ln0:22 þ 0:33ln0:33 þ 0:22ln0:22
þ 0:22ln0:22;
SM1 ¼ 1:36:
 E. Shuiabi et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 165 (2005) 696–707 703

Table 4
Job shop model tasks and task times (M1)
Tasks Number Time Total A B C D E F G H I J
performed of tasks per time per
task machine
P-A-M1 2 0:05:00 0:10:00 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P-B-M1 3 0:05:00 0:15:00 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P-E-M1 2 0:05:00 0:10:00 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0
P-I-M1 2 0:05:00 0:10:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0
SET-A-M1 2 0:01:00 0:02:00 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SET-B-M1 3 0:01:00 0:03:00 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SET-E-M1 2 0:01:00 0:02:00 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
SET-I-M1 2 0:01:00 0:02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
T-A-M1-M9 2 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T-B-M1-M9 3 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T-E-M1-M9 2 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T-I-M1-M2 2 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 12 18 0 0 12 0 0 0 12 0
time per
product

Table 5
Sample calculation for relative demand
pA pB pC pD pE pF pG pH pI pJ
0.22 0.33 0 0 0.22 0 0 0 0.22 0

Table 6
Machine entropy
Relative demand Entropy
pA pB pC pD pE pF pG pH pI pJ
0.22 0.33 0 0 0.22 0 0 0 0.22 0
px ln px 0.33 0.37 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0.33 0 1.36

Utilization for each machine was calculated as
follows (machine 1):
U ¼ ðtotal processing timeÞ=ðtotal available timeÞ;
UM1 ¼ ð12 þ 18 þ 12 þ 12Þ=ð4 hour  60 minutesÞ
¼ 54=240 ¼ 0:225 or 22:5%:
Finally, entropy and average utilization were cal-
culated similarly for the whole job shop, as shown
in Table 7.
Here, processing times for products were the
sum of all the processing times on all the machines.
For example, a total of 20 minutes was spent
processing product A. Results for each experiment
are discussed in Section 6.
5.1. Other performance measures
In addition to entropy, throughput was mea-
sured to indicate when total capacity reached a
limit. In conjunction with entropy, throughput
allowed the discrimination between volume and
product flexibility. Utilization was measured to
determine the level of resource usage. It was de-
fined as the ratio of processing time (setup + pro-
duction) to total available time. Utilization
increased as more products were able to be pro-
cessed, but was neither a good measure of flexi-
bility nor could it distinguish between volume and
product flexibility. Finally, number of products
704 E. Shuiabi et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 165 (2005) 696–707

Table 7
Entropy and utilization for a typical simulation
Products Entropy Average
A B C D E F G H I J utilization

Total processing 20 43 20 13 52 26 30 66 60 48
time
Relative 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.14 0.07 0.08 0.17 0.16 0.13
demand, px
px ln px 0.16 0.25 0.16 0.12 0.27 0.18 0.20 0.30 0.29 0.26 2.19 15.8%

being produced by individual machines and in Throughput Vs Demand

total was measured to verify the actions of en- 80
tropy. 70

Throughput
60
50
40
6. Results 30
20
10
In this section, the results of the simulations 0
and the subsequent use of entropy as a measure 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
are presented. The results are given for changes in Demand (orders/hour)

demand, processing times, setup times, the number

Fig. 3. Throughput versus changes in demand.
of products, and routing changes.

6.1. Changes in demand Utilization Vs Demand

100
Average Utilization

The entropy level of the job shop increased with 80

changes in demand until it reached a saturation 60
level, as shown in Fig. 2. When throughput was 40
analyzed, it was noticed that as demand increased, 20
the number of products produced per period in- 0
creased up to an average of 71 products per day 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

when the capacity of the shop reached its limit, as Demand (orders/hour)

shown in Fig. 3. With increased demand, the Fig. 4. Utilization versus changes in demand.
average utilization of the job shop increased, as
shown in Fig. 4, but the throughput remained
steady at 71 products per day. Entropy values for different machines experi-
enced change due to the changes in demand at
each machine with time. Fig. 5 shows trends for
Entropy Vs Demand
some representative machines.
2.30 To summarize the results of this scenario, as
2.25 demand was increased, entropy levels increased
Entropy

2.20 until a limit was reached. Both throughput and

2.15
2.10
entropy increased with higher demand, then,
2.05 reached a limit at about the same demand point.
2.00 As demand increased, the system used more shop
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
capacity to gain flexibility. At about 80% utiliza-
Demand (orders/hour)
tion, throughput reached a limit. The value of
Fig. 2. Entropy versus changes in demand. entropy reflected the flexibility of the shop well. By
 E. Shuiabi et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 165 (2005) 696–707 705

Entropy Vs Demand (Machines) as processing times increased since more shop

capacity was being used. Similar to the case for
1.4 changes in demand, entropy varied with time for
different machines as the demand for products on
a given machine changed with time.
Entropy

M1
M10
1.2
M4
M6
6.3. Setup times

1 The value of entropy increased when setup time

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Demand (orders/hour)
Fig. 5. Entropy versus changes in demand for a few selected
machines.
definition in Eq. (4), p represents relative demand
so it is expected that entropy should track changes
in demand well.
For the following scenarios, demand was kept
at 23 orders/hour. This was done to eliminate
change in capacity as a factor so that the effect of
other factors could be studied in order to deter-
mine the usefulness of entropy as a metric.
6.2. Processing time
In this scenario, the processing time for prod-
ucts was varied. Processing times were 5 minutes,
varied between 5 and 10 minutes, and 10 minutes.
For each case, the average value of entropy for the
shop was relatively steady over the time period
studied, and increased from short through variable
to long processing times, as shown in Table 8. As
in the scenario where demand was changed, the
change in the value of entropy was due to the
greater use of the capacity of the job shop, i.e.,
greater shop utilization. Despite keeping the
number of orders high, shop utilization increased
Table 8
Results for changes in processing time
Processing time Average Average entropy
utilization (%)
was changed from 1 to 5 minutes. The change in
the value of entropy was due to the greater use of
the capacity of the job shop. Again, entropy varied
with time for different machines as the demand for
products on a given machine changed with time
(Table 9).
6.4. Number of products
As the job shop handled more products, en-
tropy levels increased. This indicated more flexi-
bility in the job shop. Indeed, the ability to process
more products renders a process more flexible.
Utilization levels were almost the same for all
scenarios, since the arrival rate, setup time, and
processing time were kept the same. Thus, the
value of entropy changed with the number of
products being able to be processed not with shop
capacity. Entropy was effective in showing the
impact of change on flexibility due to the number
of different products being processed. As in the
previous cases, entropy varied with time for dif-
ferent machines as the demand for products on a
given machine changed with time (Table 10).
6.5. Routing changes
In addition to the routes for the different
products shown in Table 2, a second set of routes
was created. The values of arrival rates, setup
times, and processing times were kept the same for
Table 9
Results for changes in setup time

Short, 5 minutes 72 2.20 Setup time Average Average entropy

Variable, 5–10 92 2.23 utilization (%)
minutes 1 minute 69 2.20
Long, 10 minutes 96 2.27 5 minutes 96 2.26
706 E. Shuiabi et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 165 (2005) 696–707

Table 10 • Entropy changed when the relative demand for

Results for changes in number of products products changed either in number or distribu-
Number of Average Average tion.
products utilization (%) entropy • Entropy was successful in showing the impact
5 products 79 1.43 of change in the number of products being pro-
6 products 84 1.64
cessed. As the number of products handled by a
8 products 82 1.91
10 products 84 2.22 process increased, entropy increased, thus indi-
cating an increase in the flexibility at the ma-
chine or shop level.
• Entropy did succeed in showing change due to
Table 11 setup or processing time. This change was
Results for two different routes mostly due to the use of excess machine or shop
Route Average utilization (%) Average entropy capacity for flexibility.
1 87 2.25 • Routing change was reflected in changes in en-
2 87 2.22 tropy values for both individual machines and
the shop when the number of products being
processed changed.
Table 12
• Entropy was a good dynamic indicator for indi-
Average entropy for machines for the different routes
vidual machines. The value of entropy changed
Machine Average Average Change in
entropy entropy number of
with time as the number of products being pro-
route 1 route 2 products cessed changed.
processed
M1 1.33 0.62 4fi2 Flexibility is of strategic importance for many
M2 1.32 1.31 4fi4 organizations in order to survive in highly com-
M3 1.27 1.25 4fi4 petitive and dynamic markets. In this study, en-
M4 1.35 1.39 4fi4 tropy was seen as a suitable metric for flexibility,
M5 1.26 0.64 4fi2
M6 1.42 1.48 5fi6
and it indicated the ability to respond to changes
M7 1.51 1.57 5fi6 in product mix and in demand. It was shown to be
M8 1.31 0.95 4fi3 applicable to any process and to be able to provide
M9 1.42 1.40 5fi5 a dynamic measure with time. Although entropy
M10 1.43 1.41 5fi5 was able to measure the flexibility of a production
facility, it could not distinguish between the
availability of extra capacity and the ability to
both routes as in the other cases. The average handle variation in product demand. This was also
values for entropy and utilization for the different the case for Kumar (1986) who defined total en-
routes are shown in Table 11. The average value of tropy as the sum of the entropy due to available
entropy for a given machine also changed with capacity and routing flexibility, and for Rao and
different routes when the number of products Gu (1994) who used entropy as a measure of both
being processed changed (Table 12). In these sce- production volume and product flexibility in cel-
narios, the change in entropy depended on the lular manufacturing systems. Thus, entropy can be
average number of products being processed, not used to measure flexibility, but it is quite limited in
on the utilization of the shop. its ability to determine causality.
Despite the advantages, there are also some
limitations to using entropy as a measure of flexi-
7. Conclusions bility. Entropy is a relative measure; it cannot be
used to measure absolute values, or to indicate
The results obtained in this study showed the achievement of preset targets. It can only be used to
following: monitor a trend, e.g., as a measurement where time
 E. Shuiabi et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 165 (2005) 696–707
is moving forward, thus providing a reference or
basis of comparison at different instances of time.
Since entropy is a relative measure it is necessary to
use an accompanying metric to show the state of
what is being measured and to provide some insight
as to causality. Utilization, throughput and prod-
uct mix were used in this study and are suggested as
being appropriate in other situations.
In this study entropy was used to measure the
flexibility of operations. It could also be used to
describe the potential of a process as was done by
Yao (1985), Kumar (1986) and Rao and Gu
(1994). Entropy is suitable for continuously mon-
itoring the state of a machine, group of machines
or a complete process. The measure of entropy is
based on typical data from production or activity
logs, which are readily available in any production
environment; thus, a system can be easily designed
to calculate entropy.
References
Jaynes, E.T., 1957. Information theory and statistical mechan-
ics. Physical Review 106 (4), 620–630.
Kahyaoglu, Y., Kayaligili, 2002. Conceptualizing manufactur-
ing flexibility: An operational approach and a comparative
evaluation. International Journal of Production Research
40 (10), 2187–2206.
Kapur, J.N., Kesavan, H.K., 1992. Entropy and Optimization
Principles with Applications. Academic Press, Inc., San
Diego, CA.
Kumar, V., 1986. On measurement of flexibility in flexible
manufacturing systems: An information-theoretic approach.
In: Proceedings of the 2nd ORSA/TIMS Conference on
Flexible Manufacturing Systems: Operations Research
Models and Applications, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 131–143.
707
Kumar, V., 1987. Entropic measures of manufacturing flexibil-
ity. International Journal of Production Research 25 (7),
957–966.
Mandelbaum, M., 1990. Flexibility and decision-making.
European Journal of Operational Research 44, 17–27.
Maskell, B., 1994. New Performance Measures––Book 4. In:
Management Master Series Great Management Ideas.
Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
Mohamed, Z., 1994. Flexible Manufacturing Systems: Planning
Issues and Solutions. Garland Studies on Industrial Pro-
ductivity.
Neuman, W.R., Hanna, M., Malfei, M.J., 1993. Dealing with
the uncertainties of manufacturing: Flexibility, buffers and
integration. International Journal of Operations and Pro-
duction Management 13 (1), 19–34.
Pagell, M., Neuman, W.R., Hanna, M.D., Krause, D.R., 2000.
Uncertainty, flexibility and buffers: Three case studies.
Journal of Production and Inventory Management 1, 35–43.
Rao, H.A., Gu, P., 1994. Flexibility in cellular manufacturing
systems––an entropic measure, The 10th ISPE/IFAC Inter-
national Conference on CAD/CAM, Robotics and Facto-
ries of the Future, pp. 411–416.
Sethi, A.K., Sethi, S.P., 1990. Flexibility in manufacturing: A
survey. The International Journal of Flexible Manufactur-
ing Systems 2, 289–328.
Shannon, C.E., 1948. A mathematical theory of communica-
tion. Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379–423, and 623–
656.
Sloane, N., Wyner, A., 1993. Claude Elwood Shannon:
Collected Papers, Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc.
Tribus, M., 1961. Thermostatics and Thermodynamics. Van
Nostrand, Princeton, NJ.
Upton, D.M., 1995. Flexibility as process mobility: The
management of plant capabilities for quick response man-
ufacturing. Journal of Operations Management 12, 205–
224.
Yao, D.D., 1985. Material and information flows in flexible
manufacturing systems. Material Flow 2, 143–149.
Zelenovic, D., 1982. Flexibility––a condition for effective
manufacturing system. International Journal of Production
Research 20 (3), 319–337.