2020 IEEE International Conference on Technology Management, Operations and Decisions (ICTMOD) | 978-1-7281-5950-8/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ICTMOD49425.2020.
9380588
Strategic DDMRP’s Buffer Positioning for hybrid MTO/MTS manufacturing
Abdelhalim Achergui, Hamid Allaoui,Tiente Hsu
Univ. Artois, UR 3926, Laboratoire de Génie
Informatique et d’Automatique de l’Artois (LGI2A),
62400 Béthune, France
Email: (abdelhalim.achergui,hamid.allaoui,tiente.hsu)@univ-artois.fr
Abstract—To make a product, many components: made
inside a supply chain or provided by external suppliers, may
be needed as specified in the bill of material (BOM). This
variety exposes the production process to various risks as
stock ruptures for instance. Due to companies efforts to face
the volatile demand and market pressure, Work-in-process
(WIP) inventories become redundant in flow production lines.
Uncertainty became a major flaw of the system, to which many
methods were developed and adopted to manage and optimize
the use of resources. One of the most recent methods is Demand
Driven Material Requirement Planning (DDMRP) that uses
buffers: visual indicators of the net flow integrating the real
stock, the actual demand and the expected provisions; This
paper describes an approach to solve the optimization problem
of minimizing the storing costs, under service time constraint
for uncapacitated buffer positioning alongside with the buffer
allocation following the DDMRP planning methodology in a
hybrid MTO/MTS manufacturing system. Finally, numerical
examples are applied to test the efficiency and the performance
of the developed algorithm.
Keywords-Buffer allocation problem, Buffer positioning
problem, Make-to-order, Make-to-stock, DDMRP.
I. I NTRODUCTION
O wadays the industrial revolution, production knew
N major development in its supply chain management.
Product became more complex and expensive. Client be-
came pickier and more impatient. The market is now
competitive for a better service, “as soon as possible”
delivery and for a low-cost configuration. As a result, the
manufacturers need to adapt their entire supply network,
speed up their productivity and optimize their resources
in the flow lines. Research has been conducted to better
manage and track the production processes, and also to
optimize the throughput, the costs and the production lead
times. A major complication to do so, is the uncertain and
non-stationary demand phases of a product life cycle. With
these fluctuation, producers had several losses between the
inventory shortages and the unsold unsuccessful product
series. The resulting problems can be mitigated by putting up
inventories. However, having more inventories than needed
can be costly. The decision on where to install buffers for
decoupled products along the Bill of materials (BOM) is
known as the Buffer positioning problem. Different varia-
tions of this problem were discussed in the literature.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on May 20,2021 at 23:25:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Demand Driven Material Requirements Planning
(DDMRP), C. Ptak, C. Smith [1] was a result of combining
the best practices of many other methods such as MRP,
Kanban and JIT. This method is based on decoupling
points, decomposing the flow line into short parts avoiding
the bullwhip effect in the supply chain. Each of these
points is equipped with a buffer, serving as a visual
indicator representing the net flow equation, that we
explain later in this article. It has three zones (Red, Yellow
and green) indicating each the situation of the flow of
materials and triggering replenishment orders based on real
demand. The method suggests a qualitative positioning
strategy, depending on factors related to the client, the
market and some other production specifics. The intent of
this paper is to optimize buffer positioning for a hybrid
MTO/MTS manufacturing flow line as did X. Y. Sun et
al. [2], simultaneously with a buffer allocation, all while
maintaining a DDMRP logic.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: In
the next section, the relevant literature about the problem is
reviewed and briefly discussed. In Section 3, an overview
of the DDMRP methodology is given with a problem
statement for the work presented in this article. In Section
4, the proposed solving method is formulated and examined.
Numerical tests and performance evaluations are presented
and analyzed in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 concludes
the paper and sums some perspectives for future research
directions.
II. L ITERATURE REVIEW
Many papers handled the Buffer Allocation Problem
(BAP) before in the literature, but few did both buffer
allocation and buffer positioning. S. Weiss et al. [3] cate-
gorized in their review the existing work by three criteria:
the characteristics of the supply chain, the objective function
and constraints and the solution methodology. Whereas G.
Liberopoulos [4] found that any work ever done was in the
purpose of one of these objectives: modeling, performance
evaluation or optimization. The first assumptions for a multi-
echelon stock placement, which is another appellation for
the variety of stages in a bill of materials, were described
by K. F. Simpson [5] and generalized by S. C. Graves
and S. P. Willems [6]. The first attempt of optimization
though, was done by E. Koenigsberg [7], where he tried
to discuss how to decrease the loss transfer, the stochastic
aspect and the limitation on the size of queues. It was defined
afterwards as an NP-hard optimization problem by J. M.
Smith and F. R. B. Cruz [8]. According to the state of
the art, we found that many methods were used to solve
this problem. The following works used simulation : P.
Glasserman and S. Tayur [9] combined it with variation
analysis to solve the Base-stock allocation problem. D. C.
Whybark and S. Yang [10] used it to get the best service
level given a set of resources. Y. Park et al. [11] did a
simulation-based case study on a tv manufacturing plan.
M. Amiri and A. Mohtashami [12] used the simulation to
solve the problem in an unreliable production environment.
L. Tiacci [13] also examined the problem by simulation
techniques in production line with stochastic task times. A.
Costa et al. [14] used a linear complex integer programming
to simulate an adaptive local Parallel Tabu Search to solve
the primary problem. S. Y. Kose and O. Kilincci [15] based
their optimization on the simulation approach through a
meta-heuristic algorithm combining genetic algorithm and
simulated annealing. Also, dynamic programming has been
used to optimize safety stock placement by the following
works : in the guaranteed-service model introduced by Simp-
son [5], inventory placement problem for a serial process
is successfully converted into allocation problem of service
time to stages in the process. S. C. Graves [16] developed
later an optimization algorithm for this model by using
dynamic programming. K. Inderfurth [17], S. Minner [18],
K. Inderfurth and S. Minner [19], S. C. Graves and S.
P. Willems [20] -[21], S. Humair and S. P. Willems [22]
and T. L. Magnanti [23] all extended the work of Cruz,
1991 to other production line models. M. G. Huang et al.
[24] used the dynamic programming approach to solve the
BAP for a flow-shop-type production system to maximize
its throughput or minimize its WIP . All these results were
established in a production environment with a safety stock
logic or a simple WIP inventory along the flow line. Only
one model was proposed for a DDMRP MTO system by
S.C. Rim et al. [25] and on which we’ve based this work
and extend it to hybrid MTO/MTS manufacturing systems
with better numerical experimentation.
III. P ROBLEM STATEMENT: DDMRP B UFFER
S TRATEGIC P OSITIONING
A. Demand Driven Material Requirements Planning
With the rising need of managers and decision makers
to perform planning and execution frameworks. DDMRP
has succeeded in gathering the best practices of exiting
methods. All of which had proven their efficiency in the
field of planning and inventory management, like MRP,
Lean and theory of constraints. But they lacked features
to accommodate the high variability of demand and to get
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on May 20,2021 at 23:25:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
the most optimized manufacturing options. In this context,
DDMRP came with a model to absorb and control the
suppliers and demand variability. Canceling as a result the
bullwhip effect affecting the strategic and tactical plans of
the manufacturer. The objective being to support and protect
the flow of materials and information inside the supply
network. C. Ptak, C. Smith [1].
B. Decoupling Point (DP)
Defined by the dictionary of the American Production
and Inventory Control Society (APICS) as: “Creating in-
dependence between supply and use of material. Commonly
denotes providing inventory between operations so that fluc-
tuations in the production rate of the supplying operation do
not constrain production or use rates of the next operation.
(p. 43)” The concept was introduced in the supply chain
context by G. Sharman [26]. His idea was that a DP is
a compromise between the competitive demand and the
product cost and complexity. And to hold that bargain, these
physical points must provide an absorption of the variability
of both demand and supply at the same time. Which is
made possible by decoupling inventories, or as referred to
in the DDMRP method by decoupling point buffer. They
are a quantity of inventory held at the decoupling point to
guarantee a reliable product availability while transmitting a
realistic and a non-distorted signal to the upstream stations
and suppliers. The main purposes of these buffers, which are
the heart of a DDMRP system and its visual management
platform, are: Shock absorption, Lead time compression and
supply order generation.
C. Net flow
As for the last purpose, supply order generation is based
on a net flow equation combining not only real inventory
information, but also the supply and the demand information
hence the demand driven aspect. Each buffer has its own
daily planning equation, allowing planners and managers to
get their replenishment orders right and as much as needed
for the demand. The equation is defined as:
N etf low = onhand + onorder − qualif ied sales (1)
• on-hand: real physical available inventory.
• on-order: incoming replenishment orders.
• qualified sales: client made orders and qualified demand
spikes.
D. Buffer Profiles
Buffers in DDMRP are shaped by a three-zone scheme. A
three colors code signal at each decoupling point, providing
a practical and an easy global management. The buffer zones
and levels are defined and calculated by three factors: item
type, lead time and variability. The red zone stands for the
safety stock covering the peaks of unscheduled demand or
supplier’s unreliability. The yellow zone represents the main
demand coverage, as it is defined by the quantity of products
needed at hand while an order is in manufacturing process.
The green zone, seen as the replenishment orders gauge. Its
level determines the frequency, as an order is given once the
net flow signal crosses from the green zone to the yellow
one. And since the size of each order is given to make the
signal reach the top of the green zone, we assure a minimum
order quantity by the green zone size. This profiling actually
is a buffer allocation process, which comes by definition
right after choosing the buffer position. C. Ptak, C. Smith
[1]. The DDMRP method handled this matter sequentially,
but we could do both at the same time as we’re going to see
below. Also a new formula to dimension the safety stock for
these buffers was presented by C.J. Lee and S.C. Rim [27].
E. Buffer Positioning
To answer the question of where the decoupling point
buffers should be, and as effective as possible along the
supply chain, the DDMRP method has defined six key
positioning factors. For the importance of this first step, the
factors focus on some strategic and tactical details of the
product qualifying it to be a decoupling point.
• Demand Lead Time: as defined by APICS’s dictionary,
it’s ”The amount of time potential customers are willing
to wait for the delivery of a good or a service. Syn:
Customer tolerance time. (p.45)
• The Benchmark: to assess the concurrence ability, pro-
viding a reduced lead time could get a better market
share. Thus, a potential sales turnover growth, but
possibly also an increase in operational costs.
• Demand Forecast Horizon: how early we get the de-
mand information, which is equal or more than the
demand lead time.
• External Variability: demand and supply variability
• Strategic components: a key product, the most shared
component or simply the position allowing the best lead
time compression.
• Bottleneck: components with critical manufacturing
process
Nonetheless, these factors are checked manually and qual-
itatively for every potential decoupling point. For complex
bill of materials, the task would be much complicated with
a larger margin of error.
F. Strategic Buffer Positioning and dimentioning
There were efforts to automate the buffer positioning
and try to find the optimal positions using mathematical
models. The latest work being the article of J. Jiang and
S.C. Rim [28] with a model minimizing the storing costs
with stochastic lead times in a Make-to-Order manufacturing
system. This work was an extension of their previous work
[25] with the same objective function for the same MTO
system but with deterministic lead times. Although their
model is coherent for the specific context, their suggested
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on May 20,2021 at 23:25:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
solving method only approximate the optimal solution for
small instances. In our proposition, we extend the model to
minimize the costs for hybrid MTO/MTS complex manufac-
turing systems and at the same time determine the profiles
of the enabled buffers along the bill of materials. This being
done by considering the Net flow equation, which includes in
its formulas the expressions of the buffer profiling. Meaning
that the dimensions of the buffer’s three zones are always
taken into consideration in the optimization process.
G. Problem formulation
The buffer positioning can be defined as a Location
Inventory Problem. The process can be modeled by an
algorithm, giving the best and optimal positions along the
bill of materials to accommodate the demand. The prob-
lem as handled in this paper, has an objective function
of minimizing the total cost of inventory, with the buffer
positions as a decision variable, while under the constraint
of service lead time. All of the lead times are deterministic.
The production and buffer capacities are infinite. Positioning
decoupling points in different positions in a bill of materials
makes some components make-to-stock and leave the non-
buffered ones as make-to-order, but the aspect of the system
is judged by the situation of the final product. Enabling the
option of having a buffer on the final product, as it may be
the optimal solution in some cases, makes the model valid
for either MTO or MTS systems, hence the hybrid aspect.
For modelling issues, we assume that every component of
the BOM is unique and is part of the assembly of one only
parent component.
1) Notations: The following notation is used in the paper:
1) A BOM is represented by a matrix of L lines and C
columns, where the components are located by {i ∈
L, j ∈ C}.
2) ti,j The processing time of the component at the (i,j)
position,
3) ai,j The lead time of the ij th component,
4) parenti,j considering that every node in the BOM has
its parent node in the level above (i-1), this variable
point on its column position,
5) sonsi,j,k The column position of the k th son node of
the ij th component,
6) SvT The customer tolerated service time,
7) budget The storing costs budget,
8) adu The average daily usage of the final product,
9) rqtfi,j Required quantity of ij th component to pro-
duce the final product,
10) StC i, j Storing costs of the ij th component,
11) T C The total of Storing costs for all the components,
12) baii,j Buffer average inventory at the node ij th ,
13) unit pricei,j Unit price of the ij th component,
14) aih costi,j The average inventory holding cost rate of
the ij th component,
 15) lt f actori,j lead time factor of the ij th component,
an adaptation to the demand signal,
16) var f actori,j variability factor of the ij th compo-
nent, for safety stock adaptation.
The lead-time factor and variability factor are elements
introduced by the DDMRP method and integrated in the
profiling of the inventories held at each decoupling point.
The first one is usually between 20% and 40% for products
with long lead-times allowing a high frequency of order
generation. And the second one is important for products
with high variability, assuring a more important safety stock.
Here the decision X = {xi,j , i ∈ L, j ∈ C}, as an output
of the model would be: whether a buffer is installed at each
position or not, also meaning if the product at that station has
an MTS or an MTO policy. We define the decision variable
xi,j as follows:
( To demonstrate the importance of the model of strategic
0, if no buffer installed for the ij th component
xi,j =
1, otherwise
(2)
The total inventory cost of the bill of materials would be:
X X
TC = StC i, j · xi,j (3)
∀i∈L ∀j∈C
The lead-time of a product is related to its sons and their
buffer status,

th
ti,j , if the ij node has no son

ai,j = maxk∈sonsi,j [(1 − xi+1,k )· (4)

ai+1,k + ti,j ], otherwise

For every decoupling point, in case a buffer is associated,
a profiling is done for it since it is linked to the decision
variable. The resulted three colour coded (red, yellow,green)
levels are dimensioned by the equations :
ri,j = (1 + var f actori,j ) · lt f actori,j · adu · rqtfi,j · ai,j
(5)
yi,j = adu · rqtfi,j · ai,j (6)
gi,j = lt f actori,j · adu · rqtfi,j · ai,j
And by definition of the method, based on the observed flow
of replenishment orders generated by a buffer, the average
onhand inventory available at each decoupled point is the
sum of the red level and half of the green level.
1 lt f actorP 3 · adu · aP 3 = 96
baii,j = ri,j + gi,j (8)
2 Thus the total cost would be the inventory cost for this buffer
Thus, the storing costs for a buffered component would be
written as:
StC i, j = unit pricei,j · aih costi,j · baii,j
With the previous notations and equations, the mathemat-
ical formulation of the optimization problem can be written
as :
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on May 20,2021 at 23:25:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Minimize
TC =
X X
unit pricei,j · aih costi,j ·
∀i∈L ∀j∈C
(10)
(1, 5 + var f actori,j ) · lt f actori,j ·
adu · rqtfi,j · ai,j · xi,j
s.t.
a0,1 ≤ SvT
The constraint ensures that the lead-time of the final
product, as a function of all the other lead-times, is less
or equal to the service time SvT . This problem is a non-
linear minimization problem subject to nonlinear constraint.
The use of DDMRP formulations makes the optimization
problem of buffer positioning more complex.
H. Illustrative DDMRP positioning example
buffer positioning, we consider an example of a final product
FP1 and its BOM, represented by the figure 1. This product
has an average daily usage of 10 units and a production lead-
time of 11 days. Without any buffers on its components, FP1
is prepared in 22 days which is the cumulated lead-time of
the BOM.
FP1(11days)
P2(4days) P3(6days)
P4(3days) P5(5days)
Figure 1. The Bill Of Materials of the product FP1
To guarantee a service time of 16 days, one could consider
putting a buffer at the component P3, narrowing down the
preparation time to 15 days. This time compression comes
with a price, the inventory cost. Giving that we only need
(7) a single component P3 to produce FP1, and at a unit price
of 100 with a holding cost rate of 0.25, a lead-time factor
of 0.5 and a variability factor of 0.25, the buffer average
inventory for it is :
baiP 3 = (1.5 + var f actorP 3 )·
(11)
since it is the only one placed in the BOM.
T C = unit priceP 3 · aih costP 3 · baiP 3 = 2400 (12)
(9)
Meanwhile the output of the model is: X={0;0;1;1;1} which
suggests to put buffers on the components P3, P4 and
P5. Assuming again that we only need one piece of these
components. For a price of 25 for P4 and 30 for P5 and with
the same lead-time and variability factors as P3 at a holding
cost of 0.2, we get the following buffer average inventories
and costs, using the formulation in (12) and (13):
Table I
T OTAL COSTS OF THE OPTIMIZED BUFFER POSITIONING
Component bai StC
P3 52 1300
p4 26 130
p5 44 264
Total Cost 1694
In fact adding buffers in this case, decreased the tension
on the buffer of the component P3. For this part, which is
on an upper level than P4 and P5, it is more costly to store
inventory. Thanks to the buffers on P4 and P5, the decoupled
lead-time for P3 is compressed. This results in less inventory
of P3, in consequence less inventory storing costs. The total
cost with the optimized buffer positions is minimized all
while satisfying the constraint of the service time SvT . An
improvement of 29% is reported for this BOM of 5 nodes,
and it can be very considerable for larger and more complex
supply chain networks.
I. Complexity Analysis
Similar to the general safety stock placement problem,
that was proven to be NP-hard by Lesnai E. in the article
[29]. We as well proved that the problem studied in this
paper can be considered NP-hard by a reduction of a classic
known NP-complete problem demonstrated in the Cook-
Levin Theorem: CNF-SAT (Boolean satisfiability problem).
• Formulation of an instance of the buffer positioning
problem:
The problem can be presented by a BOM of N parts. A
part k has a processing time tk , a decoupled lead-time
ak and Boolean xk which is true if the buffer is enabled
or false if it is disabled. The constraint of the problem is
the service time Q which is the time not be exceeded to
produce the final product. For simplification purposes,
we start enumerating the parts from the top and from
the left to the right. The final product would be k = 1.
And since we also have the option to put a buffer on
the final product itself, we introduce the part 0 as a
parent of the final product node, which may represent
the client (t0 = 0).
• Formulation of the CNF-SAT instance:
Let’s consider the Boolean expression ”a0 ≤ Q”.
This statement consistency is equivalent to the follow-
ing:
”(a1 ≤ Q) OR x1 ”
Assuming every part k has Mk components, then Sk =
k1...kMk the statement is equivalent to:
”([(t11 ≤ Q − t1 ) OR x11 ] AN D [(a12 ≤
Q − t1 ) OR x12 ] AN D...AN D [(a1Mk ≤
Q − t1 ) OR x1M1 ]) OR x1 ”
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on May 20,2021 at 23:25:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
And so on, we get a SAT instance of nesting clauses
with N + next literals. next is the number of parts at
the extremities of the BOM.
• Application
Let’s consider the previous illustrative positioning ex-
ample in figure 1. The SAT formulation would be:
”([(t2 ≤ Q − t1 ) OR x2 ] AN D [[(t4 ≤
Q − t1 − t3 ) OR x4 ] AN D [(t5 ≤ Q −
t1 − t3 ) OR x5 ]] OR x3 ) OR x1 ”
• Resolution
Since in the positioning problem, we try different
combinations of buffers (xk ) to minimize the costs of
inventories while satisfying the constraint ” a0 ≤ Q
”, we are practically checking whether the CNF-SAT
above is consistent. Thus, by solving the problem we
are solving a CNF-SAT problem. Meaning the buffer
positioning problem can’t be less hard to solve than the
CNF-SAT problem.
IV. H EURISTIC S OLVING M ETHOD : A MILP BASED
HEURISTIC
In the proposed algorithm, first we use the linearized
model ”CostOptim” to get a lower bound of the costs.
Then we optimize the lead time of the final product using
”TimeOptim”, to check whether we could get feasible lead-
times with a cost equal to LB. Else we iterate the model
”TimeOptim” by a dichotomy process between LB and
m · LB (m ≥ 2).
A. Model linearization
To describe the proposed heuristic, we consider the fol-
lowing linearization of the previous model. Using the same
notation, we consider the new variable :
zi,j = ai,j · xi,j (13)
The equation 10 would be as follows:
X X
TC = unit pricei,j · aih costi,j
∀i∈L ∀j∈C
·(1, 5 + var f actori,j ) · lt f actori,j · adu · rqtfi,j · zi,j
(14)
In addition to our new decision variable, several additional
constraints appear to be necessary for z. Thus the follow-
ing constraints would be added to our models: with M a
sufficiently big number,
1) With idxi,j indexing if the node has a son or not
∀i ∈ L, ∀j, k ∈ C
ai,j ≥ ti,j + (ai+1,sonsi,j,k − zi+1,sonsi,j,k ) · idxi,j
(15)
2)
∀i ∈ L, ∀j ∈ C zi,j ≤ ai,j (16)
3)
∀i ∈ L, ∀j ∈ C zi,j ≥ 0 (17)
 4) Algorithm 1 MILP-based heuristic Algorithm
1: Function BufferPositioning(x, SvT )
∀i ∈ L, ∀j ∈ C zi,j ≥ ai,j − M · (1 − xi,j ) (18) 2: xi,j ← 0 ∀i ∈ L, ∀j ∈ C
3: budget ← CostOptim(SvT ) . A LB of the optimal
5)
cost
∀i ∈ L, ∀j ∈ C zi,j ≤ M · xi,j (19) 4: dlt ← T imeOptim(budget). The best dlt with the LB
6) as a constraint
5: T C ← ComputeT C() . The actual costs for the best
∀i ∈ L, ∀j ∈ C (1 − idxi,j ) · ai,j ≤ ti,j (20) dlt
6: m ← 1
B. Used models in the heuristic 7: if T C = budget then
With the previous notations, the mathematical formulation 8: sol ← T C
of our problem can be written as: 9: else
With 10: if dlt > Svt then
X X 11: m←2
TC = unit pricei,j · aih costi,j · baii,j · xi,j 12: while dlt > SvT do
∀i∈L ∀j∈C 13: dlt ← T imeOptim(budget ∗ m)
(21)
14: m++
baii,j = (1, 5+var f actori,j )·lt f actori,j ·adu·rqtfi,j ·ai,j 15: end while
(22) 16: sol ← ComputeT C()
• For the cost minimization model (CostOptim) 17: end if
18: n←1
M inimize TC (23) 19: do
20: if dlt ≤ SvT then
s.t. 21: k ← −1
a0,1 ≤ SvT 22: else
• For the lead-time minimization model (TimeOptim) 23: k←1
24: end if
M inimize a0,1 (24)
25: dlt ← T imeOptim(budget ∗ (m + k/2n))
s.t. 26: T C ← ComputeT C()
T C ≤ budget 27: if T C < sol and dlt ≤ SvT then
28: sol ← T C
C. The Algorithm of the heuristic 29: end if
Before describing the general algorithm the following 30: n++
procedures are needed : 31: while T C ≤ sol
32: end if
1) The procedure to compute the total cost of the en- 33: return sol . return the optimal cost
abled buffers along the BOM is using the equation 3
presented above.
2) Other CPLEX related optimization procedures are
used such as CostOptim() and TimeOptim(). A. Benchmark generation
With the previous assumption of the uniqueness of parent
V. E XPERIMENTAL STUDY nodes, we generate the problem instances as follows:
In this section, we summarize the computational exper- • We specify the number of nodes composing the BOM,

imentation with the developed algorithm using the MILP • We specify the number of levels and columns shaping

based heuristic presented previously. For comparison pur- the BOM,

poses, we solve the non linear model using the exhaustive • Randomly, we generate lead-times for the nodes,

research. Then we used MILP based heuristic. For the MILP • Following a direct material cost strategy, every node

component of the heuristic, we use CPLEX 12.8.0. An Intel
i7-4700MQ 2.40 GHz with 8GB of RAM, with a Windows
8.1 operating system is used. The choice of TypeScript as
a programming language is to allow us to implement the
developed heuristic on a user friendly Web plate-form ready
to update on further perspectives.
has a price larger or equal to the sum of the prices of
its components,
The benchmark for the set of bigger instances is on our
perspectives as we intend to extend the BOMs to more
complex examples using an instance generator that we
developed.

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on May 20,2021 at 23:25:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
B. Results
In this paper, we generated a set of instances by number
of nodes: small {3, 5, 6, 13}. Many shapes of BOMs
were generated for the small instances, adequate ones were
considered for the tests. As shown in Table II, the results
obtained by the developed method are similar to the optimal
solution found by the exhaustive research, except for the
instance of 13 components.
Table II
C OMPARISON OF THE RESULTS
Set Nodes SvT Exhaustive research MILP heuristic
TC TC
Small 3 6 256 256
5 6 15600 15600
6 6 43600 43600
13 6 66912 71950
The proposed heuristic gives close solutions to the exhaus-
tive method for small instances sets with more important
computational time. However we expect that the heuristic
could be more efficient on term of computational time
for medium and big instances compared to the exhaustive
method. The iterations of the exhaustive research go through
every combination possible of the buffer positioning giving
it an exponential complexity giving us long computational
times. Using heuristics is a good alternative than using non
linear solver, which does not always guarantee the optimal
solution.
VI. C ONCLUSION AND P ERSPECTIVES
Through this paper, we presented an extension of the
strategic positioning model to hybrid MTO/MTS manufac-
turing systems. A solving method was developed through
linearization. Multiple test runs were realized on small
instances. The experimental study showed that the proposed
heuristic gave close solutions to the exhaustive method even
with more important computational time. We expect that
exploring results on medium and large instances will show
that the heuristic will give efficient approximate solutions
with reasonable time than exhaustive method of course and
the non-linear solver. This will be on our future research
direction.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work is a part of the ELSAT 2020 project. It was
performed in collaboration with the ”Pôle d’excellence Lo-
gistique & Supply Chain en Hauts-de-France Euralogistic”.
ELSAT is co-financed by the European Union with the
European Regional Development Fund, the French state and
the Council of Hauts-de-France Region. The support of
ELSAT 2020 and Euralogistic is gratefully acknowledged.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on May 20,2021 at 23:25:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
R EFERENCES
[1] C. Ptak, C. Smith, Demand Driven Material Requirements
Planning. Industrial Press, INC, 2016.
[2] X. Y. Sun, P. Ji, L. Y. Sun, Y. L. Wang, “Positioning multiple
decouling points in a supply network,” Int. J. Production
Economics, vol. 113, pp. 943-956, Jan. 2008.
[3] S. Weiss, J. A. Schwarz, R. Stolletz, “The Buffer Allo-
cation Problem in production lines: Formulations, solution
methods, and instances,” IISE Transactions, Feb. 2018. DOI:
10.1080/24725854.2018.1442031
[4] G. Liberopoulos, “Comparaison of optimal buffer allocation in
flow lines under installation buffer, echelon buffer, and CON-
WIP policies,” Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal,
Mar. 2019. DOI: 10.1007/s10696-019-09341-y
[5] K. F. Simpson, “In-process inventories,” Operations Research,
no. 6, pp. 863-873, Nov. 1958.
[6] S. C. Graves, S. P. Willems, “Optimizing Strategic Safety
Stock Placement in Supply Chains,” Manufacturing & Service
Operations Management, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 68-83, Winter 2000.
[7] E. Koenigsberg,“Production Lines and Internal Storage - A
Review,” Management Science, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 410-433, Jul.
1959.
[8] J. M. Smith, F. R. B. Cruz,“The Buffer Allocation Problem for
general finite buffer queueing networks,” IISE Transactions,
vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 343-365, Feb. 2007.
[9] P. Glasserman, S. Tayur,“Sensitivity Analysis for Base-Stock
Levels in Multiechelon Production-Inventory Systems” Man-
agement Science, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 189-376, Feb. 1995.
[10] D. C. Whybark, S. Yang,“Positioning inventory in distribution
systems” Int. J. Prod. Econom., vol. 45, pp. 271-278, Aug.
1996.
[11] Y. Park, J. Shintaku, P. Hong, “Modularity of Flat Panel Dis-
play TV and Operation Management Practices: A Case Study
pf LG Electronics,” Manuf. Management Research Center, Jan.
2009.
[12] M. Amiri, A. Mohtashami,“Buffer allocation in unreliable
production lines based on design of experiments, simulation,
and genetic algorithm,” Int. J. Advanced Manuf. Tech., vol. 62,
pp. 371-383, Sep. 2012.
[13] L. Tiacci, “Simultaneous balancing and buffer allocation
decisions for the design of mixed-model assembly lines with
parallel workstations and stochastic task times,” Int. J. Prod.
Econom., vol. 162, pp. 201-215, Apr. 2015.
[14] A. Costa, A. Alfieri, A. Matta, S. Fichera, “A parallel tabu
search for solving the primal buffer allocation problem in serial
production systems,” Computers & Oper. Res., vol. 64, pp. 97-
112, Dec. 2015.
[15] S. Y. Kose, O. Kilincci, “Hybrid approach for buffer alloca-
tion in open serial production lines,” Comput. Operat. Res.,
vol. 60, pp. 67–78, Aug. 2015.
[16] S. C. Graves, “Safety stocks in manufacturing systems,” 1987.

[17] K. Inderfurth, “Safety stock optimization in multi-stage in-

ventory systems,” Int. J. Prod. Econom., vol. 24, pp. 103–113,
1991.

[18] S. Minner, “Dynamic programming algorithms for multi-stage

safety stock optimization,” OR Spektrum, vol. 19, pp. 261–271,
1997.

[19] K. Inderfurth, S. Minner, “Safety stocks in multi-stage inven-

tory systems under different service measures,” Eur. J. Oper.
Res., vol. 106, pp. 57–73, 1998.

[20] S. C. Graves, S. P. Willems, “Optimizing strategic safety stock

placement in supply chains,” Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manage., vol.
2, pp. 68–83, 2000.

[21] S. C. Graves, S. P. Willems, “Erratum: optimizing strategic

safety stock placement in supply chains,” Manuf. Serv. Oper.
Manage., vol. 5, pp. 176–177, 2003.

[22] S. Humair, S. P. Willems, “Optimizing Strategic Safety Stock

Placement in Supply Chains with Clusters of Commonality,”
Oper. Res., vol. 54, pp. 725–742, Aug. 2006.

[23] T. L. Magnanti, Z.J. M. Shen, J. Shu, D. Semchi-Levi, C.P.

Teo, “Inventory placement in acyclic supply chain networks,”
Oper. Res. Lett., vol. 34, pp. 228-238, 2006.

[24] M. G. Huang, P. L. Chang, Y. C. Chou, “Buffer allocation

in flow-shop-type production systems with general arrival and
service patterns,” Computers & Oper. Res., vol. 29, no. 2, pp.
103-121, Feb. 2002.

[25] S.C. Rim, J. Jiang, C. J. Lee, “Strategic Inventory Positioning

for MTO Manufacturing Using ASR Lead Time,” Log. Oper.,
S.C.M. and Sustainability. P. Golinska, Ed., EcoProduction,
Springer, Switzerland: Basel, 2014, pp. 441-456.

[26] G. Sharman, “The rediscovery of logistics,” Harvard business

review,, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 71-79, Jan. 1984.

[27] C.J. Lee, S.C. Rim, “A Mathematical Safety Stock Model for
DDMRP Inventory Replenishment,” Mathematical Problems in
Eng., 2019.

[28] J. Jiang, S.C. Rim, “Strategic WIP Inventory Positioning for

Make-to-Order Production with Stochastic Processing Times,”
Mathematical Problems in Eng., 2017.

[29] S.C. Graves, E. Lesnai, “Optimizing Safety Stock Place-

ment in General Network Supply Chains,” Proceedings of
Singapore-MIT Alliance Annual Symposium Conference, 2004.

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on May 20,2021 at 23:25:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.