See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338342938

Comprehensive MRP-concept for complex products in global production and

supplying networks

Research Proposal · January 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31478.14404

CITATIONS READS

3 7,502

1 author:

Wilmjakob Herlyn
Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg
57 PUBLICATIONS 48 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Wilmjakob Herlyn on 02 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Comprehensive MRP-concept for complex products in global
production and supplying networks
Wilmjakob J. Herlyn1
1
Otto-von-Guericke Universität Magdeburg, Institut für Logistik und Materialflusstechnik (ILM), 39106 Magde-
burg, Germany - wilm.herlyn@ovgu.de

Abstract. Nowadays product variants are increasing, production and supplying networks are
expanding: e.g. an automotive OEM operates up to hundred plants and gets materials from
thousands of suppliers around the world. For such international concerns with their subsidiar-
ies and plants and their supplier network an appropriate MRP-concept is required. The fun-
dament of this MRP-concept is a well-defined production and material flow structure which
bases on an ideal Boolean Interval Algebra. At certain entry-points different kinds of Bill-of-
Materials are linked that contains the required material for the final products.

Keywords: Material Requirement Planning (MRP), Production and Material Flow, Ideal
Boolean Interval Algebra, Entry-Point (EP), Bill-of-Material (BOM), (Reverse) Lead-time
(LT), Control-Loop-Cycle (CLC)

1 The fundamental database of MRP

1.1 Consideration about the fundamental database for MRP

Planning of material requirement in classical MRP-concepts is normally performed on the fun-
damental database of product structure. MPR starts with a certain final product which is break
down in its components by a Bill-of-Material (BOM). This method is appropriate for simple prod-
ucts with few variants, but nowadays products can be configured by customers and getting more
and more complex, production and supplying networks are expanding. Complex products with a
huge variety consist of a lot of components, e.g. a passenger car consists up to 20.000 components
(BMW, 2016) and if an OEM produces 10.000 cars a day the MRP-System has to plan and calcu-
late the requirement of about 20 million items per day. Because of the enormous amount of de-
pendent material items the classical MRP-II-concept reaches its limitation. Another more compact
and comprehensive MRP-concept is needed to master the complexity of products and the exten-
sion of production and supply chain. But all variants are produced on similar production lines,
manufacturing areas and departments. Therefore we develop a MRP-concept on the base of com-
mon production and material flow (PMF) which is connected with the product structure.
As a first impression of production and material flow we show an example of Toyota (see fig.
1). At the top we see main manufacturing process of a vehicle (stamping, welding, painting, as-
sembling, inspection) and below we see some different manufacturing areas or suppliers which
deliver different parts and major components for the vehicle assembling. What is eye-catching is a
well-structured production and a strictly orientation of production and material flow. This is not a
peculiarity of Toyota but a commonality of all automotive manufacturers.
2

Fig. 1 Production and material flow in the automotive industry (s. Toyota, 2012)
If we look into other industrial sectors and companies like Boing, John Deere, Mori-Seiki etc.
we can observe also a well-structured production and the same strictly direction of production and
material flow.

1.2 Mapping of Production and Material flow for MRP-purposes

There are different methods to map production and material flow like floating diagrams, tables,
matrices or graphs (Arnold, Furmans, 2009, Chap. 1 and 3). Discrete material flow from a source
to a sink in a certain direction and built a linear network and can be described by a floating dia-
gram. We assume that the production and material flow of discrete products can be mapped by a
sequence of consecutive intervals. This can be observed and studied by the vehicle production
process of different car manufactures (e.g. BMW, 2017; VW, 2016, Toyota, 1999). Car production
starts with stamping of press parts, than welding assemblies and the car chassis is manufactured,
thereafter the body-in-white is produced and painted and finally the car is completed at the final
assembly line with all kinds of single parts, assembly groups and moduls. After a final inspection
the car is shipped to a dealer or car center where it is ‘handed-over’ to a customer.
“Today the majority of material-flow-systems are networks because the process is partly serial
or parallel organized “(Arnold, Furmanns, 2009, p. 2).These network can be mapped by a Boolean
Interval Algebra which is a ‘particular class’ of Boolean Algebras (Koppelberg, 1998, p. 242).
Each interval is ‘closed-open’ which means: an interval begins with a defined ‘entry point’ (EP)
and ends with a defined EP of the next following interval and that lays outside the observed inter-
val. An interval represents a certain material flow section in reality and it doesn’t matter which
kind of flow activity are performed therein (Herlyn, 2012, p. 131). For our purpose we define an
interval ’Int-PP’ for the entire production process: This interval starts with the entry-point ‘PE’
and ends before entry-point ‘UE, which signalizes the beginning of product usage. We define this
as follows:
 3

Int-PP=: [PE ‹ UE); PE : EP for interval of product production

UE : EP for interval of product usage

We divide this Interval into four main sub-intervals. Each of these main sub-intervals represents
a typical production area, which we can find in industries of complex products. We define:

Int-PP: {Int-SP, Int-AP, Int-MP, Int-FP}

Each interval has its own entry-point, whereby there is a logical and hierarchical order between
these intervals. Due to this we’ve got a strictly linear order of entry-points (here from left to right)
where each entry point is followed by an entry point of the next following interval except the very
last one. In our case: the first entry point ’SE’ of the first left interval for single part production is
on prior to the entry point ’AE’ of the next following interval of assembly group production. This
EP is followed by the entry point ’ME ’of the next interval for module production which is fol-
lowed by the entry point ’FE’ for final product production. The next following and last entry point
’PE’ represents the beginning of product usage interval, which lays outside of our task but it is
needed only for ‘closing’ the preceding interval resp. the interval chain. We define this as follows:

Int-SP =: [SP ‹ AP); SE : EP for interval of single part production

Int-AP=: [AP ‹ MP); AE : EP for interval of assembly group production
Int-MP=: [MP ‹ FP); ME : EP for interval of module production
Int-FP=: [FP ‹ FH); FE : EP for interval of final product production
Int-PU=: [FH ‹…; FH : EP for interval of product handover for usage

The defined main sub-intervals must also be embedded ideally into the ’Int-PP’ and for a cer-
tain sub-interval the union of all other sub-intervals build the complementary Interval. Therefore
the complement ‘C’ of a complementary sub-interval must be the sub-interval itself. As a conse-
quence of this property there are neither overlaps nor gaps between the sub-intervals in an ideal
defined interval. We define this relation as follows:

Int-PP = Int-SP ˅ Int-AP ˅ Int-UP ˅ Int-FP;

Int-SP ˄ Int-AP ˄ Int-UP ˄ Int-FP = ‘Ø‘ ;
C (Int-SP) = Int-AP ˅ Int-UP ˅ Int-FP ;
C (C (Int-SP)) = Int-SP ; Int-SP ˅ C (Int-SP) = Int-PP
4

Fig. 2 Production and Material Flow - Interval-structure for complex products (exemplary)

Each of these main sub-intervals can be divided furthermore into sub-sub-intervals, which must
also be embedded ideally. In our case we define for every main sub-interval two further sub-
subintervals which characterize two typical sections in production: the first sub-subinterval repre-
sents manufacturing process and activities and the second sub-subinterval represents shipping
processes and activities. The definitions are the following:

Int-SP: {Int-SM, Int-SS}; Int-AP: {Int-AM, Int-AS}

Int-MP: {Int-MM, Int-MS}; Int-FP: {Int-FM, Int-FS}

As an example we describe only the logical properties of the main sub-interval ‘Int-SP’ that
consists of the sub-subinterval ’Int-SM’ (= single parts manufacturing) and the complementary
sub-subinterval ‘Int-SS’ (= single parts shipping). The other sub-intervals can be defined in the
same way.

Int-SM ˅ Int-SS = Int-SP; Int-SM ˄ Int-SS = ’Ø’

C (Int-SM) = Int-SS; C (C (Int-SM)) = Int-SM;
Int-SM ˅ C (Int-SM) = Int-SI

The sub-subintervals can be distinguished by their own entry-points; for better understanding
we give them also corresponding names: ’SE’ for the EP of single part production, ‘SF’ for the
finish of single part production which is the EP of single part shipping etc.

Int-SM: [SE ‹ SF); Int-SS: [SF ‹ AE)

Int-AM: [AE ‹ AF); Int-AS: [AF ‹ ME)
Int-MM: [ME‹ MF); Int-MS: [MF ‹ FE);
Int-FM: [FE ‹ FF); Int-FS: [FF ‹ FU);
Int-PU: [FU ‹ …

As a result we get a chain of strictly consecutive EP’s for the entire production process. The
very beginning of this process is defined by the entry-point ‘SE’ and the very ending is defined by
the entry-point ’FU’, which stands for the beginning of ‘Final Product Usage’.
 5

Int-PP = [SE ‹ SF ‹ AE ‹ AF ‹ ME ‹ MF ‹ FE ‹ FF ‹ FU

Each of the sub-intervals can be split into further ideal sub-subintervals. For example: we can
partition the Int-FM into three intervals for final assembly line feeding (Int-FF), finale assembling
itself (Int-FA) and the final product checking (FC) and ’Int-FA’ can partitioned itself into sub-sub-
intervals etc. At the ‘lowest’ level we’ve got a strictly linear interval-sequence from Int-takt-(1) to
Int-takt-(z) resp. from EP ‘T1’ ‘til ‘TZ’ (fig. 3) The ‘lowest’ interval-level built the fundament of
the PMF-structure and the ‘upper’ interval-levels are only a logical union of them. The EP of an
upper interval-level refers always to a lower level. To use them for different operational purposes
we have to discriminate the congruent EP’s by different names of EP.

Fig. 3 Hierarchical Interval-Schema for ‘final product manufacturing’ (exemplary)

In such a hierarchical PMF-structure the very first entry-points of a ‘lower’ sub-interval has log-
ically the same meaning as the entry-point of the ‘upper’ interval. The consequence and interpreta-
tion for real material flow is the following: if an object passes a very first entry point of an ‘lower’
interval then is has passed at the same time the entry point of all corresponding ‘upper’ intervals,
e.g. if ‘t1’ is passed then also ‘S1’ and also ‘FA’ is passed (see fig. 3).
If a process is completely defined by ideal embedded Boolean intervals then no intervals are
missing or excessive and no overlapping or gaps between exist between next-following intervals.
That means in reality production and shipping of complex final products and their components is
consistent defined by an ideal PMF-Schema which provides a fundament not only for MRP but
also for production planning and scheduling in general.
This kind of PMF-structure is very similar with ‘floating diagrams’ (see Arnold, Furmans,
2009, Chap. 1, 3) which is well-known and used to illustrate material flow. The difference is the
ideal defined PMF-structure by the exactly ordered entry-points which allows us to plan and calcu-
late production and material flow consistently by values.

1.3 Interval-families for intervals and their sub-intervals

In reality automotive OEM’s operates multiple plants in which components and vehicles are
produced. Normally a plant has more than one manufacturing section e.g. a plant for vehicles has
several assembly lines. And also buy-parts were often manufactured and delivered by different
6
suppliers and alternative freight carriers for shipping are used. These parallel production and mate-
rial flow can be mapped by alternative intervals by an ‘Interval-family’ which is a union of all
these alternative intervals. These alternative intervals are disjunctive to each other so always a
complement can be built by all other alternative intervals of the family. As an example we define a
correspondent interval-family ‘IF-SP’ for the interval ‘Int-SM’ as follows:

IF-SP: {Int-SM (1) … Int-SM (s)}

IF-SP = Int-SM(1) ˅ … ˅ Int-SM(s); Int-SM(1) ˄ … ˄ Int-SM(s) = ’Ø’
C (Int-SM(1)) = Int-SM(2) ˅ … ˅ Int-SM(s); C (C (Int-SM(1)) = Int-SM(1)
Int-SM(i) ˅ C (Int-SM(i) = IF-SP

Fig. 4 Parallel Intervals in an ideal PMF-Structure (exemplary)

In an ideal defined PMF-Structure all intervals and their sub-intervals are completely defined
and no intervals are missing or excessive, and there are none overlapping nor gaps between next-
following intervals. That means in reality: production and shipping of complex final products and
their components which are defined by an ideal PMF-Schema provides a fundament not only for
MRP but also for production planning and scheduling in general and enables consistent calculation
results.
All alternatives intervals have the same consecutive ‘position’ in the PMF-structure chain. This
reflect the fact that a flow item can be manufactured or shipped in parallel sections or ways but in
reality a certain item can use and most use only one of these alternative intervals.

1.4 Building a Boolean Interval-network

If an item does not flow through the entire interval but only through a certain part of it – e.g.
when a single is mounted a certain takt of the final assembly line - we have to split the interval into
further subinterval (e.g. takt) where we link a new separate interval, which represents the flow of
this mounting item, for this we call the entry point as ‘mounting point’ (MP) which is the begin-
ning of a certain ‘takt’. If this MP is missing we take the EP of the next-preceding interval as ref-
erence (s. fig. 5).
 7

Fig. 5 Interval network for ‘Final Product Manufacturing’ (exemplary)

1.5 Logical entry-points and physical data-acquisitions point

The described PMF-structure is only a logical map of the real production and material flow
therefor it is necessary to connect real data-acquisition points (DAP) with logical entry-points. One
of the advantages of this concept is that different DAP can be referenced to only one logical EP.
One of the most important DAP is the point of “goods receiving”, in big plant there are sometimes
more than one point of ‘goods receiving’, e.g. if there is less space in a plant a logistic center out-
side the plant or a logistic partner performed ‘goods receipt’ for the plant and store it outside. So
we only have to reference the inside and outside DAP with the same logical EP. And if a physical
DAP has moved from one place to another the reference has to be changed only but the logical
PMF-Structure is still the same.
Another advantage is that we can model real PMF in the kind a granularity as we like and as we
need for different purpose, whereby physical DAP always built the lowest level of the logical
PMF-Structure and data are gathered only at this lowest level. If we want information about the
higher logical level, we have to condense the information. Therefor we get a consistent system of
data and information for shop-floor level, plant level and managing level, also for short run appli-
cations and long-run planning and analysis.

2 Product structure and PMF-Structure

The defined PMF-structure is only an ‘empty’ framework without any relation to product struc-
ture, which is mapped by a Bill of Material (BOM). Normally all components of a product or as-
sembly are stored in one ‘BOM’ but for complex products we need a set of different BOM’s. De-
pending on the character of manufacturing process and complexity and variety of a product we
need different kinds of BOM (Heizer, 2017, p. 606 ff.). We distinguish four main kinds of BOM,
which reflex typical ways of manufacturing which match with our PMF-structure in an ideal way:

• for single part manufacturing – ‘Material-List’

• for assembly groups manufacturing – ‘Single-Level-BOM’
• for modul assembling - Modul-BOM
• for final product assembling – Configurable-BOM
8

Based on the PMF-schema we can connect an appropriate kind of BOM with the corresponding
manufacturing interval. For this we have to connect the referring BOM with the EP of the next
following Interval, normally the shipping interval. This EP we call therefore ‘SF’ for ‘Single Parts
Finished’ etc. By this procedure and method it is necessary that the connected BOM must contain
only but all variants and all components which are used during the manufacturing process in the
same manufacturing interval. By this procedure we can use the same PMF-structure for a lot of
product or modul BOM’s or for a lot of single-level BOMS’ so we gain a compact database and
can reduce nodes and the edges. As a result we’ve got an ideal PMF-structure where different
kinds of BOM’s are linked to their specific EP’s or in other words: For each defined manufactur-
ing interval we need always a BOM (see fig. 6).

Fig. 6 Linkage of product structure and PMF-structure (exemplary)

2.1 Bill-of-Material for configurable products

In industries with highly complex products the end product can be configured more and more
often by the customer himself, therefor end-products are not defined by a certain predefined or fix
product number but by a lot of ‘features’. The customer or dealer can specify his individual want-
ed product by these features; Because of the hugh amount of different product variants there
doesn’t exist a simple and fixed BOM. For this kind of product specification we need a configura-
ble BOM which are called also Complex-BOM or Super-BOM (s. SAP, 2xxx )
In this case each end product must be manufactured by the configured customer order therefore
each order must be break-down individually so we need a configurable BOM where all variants of
all components can be chosen depending on the features the customer has specified in his order.
There are different kind ways to store the feature information in a configurable BOM. If the fea-
tures of the final product are organized as an ideal Boolean Set then the usage of a component and
its variants can by a Boolean expression which is stored in the configurable BOM which is also
called as Complex BOM [s. Herlyn, 1990]. If a customer order comes in the features are compared
with the Boolean expression and the ‘valid’ variant can be selected.

2.2 Bill-of-Material for moduls

Moduls are high-aggregated assemblies groups, which are produced or assembled according to
a specified end-product. Because of their high variety and specific application these kinds of as-
semblies are often produced and delivered ‘Just-in-time’ or ‘Just-in-Sequence’. There are different
ways for mapping Moduls in a BOM, depending on the complexity and variety of the Modul. Of-
 9
ten the Modul-BOM is derived from the end-product during the manufacturing process for each
singular module especially when it is produced in a pre-assembling line. In some cases where the
variety isn’t so extensive and moduls must be tested extensively (engines, transmissions), there are
special kind if Variant-BOM’s for different technical types of moduls (e.g. 4-cyl.engines, 6-
cyl.engines, 8-cyl.-engines etc.). Often these Modul-BOM’s are named as ‘indented’ BOM’s be-
cause they the hierarchy of components are listed indented and identified by a specific declined
level-number. These Modul-BOMS’s contains all kinds of components and their variants from the
top or head of BOM down to the lowest level, where single parts are stored normally.

2.3 Bill-of-Material for assembly groups

Final products and moduls often contained some special assembly groups with only a certain
kind of variation which can be used in different product and modul variants. Because of their fre-
quently usage they can be produced in advance for better economic scale and quality. These as-
sembly groups can be mapped by a single-level-BOM’s which can be point to another single-level-
BOM so we get a multi-level BOM At the lowest level of such a multi-level-BOM we find (nor-
mally) only single parts which are produced in-house or delivered and produced outside by a sup-
plier.

2.4 List of Material for single parts

For manufacturing of single parts different kinds of raw material or raw parts are necessary.
This information is stored in ‘Material-List’ which plays in the MRP-system the same role as the
above described BOM’s. Because of the specific technologies, procedures and steps in production
the manufacturing process can be performed in different ways and steps which must be described
in the material. Depending on the chosen production procedure or the available material the ac-
cording information is selected from the List of Material.

3 MRP-Procedure and main parameters for MRP

3.1 Closed-Loop-Control on the fundament of PMF-Structure

Based on a defined PMF-schema the method of Closed-Loop-Control can applied perfectly be-
cause we can plan target values for every EP which can be compared with the actual values that
are acquired/registered at the every EP during the process (see fig. 7). The deviation of target-
actual-values is handled by a ‘MRP-Regulator’ which is a certain implemented algorithm in a
MRP-system.
10

Fig. 7 Closed-Loop-Control as the basic method for MRP

One of the best-known algorithm for material requirement planning is the ‘Gross-Net-Method’
(Heizer, 2017, p. 601). Another algorithm for MRP is the ‘Concept of Cumulative Quantities’
(CLC) which is especially appropriate for flow oriented production in expanded supply chains
(Herlyn, 2014). Anyway the result of the MRP-algorithm for a certain PMF-interval is the starting
point for the MRP-run for the preceding PMF-interval. By this procedure we’ve got a MRP-chain
which is connected along the PMF-schema of the entire process whereby the results of each step is
calculated by the same method (see fig. 8). This comprehensive MRP-concept is very new and
avoids several of the criticized disadvantages of the waterfall-procedure of the MRP-II-concept
and has a several advantages about stochastic methods (s. Arnold et al, 2017).
This CLC-method can only be successful applied, if actual data are collected and acquired very
precisely and quickly. New communication platforms like the “infobroker” (Autonomik, Bd. 6,
2013) and standards like SCI-40 / OPC-UA (s. Wegener, 2017) will enable to acquire and collect
all actual data for this challenging MRP-concept. The presented MRP-concept can build the fun-
dament for creating a successful digital MRP-twin which leads MRP into the future of industry 4.0
The MRP-run starts with the Master Production Schedule (MPS) for final products which is
break-down by the BOM into the next production-level, which is the ‘modul-level’, which is then
break-down into the assembly-group-level etc.
 11

Fig. 8 MRP-Procedure for relative independent MRP Steps

3.2 Lead-time and Backward-Calculation

Lead-time (LT), also called ‘flow time’, is the most important parameter for MRP and a crucial
element in ERP-Systems at all. “The total time spent by a flow unit within process boundaries is
called flow time” (Anupindi, et. al, 2012, p. 48). The LT is in an ideal PMF-schema simply the
elapsed time between two or more successive CP’s. Because of the ideality of PMF-Structure we
can add the LT of all next-following intervals (s. fig. 9), so the completely LT of a flow–item is
the sum of all passed intervals.
Normally LT can be measured or sometimes it has to be estimated, but in both cases we can
plan and calculate material flow through the defined PMF-schema by the LT-parameters for the
different Intervals. To determine the right time for an item we use the ‘reverse’ of LT (RLT) for
backward-calculation, also called retrograde calculation, to shift of material requirement along the
EP’S of the PMF-schema. For backward-calculation neither the kind of operation (production,
transportation or storing) nor the ‘physical length’ of an interval is important. Once and only the
elapsed time between two CP’s is the decisive factor; any kind of material flow is equal "rated"
even if the process character or environment is different.

Fig. 9 Lead-time and ideal PMF-Structure

12

LT is seldom a constant factor but a normal distribution so we can use the mean of tis distribu-
tion for backward-calculation. For secure planning we can also use a certain LT-range (a lower
and upper value) of the distribution, e.g. the +/-2-sigma values. Because of technical and other
circumstance the sometimes a there are certain upper and/or lower limitation so LT is not normal
distributed which we have to take in account for more precise calculation. Therefore the LT-
calculation depends on the character of the process and special conditions, so we have to apply
different mathematical formulas. But a detailed description of the character and determination of
LT is omitted here but can be found in other textbook (Wiendahl, 1997, Chap. 2). Here we focus
on the general role of LT only.
For every single Interval in the PMF-structure we need the specific LT-value. If the granularity
and hierarchy of PMF-structure is high then we have a lot of LT’s. Because of the ideality of the
PMF-structure we can add-up LT’s of successive intervals whereby the mathematical formulas can
be varying. The entire LT for a certain interval is the sum of the single LT’s of the include sub-
intervals. We use this information to transfer it to components that passes these intervals. If a sin-
gle parts is produced in a certain concerned manufacturing interval then the entire LT for the sin-
gle part is the sum of the LT of all next-following intervals single part goes thru depending of then
product structure because the single part is a part of the an assembly group and/or modul and/or
final product (s. fig. 10).
Because a LT-parameter represents only the pure processing time and doesn’t reflects the idle
time. Therefore we need a ‘Working-Calendar’ (WC) in which idle times of a Gregorian calendar
are eliminated and where timelines are normalized by equidistant time-units. This time-oriented
normalization must be applied to all intervals and for all time-units like working-weeks, working-
days, working-shifts or working-hours otherwise we would get wrong results for LT-calculation.
For example: If truck-transportation takes three days and there is a ban at the weekend than trans-
portation needs sometimes three Gregorian days and sometimes five Gregorian days so transporta-
tion has to start until two days earlier, if a weekend is included.

Fig. 10 Lead-time for dominant and subdominant manufacturing processes

Using such diagrams we can identify a critical path or a bottle neck (s. Goldratt, 1997) by com-
paring the concerning LT’s in advance. This could be the fundament for re-engineering the ship-
 13
ping process and adjust the MRP-parameters. Furthermore we can detect critical situations by
monitoring the real process using modern technologies like GPS and RFID and check the acquired
data with the planned data from the MRP-Systems. And in addition we can use PMF-structure to
harmonize and smooth sub-dominant processes with the dominant process of the product, which is
– in the case of the automotive industry - the manufacturing process of the car body (s. fig. 10).

3.3 Manufacturing batch-sizes and lot-sizes for transportation

In reality one-piece-flow can’t always be applied because there are a lot practical restrictions
and constraints which provoke lot-sizes and batches for production and shipping. The main re-
striction for manufacturing is the fact that a certain couple of similar material items use the same
manufacturing assets and equipment; the main restrictions for shipping are lot-sizes for transporta-
tion and shipping-schedules for freight-carriers. Long-distance-transportation cannot be performed
as one-piece-flow because of economic and ecological reasons. Therefore batch-production and
lot-size-transportation provoke certain time-slots for a set of material items and causes a disruption
in production and material flow.
Because of this the material requirement planning we have to use production schedules for manu-
facturing intervals and shipping schedules for transportation intervals whereby material demand
and material orders are ‘shifted forward’ in time and quantity (s. fig. 11). If we look to material
requirement as a ‘line-curve’ we see this as certain ‘jumps’ which are mainly caused by lot-sizes
for transportation or batch-sizes for manufacturing.
Beside of these most important impact factors the magnitude of these jumps depends also on the
granularity of the used timeline and on the amount of required items. All these factors cause a
discontinuous material flow in the short run but will not increase (or decrease) the material re-
quirement in the long run.

3.4 Departure time for transportation and starting time for manufacturing
Because of several restrictions and of economic reasons we cannot start transportation of mate-
rial at every time we want and we cannot start manufacturing at any time we like. Because of their
capacity and frequently usage for different purposes and items freight-carriers have normally a
time-table with a defined starting-time and ending-time because they should be fully loaded. These
existing predefined time-tables allows us to calculate and adjust the required material demand for a
certain starting time. The consequence of this is that material requirement must be pulled forward
so we can reach the calculated cumulative value for a certain EP. This forwarding doesn’t change
the material requirement in the long run but changes the call-off in the middle-run or short-run. As
a result we will get some ‘peaks’ in the cumulative curves that must be taken in account in the next
MRP-run.
The MRP-run starts with the Master Production Schedule (MPS) for final products which is
break-down by the BOM into the next production-level, which is the ‘modul-level’, which is then
break-down into the assembly-group-level etc. (s. fig. 11)
14

Fig. 11 PMF-structure and linkages of ‘Production and Shipping Schedules’

For each interval of the PMF-schema a separate MRP-run can be performed, but in practice is
doesn’t make sense because of the long response time of real manufacturing and shipping process-
es. Normally a separate MRP-run is performed for every interval with manufacturing character.
Normally the very first MRP-run is performed for every ‘Final Product Assembling’ plant and
thereafter the schedules for ‘Modul-Shipping’ are performed. Thereafter for every modul plant (if
there are) a separate MRP-run is performed for ‘Modul Assembling’, which uses the results of the
MRP-run and Shipping-Schedules. Thereby for each MRP-run a specific working calendar is
needed and also specific MRP-parameters are needed for every interval!

3.5 Example for MRP in expanded supply chain

Based on a defined PMF-schema and the method of Closed-Loop-Control we will show an
example for MRP for the method of Cumulative Quantities In this case the MRP starts at with the
Master Production Schedule (at the Entry-Points ‘FS’) and the results are the starting point for the
next MRP-step and so on, so we get a MRP-chain for the defined PMF-structure (s. fig. 12).
 15

Fig. 12 MRP for an expanded production and supply chain (exemplary)

At the very bottom of fig. 11 we see the single target values for every single manufacturing day
cars at EP of ‘Final Product Finished’ (‘FF’). The next line above we see the cumulative target
values resp. the curve for cars at the same EP. At the top of fig. 11 we see the cumulative target
values resp. the curve for ‘blanks’ which are needed to stamp a some required press parts. Between
these two enclosing curves we see a multitude of cumulative curves which shows the target values
for the following components along the corresponding EP’s. For each component a control-loop-
cycle is installed so the entire production and supply chain for this blanks and the press part can be
controlled and monitored. The distances between these cumulative curves are equal to the LT for
the corresponding intervals which can be changed by the lot-size and departure time for transporta-
tion and/or the batch-sizes and starting time for manufacturing. For each component we can create
a control-loop-cycle at each passed EP so the entire production and supply chain can be planned,
controlled and monitored.
At this point we will not explain the complete parameters and details for our purpose it’s enough
to explain only the procedure and general which is most important and interesting for us.

4 Conclusion

The presented comprehensive MRP-concept is a reflection on the increasing of extended pro-

duction and supplying networks for complex products that we can observe in different industrial
sectors. The deterministic concept is founded on the fundamental database of an ideal Boolean
PMF-structure. Each interval in this PMF-structure stands for a certain real stretch and represents
any kind of production and material flow including storages and cross-docks. This PMF-structure
is very stable because the production and material flow is nearly the same or very similar for each
variant of the final product and its components. The main MRP-parameter is the lead-time, which
must be defined and measured for every interval. Based on the lead-time other parameters like lot-
16
sizes and departure-time for transportation and batch-sizes and time-tables for manufacturing are
important for MRP.
This PMF-Structure is an empty framework which must be connected with the concrete product
structure. Depending on product complexity and manufacturing process we can use different kinds
of BOM’s, which are linked to the PMF-schema where manufacturing-interval ends resp. at the
beginning resp. at the entry-points of the next-following interval.
The fundamental databases is independent from the concrete legal organization and participant
in production and supplying network and can be applied to all kind of companies and plants which
are involved in the supply and manufacturing chain and logistic process. This concept is especially
useful for OEM’s and their suppliers in the automotive, electronics, aviation or machine tool in-
dustry because of the product variety and logistic complexity. The concept enables an OEM and its
suppliers to harmonize their production and supply chain. The concept can perfectly be used to
control and monitor material flow of cyber-physical objects in expanded networks, which is a big
challenge for the future. The presented MRP-concept can build the fundament for creating a digital
MRP-twin which leads into the future of industry 4.0.

5 References

Anupindi et. al., 2012, „Managing Business Process Flow – Principles of Operations Manage-
ment“, 3. Global Ed., Pearson Education Ltd., Prentice Hall
Arnold D., Isermann H., Kuhn A.,Tempelmeier H. Furmans K. (Hrsg.), 2017: „Handbuch
Logistik“, 6. Auflage, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg
Arnold D., Furmans K., 2009, „Materialfluss in Logistiksystemen”, 6. erweiterte Ausgabe, Sprin-
ger Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg
BMW AG, 2017: ‘BMW Plant Munich’; Communications Production Network, München
Furmans et al., 2017, “Review of models for large scale manufacturing networks”, at 11th Confer-
ence on Stochastic Models of Manufacturing and Service Operations (SMMSO 2017)
Goldratt, E., 1997 „Critical Chain. A Business Novel”, The North River Press, Great Bar-
rington, USA
Goldratt E., Cox J., 1997: „The Goal”, Rev. Edition, Gower Publishing Company Limited, Eng-
land
Heizer et. al., 2017: “Operations Management - Systainability and Supply Chain Management”,
12. Ed., Pearson Education Ltd., Essex England
Herlyn, W., 2012: „PPS im Automobilbau - Produktionsprogrammplanung und -steuerung von
Fahrzeugen und Aggregaten“, Hanser Verlag, München
Herlyn, W., 2014: "The Bullwhip Effect in expanded supply chains and the concept of cumulative
quantities”; in: “Innovative Methods in Logistics and Supply Chain Management”, Blecker Th. et
al. (Ed.), epubli GmbH, Berlin, S. 513-528,
Koppelberg S., 1989: “Algebraic Theory”, “Special Classes of Boolean Algebra”, in: Monk J. D.,
Bonnet R. (Ed.): „Handbook of Boolean Algebra“, Vol. 1, North-Holland, Amsterdam
Laudon K.C., Laudon J.P. 2007: „Management Information Systems“, 10. Ed.; Pearson Interna-
tional Edition, New Jersey (USA)
Nahmias, Steven, 2013:„Production and Operations Analysis“, 7. Ed, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New
York (USA)
Schönsleben, Paul, 2012: „Integral Logistics Management“, 4.th Ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton
(USA)
Toyota, 2012: “Automobile production processes” downloaded 12. July 2018 http://www.toyota-
global.com/company/history_of_toyota/75years/data/ automo-
tive_business/production/production_engineering/prize_receiving
Toyota, 2018: ‘Toyota Production Systems’, downloaded 12. July 2018 http://www.toyota-
global.com/company/vision_philosophy/toyota_production_system
 17
Toyota, 1999:‘People Making Things for You’, TMC Public Affairs, Tokyo, 1999
Wiendahl H-P., 1997: „Fertigungsregelung: Logistische Beherrschung von Fertigungsabläufen auf
Basis des Trichtermodells“, Carl Hanser Verlag, München
VW AG, 2016: Plant Wolfsburg, Visitor’s Book, Konzern Kommunikation, Wolfsburg
Wegener D., 2017: „Industrie 4.0 geht jeden etwas an“, Vortrag auf den 20.ten IFF-
Wissenschaftstagen, Magdeburg, Springer-Verlag
Ohno T., 1998: „Toyota Production System“, Productivity Press, Cambrigde, Mass. (USA)
Womack J.P., Jones & Rose, 1990: „The Machine that Changed the World“, Rawson, New York
Costanza, John R., 1996: ”The Quantum Leap” John Costanza Institute of Technology, Inc.
Ford, Benjamin C., Usrey Michael W.: 2000: “Designing and Implementing Lean Manufacturing
at John Deere Dubuque Works”, John Deere & Company, publication at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270572655
http://myhicoach.com/demand-flow-technology-dft/more-detail/
Genuine literature
http://www.apics.org/sites/apics-supply-chain-council/frameworks/scor

View publication stats