Avoiding the capacity cost trap: Three means of smoothing under cyclical production planning
International Journal of Production Economics, ISSN: 0925-5273, Vol: 201, Page: 149-162
2018
- 6Citations
- 26Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Companies tend to set their master production schedule weekly, even when producing and shipping on a daily basis—the term for this is staggered deliveries. This practice is common even when there is no marginal cost of setting a new schedule. We argue that the practice is sound for companies that use the ubiquitous order-up-to (OUT) policy to control production of products with a significant capacity cost. Under these conditions, the length of the order cycle (time between schedule updates) has a damping effect on production, while a unit (daily) order cycle can cause significant capacity costs. We call this the capacity cost trap. Developing an analytical model based on industrial evidence, we derive capacity and inventory costs under the staggered OUT policy, showing that for this policy there is an optimal order cycle possibly greater than unity. To improve on this solution, we consider three approaches to smoothing: either levelling within the cycle, deferring excess production or idling to future cycles via a proportional OUT policy, or increasing the length of the cycle. By deriving exact cost expressions we compare these approaches, finding that smoothing by employing the proportional OUT policy is sufficient to avoid the capacity cost trap.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925527318301634; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.04.008; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85046700965&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0925527318301634; https://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S0925527318301634?httpAccept=text/xml; https://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S0925527318301634?httpAccept=text/plain; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.04.008
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know