Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determination of production planning policies for different products in process industries: using discrete event simulation

  • Production Management
  • Published:
Production Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The increasing attention to customer demands in the product process, and the inevitable features and costs of production processes have led researchers and artisans to manage orders and choose the right policy for production planning. This article identifies the structure for determining the optimal location of the Customer Order Decoupling Point (CODP) and the optimal production planning policy as one of the most important strategic decisions in the production process. So, we developed a discrete-event simulation model for realistic calculation of cost and flow time, under different scenarios, and we used the production and sales information of a dairy production plant for validation and implementation of the model. The results suggest that the use of a hybrid production planning policy reduces the cost and delivery time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aouam T, Geryl K, Kumar K, Brahimi N (2017) Production planning with order acceptance and demand uncertainty. Comput Oper Res 91:145–159

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Aouam T, Brahimi N (2013) Integrated production planning and order acceptance under uncertainty: a robust optimization approach. Eur J Oper Res 228:504–515

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Atan Z, Ahmadi T, Stegehuis C, DeKok T, Adan L (2017) Assemble-to-order systems: a review. Eur J Oper Res 261(3):866–879

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Dellaert NP, Melo MT (1996) Production strategies for a stochastic lot sizing problem with constant capacity. Eur J Oper Res 92:281–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Diaz JE, Handl J, Xu DL (2018) Integrating meta-heuristics, simulation and exact techniques for production planning of a failure-prone manufacturing system. Eur J Oper Res 266(3):976–989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gargouri E, Hammadi S, Borne P (2002) A study of scheduling problem in agro-food. Manufacturing systems. Math Comput Simul 60:277–291

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Garn W, Aitken J (2015) Splitting hybrid make-to-order and make-to-stock demand profiles. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.03594, 15

  8. Gupta D, Benjaafar S (2004) Make-to-order, make-to-stock, or delay product differentiation? A common framework for modeling and analysis. IIE Trans 36(6):529–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kober J, Heinecke G (2012) Hybrid production strategy between make-to-order and make-to-stock, a case study at a manufacturer of agricultural machinery with volatile and seasonal demand. In: 45th CIRP Conference on manufacturing systems, 2012, 453–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lattanzio T, Cauvin A (2006) Decisional modelling for engineer-to-order. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 39:3, 793–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Makris S, Zoupas P, Chryssolouris G (2011) Supply chain control logic for enabling adaptability under uncertainty. Int J Product Res 49:121–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Motallebi S, Zandieh M (2017) Determination of inventory management policies in process manufacturing: using discrete-event-simulation. J Ind Manag Perspect 26:83–108

    Google Scholar 

  13. Olhager J (2003) Strategic positioning of order penetration point. Int J Prod Econ 85:319–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rodgers P, Nandy A (2007) Judicious order acceptance and order release in make-to-order manufacturing systems. Product Plan Control 18(7):610–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sharda B, Akiya N (2012) Selecting make-to-stock and postponement policies for different products in a chemical plant: a case study using discrete-event-simulation. Int J Product Econ 136:161–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Soman CA, VanDonk DP, Gaalman G (2004) Combined make-to-order and make-to-stock in a food production system. Int J Prod Econ 90(2):223–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Soman CA, VanDonk DP, Gaalman GJC (2006) Comparison of dynamic scheduling policies for hybrid make-to-order and make-to-stock production systems with stochastic demand. Int J Prod Econ 104:441–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Su JCP, Chang Y, Ferguson L, M (2005) Evaluation of postponement structures to accommodate mass customization. J Oper Manag 23:305–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. VanDonk DP (2001) Make to stock or make to order: the decoupling point in the food processing industries. Int J Prod Econ 69(2):297–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wikner J, Rudberg M (2005) Integrating production and engineering perspectives on the customer order decoupling point. Product Eng Perspect 25(7):623–641

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Industrial Management Department, Management and Accounting Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, G.C., Tehran, Iran

    Mostafa Zandieh & Sima Motallebi

Authors
  1. Mostafa Zandieh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sima Motallebi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mostafa Zandieh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zandieh, M., Motallebi, S. Determination of production planning policies for different products in process industries: using discrete event simulation. Prod. Eng. Res. Devel. 12, 737–746 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-018-0843-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-018-0843-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation