Production, Manufacturing and LogisticsCommonality and postponement in multistage assembly systems☆
Introduction
Component commonality generally refers to an approach in manufacturing in which two or more different components for different end products (of perhaps the same product family) are replaced by a common component that can perform the functions of those it replaces. Using common components continuously along the line, the point of product differentiation can also be postponed. Commonality and postponement are not new concepts. Alderson (1950) was the first to analyze the concept of postponement in marketing literature while Dogramaci (1979) provided a early study of component commonality from a risk pooling perspective. Both concepts are now attracting renewed attention as companies are compelled to provide and manage an increasing product variety and to compete in supply chain excellence in a global market. In this paper, we study component commonality and manufacturing postponement in multistage and multi-product assembly systems.
Component commonality reduces the total number of distinct components and can bring about benefits in a variety of functional areas throughout a firm. The major benefits of commonality are risk-pooling and leadtime uncertainty reduction. These lead to a safety stock reduction and have been studied extensively by many researchers, including, but not limited to, Baker et al. (1986), Collier (1982), Guerrero (1985), Gerchak et al. (1988), Eynan and Rosenblatt (1996), and Grotzinger et al. (1993). Commonality also has the following additional benefits: improving the economy of scale through larger order sizes; simplifying planning, scheduling and control; and streamlining and speeding up product development processes. Discussion of these benefits can be found in Collier, 1981, Collier, 1982, Thomas (1981), Walleigh (1989), Berry et al. (1992), Vakharia et al. (1996), Hopson et al. (1989), Baldwin and Clark (1997), and Sheu and Wacker (1997).
There are also costs for using a common component, including higher unit component costs due to excessive performance, higher workload variability (imbalance in workload) and more variable work-in-process inventory levels (Collier, 1982; Bott and Ritzman, 1983; Tsubone et al., 1994; Vakharia et al., 1996; Guerrero, 1985). These costs and benefits will determine the suitability of a commonality strategy and should be quantified.
Commonality has been a subject of study for over two decades. Dogramaci (1979) authored one of the early publications on commonality. From a risk-pooling perspective, he noted that the use of common components across multiple end items reduces forecasting errors. Collier (1981) proposed a commonality measure, the degree of commonality index (DCI), to study the effect of commonality on setup and holding costs. Collier (1982) analyzed the effect of commonality on the aggregate safety stock requirement and found it to be an inverse function of DCI. Thomas (1981) and Wacker and Treleven (1986) also analyzed the impact of the commonality index.
Baker (1985) considered the impact of correlated component demands on safety stock requirements. He pointed out that the traditional (safety stock) zσ-policy might not be sufficient to provide the desired service level. Baker et al. (1986) analyzed a problem with two end items with independent and uniformly distributed demands. They drew the following conclusions: (1) the total inventory (in number of units) decreases with commonality; (2) the inventory level of the common component is smaller than the combined inventory levels of the components it replaces; and (3) the inventory levels of non-common components increase with commonality. This work was later extended to a model with multiple end products and fairly general demand patterns in Gerchak et al. (1988). They considered the cost minimization subject to a service level constraint and found that while property (1) (see above) is still true, (2) and (3) may not necessarily hold. Bagchi and Gutierrez's model maximizes the service level for a fixed total number of units in stock (cf. Bagchi and Gutierrez, 1992). For exponential and geometric demand distributions, they found that the marginal cost reduction increases with commonality.
Eynan and Rosenblatt (1996) demonstrated that commonality might not always be a preferred strategy for some component cost structures and presented conditions under which commonality should not be used. Eynan (1996) studied a commonality model with correlated demands and showed that the impact of commonality is stronger with negative correlation. Vakharia et al. (1996) investigated the impact of increased parts commonality on the operating characteristics of a manufacturing firm using an MRP system. Through simulation, they showed that while the average shop load decreases, the loading variability increases.
Most authors used aggregate service levels in their models with the exception of Baker (1985). Recently, Mirchandani and Mishra (1999a) studied the commonality problem in a two-stage assembly system with a product-specific service level (PSL) requirement. They showed that since ASL may provide a higher than necessary service level, the use of PSL leads to additional inventory savings.
A number of authors have focused their research on computational issues in commonality models. For example, Hillier (1998) developed bounds on the multi-period cost for Gerchak and Henig's profit maximization model (cf. Gerchak and Henig, 1986). Jönsson and Silver (1989), Jönsson et al. (1993), Tayur (1995) and Mirchandani and Mishra (1999b) developed computational approaches to solve large-scale commonality problems.
In a manufacturing–distribution system, a considerable portion of the risk and uncertainty costs is due to differentiation in form, place, and time. Postponement of the point of differentiation is an important means to reducing or eliminating this risk and uncertainty. This has long been recognized and studied in marketing and logistics literature. Many authors have provided extensive analysis of the benefits of postponement and various postponement strategies from marketing, logistics, and supply chain perspectives. These include, but are not limited to, Alderson (1950), Bucklin (1965), Zinn and Bowersox (1988), Child et al. (1991), Maskell (1991), Stern and El-Ansary (1992), Cooper (1993), Lee and Billington (1994), Feitsinger and Lee (1997), and Pagh and Cooper (1998). In addition to many of the same benefits as those described above from commonality, postponement can also shorten the configuration and customization leadtime, improve forecasting accuracy by shortening the forecasting time horizon, and enhance a firm's flexibility and responsiveness in an uncertain and changing market. While early studies were primarily qualitative, some recent works have focused on the quantitative modeling of the benefits and criteria of various postponement strategies, for example, Lee, 1993, Lee, 1996, Howard (1994), Lee and Billington (1994), Lee and Feitzinger (1995), Garg and Tang (1997), and Garg and Lee (1997). Lee (1996) presented a model that captures the effect of postponement on inventory reduction. Lee and Tang (1997) extended Lee's work in a number of ways. The authors allowed holding inventories of semi-finished goods at different points of the process instead of only finished goods inventory and incorporated additional factors such as design and processing costs and production leadtimes. They also presented three different postponement approaches, namely standardization, modular design, and process restructuring.
The above literature review reveals that the current research on commonality has mainly focused on its pooling effect on the safety stock at a single location (single-stage). Although, multistage production system dynamics will interact with a commonality strategy and may lead to different outcomes, this important aspect is largely unexplored in the literature. In postponement, Lee and Tang's work is closely related to ours. The main difference is that we focus on the standardization approach and consider component procurement leadtimes along an assembly line. Thus our model considers component inventory cost explicitly and captures the dynamics of component procurement leadtimes and production leadtimes. We will examine how interactions among assembly leadtimes, procurement leadtimes, and the end-product service level requirement affect a postponement decision. Our objective is to derive analytical results that can clearly demonstrate the effect of the leadtime interactions. To achieve this objective, we make a number of assumptions to simplify the model. It will be argued that these assumptions do not affect the basic leadtime dynamics and can thus be justified for complicated multistage assembly systems.
We organize the paper in seven sections. In 2 The model, 3 Base-stock levels, we present the model formulation and some analytical results mainly for the commonality problem, although with minor changes, these results can also be used for the postponement decision. In Section 4, we focus on a de-coupled assembly system and derive an analytical approximation of the cost function associated with a commonality decision. We also discuss the properties of the cost function and provide some managerial insights into how to formulate a component commonality strategy for multistage systems. In Section 5, we formulate a model for postponement in de-coupled systems and demonstrate that the criterion to delay the point of differentiation by one more stage is the same as that of using a common component in that stage. In Section 6, we provide further analysis of the properties of the cost function under some specific scenarios for both commonality and postponement models. We conclude the paper in Section 7 and point out some future research directions.
Section snippets
The model
We consider an n-stage assembly line that produces m products as illustrated in Fig. 1. The assembly process of a product starts at stage 1 from a base-assembly, A0, which is common to all products. When a base-assembly moves along the assembly line, one component (module) is assembled onto it at each of the n stages. At stage j, a component Uij is assembled to the base-assembly and a subassembly Aij will be generated for product i.
The assembly time at stage j is a fixed constant Tij. The
Base-stock levels
It is well known that for a fill rate requirement β, the general base-stock control rule for a single location problem is of the form S=μL+zβσL for leadtime demands that can be characterized by a normal distribution. Thus, if the fill rate is given and the mean and variance of the leadtime demand can be computed, we can then set the required base-stock level accordingly. Inversely, if the leadtime demand distribution is given, a particular base-stock level S will yield a corresponding service
Commonality in de-coupled systems
In this section, we focus on de-coupled assembly systems. In practice, requirements for component supplies to an assembly system are usually very high so as to maintain the system throughput rate (Lee and Tang, 1997). Thus, we assume that all , are very high, for example around 95%. With this assumption, we de-couple the system into n independent sites so that each stockpile of Uij can be treated as a standard periodic review order-up-to S site with a PTW . In such a
Postponement in de-coupled systems
Let us now define a decision model for the postponement problem. For postponement, we use common components continuously from stage 1 to stage k. Here, k is the decision variable representing the last-common-operation (LCO). We assume that the final products are different so that one can delay the product differentiation by having at most n−1 common operations. Therefore, LCO k can vary between 0 and n−1, i.e., 0⩽k⩽n−1. Fig. 2 provides an illustration of a two-product system with LCO=k.
Let H(k)=
Analysis
We now analyze the objective function Z(k) for both commonality and postponement decisions in more detail. Let G(k)=ΔZ(k+1)−ΔZ(k) be the second-order difference function, with ΔZ(k)=Z(k)−Z(0) for a commonality decision and ΔZ(k)=Z(k)−Z(k−1) for a LCO decision. By definition, Z(k) is concave if G(k)⩽0 and convex if G(k)⩾0 within a certain region. From (40), we have
Conclusions
We have formulated a multi-product and multi-period optimization model to tackle the commonality problem in multistage assembly systems with random demands. By setting local service requirements, as is commonly practiced in industry, we have transformed this complex optimization problem to that of determining a set of individual base-stock levels for a given set of local service levels. This transformation raises two interconnected challenging issues: how do we determine the optimal local
Acknowledgements
We thank Mitchell Tseng for helpful discussions in the early stage of this research. We also thank Xiuli Chao for comments that helped to simplify the proofs in Section 3.
References (48)
- Alderson, W., 1950. Market efficiency and the principle of postponement, Cost and Profit Outlook, September...
- et al.
Effect of increasing component commonality on service level and holding cost
Naval Research Logistics
(1992) Safety stocks and component commonality
Journal of Operations Management
(1985)- et al.
The effect of commonality on safety stock in a simple inventory model
Management Science
(1986) - et al.
Managing in an age of modularity
Harvard Business Review
(1997) - et al.
Product structure analysis for the master scheduling of assemble-to-order products
International Journal of Operations and Production Management
(1992) - et al.
Irregular workloads with MRP systems: Some causes and consequences
Journal of Operations Management
(1983) Postponement, speculation and structure of distribution channels
Journal of Marketing Research
(1965)- et al.
The management of complexity
Sloan Management Review, Fall
(1991) The measurement and operating benefits of component part commonality
Decision Sciences
(1981)
Aggregate safety stock levels and component part commonality
Management Science
Logistics strtegies for global businesses
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management
Design of common components considering implications of inventory costs and forecasting
AIIE Transactions
A supply network model with base-stock control and service requirements
Operations Research
The impact of demands correlation on the effectiveness of component commonality
International Journal of Production Research
Component commonality effects on inventory costs
IIE Transactions
Mass customization at Hewlett-Packard: The power of postponement
Harvard Business Review
On postponement strategies for product families with multiple points of differentiation
IIE Transactions
Effecting postponement through standardization and process sequencing
An inventory model with part commonality
Operations Research Letters
Component commonality with service level requirements
Management Science
Component procurement and allocation for products assembled to forecast: Risk and pooling effects
IBM Journal of Research and Development
The effect of various production strategies on product structures with commonality
Journal of Operations Management
Cited by (83)
Exploration and implementation of commonality valuation method in commercial aircraft family design
2019, Chinese Journal of AeronauticsModular product platforming with supply chain postponement decisions by leader-follower interactive optimization
2018, International Journal of Production EconomicsCitation Excerpt :Ernst and Kamrad (2000) consider that the product family modularity and the postponement decision are not independent of each other, and the interactive coupling between them is worth further discussion. Ma et al. (2002) emphasize that the manufacturing and ordering lead time have influence on SCP. Su et al. (2005) study the form postponement structure and the time postponement structure with modelling for minimizing supply chain costs and customer waiting time, to revise the supply chain structure to accommodate mass customization.
Late customization strategy with service levels requirements
2015, International Journal of Production EconomicsCitation Excerpt :We show that during product customization, interaction exists between various production stages, so that the customer service levels requirements at the finished products stages propagate upstream the production network and are subject to variation due to supply chain uncertainties. These two special cases complement the decoupling approach found in the literature where inventory installations along the supply chain may be treated independently from one another (e.g. Lee and Tang, 1997; Ma et al., 2002; Hsu and Wang, 2004). To model the interactions between stages of the production system and to quantify the inventory-service trade-off at each stocking point, we use a Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs) methodology (Ngniatedema, 2010).
A delayed product customization cost model with supplier delivery performance
2015, European Journal of Operational ResearchCitation Excerpt :Form postponement has grown in popularity among supply chain practitioners and presents a number of benefits during product customization. For example: it attempts to reduce the risks associated with product variety by exploiting the commonality between items and by designing the production and distribution processes to delay the point of differentiation (Anand & Girota, 2007; Granot & Yin, 2008; Lee, 1996; Ma, Wang, & Liming, 2002; Ngniatedema, 2010, 2012). It also provides the flexibility for holding the right inventory at the right place and in the right form, therefore enabling a company to minimize supply chain risks and to respond more quickly to market demand while lowering inventory costs (Aviv & Federgruen, 2001; Christopher, Christopher, & Hanna, 2007; Garg & Tang, 1997; Lee & Tang, 1997; Nair, 2005; Ngniatedema & Chakravarthy, 2013; Sánchez & Pérez, 2005; Shao & Ji, 2008; Yang, Burns, & Backhouse, 2004).
Spare parts scheme for electronic equipment system with limited resources
2023, Journal of Physics: Conference Series
- ☆
This research has been supported through a Hong Kong RGC grant HKUST6075/99E.