Theory and MethodologyFast high precision decision rules for valuing manufacturing flexibility
Section snippets
Motivation
Most investment decisions share three important characteristics: irreversibilty, uncertainty about future rewards and the timing (Dixit and Pindyck, 1993)). Traditionally, the value of an investment is determined by the net present value. Dixit and Pindyck have pointed out that this decision rule tends to underestimate the value of a project because it neglects options associated with an investment. Recently, researchers in the field of real options (see, e.g., Trigeorgis, 1995) have developed
Stochastic dynamic programming
Given that the owner of a project has the opportunity to change its operation mode in a persistent way, it is clear that the value of such a project and the optimal decision rule that specifies an optimal action for each possible time/environment combination have to be determined simultaneously from the solution found by a dynamic program. In particular, our model describes a flexible manufacturing system (FMS) that can produce one of M possible products at any time t (t=0,…,T). The vector of
Application to capital budgeting for FMS
Typically, the introduction of an FMS into industry must be done on the basis of cost justification (Lint, 1992). The commercial profitability of an FMS as compared to normal manufacturing centers cannot be easily proved since the investment cost exceeds the initial cost of a manufacturing center by 70–300% (Schlingensiepen, 1987). Although for a manufacturing company FMS entail higher inital costs than special-purpose machines, at least part of this cost disadvantage is compensated by the
Conclusion
Conventional capital budgeting methods used to justify the introduction of an FMS tend to understate the value of such production systems. The possibility to react to changing market conditions may increase the value of an FMS. While the net present value approach neglects this added value, real options methodology helps to decide, whether the value of flexibility is higher than the difference of the costs between a special-purpose machine and an FMS. In order to compute the value of
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Prof. Zimmermann, the editor and two anonymous reviewers for several useful comments on earlier versions of this paper.
References (22)
Alternative frameworks for technology strategy
European Journal of Operations Research
(1990)- Aarts, E.H.L., Korst, J. 1989. Simulated Annealing and Boltzmann Machines, Wiley, New...
- et al.
Generalized simulated annealing for function optimization
Technometrics
(1986) - Dixit, A., Pindyck, R., Investment Under Uncertainty, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ,...
- et al.
Valuation by approximation: A comparison of alternative valuation techniques
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis
(1985) - Huchzermeier, A., Loch, C. 1998. Project management under risk: Using the real options approach to evaluate flexibility...
A lattice claims model for capital budgeting
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
(1995)- Kulatilaka, N., 1995. The value of flexibility. In: Trigeorgis, L. (Ed.), A General Model of Real Options, Real Options...
- Kulatilaka, N., 1995. Operating flexibilities in capital budgeting. In: Trigeorgis, L. (Ed.), Substitutability and...
Valuing the flexibility of flexible manufacturing systems
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
(1988)
Strategic growth options
Management Science
Cited by (8)
Research opportunities on manufacturing flexibility domain: A review and theory-based research agenda
2018, Journal of Manufacturing SystemsCitation Excerpt :It also discusses the “positive” and “negative” connotations related to the use of the cash flow methodology, proposing new alternative valuation approaches (i.e., [218,211]). With respect to the two peripheral clusters identified, scheduling focuses on the development of heuristic and simulation tools to solve specific problems of day-to-day operations (i.e., [226,229]), whereas FMS mainly concentrates on analysing the impact of FMS implementation on firms´ flexibility capacity (i.e., [244,238,239]). Finally, the strategic matrix has also revealed the existence of two emergent clusters that have co-evolved: perspective and technology.
An artificial neural networks approach on automobile pricing
2009, Expert Systems with ApplicationsAn Approach for Adaptability Modeling in Manufacturing -Analysis Using Chaotic Dynamics
2007, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing TechnologyLong term capacity decisions in uncertain markets for advanced manufacturing systems incorporating scope economies
2002, European Journal of Operational ResearchFinancial forecasting with neural networks
2014, Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies JournalDESYMA: Assessing flexibility for the lifecycle of manufacturing systems
2007, International Journal of Production Research
- 1
E-mail: [email protected]