Integrated engineering environments for large complex products

An introduction is given to the Engineering Design Centre at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, along with a brief explanation of the main focus towards large made-to-order products. Three key areas of research at the Centre, which have evolved as a result of collaboration with industrial partners from various sectors of industry, are identified as (1) decision support and optimisation, (2) design for lifecycle, and (3) design integration and co-ordination. A summary of the unique features of large made-to-order products is then presented, which includes the need for integration and co-ordination technologies. Thus, an overview of the existing integration and co-ordination technologies is presented followed by a brief explanation of research in these areas at the Engineering Design Centre. A more detailed description is then presented regarding the co-ordination aspect of research being conducted at the Engineering Design Centre, in collaboration with the CAD Centre at the University of Strathclyde. Concurrent Engineering is acknowledged as a strategy for improving the design process, however design coordination is viewed as a principal requirement for its successful implementation. That is, design co-ordination is proposed as being the key to a mechanism that is able to maximise and realise any potential opportunity of concurrency. Thus, an agentoriented approach to co-ordination is presented, which incorporates various types of agents responsible for managing their respective activities. The co-ordinated approach, which is implemented within the Design Co-ordination System, includes features such as resource management and monitoring, dynamic scheduling, activity direction, task enactment, and information management. An application of the Design Co-ordination System, in conjunction with a robust concept exploration tool, shows that the computational design analysis involved in evaluating many design concepts can be performed more efficiently through a co-ordinated approach

Guidelines for the deployment and implementation of manufacturing scheduling systems

It has frequently been stated that there exists a gap between production scheduling theory and practice. In order to put theoretical findings into practice, advances in scheduling models and solution procedures should be embedded into a piece of software - a scheduling system - in companies. This results in a process that entails (1) determining its functional features, and (2) adopting a successful strategy for its development and deployment. In this paper we address the latter question and review the related literature in order to identify descriptions and recommendations of the main aspects to be taken into account when developing such systems. These issues are then discussed and classified, resulting in a set of guidelines that can help practitioners during the process of developing and deploying a scheduling system. In addition, identification of these issues can provide some insights to drive theoretical scheduling research towards those topics more in demand by practitioners, and thus help to close the aforementioned gap.Framiñan Torres, JM.; Ruiz García, R. (2012). Guidelines for the deployment and implementation of manufacturing scheduling systems. International Journal of Production Research. 50(7):1799-1812. doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.564670S17991812507Baek, D. H. (1999). A visualized human-computer interactive approach to job shop scheduling. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 12(1), 75-83. doi:10.1080/095119299130489Comesaña Benavides, J. A., & Carlos Prado, J. (2002). Creating an expert system for detailed scheduling. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(7), 806-819. doi:10.1108/01443570210433562Bensana, E. 1986. An expert-system approach to industrial job-shop scheduling. In: Proceedings of the 1986 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. 1986. Vol. 3, pp.1645–1650.Berglund, M., & Karltun, J. (2007). Human, technological and organizational aspects influencing the production scheduling process. International Journal of Production Economics, 110(1-2), 160-174. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.02.024Besbes, W., Teghem, J., & Loukil, T. (2010). Scheduling hybrid flow shop problem with non-fixed availability constraints. European J. of Industrial Engineering, 4(4), 413. doi:10.1504/ejie.2010.035652Bhattacharyya, S., & Koehler, G. J. (1998). Learning by Objectives for Adaptive Shop-Floor Scheduling. Decision Sciences, 29(2), 347-375. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1998.tb01580.xBitran, G. R., & Tirupati, D. (1988). OR Practice—Development and Implementation of a Scheduling System for a Wafer Fabrication Facility. Operations Research, 36(3), 377-395. doi:10.1287/opre.36.3.377Buxey, G. (1989). Production scheduling: Practice and theory. European Journal of Operational Research, 39(1), 17-31. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(89)90349-4Chen, J.-F. (2004). Unrelated parallel machine scheduling with secondary resource constraints. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 26(3), 285-292. doi:10.1007/s00170-003-1622-1Collinot, A., Le Pape, C., & Pinoteau, G. (1988). SONIA: A knowledge-based scheduling system. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 3(2), 86-94. doi:10.1016/0954-1810(88)90024-6Cowling, P. (2003). A flexible decision support system for steel hot rolling mill scheduling. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 45(2), 307-321. doi:10.1016/s0360-8352(03)00038-xDudek, R. A., Panwalkar, S. S., & Smith, M. L. (1992). The Lessons of Flowshop Scheduling Research. Operations Research, 40(1), 7-13. doi:10.1287/opre.40.1.7Dumond, E. J. (2005). Understanding and using the capabilities of finite scheduling. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(4), 506-526. doi:10.1108/02635570510592398Fox, M. S., & Smith, S. F. (1984). ISIS?a knowledge-based system for factory scheduling. Expert Systems, 1(1), 25-49. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0394.1984.tb00424.xFraminan, J. M., & Ruiz, R. (2010). Architecture of manufacturing scheduling systems: Literature review and an integrated proposal. European Journal of Operational Research, 205(2), 237-246. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.09.026Freed, T., Doerr, K. H., & Chang, T. (2007). In-house development of scheduling decision support systems: case study for scheduling semiconductor device test operations. International Journal of Production Research, 45(21), 5075-5093. doi:10.1080/00207540600818351Gao, C and Tang, L. 2008. A decision support system for color-coating line in steel industry. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on automation and logistics, ICAL 2008. 2008. pp.1463–1468.Grant, T. J. (1986). Lessons for O.R. from A.I.: A Scheduling Case Study. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 37(1), 41-57. doi:10.1057/jors.1986.7Graves, S. C. (1981). A Review of Production Scheduling. Operations Research, 29(4), 646-675. doi:10.1287/opre.29.4.646HALSALL, D. N., MUHLEMANN, A. P., & PRICE, D. H. R. (1994). A review of production planning and scheduling in smaller manufacturing companies in the UK. Production Planning & Control, 5(5), 485-493. doi:10.1080/09537289408919520Higgins, P. G. (1996). Interaction in hybrid intelligent scheduling. International Journal of Human Factors in Manufacturing, 6(3), 185-203. doi:10.1002/(sici)1522-7111(199622)6:33.0.co;2-6Kanet, J. J., & Adelsberger, H. H. (1987). Expert systems in production scheduling. European Journal of Operational Research, 29(1), 51-59. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(87)90192-5Kathawala, Y., & Allen, W. R. (1993). Expert Systems and Job Shop Scheduling. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 13(2), 23-35. doi:10.1108/01443579310025286Kerr, R. M. (1992). Expert systems in production scheduling: Lessons from a failed implementation. Journal of Systems and Software, 19(2), 123-130. doi:10.1016/0164-1212(92)90063-pKnolmayer, G., Mertens, P., & Zeier, A. (2002). Supply Chain Management Based on SAP Systems. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24816-3Leachman, R. C., Benson, R. F., Liu, C., & Raar, D. J. (1996). IMPReSS: An Automated Production-Planning and Delivery-Quotation System at Harris Corporation—Semiconductor Sector. Interfaces, 26(1), 6-37. doi:10.1287/inte.26.1.6MACCARTHY, B. L., & LIU, J. (1993). Addressing the gap in scheduling research: a review of optimization and heuristic methods in production scheduling. International Journal of Production Research, 31(1), 59-79. doi:10.1080/00207549308956713McKay, K. N., & Black, G. W. (2007). The evolution of a production planning system: A 10-year case study. Computers in Industry, 58(8-9), 756-771. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2007.02.002McKay, K. N., Safayeni, F. R., & Buzacott, J. A. (1988). Job-Shop Scheduling Theory: What Is Relevant? Interfaces, 18(4), 84-90. doi:10.1287/inte.18.4.84McKay, K. N., Morton, T. E., Ramnath, P., & Wang, J. (2000). ?Aversion dynamics? scheduling when the system changes. Journal of Scheduling, 3(2), 71-88. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1425(200003/04)3:23.0.co;2-0MCKAY, K., PINEDO, M., & WEBSTER, S. (2009). PRACTICE-FOCUSED RESEARCH ISSUES FOR SCHEDULING SYSTEMS*. Production and Operations Management, 11(2), 249-258. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2002.tb00494.xMissbauer, H., Hauber, W., & Stadler, W. (2009). A scheduling system for the steelmaking-continuous casting process. A case study from the steel-making industry. International Journal of Production Research, 47(15), 4147-4172. doi:10.1080/00207540801950136Numao, M and Morishita, S. 1989. A scheduling environment for steel-making processes. In: Proceedings of the 5th conference on artificial intelligence applications. 1989. pp.279–286.Olhager, J., & Rapp, B. (1995). Operations Research Techniques in Manufacturing Planning and Control Systems. International Transactions in Operational Research, 2(1), 29-43. doi:10.1111/j.1475-3995.1995.tb00003.xPerez-Gonzalez, P., & Framinan, J. M. (2009). Scheduling permutation flowshops with initial availability constraint: Analysis of solutions and constructive heuristics. Computers & Operations Research, 36(10), 2866-2876. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2008.12.018Pinedo, M., & Yen, B. P.-C. (1997). Annals of Operations Research, 70, 359-378. doi:10.1023/a:1018986524234Portougal, V., & Robb, D. J. (2000). Production Scheduling Theory: Just Where Is It Applicable? Interfaces, 30(6), 64-76. doi:10.1287/inte.30.6.64.11623Reisman, A., Kumar, A., & Motwani, J. (1997). Flowshop scheduling/sequencing research: a statistical review of the literature, 1952-1994. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 44(3), 316-329. doi:10.1109/17.618173Steffen, MS. 1986. A survey of artificial intelligence-based scheduling systems. In: Proceedings of the fall industrial engineering conference. 1986.Storer, R. H., Wu, S. D., & Vaccari, R. (1992). New Search Spaces for Sequencing Problems with Application to Job Shop Scheduling. Management Science, 38(10), 1495-1509. doi:10.1287/mnsc.38.10.1495Tang, L., & Wang, G. (2008). Decision support system for the batching problems of steelmaking and continuous-casting production. Omega, 36(6), 976-991. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2007.11.002T’kindt, V., Billaut, J.-C., Bouquard, J.-L., Lenté, C., Martineau, P., Néron, E., … Tacquard, C. (2005). The e-OCEA project: towards an Internet decision system for scheduling problems. Decision Support Systems, 40(2), 329-337. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2004.04.001Wiers, VCS. 1997. Human–computer interaction in production scheduling: Analysis and design of decision support systems for production scheduling tasks. Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, NetherlandsWiers, V. C. S. (2002). A case study on the integration of APS and ERP in a steel processing plant. Production Planning & Control, 13(6), 552-560. doi:10.1080/09537280210160321Wiers, V. C. S., & Van Der Schaaf, T. W. (1997). A framework for decision support in production scheduling tasks. Production Planning & Control, 8(6), 533-544. doi:10.1080/095372897234876Zhang, L., Krishnamurthy, A., Malmborg, C. J., & Heragu, S. S. (2009). Variance-based approximations of transaction waiting times in autonomous vehicle storage and retrieval systems. European J. of Industrial Engineering, 3(2), 146. doi:10.1504/ejie.2009.02360

Supporting Space Systems Design via Systems Dependency Analysis Methodology

The increasing size and complexity of space systems and space missions pose severe challenges to space systems engineers. When complex systems and Systems-of-Systems are involved, the behavior of the whole entity is not only due to that of the individual systems involved but also to the interactions and dependencies between the systems. Dependencies can be varied and complex, and designers usually do not perform analysis of the impact of dependencies at the level of complex systems, or this analysis involves excessive computational cost, or occurs at a later stage of the design process, after designers have already set detailed requirements, following a bottom-up approach. While classical systems engineering attempts to integrate the perspectives involved across the variety of engineering disciplines and the objectives of multiple stakeholders, there is still a need for more effective tools and methods capable to identify, analyze and quantify properties of the complex system as a whole and to model explicitly the effect of some of the features that characterize complex systems. This research describes the development and usage of Systems Operational Dependency Analysis and Systems Developmental Dependency Analysis, two methods based on parametric models of the behavior of complex systems, one in the operational domain and one in the developmental domain. The parameters of the developed models have intuitive meaning, are usable with subjective and quantitative data alike, and give direct insight into the causes of observed, and possibly emergent, behavior. The approach proposed in this dissertation combines models of one-to-one dependencies among systems and between systems and capabilities, to analyze and evaluate the impact of failures or delays on the outcome of the whole complex system. The analysis accounts for cascading effects, partial operational failures, multiple failures or delays, and partial developmental dependencies. The user of these methods can assess the behavior of each system based on its internal status and on the topology of its dependencies on systems connected to it. Designers and decision makers can therefore quickly analyze and explore the behavior of complex systems and evaluate different architectures under various working conditions. The methods support educated decision making both in the design and in the update process of systems architecture, reducing the need to execute extensive simulations. In particular, in the phase of concept generation and selection, the information given by the methods can be used to identify promising architectures to be further tested and improved, while discarding architectures that do not show the required level of global features. The methods, when used in conjunction with appropriate metrics, also allow for improved reliability and risk analysis, as well as for automatic scheduling and re-scheduling based on the features of the dependencies and on the accepted level of risk. This dissertation illustrates the use of the two methods in sample aerospace applications, both in the operational and in the developmental domain. The applications show how to use the developed methodology to evaluate the impact of failures, assess the criticality of systems, quantify metrics of interest, quantify the impact of delays, support informed decision making when scheduling the development of systems and evaluate the achievement of partial capabilities. A larger, well-framed case study illustrates how the Systems Operational Dependency Analysis method and the Systems Developmental Dependency Analysis method can support analysis and decision making, at the mid and high level, in the design process of architectures for the exploration of Mars. The case study also shows how the methods do not replace the classical systems engineering methodologies, but support and improve them

Decision support for build-to-order supply chain management through multiobjective optimization

This paper aims to identify the gaps in decision-making support based on multiobjective optimization for build-to-order supply chain management (BTOSCM). To this end, it reviews the literature available on modelling build-to-order supply chains (BTO-SC) with the focus on adopting multiobjective optimization (MOO) techniques as a decision support tool. The literature has been classified based on the nature of the decisions in different part of the supply chain, and the key decision areas across a typical BTO-SC are discussed in detail. Available software packages suitable for supporting decision making in BTO supply chains are also identified and their related solutions are outlined. The gap between the modelling and optimization techniques developed in the literature and the decision support needed in practice are highlighted and future research directions to better exploit the decision support capabilities of MOO are proposed

Decision support for build-to-order supply chain management through multiobjective optimization

This is the post-print version of the final paper published in International Journal of Production Economics. The published article is available from the link below. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. Copyright @ 2010 Elsevier B.V.This paper aims to identify the gaps in decision-making support based on multiobjective optimization (MOO) for build-to-order supply chain management (BTO-SCM). To this end, it reviews the literature available on modelling build-to-order supply chains (BTO-SC) with the focus on adopting MOO techniques as a decision support tool. The literature has been classified based on the nature of the decisions in different part of the supply chain, and the key decision areas across a typical BTO-SC are discussed in detail. Available software packages suitable for supporting decision making in BTO supply chains are also identified and their related solutions are outlined. The gap between the modelling and optimization techniques developed in the literature and the decision support needed in practice are highlighted. Future research directions to better exploit the decision support capabilities of MOO are proposed. These include: reformulation of the extant optimization models with a MOO perspective, development of decision supports for interfaces not involving manufacturers, development of scenarios around service-based objectives, development of efficient solution tools, considering the interests of each supply chain party as a separate objective to account for fair treatment of their requirements, and applying the existing methodologies on real-life data sets.Brunel Research Initiative and Enterprise Fund (BRIEF

Tasks, cognitive agents, and KB-DSS in workflow and process management

The purpose of this paper is to propose a nonparametric interest rate term structure model and investigate its implications on term structure dynamics and prices of interest rate derivative securities. The nonparametric spot interest rate process is estimated from the observed short-term interest rates following a robust estimation procedure and the market price of interest rate risk is estimated as implied from the historical term structure data. That is, instead of imposing a priori restrictions on the model, data are allowed to speak for themselves, and at the same time the model retains a parsimonious structure and the computational tractability. The model is implemented using historical Canadian interest rate term structure data. The parametric models with closed form solutions for bond and bond option prices, namely the Vasicek (1977) and CIR (1985) models, are also estimated for comparison purpose. The empirical results not only provide strong evidence that the traditional spot interest rate models and market prices of interest rate risk are severely misspecified but also suggest that different model specifications have significant impact on term structure dynamics and prices of interest rate derivative securities.

A decision support environment for behavioral synthesis

We present a specification of a general environment for behavioral synthesis centered around the user/designer as the primary motivator for decisions in design development. At each stage of the design process, the user can perform transformations on the design description through graphical user interfaces. Quality measures, physical estimates, and design hints are given to the user at each stage

A software architecture for autonomous maintenance scheduling: Scenarios for UK and European Rail

A new era of automation in rail has begun offering developments in the operation and maintenance of industry standard systems. This article documents the development of an architecture and range of scenarios for an autonomous system for rail maintenance planning and scheduling. The Unified Modelling Language (UML) has been utilized to visualize and validate the design of the prototype. A model for information exchange between prototype components and related maintenance planning systems is proposed in this article. Putting forward an architecture and set of usage mode scenarios for the proposed system, this article outlines and validates a viable platform for autonomous planning and scheduling in rail

A hierarchical approach to multi-project planning under uncertainty

We survey several viewpoints on the management of the planning complexity of multi-project organisations under uncertainty. A positioning framework is proposed to distinguish between different types of project-driven organisations, which is meant to aid project management in the choice between the various existing planning approaches. We discuss the current state of the art of hierarchical planning approaches both for traditional manufacturing and for project environments. We introduce a generic hierarchical project planning and control framework that serves to position planning methods for multi-project planning under uncertainty. We discuss multiple techniques for dealing with the uncertainty inherent to the different hierarchical stages in a multi-project organisation. In the last part of this paper we discuss two cases from practice and we relate these practical cases to the positioning framework that is put forward in the paper

Design choices for agent-based control of AGVs in the dough making process

In this paper we consider a multi-agent system (MAS) for the logistics control of Automatic Guided Vehicles (AGVs) that are used in the dough making process at an industrial bakery. Here, logistics control refers to constructing robust schedules for all transportation jobs. The paper discusses how alternative MAS designs can be developed and compared using cost, frequency of messages between agents, and computation time for evaluating control rules as performance indicators. Qualitative design guidelines turn out to be insufficient to select the best agent architecture. Therefore, we also use simulation to support decision making, where we use real-life data from the bakery to evaluate several alternative designs. We find that architectures in which line agents initiate allocation of transportation jobs, and AGV agents schedule multiple jobs in advance, perform best. We conclude by discussing the benefits of our MAS systems design approach for real-life applications