4.6 Article

Aggregate load-oriented workload control: A review and a re-classification of a key approach

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.05.022

关键词

production planning and control (PPC); make to order (MTO); job shop; workload control (WLC)

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/C509358/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper documents the development of an Aggregate load-oriented workload control (WLC) concept for the make to order (MTO) industry, referred to here as the Lancaster University Management School (LUMS) Approach. The paper describes how the LUMS approach has recently been re-evaluated in the light of theoretical developments and contextual requirements. Key literature developments are first reviewed, with particular reference to workload bounding and the measure of indirect load. As a result, the LUMS approach is reclassified using the eight criteria presented by [Bergamaschi et al., 1997. Order review and release strategies in a job shop environment: a review and a classification. International Journal of Production Research 35(2), 399-420] of order release mechanism, timing convention, workload measure, aggregation of workload measure, workload accounting over time, workload control, capacity planning and schedule visibility. This review of the LUMS approach has taken place in anticipation of a future empirical research project assessing the ability of the concept to improve performance in a small to medium-sized MTO enterprise. The paper includes details of the case study company, as contextual factors are known to have a varying impact on the performance of WLC concepts in practice. Future development of WLC concepts may be determined by the individual characteristics of a case study, highlighting the difficulties in providing a generic decision support system (DSS). The paper also very briefly highlights the need for web or e-based workload control systems. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据