text:
Read more - Kieserling Stiftung
Schriftenreihe:
Planung und Steuerung
produktionstechnischer Systeme
The current dynamic circumstances in supply networks and
production environments cause several challenges for industries. To manage these dynamics, a new paradigm of autonomy
for processes and objects is underlined by scholars. This
paradigm is perceived from two aspects: autonomous logistic
processes and autonomous logistic objects. Therefore, this
research is divided into conceptual and empirical parts. The
part of autonomous logistic processes deals with planning
and scheduling tasks, while under the autonomous processes
the autonomous objects are supposed to deal with real-time
control of material flow. The discrete event simulation ap-proach
is employed to explore several methodologies which can bring
the notion of intelligent decisions to auto-nomous objects in
logistics. Evolutionary algorithms like genetic algorithm as well
as fuzzy logic and artificial neural networks are experimented
here. Besides, queuing theory is exploited to analyze assembly
networks in production logistics.
9 783 955 45 056 4
Feasibility of Autonomous Logistic Processes Introduction of Learning Pallets
PSPS
Afshin Mehrsai
Informationstechnische Systeme und
Organisation von Produktion und
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Bernd Scholz-Reiter
Feasibility of Autonomous Logistic
Processes Introduction of Learning
Feasibility of Autonomous Logistic Processes
Introduction of Learning Pallets
Informationstechnische Systeme
und Organisation von Produktion und Logistik
Tietjenstr. 60
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen
Nationalbibliographie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über
http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.
Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung
außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages
unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen,
Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.
Veröffentlicht im GITO Verlag 2013
Titelbild: © artstudio_pro - Fotolia.com
Gedruckt und gebunden in Berlin 2013
© GITO mbH Verlag Berlin 2013
GITO mbH Verlag
für Industrielle Informationstechnik und Organisation
Detmolder Straße 62
Tel.: +49.(0)30.41 93 83 64
Internet: www.gito.de
Vom Fachbreich Produktionstechnik
zur Erlangung des Grades
Doktor-Ingenieur
genehmigte
M.Sc. Afshin Mehrsai
Gutachter:
Prof. Dr. -Ing. Bernd Scholz-Reiter
Prof. Dr. -Ing. Hamid Reza Karimi (University of Agder)
Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 09.10.2013
This work is dedicated to all those who have supported me throughout each level of my
education. In particular, gratitude goes to my parents who always have supported and
encouraged me throughout my life. I also acknowledge and appreciate the continuous
support of my first supervisor from the University of Bremen: Prof. Dr. -Ing. Bernd ScholzReiter, Managing Director of the Bremer Institut für Produktion und Logistik (BIBA) GmbH
and the new rector of the University of Bremen. I appreciate the kind encouragements
from my second supervisor at the University of Agder: Prof. Dr. -Ing. Hamid‐Reza Karimi,
Professor of Control Systems.
Moreover, I would like to thank Dr. -Ing. Ingrid Rügge, the Manager of International
Graduate School (IGS), for her kind supports. My colleagues at IGS have always been useful
for referral and the exchange of new ideas. Furthermore, I wish to extend my appreciation
to all colleagues at BIBA for their benevolence during the last three years.
Special thanks go to Kieserling Stiftung for financially supporting my work during three
Diese Dissertation adressiert die Dynamik der Distributionslogistik von Lieferketten und
Produktionsnetzwerken sowie der Beschaffungslogistik von nach dem Werkstatt- und
Fließprinzip organisierten Fertigungen. Diese Dynamik ist eine bedeutende Determinante
logistischer Systeme, deren Beherrschung nicht trivial ist. Durch die Auswahl geeigneter
logistischer Strategien, Systeme und Techniken kann den Herausforderungen dieses hoch
dynamischen Umfelds begegnet werden. Die Entscheidung für bestimmte logistische
Strategien, Systeme und Techniken hängt von der Beurteilung ihrer Machbarkeit und
Akzeptanz in der Praxis ab. Unter diesem Gesichtspunkt entwickelt die vorliegende Arbeit
einen Leitfaden für die effektive und effiziente Umsetzung selbstorganisierender
logistischer Systeme am Beispiel des "Paradigma der Selbststeuerung in der Logistik".
Dieses Paradigma verspricht die Beherrschung der oben genannten Dynamik. Seine
Anwendung ist jedoch bislang auf Labore und Technologiezentren begrenzt. Aus diesem
Grund leistet die vorliegende Arbeit einen Beitrag zur Realisierung selbststeuernder
logistischer Systeme.
Die Arbeit betrachtet Selbststeuerung in der Logistik aus der Perspektive selbststeuernder
logistischer Prozesse und selbststeuernder logistischer Objekte. Erstere beschreiben
logistische Planungs- und Steuerungsabläufe, während letztere ihre Operationen in
Übereinstimmung mit den Prozessen ausführen. Hierfür gliedert sich die Untersuchung in
einen konzeptionellen und einen empirischen Teil.
Im konzeptionellen Teil der Arbeit werden die Prinzipien konventioneller Planungs- und
Steuerungssysteme in Produktion und Logistik aufgezeigt und ihr Leistungsvermögen
beschrieben. Hiervon wird das Konzept selbststeuernder logistischer Prozesse abgegrenzt.
Darauf aufbauend wird ein pragmatischer Leitfaden für die Implementierung
selbststeuernder logistischer Objekte erarbeitet. Im empirischen Teil erfolgt eine
Ausgestaltung dieses Leitfadens anhand eines konkreten selbststeuernden logistischen
Objekts. Hierbei handelt es sich um sogenannte "learning pallets" (Lpallets), die in
Übereinstimmung mit den Anforderungen des logistischen Systems entwickelt werden.
Die Arbeit ist wie folgt aufgebaut. Zu Beginn werden "Advanced Planning Systeme"
vorgestellt, die Produktions- und Logistikabläufe in Wertschöpfungsketten organisieren.
Im Anschluss daran werden typische Fertigungsformen in Wertschöpfungsketten näher
betrachtet. Hier auftretende Planungsprobleme können mit der mathematischen
Programmierung modelliert werden, deren Ergebnisse als Vergleichsmaßstab dienen
können. Für die Umsetzung des Konzepts der Lpallets werden Methoden ermittelt, die den
Anforderungen und Spezifikationen dieser selbststeuernden logistischen Objekte gerecht
werden. Sensitivitätsanalysen im Rahmen von Warteschlangenmodellen erlauben es
schließlich, das Verhalten von Lpaletten in der Werkstattfertigung und anderen
Produktionsumgebungen zu untersuchen. Im Anschluss daran wird der Nutzen von
Lpaletten mit experimentellen Untersuchungen verdeutlicht.
This doctoral work complies with existing dynamics in outbound logistics, i.e., supply
chains and production networks, as well as inbound logistics, i.e., shop-floors and
production lines. This topic is recognized as a critical characteristic of the present and
prospective business environment with outstanding exploration potentials. Nowadays,
challenging with such a transient and dynamic environment depends on the selection of
competent performing strategy, system, and techniques in logistics' operations. However, a
decision for any new approaches is dependent on proper investigations in terms of
feasibility and acceptability of the approach in practice. In this regard, in the current work
a practical way is proposed for efficiently and effectively realizing the new approach to the
self-organizing logistics system, called "Autonomy paradigm in logistics". This paradigm is
basically initiated to handle new emerging features and conditions related to the subject of
dynamics. Nevertheless, implementation of autonomy in practice is still limited to labs and
technology parks. Thus, more research emphasis is required on this topic.
The current research essentially perceives the paradigm of autonomy in logistics by two
aspects as: autonomous logistic processes and autonomous logistic objects. With this respect,
the study is divided into conceptual and empirical parts with elaborations in both sections.
In other words, the autonomous logistic processes typically deal with planning and
scheduling processes. Then, under the autonomous processes the autonomous objects are
supposed to control their operations autonomously, in accordance to the autonomous
processes.
The early parts of this work are allocated to a deep investigation of conventional
performances in logistics and production systems/networks. Here, the position of the
autonomous logistic processes in the considered framework is delimitated. Later, a
pragmatic approach to the concept of autonomous logistic objects is elaborated. By
sharpening and clarifying the target as well as the context of this research, the main
attention is paid to the development of a feasible logistic object with the merit of
autonomous control in shop-floor and production environments. This object, called
learning pallets (Lpallets), is developed according to the conventional approaches in
manufacturing systems.
In summary, the work is configured as follows. Initially, the advanced planning system
(APS), for organizing production and logistics operations throughout supply chains (SC), is
briefly explored. Afterwards, some prominent production systems, to be used by SC, are
introduced. Next, mathematical programming is shortly explained for the performance of
conventional planning and scheduling problems. For the idea of Lpallets, intelligent
methods in compliance with the requirements and specifications of such autonomous
objects are investigated. After that, a quick approach is assigned to queuing theory as a
suitable methodology for sensitivity analysis of Lpallets within shop-floor and production
environments. Subsequently, the main contributions of the Lpallets' concept are described
and illustrated by several simulation experiments.
Acknowledgment ........................................................................................................................................................... i
Abstrakt ........................................................................................................................................................................... ii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Content .......................................................................................................................................................... iv
Abbreviations and Symbols................................................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................... xi
List of Tables................................................................................................................................................................ xv
Introduction............................................................................................................................................................ 1
Overview ........................................................................................................................................................... 2
Motivation......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Research Questions and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 11
Dissertation Navigator .............................................................................................................................. 13
Fundaments in Logistics/Production System ........................................................................................ 15
Current Production Planning and Control ........................................................................................ 16
Logistics and Supply Chain Management .......................................................................................... 27
Supply Chain and Production Structures ....................................................................................... 44
Autonomous Logistic Objects.............................................................................................................. 42
Shop-Floor Scheduling ........................................................................................................................... 50
Conventional Compatible Techniques (Research Approach) .......................................................... 63
Closed and Open System Review Towards Learning.................................................................... 64
Closed-Loop System vs. Complexity in SC Review ......................................................................... 67
Material Flow Review ................................................................................................................................ 72
Material Push ............................................................................................................................................. 72
Material Pull ............................................................................................................................................... 73
Kanban ............................................................................................................................................................. 74
Polca .................................................................................................................................................................. 79
Centralized, Decentralized, and Autonomous Control Systems ........................................... 34
Autonomous Logistic System .............................................................................................................. 38
Dynamics in Logistics ............................................................................................................................. 31
Dynamics and Autonomy in Logistics ................................................................................................. 31
Conwip ............................................................................................................................................................. 77
Introduction of Learning Pallets and Applied Methods ..................................................................... 82
Learning Pallets (Lpallets) ....................................................................................................................... 83
Artificial Intelligence .................................................................................................................................. 91
Simulated Annealing .............................................................................................................................. 99
Tabu Search ............................................................................................................................................. 101
Fuzzy System ........................................................................................................................................... 102
Artificial Neural Networks................................................................................................................. 113
Radial Basis Function Networks ..................................................................................................... 122
Multilayer Perceptron and Backpropagation Learning ......................................................... 119
Simulation .................................................................................................................................................... 128
Queuing Theory ......................................................................................................................................... 137
Mathematical Programming/Optimization ................................................................................... 130
Genetic Algorithm ................................................................................................................................... 92
Arrival and Service Process............................................................................................................... 139
Open Queuing Network ...................................................................................................................... 145
Closed Queuing Network.................................................................................................................... 147
Contribution of the queuing theory to Lpallets ........................................................................ 151
Experiment Scenarios with Simulation .................................................................................................. 153
Integration of Lean-Agile Experiments with Autonomy in Supply Chains ....................... 154
Introduction of the Experiment....................................................................................................... 154
Agile Logistics ......................................................................................................................................... 155
Autonomous Control System in Logistics.................................................................................... 156
Logistics Performance Measures .................................................................................................... 156
Simulated Scenario ............................................................................................................................... 158
Push vs. Pull System ............................................................................................................................. 156
Simulation Run and Results .............................................................................................................. 159
Conclusion of the Experiment .......................................................................................................... 162
Optimization of Material-Pull in a Push-Pull Flow Logistic Network, using Meta-Heuristic
and Fuzzy System ..................................................................................................................................... 163
Hybrid Push-Pull Control ................................................................................................................... 164
Problem Definition................................................................................................................................ 165
Simulated Annealing ............................................................................................................................ 167
Applied Genetic Algorithm ................................................................................................................ 166
Fuzzy Set ................................................................................................................................................... 168
Experiment Results .............................................................................................................................. 169
Toward Learning Autonomous Pallets by Using Fuzzy Rules, Applied in a Conwip System
Mathematical Programming Representation ............................................................................ 173
Lpallets in Pull System ........................................................................................................................ 175
Application of Learning Pallets in Hybrid Flow-Open Shop Scheduling, Using Artificial
Intelligence .................................................................................................................................................. 187
Hybrid Flow-Open Shop Problem .................................................................................................. 188
Assembly Scenario ................................................................................................................................ 189
Lpallets in the Scenario....................................................................................................................... 190
Application of Fuzzy Inference System ........................................................................................ 191
Experiment Summary ......................................................................................................................... 186
Simulation Results Analysis.............................................................................................................. 179
Application of GA................................................................................................................................... 191
Application of Radial Basis Function Network ............................................................................. 192
Simulation Results ................................................................................................................................ 193
Analysis by Closed Queuing Network ........................................................................................... 194
Extended RBF Network ...................................................................................................................... 197
Extended Scenario and Results ....................................................................................................... 198
Physical Implementation of Prototype ................................................................................................... 202
Conclusion and Outlook ................................................................................................................................ 208
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 209
Outlook.......................................................................................................................................................... 211
References ............................................................................................................................................................................. 215
Appendix A............................................................................................................................................................................ 236
Appendix B ............................................................................................................................................................................ 242
Abbreviations and Symbols
AGTPT
Average Global Throughput Time
ALTPT
BCMP
Conwip
DLRP
FCFS/FCFO
Agile Manufacturing System
Autonomous Guided Vehicle
Autonomous Logistics Engineering Methodology
Average Local Throughput Time
Autonomous Manufacturing System
Artificial Neural Networks
Advance Planning System
Assemble to Order
Available to Promise
Baskett, Chandy, Muntz, and Palacios
Best Selective Training
Cumulative Density Function
Computer Integrated Manufacturing
Makespan
Constant Work in Process
Constraint Programming
Collaborative Research Cluster
Capacity to Promise
Drum-Buffer-Rope
Distribution Logistics Routing Protocol
Decoupling Point
Detail Scheduling
Decision Support Systems
Early Due Date
Extended Product Form
Enterprise Resource Planning System
Engineer to Order
Fuzzy Associative Memory
First Come First Serve/First Come First Out
Flexible Manufacturing System
Flow Shop Scheduling Problem
GSBR
General Shifting Bottlenecks Routine
GTPT
JSSP
LCFS/LIFO
LeMS
Lpallets
LTPT
LVQ
MILP
MINP
MRPI
MRPII
Genetic Algorithm
Global Throughput Time
Holonic Manufacturing System
Intelligent Manufacturing System
Integer Programming
Just In Sequence
Job Shop Scheduling Problem
Last Come First Serve/ Last Come First Out
Lean Manufacturing System
Least Mean Square
Logistics Networks
Learning Pallets
Longest Processing Time
Local Throughput Time
Learning Vector Quantization
Memetic Algorithm
Mixed Integer Linear Programming
Mixed Integer Nonlinear Programming
Mixed Integer Programming
Multi layer Perceptron
Mean of Maxima
Multi Objective Programming
Master Production Schedule
Material Resource Planning
Manufacturing Resource Planning
Mean Repair Time
Minimum Slack
Mean Square Error
Make to Forecast
Make to Stock
Mean Value Analysis
neg-exp
Negative Exponential Distribution
OSSP
QLE
QRM
RBF
RMSE
Nonlinear Programming
Nondeterministic Polynomial time
Original Equipment Manufacturer
Operation Research
Open Shop Scheduling Problem
Probability Mass Function
Production Networks
Paired-Cell Overlapping Loops
Production Planning and Control System
Queue Length Estimator
Quick Response Manufacturing
Radial Basis Function
Radio Frequency Identification
Reconfigurable Manufacturing System
Root Mean Square Error
Robust Optimization
Real-Time Heuristic
Supply Chain Networks
Supply Chain Operations Reference
Steepest Descent
Service in Random Order
Supply Networks
Strategic Network Design
Supply Network Planning
Self-Organizing Maps
Stochastic Programming
Shortest Processing Time
Shortest Queue
Toyota Production System
TSSE
Throughput time
Total Sum-Squared Error
Vehicle Routing Problems
Vehicle Scheduling
Wireless Sensor Networks (Nodes)
Figure 1: Recommended constituent components of autonomous logistic processes. ........................... 13
Figure 2: Dissertation navigator..................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3: Functional building blocks of production planning and control systems (PPC)..................... 17
Figure 4: Market penetration of planning systems, inspired by [67]. ............................................................ 17
Figure 5: MRPI contribution to PPC. ............................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 6: MRPII framework, adopted from [68] [69]. ........................................................................................... 19
Figure 7: Information flow in ERP System [74]. ...................................................................................................... 20
Figure 8: Categorization of APS modules and planning structure, adapted from [75] [77] [78]. ....... 21
Figure 9: An exemplary conventional supply network with each section's duty, adopted from [99].
...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 10: Classical APS with respect to implementing potential of autonomous control system,
adopted from [75]. ............................................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 11: Aspects of dynamics in logistics and manufacturing systems. .................................................... 33
Figure 12: Control structures with autonomy domain interest, according to [114] [115]. .................. 35
Figure 13: Exemplary central and distributed systems in technical systems with star connection.. 36
Figure 14: Effective elements in configuring autonomous control systems, according to [13]. ......... 38
Figure 15: Cooperation of several research fields with the internet of things, see [132]. ..................... 43
Figure 16: Leagile supply chains by lean and agile strategies using push and pull control, adopted
from [100] [157] [158] [159]. ......................................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 17: The practical aspects contributing in the mass customization merit. ...................................... 50
Figure 18: Information flow diagram in a manufacturing system, adapted from [173] pp 10. ........... 52
Figure 19: Exemplary flow-shop with 3 product types and 5 machines. ...................................................... 57
Figure 20: Exemplary shop-floor with 3 product variants and 5 working stations. ................................ 58
Figure 21: Exemplary open-shop problem with arbitrary selections for processing orders. .............. 59
Figure 22: Information flow from master planning to shop-floor control with decentralized
autonomous objects. ........................................................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 23: a) Open system with input from and output to environment, b) closed system. ................ 64
Figure 24: Single-card Kanban. ....................................................................................................................................... 75
Figure 25: Dual-signal Kanban using production and withdrawal (replenishment) cards. .................. 75
Figure 26: Definition of takt time, cycle time, and lead time of leveled processes on six machines. . 77
Figure 27: Simple one-line Conwip system. .............................................................................................................. 78
Figure 28: Polca control between production cells in an exemplary shop-floor, according to Suri
[252]........................................................................................................................................................................................... 80
Figure 29: Features of realizing autonomous objects in logistics. ................................................................... 84
Figure 30: Exemplary outbound logistics with closed loop pallets circulation, authorized by third
party logistics. ........................................................................................................................................................................ 85
Figure 31: Exemplary a) Central control b) autonomous/learning pallets with intelligent controller,
in shop-floor. .......................................................................................................................................................................... 86
Figure 32: Conventional production planning, scheduling and execution process flows and its
interaction in APS, adopted from [69]. ........................................................................................................................ 88
Figure 33: Performance of the assumed Lpallets in shop-floors and their interactions with other
equipments and ERP system. .......................................................................................................................................... 89
Figure 34: Symbolic input, controller, and output of Lpallets. .......................................................................... 90
Figure 35: Encoding / decoding of a solution [282] pp 55.................................................................................. 94
Figure 36: Mutation by means of alternating alleles. ............................................................................................ 94
Figure 37: Permutation of two genes. .......................................................................................................................... 95
Figure 38: Simple variants of crossover operation. ............................................................................................... 95
Figure 39: PMX-crossover. ............................................................................................................................................... 96
Figure 40: OX-crossover. ................................................................................................................................................... 96
Figure 41: Cycle crossover (CX). .................................................................................................................................... 96
Figure 42: Simple flow chart of GA. .............................................................................................................................. 97
Figure 43: Roulette-Wheel-Selection for individuals. ........................................................................................... 98
Figure 44: General flow chart of simple simulated annealing algorithm.................................................... 100
Figure 45: Simple flow chart of TS algorithm. ........................................................................................................ 102
Figure 46: Schematic mapping of member of fuzzy sets to membership degree with [0 1] certainty.
.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 103
Figure 47: Triangular membership function. ......................................................................................................... 105
Figure 48: Trapezoidal membership function........................................................................................................ 106
Figure 49: Gaussian membership function.............................................................................................................. 106
Figure 50: Intersection and Union of two triangular fuzzy sets. .................................................................... 107
Figure 51: Minimum and maximum of two fuzzy numbers à and Ũ. ........................................................... 108
Figure 52: Mamdani fuzzy inference system (FAM) mechanism. .................................................................. 111
Figure 53: Two neuron in communication via Synapse and Dendrite. ........................................................ 113
Figure 54: A simple exemplary neuron with bias from a perceptron network. ....................................... 114
Figure 55: Some popular transfer functions. .......................................................................................................... 114
Figure 56: A simple multilayer perceptron network........................................................................................... 115
Figure 57: An exemplary MLP with two layers...................................................................................................... 120
Figure 58: A simple RBF network with one-node output. ................................................................................. 122
Figure 59: An RBF network with multi-outputs. ................................................................................................... 125
Figure 60: Exemplary simulation model of a car light assembly line located at BIBA institute,
modeled by Plant-simulation. ....................................................................................................................................... 129
Figure 61: Linear membership function for ith fuzzy constraint. .................................................................. 134
Figure 62: a) and c) the membership functions of minimization and b) the membership function of
maximization objective. ................................................................................................................................................... 136
Figure 63: Details of processes in a queuing system in terms of waiting, processing, and departure
times, adopted from [351]. ............................................................................................................................................. 138
Figure 64: The transition of i → j from t1 to t2. ..................................................................................................... 141
Figure 65: Statistical equilibrium of state transition. ......................................................................................... 142
Figure 66: State transition diagram of the BD process. ...................................................................................... 142
Figure 67: Finite state process as special BD process. ........................................................................................ 143
Figure 68: Exemplary of a general open queuing network............................................................................... 145
Figure 69: An exemplary closed queuing network............................................................................................... 148
Figure 70: Production network scenario.................................................................................................................. 158
Figure 71: Local TPT and global TPT in alternative scenarios. ....................................................................... 160
Figure 72: Global TPT, utilization and customer lead time under alternative scenarios. .................... 161
Figure 73: WIP, utilization, and local TPT under alternative scenarios. ..................................................... 162
Figure 74: Exemplary push-pull network, with lasting each round trip 4 hours for transporters. . 165
Figure 75: Exemplary performance of the used GA crossover in breeding children for the next
generation and encoding................................................................................................................................................. 167
Figure 76: The results for alternative scenarios in the presence of fuzzy sets and without............... 171
Figure 77: Applied fuzzy associative memory. ...................................................................................................... 179
Figure 78: Comparison of LTPT for LP, NoLP, and QLE in first pdf circumstance. ................................. 180
Figure 79: Probability density function of the average of all three types of products inflow in OEM.
Figure 80: Ratio of ALTPT to average of all alternatives with different lot sizes. ...................................182
Figure 81: Ratio of ALTPT in pull to push for all alternatives with different lot sizes. .........................182
Figure 82: Comparison of LTPT for LP, NoLP, QLE.Fuzzy, and QLE in second pdf circumstance. ....184
Figure 83: Comparison of alternatives with breakdowns in second pdf circumstance. .......................184
Figure 84: ALTPT in presence of different No. of Pallets, for all alternatives. ..........................................185
Figure 85: AGTPT in presence of different No. of Pallets, for all alternatives. ..........................................185
Figure 86: The prototype of assembly line located in the lab of BIBA Institute. ......................................188
Figure 87: Possible permutations in operations order for the current experiment scenario and
possible permutations in operations order (sequence). .................................................................................... 189
Figure 88: Crossover in the used GA. ......................................................................................................................... 191
Figure 89: The applied FAM. .......................................................................................................................................... 192
Figure 90: Topology of the applied RBF network for the experiment..........................................................193
Figure 91: a) Makespan in every method, b) Stations working percentage in every method, c)
Stations setup percentage in every method. ........................................................................................................... 194
Figure 92: Closed loop assembly system (queuing network). .........................................................................196
Figure 93: Waiting time and utilization with Plant simulation and WinPEPSY. ......................................196
Figure 94: Sensitivity analysis for the number of jobs in queues, mean waiting time, and utilization
with the use of closed queuing theory by WinPEPSY. .........................................................................................197
Figure 95: RBF network with unlimited RBFs in the hidden layer and three output functions to
represent good, normal, and bad. ................................................................................................................................ 198
Figure 96: AFT with RBF vs. FIFO flow control in scenario 1 and 2. .............................................................199
Figure 97: Exemplary wireless sensor nodes. ........................................................................................................203
Figure 98: Integration of WSN representing Lpallets in the rare light assembly scenario of CRC 637
by means of simulation and TCP/IP protocol. ........................................................................................................204
Figure 99: A Java-based control system for monitoring the performance of connecting WSN by
means of TCP/IP [394]. .................................................................................................................................................... 204
Figure 100: Flow chart of processes of connecting WSN as Lpallets to assembly scenario. ...............205
Figure 101: Flow chart of Little's law controller inside WN for choosing next operation in real-time.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................206
Figure 102: The general proposed framework in the study. ............................................................................211
Figure 103: An exemplary cooperation between ANN, Fuzzy system, GA, and Gossiping (Epidemic)
method for up-to-dating reactions to changes in an autonomous environment. ....................................214
Figure 104: QLE without Fuzzy Supply Neg-Exp 55 min. .................................................................................. 236
Figure 105: QLE with Fuzzy, Supply Neg-Exp 55 min. ........................................................................................ 236
Figure 106: QLE-Simple with flexible lot-size, Supply Neg-Exp 55 min. .....................................................237
Figure 107: QLE-Fuzzy with flexible lot-size, Supply Neg-Exp 55 min. ....................................................... 237
Figure 108: Conventional, Supply Neg-Exp 55 min.............................................................................................. 238
Figure 109: Fuzzy Lpallet, Supply Neg-Exp 55 min.............................................................................................. 238
Figure 110: The pdf of the entrance inter-arrival time for replenishment of semi-finished products
to OEM that follows neg-exp distribution. ...............................................................................................................239
to OEM. ....................................................................................................................................................................................240
Figure 112: QLE, supply rate follow normal distribution with μ=55min and σ=5..................................240
Figure 113: QLE with fuzzy, supply rate follow normal distribution with μ=55min and σ=5. ..........241
Figure 114: Fuzzy Lpallet, supply rate follow normal distribution with μ=55min and σ=5. ..............241
Figure 115: The pdf of one type product at OEM that follows neg-exp distribution. ............................ 242
Table 1: Evolution of ERP and APS [75] [76]. .......................................................................................................... 21
Table 2: Demands of autonomous processes in different system levels, adopted from [110]............. 39
Table 3: Levels of autonomy and their characteristics, done by [37]. ............................................................ 41
Table 4: Comparing lean and agility concepts by their attributes, adopted from [149] [156] [157]
Table 5: Contribution of autonomous control to environmental characteristics and enablers of mass
customization ......................................................................................................................................................................... 49
Table 6: Used notations for open networks. ........................................................................................................... 145
Table 7: Used notations in BCMP model for closed networks. ........................................................................ 148
Table 8: Used notations in general form of MVA algorithm..............................................................................150
Table 9: Cycle times for each station for each product type in each plant. ................................................159
Table 10: Applied notations in the problem............................................................................................................ 166
Table 11: Processing times for each product on each line. ............................................................................... 169
Table 12: Satisfaction degrees in SA for two alternatives with neg-exponential supply in Source
plants. ......................................................................................................................................................................................172
Table 13: Performance of fuzzy rules with the presence of queue linguistic terms, using in
extension. ............................................................................................................................................................................... 179
Table 14: Representation of fuzzy rules without presence of queue linguistic terms. .........................179
Table 15: ALTPT in different alternatives for Conwip flow control. ............................................................. 181
Table 16: Ratio of ALTPT for each alternative to the average of all alternatives in same lot control
system. .................................................................................................................................................................................... 183
Table 17: Numerical experiments in alternative No. of Pallets and control method in Conwip with
breakdowns. ......................................................................................................................................................................... 185
Table 18: Comparison of simulation methods with classical scheduling algorithms. ...........................186
Table 19: Processing times on each station.............................................................................................................190
Table 20: Numerical experiments for each method for all three products as flow times and
makespan. .............................................................................................................................................................................. 193
Table 21: Examined scenarios with three alternatives. ..................................................................................... 199
Table 22: Performance of RBF against flow-shop with FIFO (Permutation flow shop) in stations and
flow times. .............................................................................................................................................................................199
Table 23: Examined scenarios with the three alternatives. ..............................................................................207
Table 24: Performance of Lpallets with the use of Little's law........................................................................207
Over the last three decades several changes have occurred in the business environment in
terms of requirements and attributes. The markets are no longer stable regarding supply
(offer) and demand [1] [2] [3] [4]. This phenomenon can be explained by several causes
and effects on industries on the one side, and customers on the other side. In fact, the
needs and desires of customers have been changing continuously, while they have been
asking for announced and non-announced requirements. Moreover, close competitions in
the markets, the globalization trend, and the scarcity of available resources, have triggered
a bilateral provocation in supply, production, and delivery processes in general [5]. These
all have led to various challenges, which have been propagated into every operation and
activity of industries through various effects and appearances [6]. To compensate these
downfalls in production and markets, industries are forced to organize cooperative
procedures instead of isolated endeavors. Accordingly, these extensive consequences cause
dynamic conditions in every aspect of industries. As a result, these dynamic situations are
amplified by the current configuration of procurement, supply, production, and delivery
activities in the form of supply networks (SN).
Today, it is obvious that isolated businesses are no longer able to sustain themselves in the
modern market. It can be said that, gradually, the real competition over the market has
been shifted from single units to supply chains (SC) [7]. To stay in this market, standalone
companies were required to reconfigure their working procedures in a cooperative and
collaborative manner. In other words, to deal with production and delivery difficulties,
individual firms have joined together to construct stronger corporations in aligned
structures of cooperative and collaborative industries. The firms with similar areas of work
formed new organizations with connected members within SC and, similarly, SN [8]. In
fact, the growing complexity of products in terms of shapes, characteristics, designs, and
technologies, have brought about very complex structures in SC. Accordingly, the main
roles of success have been given to SC with more sophisticated processes in their
performances.
Generally, the extension in scale and scope of business units in the form of SC gives rise to
complex operations all through the chains as uniform units. In this manner, disparate
objectives, requirements, and performances of these units magnify any alternating and
dynamic behaviors in material flow and information exchange between their members. In
such an environment with dependent operations, any kind of changes to one side may have
direct or indirect effects on the other side of SC. In case of SN, with more intensified
correlations between the members, this situation is further exacerbated. Indeed, the
members of SN are not simply connected in a linear structure, but in a network with
additional affiliations. This combination violates the traditional direction of information
and material flow within SC, i.e., from downstream to upstream and vice versa,
respectively. Since interdependencies are intensified in SN, the lack of adequate
coordination in performances or malfunctions in one unit can lead to chaotic networks
over all [9] [10]. It is noticeable that in literature, several papers have different approaches
to the terms like SC, SN, supply chain networks (SCN), logistics networks (LN), and
production networks (PN), and they are used alternatively in several cases [11]. Although
some latest studies distinguish between these terms and consider some evolutionary
specifications for each, others apply the general term of SC for all of them. In addition,
sometimes logistics represents a common term for managing SC operations and processes.
However, these terms are similarly treated in the current work. SC and logistics will be
explained later in detail.
The causal effects in industries, which are evolved from the integration, span a wide range
there, from restricted operations inside companies to interactions between members in
SN. This broad range of possibilities and the causal effects make complex associations
between them. Today, it is known from literature that complexity can be triggered by
causal relationships and, at the same time, they have direct effects on emerging dynamic
behaviors in industrial systems [12] [13]. However, the dynamics and complexities
initiated by such interdependencies may occur in alternative locations (geographically
distributed). In turn, this alternation amplifies the emerged complexities, following a
positive loop. Basically, the existence of causal feedbacks in organizations causes multiple
lags between the made decisions and their effects, which give rise to further complications.
This holds specifically true for abundant operative systems like production and logistics
networks. In this regard, recognition and control of such complexities with their causes
and effects is quite essential. In other words, the causal effects— as the key initiator of
complex behaviors [12]— must be recognized, controlled, and conducted in a proper way.
Generally, this concept classifies the handling of such paradigms into two parts as:
diagnosis and treatment. The feasibility study in this work complies with the diagnosis, and
the suggested autonomous objects partially deal with treatment.
Nonetheless, recognition of the causalities is always a sophisticated and sometimes
impossible task. Even in some cases recognition of the complex interactions does not assist
the solutions to make things easier. This is because of the intricate nature of such holistic
systems (e.g., SN) with full of interactions. That is why some research addresses the
complex systems as bodies built of several entities and then directly deal with them, rather
than considering the holistic systems, see [14] [15] [16] [17]. However, above the
recognition, introduction of capable solutions to handle and reduce the complexities,
dynamics, and causality phenomena, seems quite compulsory. In fact, those clever
solutions must be able to handle such interdependent associations without being affected
by the scale of the complexities. Concerning the difficulties of recognition, such solutions—
by disregarding the detection of interactions— may just focus on the simplicity results. In
doing so, the complex systems are considered as combinations of numerous elements that
interact with and adapt to each other— as a characteristic of complex adaptive systems
[17]—which get locally handled [16] [18] [19].
Since logistics and production systems are acknowledged as complex systems, managing
their processes is a crucial and hard task. In this respect, the conventional techniques for
planning and control have shown several limitations in managing the entire processes of
logistics and production networks on time and with proper outcomes. Whereas industrial
operations are taking place in different topologies, the respective planning and control
activities need to cover every process in order to effectively manage the entire system.
Nevertheless, the conventional techniques with centralized attitude are not competent
enough to comply with these requirements, and they show some drawbacks [20].
Although, the state of the art in communication and computations supports, to some
extent, the conventional methods to meet a greater range of operations, still the
accompanied complexities restrict their handling capabilities. These shortcomings with
traditional systems in organizing all operations and processes by an integrated approach
have stimulated the inquiry for new methods and techniques.
Recently, research on the issue of complexity and dynamics in SN [21] [22] has surged.
Indeed, this rise in interest reflects the growth in networks' intricacies regarding their
dynamic constraints and objectives. Today, it is clear that complexity and dynamics are
mutually dependent phenomena in networks and are mostly used together in literature,
see [23] [24] [25]. Generally, dynamics in SN can be classified into internal and external
ones. Those challenges, including any changes or interruptions inside the networks, are
clustered in internal dynamics and those causes happening to the business environment
are considered as external dynamics. For instance: fluctuating and turbulent demand, rigid
requirements concerning right products at the right time, place, and quality, competitors
pressure, and scarce resources, are just some external dynamics happening to SN. On the
contrary, supply uncertainty, Bullwhip effect, urgent internal orders, machines'
breakdowns, and evolved bottlenecks, can be seen as internal causes and effects in SN. It is
noticeable that existing dynamic behaviors (dynamics) in a system, from system dynamics
methodology point of view, are classified into causes and effects with feedbacks [26] [27].
The causes are those stimulants that trigger some impacts (effects) maybe in the same
place and time or with delay and shift.
However, by increasing the correlations (interrelations) between the members of SN a
synergy happens to proliferation of dynamic challenges throughout the members. This
holds specifically true when an integrated approach for coordinating all operations and
processes within a supply network is centrally accomplished. To clarify it, SN in their new
perspectives— as complex interactive networks— are configured out of several agents
(firms) which transact with each other for a common target (in short or long term). Indeed,
production and logistic systems are treated as compositions of several entities, e.g., logistic
processes and objects, members in SN, and similar resources, although with different
performance techniques. As shortly mentioned, every agent in this system has its own local
constraints and goals that may be heterogeneous to the others (called conflicting
objectives) [28] [29]. This situation burdens excessive efforts on the coordination task of
SN, which after a certain threshold; improper performances are expected in SN (inspired
by the fact of bounded rationality in any complex system). However, coordination of SN is a
complicated mission for managers, which has a plenty of room to be investigated [30].
Researchers have shown that this is not a trivial task, so that several tactics have been
introduced to challenge with the difficulties of coordinating complex processes in SN.
Furthermore, the notion of coordination for complex interactive networks seems quite
relevant for delivering desirable results. In spite of several coordination policies, it is
impossible to expect required outcomes, while the system heads to chaotic features. In this
manner, regarding the complexity of the system (network) a suitable coordination policy
must be undertaken [31].
Generally, two main approaches exist to the coordination of SN operations (in macro and
micro perspective) by centralized and decentralized control. Conventionally, it is assumed
that the control and the coordination of a system with abundant units are inclined to be
centrally accomplished through integration [32]. In this manner, it is believed this holistic
approach to the coordination task supports synchronization of every decision in
accordance to the entire information (constraints) available about the system.
Nevertheless, this concept faces some impediments when confronted with uncertainty, the
lack of proper information, and a plenty of sophisticated (nonlinear) interdependencies
between the collected data for the central coordinator [33]. This bulk of dynamic variables,
constraints, and objectives, to be coordinated and optimized in a contradictory
environment, results in hard problems either with non deterministic polynomial time (NP)
algorithms or infeasible solutions. Besides, time lags in decision makings can easily damage
appropriate as well as on-time reactions (or corrective actions) in such environments.
Thus, it can be generally concluded that this kind of conventional policy with a central
coordinator can be used for strategic and long term plans in SN. Because in strategic and, to
some extent, tactical decisions, a general perspective to the assumed network is required
with an aggregated data collection.
On the contrary, some other policies are required to tackle the shortcomings of the
conventional coordination in the current dynamic and distributed SN, e.g., see [34].
Recently, a new approach has been presented, which retains the autonomous nature of
agents (members/units) in complex networks. This new approach is called autonomy in
logistics, see CRC 637 research cluster at http://www.sfb637.uni-bremen.de. In this case,
whereas the notion of coordination's necessity is kept, a general problem is spread into
distributed sub-problems. Therefore, the mission of solving these distributed (sometimes
disparate) problems is carried out in a decentralized performance. In other words, a global
problem is fragmented into several sub-problems corresponding to each unit of the
network to get solved separately, still with awareness of the entire system. Moreover,
instead of making a global decision for coordinating all the operations, based on
aggregated collection of every constraint and available information, here, each
autonomous unit makes its own decision for its own local (domestic) problem, constraint,
and goal [31]. This approach refers to the nature of SN as holistic systems (bodies)
configured out of several entities with autonomous inheritances. However, before the new
achievements in the state of the art in information and communication technology (ICT), it
has been hardly imagined about coordination of a dispersed system in a decentralized
Accordingly, the pragmatic framework of this type of coordination is still an interesting
subject for researchers. Whereas it is believed without coordinating features in such
systems no appropriate result can be attained, there are several developing studies
regarding the level of centralized and decentralized performances [35]. Currently, various
explorations are being conducted to define a suitable tradeoff between local decisions in a
network and global negotiations over a consensus, regarding the overall objectives. Not
only the issue about (de)centralization plays a crucial role in this approach, but also the
control and authority structures in terms of being hierarchical in contrast to heterarchical
features are important as well [36] [37] [38]. In this regard, yet the question is how to
combine the diverse aspects of distinct entities in a network with respect to the integration
of effectively coordinating the entities.
For this purpose, a spectrum of authority structures can be assumed. On one extreme side
of that spectrum, a fully hierarchical system with master-slave architecture is placed and
on the opposite side, there is a fully heterarchical system based on equality for all entities,
e.g., see [39]. Correspondingly, to some extent, the general authority in sub-systems of a
network organization may span from passive to active, and even to proactive,
performances. Indeed, this specific range is the subject of studies in the field of networks'
coordination and control by means of self-organizing entities [40]. Idealistically, this range
of research tends to achieve fully heterarchical systems, without being organized by any
seniors or coordinators. However, it can be seen that the coordination and the control are
the protecting factors against leading into complex chaotic systems in such environments
[37] [41].
Similarly, several decentralized tactics have been newly applied to coordinate operations
over SN and inside the member companies. For instance, adaptive systems by assistance of
control theory as well as multi agent systems (MAS) are two methods based on adaptive
intelligence and negotiation (tradeoff), which are abundantly referred in the literature, e.g.,
see [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]. With regard to the results of the current study and other
scientific papers, it seems without having any interdisciplinary approach— for properly
conducting decentralized systems— the decentralized coordination task leads to abortion.
In this respect, various features of decentralized controlled and coordinated networks have
been deeply explored by experts. To some extent, decentralized networks are configured
out of autonomous entities with the competency of making decisions in different authority
levels. Autonomous units employ the merit of autonomous control to manage and modify
own performances in achieving their own objectives. Nonetheless, the objectives can be
individual (local), clustered (comparable), or general (global) in networks.
Basically, by drilling down through the autonomy levels in SN and production
organizations, a broad scope of units can be found to become autonomous candidates. It is
believed from member companies in SN— in macro scale— to production and logistic
objects like machines and pallets— in micro scale— altogether can be covered by the
competency of self-organization and autonomous control paradigm, see relevant literature
[34] [47] [48] [49]. In fact, this activity induces a transition of a competency from a system
to its sub-systems and entities [50]. So, the specific purpose of this type of performance is
to redesign complex systems with far-simplified processes and functionalities to tackle
intricate dynamics, since they cause complexities.
Conventionally, in order to cope with the emerged dynamics in manufacturing and SC
environments several strategies have been developed during the recent decades. For
instance, the most popular and reliable paradigms between production and organizational
strategies are: the lean manufacturing system (LeMS), the computer integrated
manufacturing (CIM), the flexible manufacturing system (FMS), the agile manufacturing
system (AgMS), the reconfigurable manufacturing system (RMS), the intelligent
manufacturing system (IMS), the holonic manufacturing system (HMS), and the
autonomous manufacturing system (AMS) [51] [52] [53] [54]. These strategies have been
presented in compliance with the continuously changing requirements in industrial
environments. Additionally, several techniques have been examined to bring the
aforementioned strategies into reality, e.g., MAS has shown promising performances in
contributing to some of the strategies like HMS and AMS.
In that order, it can be argued that the strategies in manufacturing environment have had
an evolutionary development concerning current abilities (the state of the art) and
requirements. Generally, it is assumed that the successor strategies have included the
prominent specifications of their predecessors into their own targets. This trace appears
quite relevant in every extension or evolution of execution systems in industries.
Therefore, in the current study, this outstanding characteristic is top concerned to be
followed as well. Here, the contribution of the autonomy paradigm to the above strategies
is tried to be elaborated throughout the research. Moreover, to define the position of AMS,
as the latest strategy for logistics and manufacturing systems, the previous systems should
be explored and traced.
By reviewing the major characteristics of each mentioned manufacturing system some
coherent chains can be distinguished between them. For example, as Sarkis [55] describes
FMS is a tool to move manufacturing capabilities from the mass production environment
towards production of alternative types, volume and processes of products, as mixed mode
production setup environment. Then, after the introduction of HMS, the notion of
cooperating units (holons) in a holistic system came into practice. The units here, to some
extent, reflect the independencies and contributions in decision makings. However,
initially, in HMS the holons were rather considered as semi-autonomous objects than
having complete autonomy in their decisions and performances. By reviewing some
literature, it was found out that holons in a system have some limited awareness of the
global objectives and cooperate with each other to achieve them. That is why some earlier
literature noticed the fact that the holons are not given a fully independent authority in
their decisions and operations, while they may be a part of another holon (i.e., moderated
autonomy), e.g., [52] [53]. In fact, it can be said that holons are the units with moderated
autonomy.
Accordingly, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the context of HMS and AMS
[56] [57]. Modern strategies in organizing and control of manufacturing as well as logistics
activities have a similar basis in such a way that they mostly exploit common theories and
technologies to adhere to their targets. Practically, they may have lots of contributions, so
that it is difficult to say they are basically different strategies. It is experienced that HMS
rather deals with production environments. For example, when the drilling down through
the autonomy scale reaches the level of shop-floors and manufacturing environments, it
resembles HMS with bottom-up architecture design [53]. On the contrary, autonomy in
macro-scale, e.g., for SN, should be explained by other generic concepts like autonomy
paradigm in general or by collaborative agent systems [58] [59] [60]. At the same time, it
can be seen that the later strategies, e.g., HMS, AMS, based on modern technologies, follow
the targets of agile systems in a generic sense. Hence, it is fair to say the practical aspects of
HMS and AMS are located in the functional targets of LeMS, FMS, and AgMS. To this effect,
throughout the development of the current study the existing contributions between the
pioneer AMS and its predecessor strategies is highlighted.
Now, after becoming familiar with the core area of the current study, briefly describing the
general motivation of similar researches in this field is favorable. In fact, it justifies the
following introductions and definitions used in the work.
Generally, the main concern of this study and other similar research clusters, which work
on the topic of autonomy in logistics, is to deal with existing complexities and dynamics
embedded in the current and prospective logistic processes. Particularly, this issue is
called "Dynamics in Logistics" as the comprehensive topic to be investigated. This has been
stimulating several explorations over diverse topics in industries; among them, the
concepts of autonomy and autonomous control are the prominent ones. Therefore,
managing dynamics in logistics may involve different tactics and contributions of science
with an interdisciplinary approach to all of them. However, the contribution of autonomy
in logistics is underscored by the current study. Generally, a shortcoming has been seen in
most studies on autonomy in logistics. In fact, no rich justification exists to directly reflect
the contingency of employing autonomy paradigm with already developed strategies and
practices in manufacturing industries. Initially, it was tried to focus on this issue, which
approximates the concept of autonomy in logistics with the current requisites in
production strategies. This study aims to justify the advent of autonomy in logistic
processes with contributions to state-of-the-art strategy. In other words, the eagerness in
the research for making self-organizing units has to be compatible with the relevant
requirements in practice.
Accordingly, since the beginning of the current research, a bilateral approach has been
introduced to face dynamics in logistics. The first approach tries to overwhelm the effects
of dynamics, caused by internal or external stimulators. In fact, the causal (cause and
effect) relationships—introduced by system dynamics— have inspired the first
perspective on dynamics, i.e., system dynamics is a leading-edge academic method to
systematically study and deal with dynamic behaviors in systems [61]. In this manner, the
dynamics are considered as undesirable effects in the steady states of any system. On the
other hand, the second approach attempts to undertake dynamics as competitive
advantages and to adopt them into own processes, for becoming more flexible. For
example, autonomous objects in manufacturing environments, with quite flexible decision
making capability, or autonomous members in SN are some aspects of this second
approach to the dynamics. Correspondingly, the study over dynamics in logistics has been
handled based on the two aforementioned approaches.
Initially, it is perceived that the first approach has been a traditional reaction to any
changes and unforeseen events happening to industrial operations. Thus, several earlier
strategies given to industries defined their main efforts in accordance with moderating and
eliminating the dynamics in processes. For instance, LeMS follows a philosophy which,
tries to reduce any kind of wastes (material or activity). On the other side, it aims at
aligning all processes, in order to cut the unforeseen changes or fluctuation. This holds
true, while the dynamics are avoided as much as possible. However, some incentives are
considered there for making operations easier, which leads to flexibility in operations.
Another example to be mentioned is AgMS that highlights responsiveness to customers'
demands as a target and encourages employment of any techniques, like flexibility in
processes, to achieve the goal [54]. As it has been seen, the role of flexibility is emphasized
by AgMS, which is often considered as the successor of LeMS. However, these two
strategies are some practical examples for the two aforesaid approaches looking at
dynamics in industrial processes. Both strategies consider the essence of changes in
business and operational environments, but they use different tactics. Nonetheless, LeMS
indirectly tackles the dynamics (as non-desirable changes) by focusing on increasing the
operational effectiveness, efficiency, and productivity. In fact, the strategy deploys its
functionality in preferably stable business circumstances and may get into troubles when
facing highly dynamic states. On the contrary, AgMS explicitly reflects the issue of
continuous changes and dynamics in business environments and defines some strategic
ways to handle them [62].
However, the important factor in all the mentioned strategies is that they mainly define
some strategic philosophy or goals, often without any specific tools or techniques to realize
them in practice. It means the relevant techniques and methods have been continuously
developed, regarding the appealed goals, by academia and practitioners, and then have
been dedicated to the corresponding systems. For instance, the concept of virtual
enterprises is considered as a technique in compliance with the goals in AgMS, or agile
design of products based on intelligent methods and ICT. The techniques are required to
face dynamics and continuous changes with a reactive and even proactive manner to avoid
undesirable events. The reactive categories may be placed in the vicinity of the first
approach, aiming at limiting dynamic effects, while the proactive ones preferably can stick
to the second approach with adoption of flexible and dynamic processes. However, such
techniques to deal with dynamics in processes, reactively or proactively, are not broadly
addressed in literature. Meanwhile, some other systems, like FMS, are placed between the
two approaches. FMS can reflect the essence of dynamics, but only reactively adapts itself
to the changes, in contrast to the AgMS [62].
Basically, AgMS can be understood as a strategy rather than a simple technique that
requires pragmatic methods and tools to be implemented on reality. A promising
technique to realize some aspects of AgMS— by employing the competency of state-of-theart— is the autonomous control, applied in manufacturing and logistics environments. In
fact, this new approach to controlling processes in such environments gives rise to the
required flexibility, simplicity, pro-activeness, and responsiveness as the attributes of
AgMS or other strategies with similar properties. Nevertheless, accomplishment of such
technique necessitates reconfiguration of infrastructures, changes in the current style of
executions, and redesigns of authority's structures as the utmost importance.
After recognizing some existing strategies, pertinent to the two approaches in dynamics,
the relations between the current study—by focusing on the feasibility of the autonomy in
logistics— and the practiced systems in industries need to be defined. The author believes
that this fact can be achieved through several investigations. These explorations have to
delimit and amplify the common characteristics of the autonomy paradigm as well as the
already practiced strategies. Similarly, they need to design new methodologies to configure
both parties simultaneously. In order to bring the concept of autonomy and self-organizing
objects closer to the appeals of industries, the autonomy is required, for instance, to be
located in compliance with AgMS. Therefore, the contributions of AgMS to dynamic
challenges in SN and production systems should be revealed. Following that, the
contributions of AMS to AgMS as well as to the dynamics is needed to be studied. In
particular, the idea of autonomous objects in logistics, as a target of AMS, is underlined in
structuring the output of the current work.
As briefly mentioned, in the autonomy approach the aim is to assign local problems to local
responsible units without propagating them to other centers or following others'
commands. The units are autonomous or self-organized modules with the ability of making
decisions. The decisions of the units are made based on the local constraints, local decision
rules, local objectives, and information exchange between the units. Generally, it is believed
and, to some extent, justified that distribution of tasks between decentralized decision
making units largely contributes to the purpose of simplification of complex systems. Over
the last two decades, this new approach has spanned several comparable terms in
industrial researches. For example, as Windt et al. in [13], Scholz-Reiter et al. in [52], and
Wiendahl et al. in [63] argue, the terms include: plug and produce (play) system, modular
system, agent system, holonic system, intelligent system, self-organizing system, selfmanaging system, autopoiesis, as well as autonomous cooperation and control. However,
among them, the recent term as autonomous control is progressively deploying itself over
several applications in industries.
Accordingly, after some investigation for logistic objects with the competency of becoming
autonomous, pallets in material pull control systems have shown the biggest motivation.
Indeed, few conventional material flow systems exist that reflect some specifications of
autonomous control in their own performances. A great characteristic of pull control
systems is their decentralized control aspect, which is mostly used in complex controlled
environments. Indeed, this specification— originally offered by the material pull
mechanism— is one of the most underlined attributes of autonomous control in
manufacturing and logistics. Pull control regarding its approach to individual orders seems
the most consistent mechanism to develop autonomous logistic objects with individuality.
These consistencies between the paradigms became a strong incentive for initiating the
learning pallets' (Lpallets) idea and employing them in pull-controlled environments.
Furthermore, the autonomous control has several specifications that must realize them to
represent its functionality in practice. The prominent characteristics of this paradigm are
distribution, decentralization, interaction, modularization, self-adaption, self-decision
making, heterachical structure, non-deterministic and uncertainty, as well as intelligence.
Some of these characteristics are proportional and may get several trade-offs or
delimitations in different applications. Despite the fact that autonomy has an absolute
context, but in logistics and production systems it may not be seen as an absolute
characteristic. These are some features with the requirement to be more investigated.
Therefore, a feasibility study for defining the right contribution of autonomy to the
conventional practicing logistics and production systems is favorable. Conclusively,
achieving a feasible approach in the concept of autonomy, which can be directly applied by
current industries, has motivated the present work.
1.3 Research Questions and Objectives
However, still a huge gap exists in the reconfiguration of logistic processes in SN (as
complex systems), so that they can adopt autonomy and adjust it with current
requirements in complex performing systems. Since this new approach is under
investigation and is developing continuously, it has several potentials to be improved.
Here, it is tried to answer the questions around feasibility and compatibility of the
autonomous control in logistics, with the purpose of being directly employed by industries
in practice. For this purpose, after selecting the type of industries for exploiting the
autonomy paradigm, some congruent production and logistic strategies with the notion of
autonomy are required. Those strategies that convey the competencies of the autonomy
paradigm in their respective characteristics or targets are the core incentive of this
ideology. Investigation of these systems reflects the requisites of several methodologies
with the functionality under uncertainty. After answering the question about which
compatible logistic system can comply with the merit of autonomy, it is necessary to find a
practical way for implementing the new paradigm on them. For this purpose, practical
logistic objects have to be characterized with the aptitude of autonomous control, which
connect the chains between autonomous logistic processes and the current practiced
strategies. This has to be done with the aim of approximating autonomy to the state-of-theart in logistics.
The ontology, the structure, and the techniques to be employed by autonomous processes
and objects, are the fundamental issues to be investigated. Additionally, the level of
autonomy, compatible methods, and suitable objects to be exploited, are some research
questions about the concept of autonomy in logistics. In general, the arisen research
questions as well as research objectives include:
The degree of autonomy in terms of decentralization and heterarchical control in
strategic, tactical, and operational levels  autonomy for operational level.
Definition of autonomous control system for the respective logistics and production
systems  autonomous processes beside autonomous objects, see Figure 1.
Compatibility and contribution of the autonomy concept to the current practiced
strategies in industries  LMS, AgMS, Leagility, mass customization.
Contribution of autonomous control system to the well-known industrial problems
like: scheduling, inventory control, and material flow control by the use of pull
control systems.
Finding compatible logistic objects to be capable of autonomous control as well as
applicable to current production systems  Lapllets in pull control systems.
Capable methodologies and techniques for the autonomous units (Lpallets), i.e.,
configuration of autonomous control methodologies  intelligent techniques like
ANN, GA, and fuzzy system.
Analysis methods for evaluating the performance of autonomous control in the form
of autonomous logistic objects  queuing theory.
All in all, the current study looks for a suitable framework, which can approximate the
concept of autonomy to the state-of-the-art in practices of manufacturing industries.
Within this framework, a feasible logistic object is to be introduced that reflects the notion
of autonomous control in logistics. The specific developed object needs to be in compliance
with the targets of LeMS, AgMS, and AMS. These objects (Lpallets), in this study, have to
transfer the autonomous control idea into direct applications of shop-floors as well as
outbound logistics. However, in order to develop Lpallets some intelligent techniques have
to be employed, so that they inspire the merit of autonomy. These techniques encompass
general methods in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly those methods with decision
making and learning ability in complex environments, e.g., artificial neural networks
(ANN), fuzzy inference system, and genetic algorithm (GA).
Material flow
Planning & Control
Flexible & Reconfigurable
Autonomous & Intelligent
Intelligent Product
Figure 1: Recommended constituent components of autonomous logistic processes.
Moreover, some hypotheses that have been motivated the current study and have to be
kept throughout the work are following:
New introduced strategies for manufacturing industries are in compliance with
their predecessors, but capable of solving the current problems.
AgMS holds the targets of LeMS with some coherent aspects.
AMS is a strategic system successive to FMS, AgMS, RMS, HMS, and IMS, that can
simplify complex operations and improve flexibility of systems under dynamic
situations.
Implementation of AMS in industries requires illustrating its boundaries,
respectively, limitations, potentials, and contributions.
Logistics addresses operations and business processes in manufacturing and
production industries.
Autonomous control system context is reflected into relevant business processes as
well as potential physical objects in logistics.
Autonomous units are those components with intelligence capability to make
decisions by their own, according to their local circumstance and available data.
Learning is the main attribute of intelligent systems (objects), which can be realized
by means of intelligent methods and computational intelligence.
1.4 Dissertation Navigator
For the sake of simplicity, the general format of the current dissertation is structured as
follows, see Figure 2. The next chapter introduces several fundaments relevant to the
current work, explaining about logistics and autonomy in general. Chapter 3 addresses the
conventional systems practiced by current industries, which have the capability to reflect
autonomy in their own processes. Generally, in chapter 2 and 3 the major part of the
feasibility study is accomplished. Chapter 4 poses the main contribution of the current
work as the concept of Lpallets to be employed by material pull industries. In this chapter,
the applied and some potential methodologies to be used by Lpallets in practice are
introduced. Afterwards, some experiments for the recommended thesis of the study are
elaborated in chapter 5. Concisely in chapter 6 a physical implementation scenario is
discussed with the approach towards developing a prototype. Conclusion and further
works of the current study are given in chapter 7.
Figure 2: Dissertation navigator.
Fundaments in
Logistics/Production System
2.1 Current Production Planning and Control
Basically, planning of operations in multi-functional systems is a crucial duty. Classical
planning task proceeds with configuring a sequence of actions, so that a system is
transferred from an initial situation with some preconditions to a desired situation [64].
Today, the managing and administration tasks of operations in big enterprises are
accomplished by several computer-based organizing packages. Universally, these packages
are known as enterprise resource planning systems (ERP) or, with more advances, advance
planning systems (APS). ERP and APS are poly-functional organizing systems, which
integrate the entire processes of design, planning, production, supply, and delivering, or,
generally, business processes, throughout SN. In general, the current ERP and APS systems
are the results of a relatively long evolution, starting from 1960s with high-volume
production and assuming stable market conditions to the current highly transient market.
Besides, these systems have had several successes in integrating production and business
processes over industries' sections.
Basically, the master procedures in organizing and handling the performance of any
production and logistics organization are carried out by production planning and control
systems (PPC). In other words, the core modules of any comprehensive integrating and
planning systems in industries are configured upon the outputs of PPC. Generally, PPC are
integrative computer-based systems that assist the planning and scheduling of processes in
manufacturing systems. Initially, the performances of PPC are founded on medium term
planning, short term planning, and shop floor control, all derived from forecasted demand.
Commonly, PPC are built up by six functional building blocks, i.e., data management,
master production scheduling, material requirements planning (MRPI), scheduling, order
release, and production activity control, see Figure 3.
Moreover, the normal procedure in PPC is to record relevant data of production in a
database, besides a collection of necessary distributed information, in order to retrieve
them later. At the same time, PPC employ several modeling tools for modeling business
processes pertinent to planning and scheduling activities. However, solely PPC do not
suffice the current requirements of manufacturing industries. This shortage stems from the
specific focus of PPC which locates on production and not on other important aspects like
procurement and delivery. Besides, PPC conventionally address integration and
synchronization issues by means of centralized operations across a broad range of
processes. Accordingly, PPC have been fostered based on a centralization and integration
approach directing the business integration concept [65].
Master Production Scheduling (MPS)
Material Requirement Planning (MRPI)
Order Release
Production Activity Control
Figure 3: Functional building blocks of production planning and control systems (PPC).
In this respect, yet after the extension of conventional PPC to ERP and APS the same
concept of centralized data handling is transferred to the core. Nonetheless, there are
several developing studies working on this issue to adapt these systems to the current and
prospective requirements, which are explained later. However, the evolution of the
mentioned production and logistics organizing systems can be briefly explained as follows,
see Figure 4 and for more historical review see [66].
Market Penetration
Application Islands
Decentralized Control
APS+AMS
Focus of application
Transaction-Oriented Systems
Planning Systems
Figure 4: Market penetration of planning systems, inspired by [67].
Primitively, in the 1960s, the methods in planning and control systems just focused on
inventory control by using computerized reorder point systems. Then in the 1970s, a
broader systematic approach in terms of integration was introduced that generally
addressed the planning of material requirements based on forecasted demand, bill of
material (BOM), and inventory status, called MRPI. Accordingly, MRPI releases an order
plan in terms of net material requirements and capacity requirements over some periods
based on master production schedule (MPS). In fact, this system executes manufacturing
planning and control according to the inventory, ordered purchases, lead time, order lotsize, and consumptions in the respective periods. Specialty of MRPI is the distinction
between dependent and independent demand in addition to its top-down calculation of
requirements, see Figure 5. However, the aggregation amount of data in MRPI is located in
the master (mid-short term) planning level, just one step deeper into products' parts than
MPS, which releases an aggregated quantity of the required finished products in each
planning period.
Lot-size
Part k
k+1
Balacing Capacity Load
Actitvity Control
Figure 5: MRPI contribution to PPC.
In the 1980s, following MRPI an extended approach, called manufacturing resource
planning (MRPII), was presented to industries, which has covered company-wide resource
planning. This planning system concerns the new requirements in terms of resource
capacity planning and integration of aggregated planning with job dispatching in shopfloor control, prepared for closed-loop company-wide planning usage, see Figure 6. Indeed,
MRPII covers capacity planning, sales planning and demand forecasting, basic scheduling
techniques, and integrates financial accounting with management functions. Commonly,
MRPII consist of four main modules as:
Aggregate planning that meets demand forecasting and mid-term aggregate
planning.
Master production scheduling that conveys basic available to promise (ATP) and
enhanced master production schedule.
Material requirements planning that gives planned order release, typically with
infinite capacity.
Production activity control that proceeds with job dispatching.
Rough-cut
Bill of
Mediumterm
Shortterm
Job Pool
Job Release
Shop floor
Figure 6: MRPII framework, adopted from [68] [69].
Later in the 1990s, beyond the merely consideration of manufacturing features other
perspectives of integrating business operations came into account, so that CIM age was
initiated. For instance, in CIM the technical aspects of products' design in addition to the
planning of production processes and the quality assurance, all were considered in a broad
integrating manner [65]. Following the CIM age and by improving state of the art in IT, ERP
as an extension to MRPII has been developed. The term ERP was initiated by Garner Group
of Stamford, USA.
Other than the functions of MRPII, ERP includes every resource planning functions over the
entire business processes of an enterprise. Typically, ERP is applied as the main enterprise
database that all business transactions are recorded, processed, monitored and reported
[70]. In fact, ERP facilitates retrieval of information as inputs for further managerial
processes of every operational section in an organization, see Figure 7. Correspondingly, a
major contribution of ERP, compared to the predecessor management systems, is its
integration and unification functions over all departments of an organization. However,
ERP is a DSS for operative (short-term) and tactical (mid-term) organizing activities in
enterprises. To some extent, ERP focus scope is located on integrating the core business
processes within a firm as well as beyond one single enterprise resource planning, which
can cover planning and scheduling of suppliers' resources throughout SC. Besides, due to
the over time evolution, ERP is severed as a platform for customer relationship
management (CRM) and SCM [71]. Nevertheless, in order to unify ERP platforms of each
enterprise throughout SC and to integrate them with SCM systems further information
technology has to be employed. But the approach in ERP system is yet centralized [72] pp
315. However, the introduction of EPR has started a new age in optimizing organizational
activities, see table 1 for evolutions. This popularity has begun by the R/3 product of SAP
(German based company in 1994) as a complete package of enterprise systems. See Table
1 for the evolution of ERP and for more information see [68] [71] [73].
Common Manufacturing Database
Sales Order
Figure 7: Information flow in ERP System [74].
Introduction of APS in the 2000s and development of them have facilitated the
management of SN in a global context. Through employment of APS enterprises have been
able to connect their PPC systems like ERP packages and deploy their cooperation and
collaborations all over the networks. APS specialty is about optimization of logistics
network operations by means of several complex and straightforward algorithms as well
as integration of several production sites, distribution centers, suppliers, and customers
into one unique planning model. Moreover, the algorithms encompass complex
mathematical programming and simple heuristics.
Primarily, decisions making activities in all three levels of strategic, tactical, and
operational in SCM are generally concerned by APS. The advantage of APS over traditional
MRP systems is that they take into account availability of limited resources in practice,
which is ignored by predecessors. Moreover, APS employ quantitative methodologies to
analyze and support the design of SN, the production and distribution of products, and
even the planning and scheduling of operations at the shop-floor level [75].
Table 1: Evolution of ERP and APS [75] [76].
Evolving management planning
Inventory management system, 1960s
MRPI, 1970s
MRPII, 1980s
CIM and ERP, 1990s
APS, 2000s
Components, Feature and Scope
BOM, net material requirement, MPS, inventory
Capacity planning, closed loop feedback, sales
planning and forecasting, basic scheduling
techniques, financial accounting, company-wide
Product design, process planning, quality
management, company-wide resource planning,
integration of business processes, shop-floor
ERP Integration to SCM, optimization techniques,
logistics functions integration, reporting and
analytical tools, strategic management features,
hierarchical planning approach
There are several modules combined together to configure a package of APS as follows, see
Figure 8:
Demand planning and forecasting
Supply network design and planning
Production planning and scheduling
External procurement and transportation planning
Order fulfillment and ATP/capacity to promise (CTP)
Figure 8: Categorization of APS modules and planning structure, adapted from [75] [77] [78].
After a brief introduction to the general model of PPC as well as the extended systems
above that it is necessary to get a bit into the performances. In other words, it seems
relevant to briefly explain the modules of APS, as the most progressed procedures in
organizing SN, which are the strategic target of this research. In order to clarify the
contribution of this research to the state of the art in planning and organizing operations
over SN, the performance of each module in APS is opened in the following way, for more
information see [75] [79].
a) Strategic Network Design (SND) is a phase in APS defines the number of plants and
distribution centers, location and capacity of each, allocation of product types to the
plants and customers to distribution centers, and transportation routes between the
nodes in a logistics network. The strategic design of SN is determined by this phase. The
missions in SND can be sorted into two problems as location-allocation problem and
strategic network planning. In location-allocation problem, all locations are assigned to
each other, e.g., plants to distribution centers, distribution centers to customer, while
vicinity and capacity are taken into account. Strategic network planning happens when
an enterprise wants to redesign its supply network or expansion happens to that
network. A common tool to solve this problem is the mathematical programming using
mixed-integer programming (MILP) models. Since this phase reflects a strategic
decision, it is rather done centrally via integration and aggregation of all strategic
stakeholders in SN; thus, it has no great positional to be done autonomously.
b) Demand Planning is the next step to execute advanced planning in a supply network.
This phase is the only mission to be done on the three decision making levels, i.e.,
strategic, tactical, and operational. A reliable performance of APS is dependent on a
good demand forecasting in all three levels, since the forecast is served as the main
inputs to the next phases of APS. There are some tools and methods to be used for
demand forecasting; among them, the outstanding ones are statistical and numerical
methods [80] [81] [82], and intelligent methods like: ANN, and fuzzy inference systems
[83] [84] [85]. However, demand forecasting in operational level is quite fundamental
to those production strategies which produce or assemble to stock instead of to order.
Although forecasting is less relevant for production strategies upon orders that
resemble material pull flow, but intelligent companies follow a mixed strategy based on
stock and order. Particularly, this strategy suit best to dynamic circumstances
happening to final products in highly variant production systems. According to this fact,
those companies try to produce their sub-assemblies to stock, regarding forecasted
demands, whilst final products with customized specifications and fluctuating demands
are assembled upon direct orders. This issue is profoundly discussed later as a strong
solution for manufacturing companies and SN, facing dynamics in their processes.
c) Supply Network Planning (SNP) is introduced as the main coordination tool in APS
and integrates the modules of procurement and purchasing, manufacturing,
distribution, and transportation throughout SN. Its main performance area is in midterm level and usually has a planning period between one to twelve months, may be
done in daily or weekly time bucket intervals. Its major task is to spread the forecasted
demand from the point of consumption to the point of origin in SC. This leads to making
proposals for sourcing decisions, production, and distribution plans for the entire SC.
Here, the network configuration is set up as well as product portfolio, production
capacities per plant, storage/handling capacities per distribution centers, related costs,
safety stocks, demand figures, and transportation types are defined. In doing so, SNP
employs master data within an aggregated form, to tackle complexity of huge
information processing. The aggregation includes time, products, and resources.
Moreover, in SNP, bottleneck resources, safety stock, lot-sizing, and due date
constraints are taken into account too. It is stated that optimization with a
comprehensive model formulation for every transportation and distribution, plus the
production plan is the prominent advantage of SNP module, as the highest advanced
module, in APS. Conventionally, the tools for formulation are mathematical
programming optimization algorithms. The output of SNP is a generic model
formulation of rough-cut planning, which is capable of being modified manually.
Generally saying, SNP module is a potential level of APS to be accomplished by
collaborative executions within distributed style. However, decentralization of decision
makings depends on the level of information exchange between the engaged entities in
SN.
d) Production Planning and Detailed Scheduling PP/DS is the direct module after SNP
to identify a feasible production plan and schedule for each individual plant. The
planning horizon is typically between one week and three months, while the scheduling
horizon is normally from one day to two weeks in different production environments.
The main difference between PP/DS module and SNP is its continuous time capacity in
planning and scheduling besides using detailed master data, contrary to time buckets
planning intervals in SNP. Generally, this part of APS is the most time consuming and
complex module, in terms of calculation and revisions (updating), regarding the variety
and complexity of production systems. For instance, each scheduling problem has its
own algorithms to solve the problem. Here, every detailed data about production, e.g.,
availability of finite resources, capacity, set-up time and sequencing, material flow
routing, time-phasing, as well as customer demand, e.g., due date limitation, are taken
into account. Usually, PP is carried out prior to DS in such a way that the quantities of
production are defined with infinite capacity, based on modification of SNP outputs, to
fit supply with each plant's demand, like MRPI. Through the PP process dependent
material requirements (components of final products) regarding BOM are identified
and lead times are calculated by available hours of resources, routings, and processing
times. Here, an estimate about the feasibility of the plan is given by use of backward
planning, started from due dates (given by customer) with unlimited capacity. Then
later DS generates changes in terms of start and end dates, the sequence of operations,
and possibly resources, to meet real-world capacity constraints. There are some
common scheduling objectives taken by DS as minimization of set-up time,
Lateness/tardiness, cycle time, and makespan. Changing quantities of production
orders or shifting them are the tasks of DS to achieve a feasible plan. Accordingly, each
scheduling problem, i.e., single machine, parallel machine, job-shop, flow-shop, and
open-shop, may have different objectives, see [86]. For the sake of simplicity and in
order to reduce the calculation time, conventionally, simple and universal heuristics,
e.g., genetic algorithm, simulated annealing, tabu search, constraint programming, are
employed by this module, rather than sophisticated algorithms like the shiftingbottleneck. This subject is later more discussed in scheduling section. However,
generally, the main objectives of PP/DS include minimization of work-in-process (WIP)
and stocks, minimization of set-up time/cost caused by sequences, maximization of
resource utilization, and meeting due dates (objectives in logistics). Besides, the main
outputs are production orders to meet customer orders. In literature, it is mentioned
that because of limited scope of PP/DS and requirement of detailed information in
short-term horizon, compared to SNP, modern PP/DS module is preferably occurred in
a decentralized manner. Thus, this module of APS is the most potential possessor in
getting executed autonomously within heterarchical structures and decentralized
formats.
e) External Procurement module is applied to select suppliers, define purchase quantity
and propose purchase orders. The outputs of DS are directly used by this module in
order to distinguish critical products with long lead time, supply restrictions, or
priority in production. Decision over purchasing or producing a component in-house,
according to its cost or other factors, is done in this part of APS. Procurement of
required materials can even include some manufacturing steps of corresponding
components which the production orders of them can be issued internally as well as
externally by this module.
f) Order Fulfillment and ATP/CTP has the main role in determining feasible fulfillments
in responding to customer orders. There are two major modules in this part as ATP and
CTP. The ATP module always checks the current stock and planned receipts for meeting
new ordered demands, while, in addition to ATP, CTP looks for availability of
production capacity in already issued (planned in PP/DS) production orders or extra
capacity for issuing new production orders. However, in push flow systems, e.g., maketo-stock (MTS), ATP beside CTP module makes more sense than other pull systems, e.g.,
make-to-order (MTO), that CTP is more meaningful. Generally, by evolving a new
customer order the type, the amount and due date of that are taken and observed by
the ATP procedure. If the order specifications are matched with the available stock,
then the order is committed, otherwise, it goes through the procedure of CTP to check
the capacities with the corresponding specifications. In this case if the requirements are
met, then the commitment is executed, if not, then the order is put to the next
optimization run in DS. ATP and CTP are the modules with already negotiation-based
background, which inventory and production sections are engaged in. They can be run
on local facilities as well as global networks. Moreover, manipulations of orders,
concerning the accepting, rejecting, shifting, taking from other storages, or splitting
them, are accomplished in this section. Decision over proportion of products to be
distributed between centers is done here. However, the notion of ATP procedure is
already defined before by MRPII. It is noticeable this module can be enhanced by means
of increasing flexibility in manufacturing systems through autonomous objects as well
as control.
g) Transportation Planning and Vehicle Scheduling (TP/VS) module plays a crucial
role in logistics operations. For example, proposals for distributions and
replenishments of goods/materials are issued by TP/VS. In fact, the definition of
transportation means and distribution network, distinction between own-served
logistics operations and external service providers in long term decisions, design of
transportation routes, transport quantities/frequencies and optimum utilization of
these resources in mid-term level, as well as determination of delivery routes,
allocation of loads to transport means, and daily shipment quantifies in short-term
decisions, all are covered by this section. There are several constraints which must be
taken into account specifically in short-term decisions over VS. Among them are time
windows for delivery, vehicles' loading capacities and types, route start and end points,
which are applied to minimize the travel length or time. However, VS module employs
directly different variants of vehicle routing problems (VRP) to solve diverse aspects of
VS in practice. In addition, there, some new trials to adopt decentralized problem
solving in this branch of complex problems, e.g., distributed logistics routing protocol
(DLRP) [87]. This module in APS is one of the most potential modules for employing
autonomous control in a decentralized manner. However, it is not covered by the
current study.
In conclusion, the development of advances in planning systems along state of the art in
ICT, specifically the internet, is strengthening the concept of collaborative planning based
on the internet in APS [88]. Recently, the collaboration approach has raised a great
research interest in this field, which connects the conventional performance of APS to the
distributed and decentralized decision making throughout SN. This pushing forward
functionality of APS links the topic of the current study to the real-world oriented
practices, in organizing and managing operations across SN and manufacturing
enterprises.
Furthermore, it can be argued that the core concept in the evolution of planning systems
has been accompanied with an intention towards integration and unification, by means of
central monitoring. This has held true from the development of MRPI to CIM and from
there to ERP, and partially to APS. In other words, all of these systems conventionally
follow a hierarchical structure that on the top level of the hierarchy highly aggregated data
supports the strategic decisions [77] [89]. In contrast to that, by moving towards lower
levels in the hierarchy, decisions are disaggregated into detailed information [77]. This
hierarchical integration framework has achieved several advantages in optimization and,
to some degree, in the required reliance, for a long period. However, this approach does
not fully comply with the requirements of the in progress as well as future transactions
between production sections and organizations. So, the pure planning and scheduling
outputs of this framework show some deviations from current capacity; because the
framework has some presumptions that are not always true in practice.
Accordingly, there are several reports about the incompetency of mid- and short term
planning and scheduling outputs, done by these hierarchical systems, with practical
operations. For example, any real-time changes in running operations or other evolving
events are conventionally neglected by the hierarchical planning structure of such systems.
This leads into some uncertainties in operational levels. Likewise, these limitations are
mostly announced in production scheduling problems, where the real constraints of the
problem cannot be fully seen on time. Kreipl et al. [79] claim this fact in their relatively
comprehensive description about planning and scheduling of SC as well as APS. They
directly mentioned that unstable (dynamic) environment, e.g., machine breakdowns,
sudden demand fluctuation, backlogs, may cause inconsistencies in scheduling embedded
in the current structured APS. To address the reason of these discrepancies, it can be
highlighted that they all return to the planning structure of these information and planning
systems. The top-down planning procedures of such systems cannot practically reflect
every constraint of the real-world into the planning procedure, whereas by means of a
bottom-up approach, the constraints can come closer to the real-time states of production
systems. For instance, to illustrate the hierarchical structure of these systems, detailed
production scheduling in APS can be only released after aggregated outputs of production
planning in a higher level of planning hierarchy [79]. This easily emphasizes the top-down
problem-solving approach of these decision support systems (DSS) for production and
However, recently, some researchers have challenged the concept of centralized
integration of all processes across the sections in enterprises of SN [89] [90].
Correspondingly, the top-down data expansion over this integration approach causes
imprecise detailed planning in practice. This fact is specifically addressed in short term
planning and detailed scheduling tasks. Therefore, in the latest developments of APS, as an
alternative to the standard ERP and other planning systems, some literature refers the
information flow to bidirectional flows instead of top-down flow. This contribution leads to
an interactively development of closed to practice plans [90] [91].
Inspired by the paradigms of self-organization as well as autonomous cooperation and
control, integration of all processes in a system, in order to make a generic plan, has
changed its place with cooperation of autonomous agents to make a common plan. Here,
the agents are responsible for making local plans and decisions by and for themselves. This
concept is gradually deploying itself in managing and organizing systems, so that it is
affecting the structure of APS as well. However, with regard to the targets of selforganization— beyond the state-of-the-art— it can be argued that integration of all
processes across complex SN is an incompetent methodology. In this context, each selforganized module in a complex system must be able to make its own plan and decision
regarding its perspective to the environment. However, this concept is still far from the
practice (as an absolute functionality) and is not covered by the scope of this research too,
since the concern of this study is about the pragmatic industrial requirements and the
feasibility issue. Correspondingly, this study suggests that the strategic and, to some extent,
tactical planning operations have to be executed based on the overall performance of SN
against the market changes. This is a common and logical performance in such cooperative
and collaborative networks, since a universal strategy is needed to coordinate the
operative units within an organizing system. The best evidence of this fact is the biological
swarms like ant colonies. Whereas every member of the colony is autonomous in its
decisions, they follow a common goal for the society [92]. Now, for instance, if each
member of a supply network defines its own objectives, then the emerging targets with
conflicts lead the entire system into chaos. On the other side, employment of autonomous
control in operational levels seems a feasible solution as stated by several conducting
studies in this field. This holds specifically true when the real-time decisions play a crucial
role in configuring operational level activities.
Fortunately, the integration concept in ERP and APS systems, in general, shows no
significant contradiction to the new approach of decentralization and distributed control
over networks of cooperative and collaborative operations. Indeed, the integration concept
can easily adjust itself with the autonomous control, to some degree. It is recommended
that the autonomous control is rather suitable for the operational planning level in the
current practices of information and organization systems. This claim is partially
experimented in this study. However, in general, decentralization of the planning and
control task is the generic target of autonomous system and respectively any selforganized system. Idealistically, the goal is to configure a fully heterarchical structure for
such systems in a way that each stakeholder of SN with heterogeneous objectives is able to
make its own decision by freedom. However, since planning and control systems are
dependent on strategic decisions the level of autonomy is always relatively defined and has
several limitations in the practice.
Finally, in literature, it is discussed that within a decentralized decision-making
environment there has to be some coordination factors at certain levels. Sometimes
coordination between plans or decisions of every member in SN may result in infeasible or
non-optimum solution for SN. Nonetheless, some other concepts exist without leading into
coordination of all members in any way. Thus, the coordination subject is like a spectrum,
which may vary in various circumstances. However, in academic papers, it is often referred
that some aggregation level of data between decentralized decision makers is required
with still centralized coordination [37] [88] [93]. In order to clarify the definition of
centralized coordination it is enough to mention that the respective coordinator has the
information about all collaborative parties to be coordinated. This coordinator is centrally
operating and monitoring, although the single decisions are made in a decentralized
2.2 Logistics and Supply Chain Management
Today, the current market situation and intensive competitions, scarce resources,
globalization, and the need for the supply of the right product to the right customer within
the right time and with the lowest cost, force companies to manage their supply networks
as well as optimizing their own processes. Generally, it is agreed that no isolated company
in the current business environment exists that can be successful in the market. Instead of
working like an island, industries prefer to cooperate within supply and delivery networks,
from upstream to downstream. This fact has necessitated a holistic integration approach
between members of SN. Respectively, as a prominent competitive advantage, this
integration and coordination aim has obliged the phenomenon of the supply chain
management (SCM) across the members of networks [48]. By concentrating on the logistic
processes and transportation in SN, SCM can be particularly translated as an integrated
management approach of logistic processes. In this manner, the main focus of SCM is
located on the issue of inventory reduction both within and across SN [94]. In this section,
the common definitions and the general relationships between both terms of SCM and
logistics are described in details.
Basically, the definitions of logistics and SCM are mutually dependent, so that logistics is
sometimes assumed as a wider field, encompassing SCM (mostly in Europe), and sometime
else this affiliation is vice versa (usually in USA). In other cases, the two terms are similarly
treated and alternatively used. For instance, Cooper et al. [95] define SCM as the
integrating mission of all business processes from final customers to initial suppliers. This
duty results in the provision of products, services, and information, by bringing added
value to customers. In addition, the concerned business processes include planning,
implementation, and control of inventory, as well as material and information flow. In their
conclusion, several components are recognized for SCM as: planning and control, work
structure, organizational structure, product and information flow, facility structure,
product structure, management methods, power and leadership structure, risk and reward
structure, culture and attitude. Moreover, the Encyclopedia Britannica defines logistics,
according to the Council of Logistics Management in USA, as "the process of planning,
implementing, and controlling the efficient, effective flow and storage of goods, services,
and related information from the point of consumption for the purpose of conforming to
customer requirements". Indeed, the two definitions define the close dependency of both
expressions. Accordingly, from the academic perspective, Günther [75] regards SCM as a
multi-disciplinary field of research with contributions of various scientific disciplines, such
as management, industrial engineering, logistics, operations research, and business
Christopher in his book [7] defines SCM as "the management of upstream and downstream
relationships with suppliers and customers to deliver superior customer value at less cost
to the supply chain as a Whole". In his definition the relationships, the added value, and the
cost are particularly highlighted. Additionally, he connects the definition of SC to SN by
extending the structures of SC. In the work, a supply network is described as
interdependent and connected organizations working in a mutual and cooperative context
to control, manage, and improve information and material flow from upstream to
downstream (in the vicinity of end customers) of the network. However, apart from the
structural discriminations between SC and SN the terms are alternatively used throughout
the current study.
In the book of Coyle et al. [96] logistics is introduced as a broad management concept,
which adds inbound logistics to outbound logistics of material distribution. They describe
logistics as "the process of anticipating customer needs and wants; acquiring the capital,
materials, people, technologies, and information necessary to meet those needs and wants;
optimizing the goods (or service) producing network to fulfill customer requests; and
utilizing the network to fulfill customer requests in a timely manner". However, in their
work, SCM is seen broader than logistics activities. In their consideration logistics activities
comprise: transportation, warehousing and storage, packaging and material handling,
inventory control, order fulfillment, demand forecasting, production planning and
scheduling, procurement, customer service, facility location, return goods handling, parts
and service support, salvage and scrap disposal. Furthermore, logistic operations are
generally classified into two main groups as: inbound logistics and outbound logistics. The
inbound tasks cover the activities of demand forecasting, purchasing, requirement
planning, production planning, manufacturing inventory, warehousing, and material
handling. Accordingly, the outbound logistics may cover finished goods inventory,
distribution planning, order processing, transportation, and customer service.
Harrison et al. [97] claim that logistics and SCM are often used interchangeably. However,
they believe logistics is a subset and enabler of SCM. In the work, supply chain is inherently
considered as a network of partners working collectively together in order to transform a
simple commodity in the upstream of a supply chain into a final product in the
downstream, which is valued for end users. In the meanwhile, the management of returns
is done by the partners at each stage. Accordingly, they define SCM as "planning and
controlling all of the business processes— from end customer to raw material suppliers—
that link together partners in a supply chain in order to serve the needs of the end
customer". They explain logistics as coordinating processes for material and information
flows throughout SC. Tan [98] in his paper express SCM as a holistic and strategic approach
to logistic operations and material management. He traces the evolution of SCM from
purchasing and supply activities to transportation and logistics with emphasis on
integrating, streamlining, and visibility of operations, besides the cycle time reduction.
Moreover, Monczka et al. in [99] pp 9 obviously state the interchangeability of SCM and
logistics. They describe logistics according to the definition of Chartered Institute of
Logistics as "the time-related positioning of resources, or the strategic management of the
total supply chain". Furthermore, Croon et al. in [11] made a general literature review
about the terms and related topics of SCM.
Naylor et al. [100] describe supply chain as a system whose constituent parts include
material suppliers, production facilities, distribution services, and customers, linked
together via a feed-forward of materials and feedback flow of information, including the
flow of resources and cash through the chain. According to Moyaux et al. [101] a supply
chain is a set of autonomous business units that producing and distributing products from
downstream to upstream. It is noticeable that SC are normally arranged as series of
suppliers, manufacturers, and distributors aligned in a linear and successive order.
Nonetheless, SN address those members of SC that configure networks of suppliers,
manufacturers and distributors via virtual interconnections [48]. Figure 9 defines an
exemplary supply network with the generic activities in each echelon of that.
Tier supplier
Tier customer
Conclusively, from the literature review, it can be comprehended that SCM normally
integrates the marketing, the accounting, and similar staff activities, into operational
processes, which can be exclusive for SCM. On the other hand, logistics solely complies
with operational processes and pays less attention to marketing or accounting stuffs.
Therefore, SCM may cover a wider scope than logistics. However, since the purpose of this
work is not to deal with the definition of such terms, but the content of processes, without
entering into staff activities, both logistics and SCM are uniformly treated.
In most of the reviewed definitions, it can be perceived that time, value adding, and
cooperation of business processes are reflected as the specifications of SCM and logistics.
Thus, it is crucial to put the focal work of research on these issues and improve them
accordingly. It is noticeable that in this work, the processes of both terms are summarized
in the tasks to be done by APS, which is widely explained in the previous section, see Fehler!
Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden..
(DP)
Supply Network Planning (SNP)
mid-term
(De/Central)
(Decentralized)
Strategic Network Design (SND)
(central)
Shot-term
(EP)
Planning /
(PP/ DS)
(TP/ VS)
ATP/ CTP
Figure 10: Classical APS with respect to implementing potential of autonomous control system, adopted from
[75].
2.3 Dynamics and Autonomy in Logistics
2.3.1 Dynamics in Logistics
Originally, the term of dynamics has several aspects in the current manufacturing
industries; each of which sometime needs a unique and other time a generic solution.
There are several points of view that the dynamics can be interpreted by. However, from
logistics and production point of view dynamics may be any kind of changes, impediments,
and unexpected events, which happen to a stable system (in steady state). Among all
incidents, just some causes and effects of existing dynamics in logistics and production
networks can be listed as follows. For more information see Sabri et al. [102] and Tian
Rising, fluctuating, and turbulent demand.
Product customization (product diversity).
Ascending and non-implied customer requirements as well as rigid expectations in
terms of right product at the right time, location, and quality.
Globalization in supply and distribution, as well as narrow competitions.
Market and demand uncertainties, technological changes, changes in suppliers'
reliability.
Redundancies (which create time and gap).
Complexity in operations, regarding non-linear dynamical models in planning and
Adaptability (need of pro-/re-activity).
Bullwhip effect, emerging and shifting bottleneck (due to the product variety).
Overloading, urgent orders, and under capacity production (unplanned utilization).
Machine downtimes, defective production and equipment.
Fluctuation in leveling and sequencing, mixed production and stock deficit.
Lack of awareness about all details and process deficits.
These all easily show the value of a robust supply chain as a competitive advantage, while
having smooth material handling and information sharing across the chain under dynamic
circumstances. In doing so, some metrics in evaluating the performance of SC with
dynamics can be considered that some of which are following:
Product life cycle (introduction, growth, maturity, saturation, decline).
Product differentiation and characteristics (modularity, life cycle, fashion, transient,
etc.).
Demand situation-attributes (volatile, constant, seasonal, stochastic, etc.).
Market situation (competitors, best practices, business excellence).
Production strategy (make-to-order, make-to-stock / built-to-forecast, engineer-toorder, assemble-to-order).
Technology competency (cost, state-of-the-art, effectiveness).
Product mix and volume (lot size, sequencing, leveling, balancing).
Customer specifications (loyalty, due date, lead time, etc.).
Over the recent decades several methodologies have been introduced to industries in
order to handle the evolved dynamics. For instance, from dynamics in logistics/production
point of view, most of the developed methods have been working on flexible, agile,
reconfigurable, liable, and responsive (manufacturing) systems, to overcome the dynamics
[104] [105] pp 2. However, the earlier methodologies were considerably trying to resist
against any troubles made by dynamics in systems' behavior and to alleviate their ominous
symptoms. This was conventionally preferred rather than using dynamics as competitive
advantages for own businesses. However, according to Scholz-Reiter et al. [54], it is
believed that two types of treatments can be used in challenging dynamics and
changeability in the logistics/production environment. These include the strategies to
compensate and reduce dynamics in logistics as well as the strategies to adopt dynamic
behaviors into own operations, to adjust own performances to the changes, see Figure 11.
On the one side of this figure, the autonomous control and objects are considered as
competitive advantages, by adopting flexible decisions in facing dynamics. In contrast, the
effects of dynamics are considered undesirable on the other side of the spectrum and have
to be tackled, e.g., by the goals of lean manufacturing.
Dynamics Aspects
Undesired Effects
of Dynamics
Try to Avoid Them
• Bullwhip Effect in Supply Chains
• Uncertain Demand needs close cooperation
• Supply Disruptions
• Delayed/Urgent orders
Figure 11: Aspects of dynamics in logistics and manufacturing systems.
Providing
• Autonomous Processes Control
• Pro-/Re-active Processes
• Agility & Flexibility
• Changeability & Re-configurability
• Resilience and Ubiquity
• Virtual Network on the Cloud
Accordingly, for a long time it has been sought for advanced strategies in logistics and SCM
to transform uncertain nature of business environment into opportunities and competitive
advantages, stated by Yang et al. [106]. They raise this issue concerning the uncertainty in
logistics, among the other existing dynamics. According to them, uncertainty is treated as
the difference between the amount of required information in dealing with a task and the
available information for accomplishing that one. In their work, uncertainty is expressed in
company with complexity, dynamism, volatility, unpredictability, stability and diversity,
variability and heterogeneity, as well as lack of hierarchy. Thus, these issues need to be
treated in dealing with dynamics in logistics.
On the other hand, the novel autonomy paradigm in logistics tries to adopt the dynamic
nature of production and logistics environment into its own performance. In this respect,
for example in the 2000s, the concept of AMS have been emerged to accomplish production
and inbound logistics operations, following several manufacturing systems like FMS and
RMS [54] [107]. In general, this autonomy is reflected in a heterarchical control structure
with the aim of approximating the decision-maker elements to products and equipments,
while considering the capabilities of IMS, HMS, MAS and other compatible manufacturing
system. Indeed, the introduction of AMS was along with the appeals of systems'
progression in terms of more compatibility, flexibility, and adaptability versus more
dynamics in logistics [52].
In a wider scale, it can be argued that integration between all members of SN— as the
conventional aim of SCM— brings about higher complexity in terms of coordinating all
processes. Simply, covering and coordinating every effective process of a supply network
burden tough monitoring and controlling duties to the central controller of a network as
well as to the entire network. On the contrary, by shifting from the conventional concept of
SCM about intra-/inter-organizational integration, the further approach has been evolved.
According to Windt et al. [108] the move from central planning systems towards
decentralized control with real-time decision makings and high flexibility is a proper
solution for handling highly dynamic and complex systems. Basically, the autonomous and
decentralized systems are expected to create a well-behaved network in facing
uncertainties (dynamics) by reflecting a satisfactory responsiveness, limited oscillatory
behaviors, and robustness, see Duffie et al. [109]. However, Scholz-Reiter et al. in [110]
discuss about autonomous logistic processes according to the level of autonomy and the
requirements for implementing such novelty in practice.
Contrary to the conventional systems, the autonomy, as a new approach, has no intention
for integrating and coordinating all effective units of processes across networks.
Nevertheless, since the units are free in decision making, it aims at coordinating the
processes just at the interfaces, to get a global consistency. In the current study, this
approach is reflected as undertaking the autonomy in operational control level and then
embedding some tolerances in the centralized tactical planning level. In this policy, the
members or units of a supply network autonomously deal with their own internal
processes [111], whilst their strategic and tactical decisions are made centrally in an
integrated manner. By means of this approach, the complexity of the coordination task
across a network get easily reduced, whereas the flexibility of local operators can be
increased in confronting with uncertainty and dynamics [48]. In summary, autonomous
control systems have some prominent features in literature as: decentralized and
distributed control and decision making configuration, self-organized, and heterarchical
structure. These characteristics clearly discriminate the autonomous systems from the
conventional ones with hierarchical and centralized structures. These specifications are
generally explained in the following.
2.3.2 Centralized, Decentralized, and Autonomous Control Systems
According to the definition of the online Business Dictionary [112], a system is "an
organized, purposeful structure regarded as a whole and consisting of interrelated and
interdependent elements (components, entities, factors, members, parts, etc.). These
elements continually influence one another (directly or indirectly) to maintain their
activity and the existence of the system, in order to achieve the goal of the system". In this
regard, interrelation, elements, and goal of a system are specifically emphasized. Thus,
studying these highlighted aspects in any systems is essential. Generally, elements of a
system may have different interdependency and interactions with each other that leads to
different structures. Additionally, inspired by [113] [114], defining the structure of a
system is a matter of control, authority, hierarchy, heterarchy, decision making,
interactions, individualism and collectivism, homogeneity and heterogeneity, and
uncertainty. For instance, van de Mortel-Fronczak et al. [114] believe that control systems
with hierarchical structure are very complex, difficult to maintain and modify, and highly
sensitive to failures, when the systems grow in scale and scope. In contrast, heterarchical
control systems are flexible, modular, simply modifiable, and to some extent, fault tolerant,
see Figure 12. However, regarding these specifications, there is no unique definition in
literature for different structures of systems. There may be several overlapping
expressions that each reflects the mentioned specifications for the structure of a system,
from different points of view.
Hierarchical control
Semi-Hierarchical control
Conventional Central System
Heterarchical control
Scope of Autonomous System
Figure 12: Control structures with autonomy domain interest, according to [114] [115].
Basically, a system regarding its structure can be classified into centralized, distributed,
decentralized, and autonomous system, according to Jaffari [116]. A central(ized) system
refers to a system with one central entity who has the authority to receive data from other
entities and takes decisions over that for every unit [117]. This central entity within a
hierarchical structure is called supreme or master in different disciplines [116] [118].
Obviously, the control structure in such a system is hierarchical, in contrast to the
decentralized and autonomous systems with heterarchical control structures. According to
Matsumoto et al. [119] in robotic, a central system is explained by a host controller to
process and control all devices, which are connected together. Moreover, they explain
distributed systems as distributed controllers with embedded computers that are
connected to a supervisory computer, which only monitors the general condition of the
working environment (use of local control and central management), see Figure 13.
Nevertheless, they distinguish between distributed and decentralized systems; for a
distributed system, they assume a certain supervisory computer (a center), which has the
responsibility for the whole work of the system. But, in decentralized systems there is no
necessary supervisor to be equipped and the whole work can be accomplished in the form
of decentralized sub-tasks by distributed robots.
From the work of Ahituv et al. [120] it can be understood that a centralized system is a
system with realizing all decision makings in one centre, and all computing capabilities are
concentrated in that point. Similarly, a distributed system is like a common network, but
with a deployed (distributed) computing capability. Eventually, a decentralized system is
like distributed systems with the deployed computing capability in various locations, while
the computing units are not linked within a common network. Accordingly, a decentralized
system inherits the distributed system' characteristics.
Figure 13: Exemplary central and distributed systems in technical systems with star connection.
Regarding the work of Kumar et al. [121], in a decentralized system, with decentralized
control, a collection of local (decentralized) decision makings interact with each other and
eventually come up with a global decision. They mention that distributed systems can be
reduced to decentralized systems in such a way that the mean of communication among
local decision makers can be eliminated. Additionally, in this context each decentralized
decision maker must have an assessment mechanism for self-ambiguity. However, it can be
argued that not always a distributed system can encompass (be reduced to) a
decentralized structure.
Furthermore, Meyer et al. [122] in their study over human resources in Europe define the
decentralized systems with frequently hand in hand decision makings with increasing
management autonomy to improve the performance of the systems. Besides, the decisions
are closed to the points that require any decision. On the other hand, the authors raise the
issue of accountability for central systems. Additionally, it is mentioned that
decentralization brings heterogeneity to systems. The authors conclude that when the
desire for avoiding uncertainty in human-resource systems is high then the degree of
decentralization is low, and vice versa.
However, distributed and decentralized systems may be incorrectly considered equivalent
in some applications. Although both systems have some coherent features and
contributions, but they are not similar in their performances. For instance, a central
decision making system like, ERP system, can have several topologically-distributed
entities that cooperate in making a decision, but the decision is made centrally after
receiving the required information from distributed entities. On the other hand, a
decentralized system can be a collection of independent decision making entities that make
their own decisions according to their local atmosphere and possibly based on the
collected data from other entities, like a multi agent system. However, since a decentralized
system is yet assumed as a uniform system, there must be a common goal, besides other
local targets, to be desirable for distributed entities. This simple example illustrates the
difference between both attributes. The information and data are intentionally used in this
example to show the contribution level of distributed entities in a centralized system,
which can transform data to information, while the final decision is made centrally.
Eymann et al. [123] point out the drawbacks of central systems and moderately introduce
the motivation of moving towards decentralized systems. According to them, a central
system is not proper for dynamic environments. They highlight the requirement of having
dynamic, fast changing, and flexible systems. Additionally, coordination in central systems
requires a global knowledge over the state of the system (or network), and is subject to
time lags and, depending on the scale of the system, may lead to long latency times.
Moreover, they challenge the central collection of data and central allocation of tasks.
Alternatively, they advocate the decentralized coordination in systems with real-time
control and harmony with various calculation capacities. This decentralization has to be
achieved through the application of autonomous and decentralized devices, which employ
constant negotiation, as agent technology, to get consensus. They may use machine
learning mechanisms to adapt the decisions of autonomous objects, with the purpose of
achieving a co-evolution between software agent strategies and self-regulating
coordination patterns.
Generally, autonomous systems address those systems with intelligent and flexible
reactions against changes in operating conditions and demands, coming from the
environment. According to Rehtanz [124] the origin of autonomous systems, at least in
technique, refers to the robotics branch. He considers some fundamental components for
any autonomous system. The components include target or inquiry as input, as well as
three functional layers as the management and organization layer, the coordination layer,
and the execution layer to interactively work together. Additionally, he considers two
components for such systems, a data-acquisition component, as the only interactive
component with the environment, and information-base component to make a knowledge
base on data acquisition. The information-base component is bilaterally in cooperation
with the three functional layers. However, in addition to the mentioned characteristics for
autonomous systems, they have some general characteristics as: self-decision making, selforganizing, distributed and decentralized control, and heterarchical structure, see Figure
14. These specifications are elaborated in the following sections.
De-Cetralized
NonDeterministic
Heterarchical
Figure 14: Effective elements in configuring autonomous control systems, according to [13].
2.3.3 Autonomous Logistic System
According to Duffie et al. [109], even though it is favorable to control SC globally, but it is
hardly possible to provide all required information for a central planning and control
system properly. In particular, when the system is complex in terms of wide scale and
scope, like logistics, then central planning gets into trouble. However, it can be argued that
autonomous systems have been raised versus integrated and central systems. In this
paper, the authors argue that decentralized coordination across logistic processes—
implemented by autonomous entities (logistics objects) — is an alternative to the
complexity problem. They reflect the issue of heterarchical control structure and
cooperative decision making for decentralized systems. Despite talking about the necessity
of cooperation and communication between decentralized entities, they express the
challenging issues in defining the degree of autonomy for autonomous logistics systems.
Moreover, in logistics, autonomous systems simultaneously inherit the characteristics of
distributed and decentralized systems. In other words, autonomous systems encompass
decentralized and distributed systems.
Scholz-Reiter et al. in [110] discuss about the current and prospective situation in logistics
and refer to the fact of increasing dynamics and complexity in inbound and outbound
logistics. They underline the complexity in logistics in terms of the distributed value chain
and then challenge the supply of relevant information for a central decision making and
coordination system. Accordingly, they propose the configuration of autonomous control
system through autonomous logistic processes as well as logistic objects. In that work, a
list of demands and conditions for implementing autonomous logistic processes is properly
given, which defines several aspects of autonomy in logistics. Some of their relevant
information about autonomy in logistics is given in Table 2.
Table 2: Demands of autonomous processes in different system levels, adopted from [110].
Logistics System
Task Layers
Decision System
Informatics Methods and ICT
Execution System
Material Flow and Logistics
New Demands on Logistics Processes
Organizational demands
• Definition of autonomous logistics processes
• Limits of conventional and autonomous control
• Adequate information availability
• Design of strategic and dynamic distributed targets
• Methods for assuring quality of distributed processes
Technological demands
• Ability of items to communicate and cooperate
• Distributed data management and handling
• Mobile communication technology and hardware
• Localization ability
• Organizing software (ERP and APS)
Process-related demands
• Development of autonomous decision algorithms
• Development of strategies to use immanent intelligence
• Ability to model autonomous logistics processes
• Robustness (e.g., for objects)
• Divisibility of orders/mergence of intelligent objects
(e.g., assembly line)
• Local and physical reactivity
Windt et al. in [37] underscore the shift of capabilities from a total (universal) system to its
elements, in order to describe autonomous systems from system theory point of view. In
that work, according to the context of Collaborative Research Center (CRC) 637
"Autonomous Cooperating Logistic Processes—A Paradigm Shift and its Limitations" an
autonomous control system is described as a collection of decentralized decision-making
processes within a heterarchical structure. Accordingly, the elements inside the system,
with the capability of independently making decisions, interact with each other in a nondeterministic environment. Moreover, the objective of autonomous control systems is
generically explained as robustness achievement as well as superiority for the entire
system through distributed and flexible handling of dynamics and complexities. However,
in the work defining the autonomy level in logistics is taken as a challenging issue. They
claim that overuse of autonomy (more than being tolerable) leads to abortion in achieving
the goals. Additionally, they justify the application of the autonomous control system in
logistics by relying on the state of the art in technology. They argue that "logistics objects
are able to render decisions by themselves in a complex and dynamically changing
Furthermore, Windt et al. in [108] describe the autonomous control in logistics by some
characteristics accompanied with autonomous logistics objects, i.e., an ability for the
objects to process information as well as making and executing decisions independently by
their own. According to Scholz-Reiter et al. [125], the autonomous system in logistics is
dawn by autonomous control objects, to be used against dynamics and complexity due to
its great flexibility, distributed handling, interacting, as well as goal-oriented and
autonomous decision-making. In order to realize the autonomous control objects they
simply suggest the use of state of the art in smart tags, e.g., radio frequency identification
(RFID). In addition, they talk about different alternatives for being considered as
autonomous objects in logistics. The study about autonomous processes, control, and
modeling them is extensively explained in that work. According to Scholz-Reiter et al. in
[126], autonomous control in logistics could be described as: "decentralized coordination
of intelligent logistic objects and the routing through a logistic system by the intelligent
parts themselves". Logistic objects may include products, machines, transportation means,
etc., that take part in logistic processes. Indeed, this type of control (autonomy) seeks for
decentralized decision makings by having a heterarchical control structure to bear
flexibility and robustness for the entire logistic system, see Duffie et al. [127].
Moreover, Schuldt [128] pp 35, broadly investigates the autonomous control in logistics.
He underlines the inherent characteristics of SN in terms of complexity, dynamics, and
distributions. Schuldt addresses the autonomous logistics paradigm as a competent
solution with local control and decentralized decision-making rather than centralized
systems. The aim of autonomous logistics to delegate the decision-making task to local
logistic elements is emphasized by him. In the work, the potentials of the autonomous
control in logistics are discussed, e.g., augmenting physical objects with the computational
ability and applying the respective technology for logistic objects like pallets and
containers (using pervasive/ambient/ubiquitous computing), as well as the reduction in
complexity is discussed. The discussion about the current shortcomings of the autonomy in
logistics is relevant in this work; he says autonomy in logistics has to deal with inherent
dynamics, complexity, and distribution, but requires a specific implementation level.
According to him, available technologies are still limited in their computational domains,
so the degree of granularity, at which the autonomy can be used, is challenging.
On the other hand, Scholz-Reiter et al. in [129] report about the autonomy for immaterial
logistic objects, as autonomous processes in logistics, and try to answer the questions
about modeling of such processes. They introduce the novel modeling structure, as
Autonomous Logistics Engineering Methodology (ALEM), to model autonomous processes
in logistics. Here, the autonomous control is traced in biology and physics as well as
artificial intelligence and control theory. However, they explain the study about any
autonomous control system in logistics by the structure of ALEM as: objectives, structure,
abilities, processes, decision, knowledge, communication, and scenario.
Indeed, autonomy can be seen as a spectrum of authority, communication, and
cooperation, which span a central system to an extreme autonomous system with fully
independent autonomous entities. This fact is extensively studied by Windt et al. [37], see
Table 3. Moreover, this spectrum of autonomy has been considered in the entire life of the
current study and has affected the perspective of each chapter.
Table 3: Levels of autonomy and their characteristics, done by [37].
Time behavior of
objective system
Number of alternative decisions
Type of decision
System behavior
mostly static
system layer
elements and
deterministic
inflexible
no elements
identifiable
Measuring ability
rule-based
subsystem layer
non-/system
system non/elements
communicati
less mobile
less flexible
systemelement layer
system nondeterministic
highly flexible
self and
highly mobile
In addition, Windt et al. [13] list some enablers for any autonomous cooperation and
control as: self-identification and detection, execution system, communication ability (ICT),
information processing, and ability to identify alternatives. Accordingly, several
methodologies are introduced to implement the concept of autonomous control in logistics.
Among which are the pheromone-based, queue length estimator, due date, for more
information see Windt et al. [108] and Scholz-Reiter et al. [35].
In summary, in the recent decades, the autonomy has drawn the attention of scientists and
philosophers in social and political disciplines as well, e.g., in the form of federal systems.
However, in these fields sometimes autonomy is put equivalent as individualism, anomie,
anarchy, and chaos [130] pp 7. Since logistics is a science that theoretically and practically
belongs to the socio-economic organizations with human interventions, its performance's
analysis can be compared with social systems. One can briefly review the performance of
autonomous systems in social communities with authentic examples from the recent
liberation movements in the Middle East and North Africa. By referring to some
anonymous movements in the region, after a short life of them, their performance
(success) with decentralized decision-making and autonomous control for active
individuals to achieve the common goal as political freedom is revealed to us. Some
successes and some frustrations show the dependency of autonomy on the circumstances,
which is active in. Apparently, in those countries with more violation as well as restrictions
on communications (e.g., the internet) between autonomous individuals, the goal is not
achieved yet, although the individuals may be still invisibly active. On the other hand, when
the pressure for restricting connections between autonomous individuals was not
intensive enough then the success in movements has been quicker attained. In fact,
autonomous individuals can coordinate their decisions via communication and move
toward a common action. Although it is true that independency for individuals reduces the
threats for them to be traced and increases flexibility of them to face dynamics, but, on the
other side, they may lose their coordination in activities and lead into anarchy. Moreover,
this fact of the autonomy in social systems is taken into account throughout the current
work. Thus, it is tried to define a level of autonomy for logistics parties in the operational
level, while the common activities and plans in tactical and strategic level is recommended
to be accomplished centrally and in an integrated manner. For this purpose, it is
recommended to employ the conventional mathematical programming for SCM to plan
tactical processes and operations. This has to be happened by means of embedding some
tolerances (freedoms) in parameters of the models and calculated them by uncertain
(fuzzy) constraints. For instance, this can be done via fuzzy robust optimization modeling,
which considers vague and ill-defined parameters and makes the plans with some degree
of freedoms for operational level.
Furthermore, according to Windt et al. in [37] the autonomous controlled logistics systems
can be addressed by autonomous logistic objects, which are able to process information,
and render decisions with executing them by their own. In this regard, the autonomous
logistics objects as Lpallets are introduced in the current work to control real-time
2.3.4 Autonomous Logistic Objects
In compliance with the development of autonomous logistic processes—in SN as well as
shop-floor levels— the introduction of autonomous logistic objects has been seen as
essential, see Scholz-Reiter et al. [110] and Windt et al. [13]. As mentioned before, the
autonomy in logistics has two generic aspects as: autonomous processes (immaterial) and
autonomous objects. Accordingly, during the recent decade several concepts have been
presented with the purpose of promoting autonomous objects in logistics. The procedure
of developing autonomous logistic objects has intensively been amplified by the state of the
art in the internet of things. According to Pfister [131] pp 29, "the internet of things is a
global network of computers, sensors, and actuators connected through internet
protocols". This definition is more elaborated by Ukelmann et al. in [132]. They define
several aspects for the research over internet of things, as shown in Figure 15. Indeed,
these features have to be followed in the research on the autonomous logistic objects as
Internet of
Intranet or
Extranet of
Ubiquitous/
Figure 15: Cooperation of several research fields with the internet of things, see [132].
The coincidence between the ambitions of realizing autonomous objects in logistics and
dissemination of the investigations in the internet of things has brought several advantages
to the future research on logistics. Facilitation of pervasive communication between
elements in open environments has given rise to optimistic prototypes of various
intelligent and autonomous logistic objects in labs. Some authentic contributions in this
field of developing autonomous objects are intelligent containers, intelligent pallets,
autonomous products, and autonomous guided vehicles (AGV), for more information see
CRC637 at http://www.sfb637.uni-bremen.de/. Thus, moving towards intelligent objects
or smart objects according to Kopetz [133] pp 307, is facilitated by the concept of the
internet of things, or better said, it is bred by this concept. He believes that the novelty of
the internet of things is placed on "… the pervasive deployment of smart objects".
Moreover, he made an illustrative review over the correlated topics and on this basis; he
enumerates the drivers in this area. In his work, logistics is introduced as one primary
application for the novel concept of the internet of the things. The most prominent
technologies applied in these studies encompass radio frequency identification (RFID), and
wireless sensor networks (WSN), which facilitate the achievement of the internet of things.
Therefore, it can be judged that the autonomous objects are the outcomes of or the
building blocks of the internet of things, which have access to the universal data (cloud) for
making own decisions in locals. However, competent objects in logistics must be found to
gradually realize the concept of autonomous objects in practice in accordance to the
internet of the things' progress. Besides, these objects must cover the prominent aspects of
this paradigm as mentioned above (Figure 15).
2.3.5 Supply Chain and Production Structures
In this section, some relevant features in configuring the strategies of SC are discussed.
These issues encompass the typical structures of SC and PN as well as some different
handling types of material flows across them, e.g., Leagility. All the underscored subjects in
this section are assumed significant to the management of the complexities' and dynamics'
initiators. Moreover, the mass customization strategy is briefly explained here as an
authentic target of the contemporary industries. This strategy is one of the strongest
originators of complexity and fluctuations in the common logistic processes.
2.3.5.1 Make-to-Order/Assemble-to-Order/Engineer-to-Order/Make-to-Stock
The structure of SC and type of material flow inside them has direct effects on the
emergence of dynamics and increase in complexities. Originally, material flow in SC follows
a unique direction from upstream of material procurement to downstream of SC in the
vicinity of customers. In this regard, distinction between the different sections (tiers) of SC,
which convert raw materials into final products, is essential in differentiating the types of
SC. According to the conventional SCOR model, there are five types of processes that are
considered for SC as: plan, source, make, deliver, and return, see [134] pp 52. Between these
processes source, make, and deliver, as direct related processes to physical (flow of)
materials, define the three main sections existing in SC. Consequently, these three sections
configure the major structures of SC in the form of make-to-stock (MTS), make-to-order
(MTO), and engineer-to-order (ETO) [135] [136]. In addition, there are some other variants
that illustrate more details about the structures of SC from manufacturing point of view,
e.g., assemble-to-order (ATO), buy-to-order, ship-to-stock [137]. However, in general, the
classification of these different types of structures in SC refers to the diffusion strength of
customer orders into SC as well as to the type of manufacturing strategies. In other words,
the position of decoupling point (DP) throughout the sections of SC, regarding material
flow, illustrates their structures. If this point is located in the deliver section of SC then they
follow MTS strategy, if it is in the make section then MTO, and if it is positioned in the
source section (design of product) then ETO is the strategy of the respective SC [138]
Basically, customer order DP (called order penetration point) is a physical location in each
supply chain that the main stock of material — in the form of raw material, semi-finished,
or finished products — is kept there [137]. This point splits up SC into two main sections
as direct responding part to customer orders (order-driven) in downstream from DP, as
well as the part using demand forecast for planning and production (forecast-driven),
which includes the upstream of DP. Accordingly, DP is recognized as the point of
concretizing the products in association with specific customer orders [135]. In addition to
the physical location, as the material flow DP in SC for keeping the main stock, a similar
concept is developed for information flow throughout SC, which is called information flow
DP [140]. This DP in information flow defines the penetration range of customer orders
into upstream of SC. Whereas up to the specific information DP in SC, planning and
organizing processes consider direct orders, the upstream of that point relies on forecasts
and statistical (historical) information. Conclusively, it has to be mentioned that DP and
different structures are basically influential factors to deal with alternations and dynamics
in the market and, correspondingly, in logistics. Usually, the closer DP to the customer is
the less spread of fluctuations occurs.
2.3.5.2 Lean, Agility, and Leagility Concepts
The lean manufacturing, also known as the Toyota production system (TPS), was originally
presented by Ohno and Shigeo at Toyota, according to Pavnaskar et al. [141]. Basically, the
main goal (philosophy) of the lean manufacturing is to reduce any kind of waste that does
not add any value to the desired product (service) of customer. In other words, lean means
doing more with less [142]. There are several conventional tools to achieve the targets of
the lean manufacturing. Among them are one-piece flow, setup time reduction, cellular
manufacturing, kaizen (continuous improvement), standardization, zero inventory, pull
material control, etc. [141] [143]. Generally, lean concept advocates level scheduling to
keep away from uncertainty, volatility, and variation. However, in some literature, it is
pointed out that lean can be realized in low variant and high-volume product
circumstances [144] [145], while some challenge this idea [146] [147].
On the other hand, the agile manufacturing was introduced at Lehigh University [148], in
1991. AgMS is explained as a system to be responsive in facing unpredictable and volatile
markets within a highly competitive environment through a quick introduction of new
products [149]. Additionally, an agile system is able to meet changes in a proper time and
can profit from the changes by converting them into opportunities, as Sharifi et al. [150]
state. Here, the outstanding characteristics of agility are considered as responsiveness,
competency, flexibility, and speed, which are necessary for autonomous systems as well.
Besides, the agility drivers as uncertainty, changes, and pressures are pertinent to any
system confronting with dynamics. Accordingly, immediate reaction to any changes is a
superior feature of agile systems, which is again a considerable characteristic of
autonomous systems too. In fact, this specification of versatility spans agility concept to the
autonomy paradigm with respect to higher performances [151] [152] [153].
Consequently, leanness is described as leveling schedules by means of promoting value
stream and eliminating any type of waste. On the other side, agility is referred to flexibility
of a system to deal with volatile markets by profiting from market knowledge and virtual
corporation, to be responsive to customers [100] [154]. However, the distinction between
both concepts is not unique in literature. This issue is fairy reflected in the work of
Hallgren et al. [149], that defines three approaches about lean and agility in practice as
complementary (subsequently), contradictory, and similar. See also the work of Scholten et
al. [155] and Krishnamurthy et al. [156] for more details. Table 4 represents some aspects
of both concepts.
Table 4: Comparing lean and agility concepts by their attributes, adopted from [149] [156] [157] [158].
Market winner and qualifier
Typical product
Cost, quality, lead time,
Service level, quality, cost, lead
Product variety
JIT and total lead time reduction
Maximize profit
Market sensitive (real demand)
Virtual SC
Predictable
With less cost
Efficient mass production
With higher service level
Customization and
However, utilization of both lean and agile concepts in SC is widely discussed in literature.
One outstanding strategy to make use of them simultaneously is called leagility. Indeed, in
1999, the leagile term was initially raised by Naylor, Naim, and Berry [100] to integrate the
prominent manufacturing concepts as lean and agility in a unified framework used by SC.
Nevertheless, the main contribution of their work to those strategies was triggered by the
classification matrix in terms of flexibility, variants, and volume of products as well as the
introduction of DP in SC, see Figure 16.
This approach gave rise to tasks' separation in the sections throughout SC in such a way
that the lean and the agile processes become collaborative rather than mutually exclusive
[139]. In this context, the agile section complies with the fluctuations in demand (regarding
volume and variety) at downstream of SC by the use of MTO, whilst the lean part at
upstream commits to level schedules by keeping smooth demand and MTS strategy. This
takes place by pushing materials to DP, concerning the forecasted demand and the use of
conventional material push flow systems, e.g., MRPI/II, which facilitate leveling in material
flows. On the contrary, in downstream of DP, semi-finished products are pulled regarding
the direct customer orders. This strategy decreases uncertainty in the upper side of SC,
whilst increases responsiveness and flexibility in that side which directly interacts with
final customers.
Fluctuating/Customized Demand
Streamlined Demand
Forecast driven/Standardization
Push with Lean
Postponement
Pull with Agility
Demand for Variety of product
Leanness
Demand for variability in production
Figure 16: Leagile supply chains by lean and agile strategies using push and pull control, adopted from [100]
[157] [158] [159].
Indeed, the concept of leagility resembles the two general approaches in dealing with
dynamics in logistics. As mentioned before, one approach tries to reduce causes and effects
of dynamics in logistics and the other one tries to employ dynamics into own behavior and
become nimble. In this perspective, the lean concept represents those strategies which aim
at reducing causes and effects, while agility—by employing autonomy as a prominent tool
to achieve its targets— takes over the delegation of strategies with dynamic behaviors, see
Scholz-Reiter and Mehrsai [54]. Accordingly, the contribution of autonomy to the concept
of leagility in production networks is broadly explained in the work of Scholz-Reiter and
Mehrsai in [48]. They developed a simulation scenario to reflect the superiority of
combining of these strategies and techniques. In addition, Scholz-Reiter and Mehrsai in
[160] separately describe the specific correlation of autonomy with lean and agile logistics
in more details. However, some results out of this work are given in the chapter about
experiment scenarios.
However, in the literature, two general perspectives are given to the performance of leagile
systems in terms of employing push and pull control systems. The majority of studies have
been done at Cardiff and Cranfield Universities in the 2000s (e.g., Christopher et al. [158]).
Originally, they address the push control in upstream of DP by employing the lean strategy,
while pulling materials according to direct demands in the downstream of DP by
undertaking the agile strategy. Nevertheless, there is a minority that talks about the
competency of the agile systems with using the push flow control. For instance, in the work
of Olhager [135], it is claimed that downstream of DP can employ the agile, MTO, and the
push control to fulfill customized and low-volume products for customers.
Nevertheless, SC— facing dynamics and uncertainty in their demands— have already
undertaken some clever strategies to overcome the challenges. Yang et al. [106] discuss in
their literature review that uncertainty in SC can be reduced by cutting lead time and
increasing flexibility as well as acceleration in responding to uncertain demand. However,
between the degree of agility and the level of uncertainty a tradeoff is required, since
higher agility causes more complexity. In doing so, the postponement paradigm makes a
tradeoff in leagile SC dealing with fluctuations and uncertainty in demand. The main
concept of postponement is about delay in concretizing the final products until the latest
possible time and physical point across SC [161]. Moreover, paradigm is usually
accompanied with the agility and uncertainty in manufacturing SC [155]. Based on this
concept, if the level of uncertainty in demand is high, then it has to be aimed to shift DP to
the vicinity of customers' side as much as possible. This directly contributes to the
reduction of uncertainty caused by direct demand. In contrast, if demand is fairly smooth,
then DP can be moved to the upstream of SC toward suppliers' side with the ability of using
ATO and ETO strategies.
Moreover, leagility in SC properly reflects the simultaneous utilization of push and pull
concepts in material flow control. Obviously, neither solely push and nor permanently pull
may be appropriate when the system is dynamic with fluctuations in supply and demand.
In other words, a hybrid approach to the material push and pull control aspects brings
privileges of both in a uniform context simultaneously. This issue is revealed in the Conwip
and the Polca material flow control systems, preferably in inbound and shop-floor logistics.
However, this can be suitably applied to outbound logistics in the scope of SN by means of
leagile structures. In one of the experimented scenarios in the experiments' chapter this
subject is discussed as a conceptual application of autonomous logistic objects in outbound
logistics (e.g., the use of containers, cargo pallet). They are supposed to decide over push or
pull systems regarding their circumstances and thereby changing the location of DP in a
leagile SN [48].
2.3.5.3 Mass Customization
After transiting the mass production era in industries, gradually, the age of the mass
customization has been emerged, with more respects to customers' requirements. Initially,
the mass customization concept has been introduced by Davis [162] with a customizing
perspective to the future of manufacturing industries. Generally, the core concept of the
mass customization addresses different appetites of customers in characterizing their ideal
products to design, production, and even delivery processes of SC. According to Liu et al.
[163], the mass customization can be described as an enabling strategy for industries to
produce high variants of products, regarding turbulent markets with customized demands
and without any considerable compromise in quality, cost and delivery. Accordingly,
Krishnamurthy et al. [156] describe the mass customization as a manufacturing system
with customized product for a large number of customers, while keeping reasonable cost
and volume and responsiveness. In fact, this significance implies the agility and flexibility
in logistic operations encompassing procurement, production, and delivery processes.
Moreover, the purpose of introducing the mass customization in this study is to underscore
one sever strategy in industries, which can be enhanced by autonomy paradigm. Thus,
pursuing this strategy reflects a feasible application for autonomous control in practice,
which has to be explored more.
However, in collaboration with the concept of DP in SC, the applications of MTO, ATO, and
ETO structures directly pertain to the realization of the mass customization strategy with
alternative depth degrees. Indeed, spanning from standard products in MTS strategy to
fully customized ones in ETO strategy, SC may undertake different policies towards
reflecting the notion of the mass customization into own operations. Moreover, regarding
the concepts of the lean, the agility, and the leagility in literature, the mass customization
strategy can be considered as the connecting chain between these systems. This happens in
such a way that a combination of these systems gives rise to meet customized orders with
high responsiveness. This issue is addressed by Verdouw et al. [139], derived from their
literature review. In addition to the required information systems, they highlight the
important role of generic product model, modularity, integration platform, configuration
support, and component availability to achieve the mass customization capability. Finally,
the significance of flexible production processes in producing the right products and also
appropriate logistics in delivering the right products to the right customer at the right time
is noticeable [164] [163]. Furthermore, connectivity of the lean, the agility, and the leagile
strategies through the mass customization reflects the point that SC must profit from all
existing advanced system in manufacturing and material flow to keep their competitive
advantages. In the mass customization a huge attention is paid to customer orders by
means of undertaking X-to-order structures in SC, (i.e., X can be engineer, make, or
configure) [165]. Nevertheless, penetration of customer order into SC necessitates new
approaches in fulfilling the customers. In fact, the tie between products and direct orders
in the mass customization strategy manifests the notion of material pull approach in
manufacturing systems. This issue initiated the leagility concept with the purpose of
employing push and pull material flow controls within a unique framework.
Krishnamurthy et al. [156], in their broad literature review, highlight the dominance of pull
systems over push in MTO approach. Additionally, they indicate the importance of
decentralization in terms of authorities and decision-makings when uncertainty is the
overwhelming circumstance for production. According to their work and some others, the
logical connections between the outstanding terms in production systems as lean, agility,
leagility, mass customization, responsiveness, decentralization, and dynamic changes,
directly reflect the necessity of the autonomous control in logistics concept as well as the
importance of complying with the conventional production systems/strategies.
According to Brabazon et al. [166] the enablers of the mass customization can be classified
into four groups as: product design, process design (including SC), information systems,
process management, and control approaches. Between these enablers, the modularity and
the product design are irrelevant to the current study, but process design encompassing
responsive SC, agility, and flexibility in logistics operations, as well as information and
communication facilities are directly pertinent to the notion of the autonomy in logistics. In
order to increase flexibility and adaptability of a production system to meet the
requirements of the mass customization strategy, adoption of the autonomy paradigm is
considered as a competent policy [167]. Operating in an atmosphere with high-variant and
low-volume products, under highly dynamic circumstances have induced the employment
of new strategies with privileges towards responsiveness and flexibility. For this purpose,
AMS including the autonomous control and adaptive logistic processes is a competent
technique [168], which is gradually evolving into practice, e.g., autonomous products, and
logistic objects. Correspondingly, there are some similarities between the mass
customization and the autonomous control that some of which are listed in Table 5.
Orientation of strategies
Mass customization
Essentially high
To be low
All in all, there are some crucial features which support businesses to move toward the
mass customization capability. Amongst which the key enablers are: modularity,
postponement, equipment flexibility, planning and scheduling flexibility, individuality, see
Figure 17. For more information see also [169] and [170] Ch. 25. Consequently, it has been
concluded that the concept of Lpallets can well comply with the individuality, modularity,
flexibility, and even postponement by some changes in their controllers' capability, and
some adjustments according to specific requirements and circumstances. This statement
can be justified by the experiments done in the experiment chapter.
Cutomization
Figure 17: The practical aspects contributing in the mass customization merit.
2.3.6 Shop-Floor Scheduling
Basically, the operational level of PPC processes encompasses planning or properly saying
scheduling problems with different characteristics and varieties. By drilling down through
planning operations the planning horizon continuously decreases from years at the
strategic level to days and hours at the operational level. Besides, information from quite
aggregated state in long term planning gets updated into more detailed and on time
information flow, see Figure 18. Conventionally, in operational research (OR) three generic
steps are considered for organizing operations in a desired way (optimization) as planning,
scheduling, and control. In this context planning usually deals with organizing operations
with long term and mid-term horizons down into short-term master activities, whereas,
scheduling complies with managing operations with quite short term horizon for
authorizing operational activities. Scheduling is central to shop-floor operations, which are
the frontier (interface) between physical operations and execution of planning and
schedules.
Accordingly, the mission of monitoring and correctly handling the already scheduled
activities regarding the constraints are assigned to control processes. Incidentally, outputs
of planning processes are the inputs of scheduling and respectively the outputs of
scheduling processes are the inputs for the control task. However, the definitions about
these terms are not quite common and some alternatives have been introduced by
literature, e.g., some assumed planning and scheduling with similar missions, while some
discriminate between their activities [171].
Moreover, allocation of resources to operations in an optimum way is carried out by
scheduling activities, whilst selection of resources is the duty of planning with bridging
design, manufacturing, and scheduling operations [172]. Then analyzing, modeling, and
monitoring of operations are the task of control [171]. Nevertheless, both planning and
scheduling activities are decision making processes in alternative horizons which are the
core of any manufacturing and service industries [173] pp 3. Significantly, optimization of
operations is central to the task of planning and scheduling.
By considering the similarities and discrepancies between these prominent terms in
logistics and manufacturing, scheduling can be defined as a task with optimization
objective, which "concerns with the allocation of resources to activities with the objective
of optimizing some performance measures" as Bartak et al. [64] mention. Or as Pinedo [86]
pp 1, introduces scheduling is "a decision making process that is used on a regular basis in
many manufacturing and service industries. It deals with the allocation of resources to
tasks over given time periods and its goal is to optimize one or more objectives". However,
in manufacturing and logistics environment resources span a wide range of physical and
nonphysical objects like human, machine, runways, transporters, processing units in IT
environment, etc., while activities (tasks) can cover production orders, transportation
orders, loading and landing of raw or semi-finished materials, etc.
master scheduling
Orders,
demand forcast
Quantities , due dates
MRPI and capacity
Shop orders, realse dates
Shop status
Scheduling and
Shop-floor
Job loading
Figure 18: Information flow diagram in a manufacturing system, adapted from [173] pp 10.
However, scheduling in general encompasses three main categories in manufacturing
(shop-floor) environment as flow-shop, job-shop and open-shop [174] pp 155. The major
difference between these classes refers to the execution type of operations and constraints
accompanied by each of the scheduling problem. Generally saying, "a scheduling problem
of size  ×  consists of  jobs {1 , 2 , … ,  } to be processes on  machines
{1 , 2 , … ,  }" [175]. Now, each type of shop-floor scheduling problem aims to allocate
the jobs set to the machines' set in the most optimum manner regarding the corresponding
objective(s) [176]. In this manner, the job-shop problem addresses an ordered sequence of
operations  = �1 , 2 , … ,  � for each  job that configures its technological
constraint. Nevertheless, the flow-shop can be described as a special case of job-shop
problem, so that every job has a similar technological constraint (processing order of  )
like the others, distinct of being or not identical jobs. In the same manner, open-shop
problem is an extension of job-shop problem, while there is no order for operating the
operations of job  on  machines, see also [177]. However, the main variants of shopfloor scheduling are briefly described in the following sections. It is noticeable that these
three major classes of shop-floor scheduling problems are above single machine and
parallel machines problems, which are not covered in this study, see [178] [86] pp 15.
Nevertheless, distinct from these main classes of shop-floor scheduling problems, the task
of scheduling by itself, on the current and prospective manufacturing environment, is due
to more practical approaches. In other words, by increasing the rate of product
individuality in assembly lines the complexity of respective scheduling problems is
growing as well. Today, every single job (product) may require unique operations and
treatment in manufacturing, because of non-identical specifications. So, this fact inflates
the computational time of conventional scheduling algorithms and decreases the precision
of offline and central solutions. Indeed, these changes (revolution) to production systems
have been inducing more uncertainty and stochastic processes to practical operations in
the way that the static and offline schedules are no longer so reliable. Practitioners are
aware of the disability of conventional scheduling solutions within real shop-floor
environments considering interruptions by breakdowns and unforeseen events [175]
[179] [180]. This issue is more elaborated in the section of real-time scheduling.
However, scheduling problem is one of the most challenging problems in terms of
optimum solutions, so that most of their variants are classified into NP-hard computational
time problems, i.e., just few problem, for example, two machine problem with makespan
objective can be solved polynomially [174] pp 179. Therefore, in order to solve such hard
problems some efficient algorithms with near-optimal solutions are required [181].
Conventionally, scheduling problems can be solved by some global and local algorithms.
Among which, some local algorithms like dispatching rules heuristics, search methods like
GA, SA, tabu search, as well as exact algorithms like the branch and bound, and global
heuristics like shifting bottlenecks are abundantly used in literature, see [182] [183] [184].
It is noticeable that in global algorithms still the local characteristic returns to their
optimization approach with stepwise improvement through searching for local neighbors
(solutions) towards the global optimum solution.
In this regard, dispatching rules are very popular heuristics, which can be used
individually, in a hybrid manner with each other, or with other algorithms like GA.
However, dispatching rules do the mission of local sequence but not the schedule, while
other algorithms mostly do the mission of schedule 1. However, their combinations in the
form of hybrid algorithms cover the both aspects of scheduling problems. Dispatching rules
are very popular in manufacturing scheduling due to their simplicity in implementation
and low time complexity [185]. There are local and global dispatching rules that look for
one queue of a machine or for all machines situation, respectively. Some exemplary
dispatching rules which are relevant in manufacturing environment are given below, for
more information see [86] pp 373.
In order to illustrate the specific point of the current work in terms of scheduling three terminologies, i.e.,
sequence, schedule, and scheduling policy, used in scheduling problems has to be described. Pinedo [86] pp
21, properly defines each of the them as; "A sequence usually corresponds to a permutation sequence of the n
jobs or the order in which jobs are to be processes on a given machine. A schedule usually refers to an
allocation of jobs within a more complicated setting of machines, allowing possibly for preemptions of jobs
by other jobs that are released at a later point in time. The concept of a scheduling policy is often used in
stochastic settings: a policy prescribes an appropriate action for any one of the states the system may be in.
In deterministic models usually only sequences or schedules are of importance.
First come first served (FCFS), which orders the jobs in ascending manner to their
entrance time. This is a local rule,
Earliest due date (EDD), which orders the jobs in ascending manner regarding their
due dates; later due date less priority for operation. This is a local rule,
Shortest processing time (SPT), which orders the jobs in ascending manner
according to their processing time; less processing time higher priority for
operation. This is a local rule,
Longest processing time (LPT), contrary to SPT; higher processing time higher
priority for operation. This is a local rule,
Minimum slack (MS) first, which is a dynamic rule that sequences the job in a queue
according to � −  − , 0�. Where  stands for due date of job ,  is the
processing time for the job, and  states the current time. This is a local rule,
Shortest Queue (SQ) first, which allocates new arriving jobs to the queue with less
quantity. This is applicable e.g., in parallel machines problems. It is a global and
dynamic rule.
In addition, initially, the branch and bound algorithm is designed to find optimal solutions
for job-shop problems, though the computational time may be expensive for big problems
[186]. The algorithm reduces the main problem in sub-problems by means of branching
(splitting). Then by means of bounding it finds the lower and the upper bound of each subproblem then compares them according to the objective (min/max) and discards nonimprovable schedules towards the global optimum, for more information see [86] pp 179.
Moreover, shifting bottleneck heuristic like the branch and bound algorithm decreases the
problem into sub-problems and stepwise combines sub-problems to achieve a schedule for
the entire (global) problem. In fact, the sub-problems are several single machine problems
that are scheduled independently, so that each machine undergoes a number of process
steps (jobs). The jobs on a machine, in each sub-problem, have release times and due dates,
achieved from the sequence of the processes on other machines. The schedule for each
sub-problem reflects the sequence of all jobs on a particular machine. So, by finishing the
solving of a sub-problem (a schedule) the bottleneck (critical machine) is recognized. Then,
it has to be scheduled first in the next iteration. Afterwards, this bottleneck is removed
from evaluations in the subsequent iterations, and then the entire process starts again for
the left machines, see [187]. Indeed, the general procedure is to start with an initial
condition of (first sub-problem) and then by means of stepwise improvement it finds a
bottleneck (critical path in graph representation) in each step (iteration) of the algorithm.
To find a better schedule in each step, the left machines to be scheduled are considered
again for finding the new bottleneck machine regarding to the jobs, and then the jobs
according to the evolved bottlenecks get re-sequenced on machines. This procedure causes
the transition of bottleneck from machines to machines according to the machines
schedule in each step, for more information see [86] pp 189.
Moreover, from another point of view, the local search algorithms can be seen as global
ones, since they evaluate the global performance of alternative schedules in their iterations
and try to improve them step by step towards global optimum, regarding proceeding
criteria. For instance, GA has been seen as a global search procedure too. It proceeds
through local improvements, while continuously sampling the total parameter space, see
[188] [189]. In other words, if the improvements of schedules in local search algorithms
happen centrally by considering the interactions of single solutions on all machines (like
individuals of GA in each generation), then this centralization and holistic perspective leads
to a global approach. Although improvement in assignment of jobs to machines in
scheduling problems happens by local search, but the ultimate performance of them is
based on global assignments of all jobs to all machines. Nevertheless, if heuristic
dispatching rules be applied by machines in a decentralized structure, then they must be
seen as local methods. Accordingly, with dispatching rules it is not necessary to have
bounded jobs, since they do not look for optimal schedule but the superiority of a rule over
others at a time [180].
Furthermore, there are some common goals for shop-floor scheduling, which can be
applied as single or multi-objectives. The important ones are as follows:
Minimization of Makespan (total completion time of all jobs)  , where
completion time of job  is equal to its completion time of final operation on the last
machine  , and  = max=1,…, � �, where  is the number of jobs,
Minimization of Total weighted completion time ∑   , where  is the importance
weight for each job,
Minimization of Lateness , e.g., ∑  , where lateness of job  is  =  −  ,
Minimization of Tardiness ,e.g., ∑  , where tardiness of job  is  = � −
, 0),
Maximization of Utilization ,
In this manner, a scheduling problem can be generically represented by a triplet ||
format [86] pp 14. The position of  stands for the machine environment (scheduling
type), e.g.,  (flow-shop),  (Job-shop),  (open-shop). The state of  represents the
characteristics of processing and constraints if any, e.g.,  (sequence dependent setup
times), ,  represents release times for jobs and allowance of preemptions. Finally, the
position of  stands for objective(s) of scheduling, e.g.,  . For instance,  |  =
| denotes a proportionate flow-shop environment (equal processing time on all
machines for job ) with  machines and the objective of minimizing the makespan. It is
noticeable that makespan is sometime not the completion time of all jobs, but the time by
which every machine has processed all jobs and returned to the initial situation [190].
Furthermore, in the three variants of shop-floor scheduling problems the processing of
jobs may be preemptive (be interrupted by new arriving jobs with higher priority) or not
that this makes the problem more sophisticated to be solved. Nonetheless, in the current
work, all operations are non-preemptive. In addition, operations of jobs may have
sequence-dependent setup time which makes again the problem more complex. However,
in the following, the three main classes of scheduling are more detailed explained.
2.3.6.1 Flow-Shop Scheduling Problem (FSSP)
Flow-shop is the simplest problem used in manufacturing environments like serial
assembly line, automotive industry [180]. FSSP is simply a series of  machines that
jobs have to be processed on them in the same sequence, i.e., all jobs have the same route.
Each job visits each machine once and after each processes on a machine the job joints the
queue in the next machine in sequence. However, assignment of jobs to machines from
their respective queues may follow different dispatching rules. For example, if all machines
follow FIFS rule, then it is called permutation flow-shop, see Figure 19. In such flow-shops
the sequence (permutation) of jobs does not change throughout the shop. A common
problem for flow-shop is represented by  || which consists of  machines to
minimize the makespan. This problem can be simply formulated as follows [86] pp 151.
s.t.
= , ; ∀,
,1 = ∑=1 ,1 ;  = 1, … ,
1, = ∑=1 1, ;  = 1, … ,
, = �−1, , ,−1 � + , ;  = 2, … , ;  = 2, … ,
where  is the makespan, , is the completion time of job  on machine , ,
denotes the processing time of job  on machine . Additionally, it is proven that  ||
for  > 2 is strongly NP-hard.
Flexible flow-shop is the general variant of flow-shop problem in which instead of one
machine in each step, out of  process steps, a number of identical machines in parallel
exist. In this case, each job should undergo each process step with the selection of just one
machine out of parallels in that step [86] pp 15.
Product type 1
Figure 19: Exemplary flow-shop with 3 product types and 5 machines.
2.3.6.2 Job-Shop Scheduling Problem (JSSP)
The most famous and applicable scheduling problem in the assembly environment is JSSP,
see Figure 20. A plenty of academic literature can be found about this specific scheduling
problem with quite alternative and rich algorithms by efficient solutions, see [184]. A lot of
manufacturing processes in shop-floors are pertinent to JSSP with various types, e.g.,
semiconductor manufacturing as a complex job-shop [187] [191]. Generally, JSSP is a wellknown NP-hard problem for more than two machines. Basically, JSSP includes a set of
jobs to be processes on  machines, so that every  job must go through  machines for
completion. Accordingly, each job  has  operations, which each of them has to be
processes on one of the  machines. Once an operation starts on a machine it cannot be
interrupted (non-preemptive) till the operation lasts after a specific duration. The order
(sequence) of operations  for each job  is known in advance and, contrary to FSSP, it
may be alternative to other jobs. Additionally, the capacity of each machine for operating
jobs at each moment is one. Finally, the goal of JSSP is to find a proper permutation of all
operations of jobs in such a way that the objective function of the problem gets minimized
e.g., makespan  || , tardiness, lateness [86] pp 15 and [192].
Figure 20: Exemplary shop-floor with 3 product variants and 5 working stations.
However, if a job has to visit a machine more than once this type of JSSP is called recirculated. Moreover, flexible job-shop refers to the general problem of job-shop with
identical parallel machines in each station cell instead of one machine [86] pp 15.
Furthermore, some famous algorithms for solving JSSP are disjunctive programming,
branch and bound, shifting bottlenecks, see [86] pp 215.
2.3.6.3 Open-Shop Scheduling Problem (OSSP)
Similarly, generic open-shop scheduling (more than 2 machines) is categorized in NP-hard
problems without having any polynomial computation time algorithm. In OSSP, like the
other two problems, a set of  jobs have to be processed by a set of  machines, so that
each job has to be visited once by each machine. Whereas some processing times may be
zero on some machines, each job  has no restriction in its processing order (sequence or
route) on  machines [193]. Additionally, at most one operation of a job  has to be
processes by a machine and only one operation of a job can be accomplished at a time.
However, since the processing route of each job is arbitrary, opposite to job-shop with
fixed orders, the solution space in OSSP is much larger than JSSP and FSSP, so computation
time is longer as well [183]. Indeed, open route of jobs caused the name of open–shop, see
Product type 1 to be
processed on {1,2,3,4,5}
with 5! routes
Figure 21: Exemplary open-shop problem with arbitrary selections for processing orders.
Same as other scheduling problems, there have been some researches on OSSP for years
and different algorithm like meta-heuristics of swarm optimization, GA, tabu search,
simulated annealing (SA), mathematical programming, etc. have been used to solve such a
problem within an efficient way, as Noori-Darvish et al. generally reviewed them [183]. For
instance,  || problem to minimize the makespan can be generally formulated as:
≥ max=1,.., �∑=1  �
where  is the processing time of job  on machine .
2.3.6.4 Towards Real-Time Scheduling
Indeed, uncertainty, vagueness, and stochastic processes are inherent characteristics of
real-world operations, which are not taken into account by classical scheduling algorithms.
Therefore, this fact has been forcing academia to look for new approaches as dynamic,
online, and real-time scheduling alternatives. However, there are different understandings
of these terminologies in literature also in different disciplines. Nevertheless, whereas
some literature considers the three terminologies synonym or even cooperative and
complementary [133] pp 239, some assume specific characteristics for them in two generic
categories of offline vs. online scheduling, see work of Isovic´ [194].
Accordingly, as Mehrsai et al. [175] mention the online scheduling versus offline one can be
explained as finding a placement and starting time for a recently arrived job within a
continuously running schedule. It can be claimed that practically the number of available
jobs (products) to be scheduled is not precisely known in advance. Indeed, the respective
schedule progresses while the new jobs arrive or any changes happen to the system [195].
Dynamic scheduling can be seen against static one with permanent changing conditions
and consideration of dynamisms in real-world. Cowling et al. [196] define the dynamic
scheduling as a feedback loop system by real-time information feedback into each period
(day, week, month) as a loop. In this manner, real-time schedules cover both of the later
scheduling approaches, whilst real-time information flow and decisions are happened in
real-time within a distributed or not distributed structure [197].
In literature, a great attention has recently been paid to the transition phase from static
schedules to real-time systems with the merit of simultaneously (re)scheduling and
controlling on time. For instance, Lu et al. [198] deeply evaluate this issue by classifying
real-time scheduling into static and dynamic variants. They treat such dynamic real-time
systems as an open system with an unpredictable environment like e-business and internet
online trading, agile manufacturing, so that neither the resource requirements nor the
arrival rates are known in advance. However, they propose a feedback control in closedloop architecture of real-time scheduling based on control theory with simultaneous
schedule and control. In a relatively similar approach, the feedback scheduling was
recommended by Ben Gaid et al. [199] as well, which works based on feedback and error
control. In fact, most of the real-time scheduling studies have been focusing on scheduling
of operations in electronic machines like computers and robots, whereas the focus of the
current work is on scheduling in manufacturing systems.
However, obviously, a distinction between control and scheduling tasks for computing
machines, like computers and robots, and scheduling and control in shop-floors must be
considered. Implementation of real-time control and schedule for such machines is more
straightforward in comparison with assembling physical products with human
interventions in a distributed and decentralized environment. Nevertheless, the state of
the art in communication and computation has brought both of the approaches closer to
each other, e.g., by means of the new approach in the internet of things to integrate devices
in a network by real-time interactions. This advance is deeply explained by Kopetz in
[133]. Frantzén et al. [180] made a good combination between both applications through
the introduction of a real-time scheduling for automotive industry. They developed a
simulation-based scheduling system which is integrated with shop-floor database. It
receives data from production line and sends back expert suggestions directly to operators
via personal digital assistants. Application of web-based real-time scheduling and the
communication means facilitates the realization of real-time systems in manufacturing
environments. In addition, Savkin et al. [200] exploit the advantages of real-time control in
electronic machines to realize real-time scheduling in flexible manufacturing networks. In
other words, they employ a feedback control policy within a closed system to control
(minimize) setup time as a control goal in flexible manufacturing.
Nevertheless, the issue of real-time scheduling and control in the shop-floor environment
is properly addressed by Huang et al. [201]. They suggest the used of RFID as smart
(Kanban) tags in controlling WIP in job-shop manufacturing. Application of RFID facilitates
traceability of WIP and up-to-date information flow from shop-floors to ERP systems, and
correspondingly provides real-time information for scheduling. They introduced this novel
approach to cope with handling large variety of products (like mass customized systems).
However, their approach is still central scheduling by means of real-time information
provision to ERP scheduler module. This example, illustrates the relevance of the bridge
between real-time control (and scheduling) in operational level of shop-floors and higher
level planning in ERP systems. In fact, it emphasizes on the importance of cooperation
between real-time schedules and planning in mid-/short term levels to increase
productivity of manufacturing systems in SN. It is noticeable that the approach of the
current work is to keep this novelty in the shop-floor environment, while the control and
schedule tasks, i.e., decision makings, happen within a distributed structure by
decentralized autonomous objects (Lpallets here).
Additionally, Ham el at. [191] present a real-time scheduling approach for flexible job-shop
problem. Besides, they give a good review on the history of real-time scheduling in
manufacturing environment. They use an integer programming (IP) model to formulate
their flexible job-shop problem and solve that with their real-time heuristic (RTS).
However, the centralized scheduling manner like other similar approaches is common in
their literature review and own work. However, by increasing the number of operations in
shop-floors, realization of real-time scheduling and control task gets into trouble. In other
words, intricacy of information flow, computation, and feedback control within a wide
spread environment with rich distributed operations seems problematic to a central
scheduler, as it is seen and stated by Kopetz [133] pp 241. On the contrary, the specific and
novel approach of real-time scheduling by means of decentralized autonomous logistics
objects is a fully decentralized scheduling and control system which is ad hoc.
Consequently, as mentioned previously, processes in APS— as an extension to PPC—span
from SN planning— with a global perspective in macro scale— to shop-floor scheduling,
with a micro scale outlook. Indeed, scheduling is one of the most important operational
research processes in shop-floors regarding its definition, which is correctly met by APS. In
the framework of APS the hierarchy of planning and scheduling tasks is obviously
reflected, so that an optimized or near optimized operations can be achieved. Nonetheless,
the move towards more realistic planning and scheduling processes force researches to
come closer to real-time scheduling and control of operations through the introduction of
decentralized and autonomous systems. This transition paradigm should occur in such a
way that both of scheduling and control tasks in an extreme case can be merged into a realtime scheduling framework. Figure 22 simply displays a recommended information flow
spanning planning information, e.g., coming from APS, to real-time shop-floor scheduling
and control. Here, the contribution of autonomous controlled logistics objects in the
frontier of shop-floors scheduling and control processes is symbolically represented.
Shop orders, release dates
Scheduling (and
rescheduling)
Schedule performance
Dispatching by
Decentralized shopfloor control by
autonomous agents
Control by
agent (Lpallet)
Figure 22: Information flow from master planning to shop-floor control with decentralized autonomous objects.
In other words, moving towards real-time information flow is the ultimate purpose of
scheduling in the present production/logistics systems. In doing so, regarding the
information flow in Figure 22, parts of the detailed scheduling and control sections can be
done autonomously by decentralized objects, compare with Figure 18. Indeed, in real-time
scheduling the boundary between scheduling and control is not very strict. By means of
real-time sequencing and decentralized control autonomous objects do the mission of
scheduling, whilst they may be connected to the higher level of information in central
scheduling.
2.3.6.5 Contribution of Autonomous Control in Lpallets to Shop-Floor Scheduling
The main contribution of Lpallets to the scheduling returns to their real-time decision
making ability and control, which can comply with the mission of the sequencing (routing)
and the self-organized control, even without any direct communication with other players
in scheduling. However, the purpose of this study is not to comply with the problems in
scheduling and their variants in detail, but the main goal is to define the applicability of
Lpallets in realizing the real-time scheduling and control targets. The use of Lpallets on the
frontier of operations within shop-floors gives rise to distributed and decentralized control
of material flow as well as real-time decision makings according to the experienced
constraints and behaviors of the system.
Conventional Compatible
Techniques (Research
Approach)
3.1 Closed and Open System Review Towards Learning
Generally, systems are classified into two main groups as open systems and closed (-loop)
systems. The characteristics of a system, the condition of internal operations, and the
interactions of the system with the outbound environment, define the taxonomy of a
system. There are several perspectives for explaining the characteristics of open and
closed systems, see Figure 23. Control theory with the mathematical approach,
thermodynamic with physical approach, and organizational theory with the social and
economical approach outline the two classes of systems with their own points of view.
However, distinct from their discrepancies in defining the specifications, some common
attributes of the two classes are given in the following.
From control theory perspective, open (feedback-free) systems are those which their
outputs— apart from the contents— have no effect on their performances or on the later
outputs. Nevertheless, to complement the characteristics of open systems yet some aspects
are due. Despite the fact that open systems depict their own boundaries with the
environment (exogenous factors), the internal elements of open systems have interactions
with the environment and are affected by those factors. A good example of open systems is
biological or alive organisms. In contrast, closed (feedback) systems accept no influence
from outside of the systems' boundaries and at the same time internal (endogenous)
factors affect each other, e.g., mechanical machines. In fact, in closed systems the internal
effects as well as the influences of outputs on inputs are interpreted as feedbacks in control
theory. For more information about closed and open systems in control theory see e.g.,
Müller et al. [395].
As mentioned before, distinction between systems' taxonomy is dependent on the
perspective of the classifier. One fundamental viewpoint in systems' classification refers to
processes of systems. If the processes of a system are self-regulated then this system is
recognized as closed-loop system. On the other hand, if the output of a system is not
connected to the input of that, this system has no self-regulation property and is sorted as
open-loop system [396] pp 80.
Figure 23: a) Open system with input from and output to environment, b) closed system.
Another perspective to this taxonomy is based on knowledge management perspective. In
this context, system has some different definitions to physical or technical systems. Among
all, one definition explains system as "A group of interacting, interrelated, and
interdependent components that form a complex and unified whole" [397] pp 6. In this
regard, from system thinking point of view an open system can exchange information,
material, or energy with its exogenous factors, besides its outcomes have causal relations
with surrounding environment (to affect and be affected by). On the contrary, closed
systems are assumed quite independent or isolated from any exogenous influences.
Nonetheless, in this definition a closed system may accept inputs or send outputs to the
environment, but the process of transferring inputs to outputs gets no influence from the
environment [398] pp 84.
However, the big difference between the definitions for closed and open systems in social
perspectives and control theory is the internal feedback factor. Whereas social and
organizational knowledge stress on the isolation spec of closed systems, control theory and
physics underscore the internal feedbacks and deterministic behavior of such systems.
Thus, the advantage of closed systems in getting easier controlled is compensated by the
drawback of being isolated from constructive interactions with the environment.
Nonetheless, this discrepancy returns to the treatment of social knowledge with
organizations as living mechanisms. This is necessary to note that today the organizational
systems or, generally, any kind of systems that has intervention with human are
considered as living systems. Furthermore, in organizational theory, the specifications of
closed systems like independency from the environment, being autonomous, and having
straightforward management procedure, are mentioned as privileges of this class of
systems [72] pp 14. In this respect, mostly when a system is more complex than getting
simply analyzed/handled it can be assimilated into a closed system for the sake of
simplicity in its control rules. However, it is noticeable that not all systems suit closed
system characteristics and cannot be converted into such systems.
On the other hand, in social and organizational knowledge, open systems can be extremely
complex to get analyzed and managed. Accordingly, for open systems, several additional
situations are assumed to be encountered with, e.g., observing exogenous changes, as well
as controlling and coordinating internal processes with the environmental disruptions and
uncertainty. These interactions with the environment are necessary for surviving open
systems. In fact, open systems are known by their interactions with the exogenous
environment. Moreover, it should be taken into account that no pure closed system in
social and economic organizations can exist. There are some other arguments in literature
that go beyond the issue of equilibrium dynamics and entropy (degree of disorder) in
physical closed systems, for entropy see [399] [400]. They pose the discussion of assuming
open systems' characteristics for biological and organizational systems. Indeed, it has been
seen that such systems have the capability to maintain regulated steady states, in spite of
non-equilibrium circumstances [401] pp 32. Decoding of this fact has led to development
of system thinking in understanding dynamics and complex behaviors inside systems.
Moreover, in literature occasionally closed systems and closed-loop systems are assumed
similar, while some papers underscore the fact that they may be different in structure. For
instance, the book, edited by Cacciabue [402], gives a comparison between open-loop –
closed system versus closed-loop – open system. Here, the first one accepts stimulus from
the environment and a delivers response to the environment within a closed system,
having no intervention in its transformation process. The other one depicts a system that
has feedback loops from output to the input together with stimulus. However, in this study
closed systems are equal to closed-loop systems, similar to the second example in [402].
However, regarding the given alternative definitions about closed and open systems,
logistics and production activities in a system actually resemble open systems. Indeed,
intervention of human in such activities makes these systems like living organisms.
Logically, in these systems the heterogeneous interests of abundant autonomous players
should lead to unpredictable behaviors with huge anarchy. Indeed, nonlinearity in such
open systems' behaviors and complexity in analyzing them give rise to chaotic
characteristics.
Nevertheless, chaos theory applies to systems with non-linear dynamic behaviors. It is
presented to introduce new tools and point of views to study complex systems, e.g.,
biological, weather, economic and organizational, as well as solar systems. According to
Daft [72] pp 27, "chaos theory: suggest that relationships in complex, adaptive systems—
including organizations—are nonlinear and made up of numerous interconnections and
divergent choices that create unintended effects and render the universe unpredictable.
The world is full of uncertainty, characterized by surprises, rapid changes, and confusions.
Managers cannot measure, predict, or control the unfolding drama inside the organization
in traditional ways. However, chaos theory also recognizes that this randomness and
disorder occur within certain larger patterns of order. The idea of chaos theory suggests
that organizations should be viewed more as natural systems than as well-oiled,
predictable machines". However, in order to deal with the enormous complexity in such
holistic systems (logistics here) with chaotic expression; according to Daft [72] pp 28
"many organizations are shifting from strict vertical hierarchies to flexible, decentralized
structures that emphasize horizontal collaboration, widespread information sharing, and
adaptability", e.g., US Army. This pertinent issue is widely explained in the sections about
autonomy in logistics and autonomous control.
Moreover, in the book, it is competently addressed that learning for such new structured
organizations is a key driver of success facing turbulent environments. It is emphasized
that "the Learning organization promotes communication and collaboration so that
everyone is engaged in identifying and solving problems, enabling the organization to
continuously experiment, improve, and increase its capability. The learning organization is
based on equality, open information, little hierarchy, and a culture that encourages
adaptability and participation, enabling ideas to bubble up from anywhere that can help
the organization seize opportunities and handle crises. In a learning organization, the
essential value is problem solving, as opposed to the traditional organization designed for
efficient performance". Although the organizational level from macro scale point of view
was addressed here, but it is applicable in micro scale as well.
In summary, closed and open systems either have their own specifications that make them
more difficult or simpler to get analyzed. The main characteristics of closed systems are:
iterative actions, independency from environment, ease of patterns recognition, and
internal feedback loops. On the other side, the main specifications of open systems are:
complexity in configuring their interactions with the environment, adaptability with the
changes from exogenous factors, evolutionary persistence, performance under dynamic
conditions, and analysis of internal performances (inputs, transformation, and outputs) for
scanning external changes. In this regard and together with the belief that no pure closed
system in living organizations exists, several systems can be imagined with the
characteristics of both open and closed systems. Although any system, exposed to
environmental dynamics, locates in the series of open systems, but, in between, there
might be particular systems with some privileges of closed systems. Contrary to open
systems with complex interaction with environment, closed-loop systems have the
advantage of learning the behaviors of the systems with moderated dynamics and
complexity [403].
In other words, systems with iterative processes have the opportunity to identify and
recognize the patterns of those processes with guaranteeing stability and error
convergence [404] [405] [406]. Consequently, this recognition gives rise to perceptions in
influences of evolved feedback loops resulted from those patterns. This resembles learning
mechanism in human's brain. Indeed, closed-loops cause recursive operations in which the
results out of one iteration are fed back through a loop for further perception and
elaboration [407]. In doing so, through the learning phase the patterns in the behaviors of
a system are gradually recognized, by means of perceiving the effective feedback loops.
This is exactly what machine learning methodologies, e.g., fuzzy systems, neural networks,
do. Accordingly, they try to identify the feedback dependencies between effective factors
by measuring the outputs against crucial factors, i.e., as inputs again to the learning
However, identification of dependencies may be ambiguous to the controller of a system.
The more observation of effective feedback loops the better recognition in patterns brings
and, thus, the better learning occurs. In this manner, analysis of closed-loop systems
declines the degree of complexity in open systems and, to some extent, avoids the systems'
operations leading into chaotic behaviors. This issue is explained later in the chapters of AI
as well as closed-loop production systems.
3.2 Closed-Loop System vs. Complexity in SC Review
Despite the fact that no real closed system exists in organizational mechanisms with
human intervention, production and SC systems are not exceptions in between. However,
the existence of closed-loop systems with feedback specifications can be advantageous to
control the systems. Therefore, in the current study, closed (-loop) systems are interpreted
as those systems with iterative operations and deterministic feedbacks with dynamic
effects. Furthermore, literature in production systems and SN studies have already
concerned with the subject of closed-loop systems, although with different perspectives.
Literature review gives a broad scope of studies done in the field of closed-loop systems
and reflects their advantages in the field of manufacturing, as an organizational research.
Amongst several editions in this subject, there are several exploitations of closed-loop
concept in manufacturing industries. Accordingly, the major ones encompass closed-loop
capacity control [202], pull material flow control systems [203], and closed-loop SC and
remanufacturing [204] or reverse logistics [205], which have been deeply studied.
Although all of the mentioned researches comply with the closed-loop issue in production
systems and indicate the same feature as closed-loop systems offer, but the mean of closedloop in each branch differs. For example, in reverse logistics and remanufacturing the
attribute of closed-loop gives rise to the recovery/remanufacturing occasion. Here,
materials in their life-cycles may repeat several times the manufacturing processes.
Accordingly, what is fed back in these closed-loop systems is the physical material for
procurement, production, and utilization [206]. For instance, Shi et al. [207] examine a
closed-loop supply chain with several perspectives. Nonetheless, their approach to closedloop systems includes a broad scale. They analyzed the production planning problem of a
closed-loop supply chain by uncertain demand and reverse logistics with multi-product.
Coordination between uncertain demand and uncertain return for manufacturing is
emphasized there. They employ the mathematical model to formulate their problem and to
compare the results under uncertainty. Here, a good literature review on closed-loop
approaches is done. Moreover, in the closed-loop capacity control the main closed-loop
aspect may be the information feedback from the condition of inventory level and
supply/consumption rates [33].
Nevertheless, closed-loop material flow control, as the main topic in the current study,
proceeds with information feedback as well as physical cycles for control means. In other
words, there may be information about the level of material flow between the two points of
origin and consumption. And, at the same time, there exists a constant number of physical
carrier means, which cyclically control the flow of materials in between, see the Conwip
section. For instance, Helber et al. [203] directly address closed-loop flows in Conwip
system with a constant number of pallets and expos the simplicity of formulating such
systems even under a stochastic situation. In general, material pull systems with their
specific flow control resemble closed-loop material flows in SC and production systems.
Furthermore, in this specific material flow control (pull), the privileges of closed-loop
systems can be employed in order to moderate the complexity of flow control as well as
raising learning capability for self-organization. However, complexity and uncertainty
accompanied with material flow planning and control is not trivial, specially when the
framework is huge. Practitioners are aware of uncertainty footprints in practical
operations with human-centered problems, as stated by Sakawa et al. [179]. This is
addressed by Gubta and Maranas [208], in particular, for logistics and production
operations. In addition, Sevastijanov and R´og [209] insist on imprecise information in
production systems, which is stated by literature review of Mula et al. [210] as well.
However, uncertainty in processes, pertinent to material flows in production systems and
SC, burden extra complexity in delimitating the boundaries of a specific system to be
smoothly controlled. Thus, recently, several reports have been released about complexities
in planning and control of current material flows both from practitioners and
theoreticians.
Bozarth et al. [211] present the complexities in SC and review their influences on
manufacturing plants. They distinguish between two types of complexities as dynamic
complexity and detail complexity across global SC members and conclude that dynamic
complexities affect manufacturing operations at most. In that work, complexity is
evaluated in three branches as internal manufacturing, downstream, and upstream of SC.
Lin et al. [212] reflect an intrinsic complex case study in LCD manufacturing industry. They
address highly customization and uncertainty in the field and propose special material
planning called critical material planning instead of traditional MRP systems. In the paper,
two examples in terms of planning and control complexity are solved with their new
approach, and their better results are illustrated. Cheng et al. [213] comply with
complexity in construction SC, adopting the supply chain operations reference (SCOR)
model for their survey. Their perspective to design SC is from the strategic point of view to
detailed operations. They present a java-based program to monitor processes over
construction SC. In their work, complexity in manufacturing and implementation level of
SCOR model is exclusively underscored.
From another point of view, Jain et al. [214] formulate the accompanied complexities in SC
as negotiation for dynamic cooperation and coordination features, using fuzzy logic. They
introduce a hybrid negotiation mechanism between agents of SC to cooperate and compete
with each other. The work refers some best practices in SC under complex and dynamic
circumstances to having an efficient design in their business processes. Here, the new
approach to SC— as combinations of cooperative and collaborative agents— is taken into
account in simplifying the huge SC complexities. Becker et al. [215] go to one step beyond
and open the discussion of autonomous control for handling material flow control
problems. They argue about resemblance of highly complex logistics networks with
metabolic systems in showing complex adaptive control behaviors against dynamics.
Heterogeneous goals and parameters in production as well as in products, besides,
comparing these issues in metabolic, traffic, and production networks are posted by them.
Ultimately, the employment of the feedback idea is posed in their work.
However, it can be seen that in all reviewed papers common terminologies in SC, as
complexity and uncertainty, either in processes or demand, are underlined. This fact
represents the importance of these issues in every aspect of SCM. Increase in products'
diversities, short product lifecycles, mass customization, and globalization in procurement
and delivery, are addressed as main reasons for enlargement in material handling
intricacies.
In order to conduct a responsive control of uncertain systems, several solutions have been
already undertaken. Amongst them is the exploitation of closed-loop systems by bearing
feedbacks' controls. Obviously, those systems with the ability of feedback reflection are
more capable of tackling uncertainties and make suitable adaptations. Li et al. [216]
explicitly talk about the superiority of their closed-loop model in handling uncertainty of
SC. They use mathematical programming to formulate a supply chain optimization problem
under dynamic and uncertain circumstances. By employing the model of predictive control
and symbolizing uncertainty in their objective functions, they reflect the effect of closedloop feedbacks in better controlling the result of the optimization problem. Actually,
information feedbacks about the difference between predicted and measured inventories
play a crucial role in their model.
Nagy et al. [217] discuss about open-loop and closed-loop control systems and compare
their performances in coping with uncertainty in optimization problems. They talk about
robustness of closed-loop controls by taking the uncertainty parameter into account. They
also repeat online open loop operations (optimization) based on feedbacks too.
Conclusively, their work implies that closed-loop systems by feedback control can
considerably reduce the effect of parameter uncertainty and show more robust
optimization. However, it is stated that closed-loop control with feedbacks shows some
shortcomings like increasing sensitivity of other variables against uncertain variables.
Nonetheless, there is always a discussion whether closed-loop feedback systems are
pragmatic for current production systems or not? This is, to some extent, expressed by
Kogan [218] who proposes more explorations on open-loop systems with offline control
methods vs. closed-loop feedbacks. He insists on uncertainties in production yields and
demand. In the paper, the performance of each alternative is expressed, besides the
weakness and strength of them under different uncertainty situations are explained.
As briefly mentioned above, there are some flow control systems that inherently use
closed-loops in practice. These systems facilitate the required feedbacks in controlling the
entire flows. In other words, there are some approaches in production control that
resemble closed-loop systems in their processes. Among all are the material pull control
systems like Kanban, Conwip, and Polca. Kirshnamurthy et al. in [219] analyze Conwip,
Kanban and Polca control strategies as closed queuing networks and express them as
closed-loops in practice. In order to analyze the closed queuing network of multi stage
systems in the mentioned flow strategies they propose a decomposition approach. This
was done against three difficulties; as they state like "…modeling of the performance of the
join stations, analyzing stations with general service times in a closed queuing network and
accounting for the interaction effects of multiple classes at the various stations of the
subsystem". Additionally, they offer an iterative algorithm to compute throughput (TP) and
other queuing parameters for each subsystem.
Accordingly, Duenyas et al. in [220] address the pull production mechanism as closed
queuing networks as well. They applied correlation of consecutive round trips' times as
well as standard deviation of outputs' number, to approximate the performance of the
network. Levantesi in his work [221] presents the practice of closed-loop systems in
material flow control by introducing those pull strategies as closed-loop systems. He
directly reflects the closed-loop systems to the reality, by using a constant number of
fixtures or pallets as control means. Levantesi talks about single-loop assembly system and
makes contributions to multiple loop systems. And the distinction between material flow
and information is taken into consideration. Moreover, he employs the decomposition
technique for better understanding behaviors of the system as well as for managing them
in real time. In fact, this decomposition method in the current study is interpreted as the
decentralization approach in autonomy.
Gershwin et al. in [222] widely return to the closed-loop production systems and express
the specific characteristics of closed-loop systems. They present an efficient approximate
analytical decomposition method and a transformation algorithm for closed manufacturing
systems under uncertainty by decomposing the systems into their building blocks for easy
analyzing. Here, special attention is paid to the effect of blocking and starvation in
uncertainty. In the work two, three, six, and ten machine loops are examined. Sensitivity
analysis for machine parameters as well as buffer size is accomplished too. They report the
suitability of their solution for closed-loop systems like Conwip, using a limited number of
pallets or fixtures. As Helbert et al. in [223] discuss it is possible to analyze and optimize
Conwip pull systems as closed-loops in production controls by using linear programming
in discrete time. The optimization factors in their work encompass Conwip level and buffer
size allocation to maximize the average production rate under stochastic flow lines. They
exploit a combination of optimization and simulation for better modeling stochastic
Ip et al. in [224] treat Conwip system as closed-loop and evaluate the difference between
single and multi loop Conwip system with respect to service level and work in process.
They solve a case study of lamp manufacturing company by means of Conwip single and
multi loop control. A novel rule-based genetic algorithm is employed to find optimum
parameters, e.g., cart number in loops regarding TP and demand rates. Additionally, the
optimization objective, as the total cost of holding and shortage, is minimized. They
conclude that the single loop has better performance than the multi one. Li et al. [225]
address application of the closed-loop manufacturing system in semiconductor production
systems and remark broader applications for that in production. In their work, a blockstructured Markov chain for a two-loop closed production line is employed to improve
system design and control multi loop closed systems. They develop an UL-type RGfactorization method to compute better the stationary probability vector of the Markov
chain.
In conclusion, imitation of closed-loops in material flow control strategies brings the
specific privilege of closed-loop systems into production systems as following. There are
several advantages of closed-loop systems over open-loops reported in literature,
considering different applications, see also [226] [227]. In addition to simplicity of
controlling closed-loop systems, they— by having the opportunity to reinforce their
experiences and getting feedback from their performances— are able to modify their
perceptions to the environment (adaptation capability), as stated in [228]. The underlined
advantage of closed-loops, as feedbacks, provides a better controller to modify the
dynamics of a system and enables it to stabilize the naturally unstable systems, as is
emphasized by Rowley et al. [229] and also is shown by Gao [230]. Jansson and
Hjalmarsson [231] note the usability of closed-loop systems in unstable situations for
better learning the conditions. Indeed, learning is also a prominent utility of closed-loop
systems. Despite some differences between intelligent and adaptive control, learning in
closed-loops seems quite practical by means of feedbacks. However, as Kulvicius et al.
[232] mention, there is less attention paid to the learning fact of those systems, which
interact with the environment as agents. The state-of-the-art solution is because of their
non-stationary situations and the intricate interplays between behavior and plasticity.
Here, they consider the learning of global data for faster convergence and use agents for
handling local data to achieve higher accuracy. All in all, as Dorigo et al. [233] as well as
Andry et al. [234] refer to, learning is a mean of autonomy achievement.
3.3 Material Flow Review
3.3.1 Material Push
It is already mentioned that material planning and control strategies are basically
categorized in push, pull, and hybrid strategies. Traditionally, material flow systems used
to control flows by push principles. In other words, push of materials to the next
processing steps as soon as its process is finished at the current step is the principle of
push control. In this case, if the line or workstations are not balanced together, WIP may be
collected everywhere, and overproduction can be the consequence of this system [235].
However, this control mechanism is more suitable for mass production with forecastable
demand, products with unstable demands, and MTS, or similar strategies. Correspondingly,
if production lines are not balanced, then push mechanism can be used by means of safety
stocks and WIP in between. Nevertheless, line balancing is a challenging issue by itself
when the system is instable. MRP (I/II) is the well-known method categorized into push
control systems. In other words, push strategy is basically defined by MRPI/II mechanism,
while demand is forecasted and then the entire planning and scheduling of production and
material flows are authorized accordingly.
However, some authors partially classified drum-buffer-rope (DBR), starvation avoidance,
generic Polca, and even Conwip, as push control systems as Pahl et al. [236], Fernandes et
al. [237], and Germs et al. [238] point it out. However, it is better to classify some of these
mechanisms like Conwip as pull or rather hybrid push-pull mechanisms. Furthermore,
Krishnamurthy et al. [239] talk about three important issues in modeling push systems as
"1) estimating release lead time for MRP 2) modeling future requirements for different
products and 3) determining the safety lead times and/or safety stocks required to
guarantee the required service level". Usually, the service level is recognized by demand
lead time and production lead time. If demand lead time is greater than production lead
time, then the service level is good.
Still there are several discussions in literature that list the advantages and disadvantages of
push and pull systems in confronting with different production environments. In summary,
push systems may propagate fluctuations in demand and reflect the bullwhip effect
throughout SC, since the forecasted demand may meet real demand with some delays. Also,
if the forecast is not proper enough, then even it can considerably deteriorate the
performance of production systems [239]. On the other hand, pull systems are able to
balance the lines and keep the WIP in constant level. However, it is reported that if demand
fluctuates or product types vary, then pull systems get into trouble in properly performing
[240]. That is why several pull mechanism are introduced by scientists to compensate the
shortcomings and adapt to new industrial environments.
3.3.2 Material Pull
However, if MRP is considered as pure push material control, Kanban must be recognized
as pure material pull control technique. Normally, material push operates based on the
provided information about future demand either in the form of real demand, forecasted
demand, or a combination of them. On the contrary, production operations in material pull
are just triggered whenever the real demand takes place to meet the exact required
volume. However, in between several techniques are introduced that may span the
spectrum between both absolute strategies, e.g., Conwip, Polca, generic Polca. Moreover, in
fact, pull system controls WIP and monitors TP, while push controls TP and observes WIP
[241]. However, according to Spearman et al. "push and pull are not mutually exclusive
approaches" [242]. Below some advantages of pull over push control can be mentioned:
Less variance of flow time in pull compared to push; because of negative
dependency in pull and distinct correlation of jobs through pull control instead of
fully correlated in push,
Less WIP and inventory, by directly monitoring them,
Higher customer responsiveness by production stuck to direct orders.
Initially, material pull control strategy is emerged against maintaining inventory and WIP
in production lines and material flow equipments. Its main idea is originally developed by
"Lean/Toyota production system (TPS)" in assisting the targets, e.g., zero-inventory, onepiece flow, just-in-time (JIT) [243]. The ultimate target of pull strategy is to achieve the
zero-inventory as an important goal in lean manufacturing. However, it is an idealistic goal
in practice. Nevertheless, contribution of pull to the reduction of WIP and cost— by means
of JIT mechanism— made a breakthrough in production systems. Thanks to this fact,
reduction in flow time and increase in customer responsiveness have been achieved as
well. Basically, the philosophy of JIT encourages supply of materials at the certain time of
production to avoid excessive inventory [244]. Moreover, the notion of JIT gave rise to
other concepts in manufacturing like as just-in-sequence (JIS), and JIT information sharing
However, the potential shortcomings of pure pull systems— in properly responding to
those production systems with various product types and fabrication cells— have initiated
several modification studies [239]. In other words, in literature the suitability of pull
strategy, conventionally, is addressed when production systems have rather high volume,
repetitive, and low variety products with relatively stable demand [100] [246] [247] [248].
Thus, any contributions to improve the performance of pull systems with the current
situation of manufacturing systems, e.g., customization, flexibility, and dynamics, have been
acknowledged in studies. Indeed, this fact is the strength of the current study to introduce
Lpallets in pull systems with the appealed characteristics. It is noticeable that pull control
regarding its approach to individual orders seems the most consistent mechanism to
develop autonomous logistic objects with individuality. Additionally, a great characteristic
of pull control systems is their decentralized control aspect that is mostly used in complex
control environments [249] [250] [251]. This specification is one of the most underlined
attributes of autonomous control concept in manufacturing and logistics environments,
which is originally offered by material pull mechanism. This consistency is a strong
motivation for the employment of Lpallets in pull controlled environments.
In the latter section, it was already discussed about the relevance of material pull systems
to closed-loop systems in material flow control techniques. Now, according to the
compatibility of pull strategies with closed-loop systems and closed queuing networks
[242], it is required to concisely open the performance mechanisms of some well-known
pull control systems. This is needed in order to adjust them with the purpose of the current
study, as developing autonomous control in logistics and production systems as well as
analyzing their performance with queuing theory.
The pull concept made a breakthrough in Toyota and later in other imitating industries for
a long time. There are some prominent material pull mechanisms as Kanban, Conwip, Polca
[252] pp 243, that comply with the requirements of physical closed-loop features and, thus,
learning capability by means of repetitions. Additionally, there are some hybrid
approaches that employ the push and pull advantages into one mechanism, e.g., Geraghty
et al. [253] categorize Synchro-MRP in partially pull control system. However, the three
aforementioned techniques are briefly explained in the following sections. Nevertheless,
the purpose of this study is not to explain the types and performance mechanisms of these
techniques in detail. But rather their prominent differences and the notion of closed-loop
carts inside these systems are going to be underscored. In doing so, the main experiments
in the current study are done in accordance with Conwip system, since it is easier to be
implemented and is abundantly used in practice, e.g., semiconductor manufacturing.
3.4 Kanban
Universally, Kanban system is recognized as a pure material pull control technique that
was initially invented by TPS [254] to reduce WIP in manufacturing environments. In
opposition to MRPI/II, Kanban was initiated to operate based on direct customer demand.
In this concept, customers are recognized as internal and external customers that each of
which configures the working domain of Kanban flow. Conventionally, in this technique,
materials are moved towards when demand signal (card=Kanban in Japanese) is executed
by the downstream customer.
However, there are several types of Kanban that two generic of them are one-card and
two-card Kanban [243]. In one-card Kanban only one move/production signal (card) is
applied. When a pallet (or container) is pulled to be consumed by downstream workstation
(customer) the signal of production is sent back to the upstream (supplier) to replenish the
material for the respective workstation. This model is mostly used when the workstations
are closed to each other. Moreover, the signals may be cards (physical or electronic) or just
empty carts. Besides, there may be one buffer between both stations as outbound buffer
for upstream and inbound buffer for the downstream station, see Figure 24.
Figure 24: Single-card Kanban.
Information/cart flow
The other variant is two-card Kanban that encompasses production signal and
replenishment (conveyance) signal. The advantage of this type is the separation of
production execution and replenishment transfer. This means the downstream customer
may ask for replenishment by conveyance signal, but this does not necessarily trigger
production operations in the upstream supplier. Here, the production signal may be
transferred separately, albeit the signal can be authorized in accordance to the predefined
production plan or schedule, e.g., MRPI/II. This type of Kanban can specify lot-size, type of
product and other data in a high mixed product environment. Usually, it is employed when
the upstream workstation (supplier) and downstream customer are not close to each other
and normally a supermarket (limited inventory) is placed in between, see Figure 25.
Information/cart
Figure 25: Dual-signal Kanban using production and withdrawal (replenishment) cards.
In addition, electronic Kanban and non-card Kanban are two variants in practice. IT may
eliminate the physical cards in electronic variant that can be applied for modern
automated environments and physically distant production stations. Moreover,
exploitation of physical carriers like pallets, bins, fixture, etc. may represent the
withdrawal and production signals by themselves and without using any card signal.
Indeed, the non-card material pull systems are the specific types chosen to be used for the
concept of Lpallets in this study. However, it is noticeable that Kanban is suitable for
balanced lines with smooth flows of materials.
Calculation of the number of cards (Kanban) or carts in a production system to facilitate a
smooth flow of material with avoiding blocking and starvation between stations is a crucial
factor. Several calculation formulas and methods are already introduced to estimate the
optimum number of Kanban, which represents the material quantity in process. For
instance, for estimating the number of carriers in Kanban and Conwip systems from simple
formulas to application of simulation, evolutionary algorithms, and neural networks, all are
employed in relevant literature [224] [255] [256].
() =
+  ( )
×(  )+
(  ×ℎ )
( , 1.645  95%×
ℎ    ×
(  + 1)
× (    +
) +
Furthermore, Kanban system as a prominent tool in lean manufacturing shows its
superiority when the production pace follows the "takt time" (1.4.6) as the pace of demand.
In a leveled schedule in lean philosophy the cycle time of stations must be always under
the value of takt time. However, calculation of takt time for production lines with various
types of product and unbalanced processing times is not possible. Therefore, leveling and
sequencing, two important factors in the lean manufacturing pyramid, has to be
implemented to achieve a practical takt time. Figure 26 defines some relevant definitions
in calculating takt time, while the operations are relatively leveled under the margin of takt
Takt Time
Target Cycle Time
= Lead Time
Figure 26: Definition of takt time, cycle time, and lead time of leveled processes on six machines.
3.5 Conwip
The constant work in processes (Conwip) was initially introduced by Spearman et al. [242]
as an alternative to Kanban. It is claimed that Conwip can, to some extent, compensate the
drawbacks of Kanban, e.g, Kanban is just suitable for repetitive manufacturing and
unsuitable for lines with various product types as well as significant setup time.
Alternatively, Conwip is sometimes called single-stage Kanban too, thus, the performance
of Conwip is not separate from its predecessor. Here, the main difference is that Kanban
cards (carts) control the WIP between each two stations, while in Conwip just a set of carts
control the entire WIP of the Conwip line. In addition, since Conwip controls a set of
stations in a production/assembly line instead of just two stations, it can be used by a
larger variety of manufacturing industries.
In other words, a generalization of Kanban system is called Conwip that its repetitive
trajectory spans input to output of a production line. Although it is true that Conwip is
usually used for single production lines, but other variations of Conwip exist that may feed
more than one line, e.g., multi Conwip system. This mechanism is usually activated by a
backlog list may be filled by MPS from mid-term level planning [242]. Alternatively, a
production order can be authorized to the first stage of production when the final product
is consumed by its demand in the last stage [257].
The main advantage of Conwip is the constant level of WIP throughout the Conwip line that
avoids overloading from capacity or keeps a specific level of congestions/inventory in the
line (maybe equal to buffers capacity or bottleneck production rate). In summary, Conwip
arranges a smoother flow than Kanban, and it makes use of push mechanism in its
performance between release of job to production line and delivery of that in final station,
see Figure 27. Additionally, as Lu et al. [258] claim, Conwip is suitable for facing
uncertainty and dynamic environments, while implementing a pull control strategy.
Production signal
Figure 27: Simple one-line Conwip system.
In Conwip system no new release of job to the line happens before a job gets completed on
the line. Thus, application of the constant number of carts for conveying materials through
a production line seems a quite practical solution for implementing this mechanism.
Additionally, in literature it is addressed that Conwip can easily provide lead time offset
[241] by means of pushing materials between load and unload stations in a Conwip line.
However, the easiest and the mostly used equation for calculating the number of Conwip
cards (carts) can be achieved by using little's law (1.5.1). Here,  denotes the average TP of
the production line,  stands for the average time for one card (cart) of product to proceed
the whole line (average flow time), and  represents the low efficiency inspired by
shortages in supply or machine breakdowns (can be eliminated), see Huang et al. [259]. In
general, Little's law explains the relation between WIP, flow time and TP. Thus,
dependency of these crucial factors reflects the dynamism in controlling material flows.
Consequently, when at least one of the variables stays constant (e.g., WIP in pull
mechanism) the dynamics of the entire system decrease.
=   =  ×  × [1 + ]
However, if the line is not leveled or any bottleneck machine exists then they have to be
taken into account. For instance, in a line with a bottleneck, the cards calculation is like
following, according to Huang et al. [259].
= ∑
=1   × 24 ;  = 1,2, … ,
=  ;  = 1,2, … ,
=1� + ́ � ;  = 1,2, … ,
where  is the average line output of job  per day,  denotes the average output of job
per hour in machine ,  is the utilization of machine  for job ,  is the processing time
of job  in machine , ́ is the inventory time of job  in prior to machine , and in order to
reflect the low efficiency of machines, like breakdown and shortage in supply, a low
efficiency coefficient  is introduced too. Nonetheless, the calculation formula can be
adjusted according to the type of manufacturing system. For example, in semiconductor
industry the calculation may vary from cold rolling industry.
All in all, in the current work, Conwip mechanism is selected to comply with the need of
repetition for learning the general behavior of production systems as well as
individualization. Indeed, by means of Conwip control the respective carts or pallets, which
carry products throughout production lines, obtain a cyclic trajectory within the system.
Thus, they can collect the required information for making further decisions via learning.
This is deeply discussed in the subsequent chapters. It is noticeable that in conventional
Kanban and Conwip systems the assumption is that production line is leveled in terms of
operations' times and capacity of machines. However, this issue can be improved by means
of flexible production lines and autonomous logistic objects to compensate the time gaps
between operations and machines' capacities.
3.6 Polca
In order to meet the requirements of modern manufacturing environment, with highvariety in product's types and customized products, the Paired-Cell Overlapping Loops of
Cards with Authorization (Polca) mechanism, as a quick response manufacturing (QRM)
tool, is introduced by Suri [252]. QRM is a new approach in manufacturing with the target
of lead time reduction in manufacturing industries. Polca spans both push and pull systems
and make a hybrid mechanism absorbing the advantages of both.
Basically, production lines that produce different types of products have to be divided into
subsets of production cells with similar processes of analogous parts. These cells may vary
in terms of different operations, material and size of products, and, etc. Polca is quite
compatible with the characteristics of job-shop manufacturing environment with various
routings of products. Thus, in this case, it is superior to Kanban and Conwip. Generally,
Polca cards encompass release authorization cards and production cards (something
similar to the dual-signal Kanban in a wider space). In this case, release authorizations are
issued across production cells according to the predefined plan and schedule, e.g., MRPI/II
or MPS in higher level than operational. In other words, production follows the mid-term
plan and, to some degree, the short-term prepared schedule. But the authorization of
operations, dispatching, and material routings are all done by Polca in operational level
distinct from push system. However, despite the release authorization time (authorizes the
beginning of a job's operations), the production operation cannot start before availability
of production Polca card [240].
It is noticeable that this specific feature of Polca is favorably proposed by the current study
as a practical solution to offset existing dynamics of logistics and production systems, by
means of predefined plans as well as real-time operational executions. In this work, it is
profoundly explained that embedding minor, but enough, freedoms in mid-/short-term
plans and schedules provides the opportunity for autonomous objects to compensate the
fluctuations and changes in the systems' conditions and make offsets by their own. Besides,
pulling material in operational levels may decrease the effect of fluctuations by means of
stabilizing the level of WIP and TP as well as using direct demand instead of uncertain
forecast.
However, the Polca cards generally rotate between two cells (in round trips), see Figure 28.
In particular, they stay with jobs throughout the journey over first and second cells and
then after completion in the second cell they get back to the first cell gain. It is mentioned
that Polca cards do not control the flows between stations inside each cell (contrary to
Kanban), but preferably they control the movements between cells. Thus, the internal
flows' control has, to some degree, enough freedom to perform adjusted control probably
regarding the current circumstance inside cells, e.g., machine breakdowns, inventory
limitation. In addition, Polca cards stay with jobs in their journey throughout two cells,
which is not necessarily the case in Kanban. Nonetheless, if instead of cards, physical carts
are used, then jobs and carts practically stay with each other for more than one station or
cell. Moreover, some advantages of Polca, e.g., over Kanban, can be mentioned as follows.
Figure 28: Polca control between production cells in an exemplary shop-floor, according to Suri [252].
When a Pocal card arrives to a cell it means the downstream cell has the capacity to work
on this job imminently. Otherwise, the cell is busy and processing on the job in the
preceding cell increases the backlog for successive cell. This particular procedure in Polca
increases the flexibility of production cells to produce different products and delivers
individual treatment for each job by use of its specific Polca card/cart. Conventionally,
Polca cards do not define which job has to be started in a cell. This information is received
from higher level planning and scheduling outputs, which normally are based on push
results of MRPI/II. Consequently, combination of push and pull controls in this technique
gives rise to moderate unexpected events by means of the existing limited freedom and
decentralization in operational level. Besides, this technique leads to avoidance of chaos in
material supply and delivery— due to excessive decentralization in decisions— by
assistance of central push decisions (MRPI/II outputs). Therefore, available capacity and
explicit demand mutually work together to execute a production operation. Since Polca is
designed for environments with mixed-customized products, it can compensate the
fluctuations in inventory levels and absorb the variations in demand and operations [252]
pp 153, through overlapping loops in paired cells. In addition, for internal scheduling of
cell exchange of information between correlated cells as a potential customer as well as a
supplier is provided in Polca, which is advantageous at the presence of dynamics.
In summary, each type of pull mechanisms can suit specific industries with particular
characteristics. This holds true for push systems too, with decision makings based on
aggregated information. Nevertheless, in general, exploitation of pull systems inherently
conveys the merit of decentralization in material flow control to shop-floors as well as SN.
In literature, it is often addressed that Kanban goes well with relatively stable production
environments with high-volume and low-variant products. Obviously, this system does not
match the objective of the current study to deal with flexible and dynamic environments.
On the other hand, there are some reports about the competency of Conwip and Polca in
facing dynamics in manufacturing and logistics environments. These performances become
the incentives for this study to employing pull mechanism in developing the concept of
Lpallets.
Conwip with its very simple implementation procedure and Polca with its aptitude in
utilizing the advantages of push and pull principles within one mechanism have inspired
the concept of learning pallets in bridging the gap between the concept of autonomy in
logistics and these conventional material flow control techniques. However, the technique
of implementing Polca or Conwip in practice is not covered by the scope of this study.
Instead, the notions of Polca, Conwip and Kanban are employed to reconfigure the current
business processes in material flows against dynamics in logistics. This novel contribution
provides the great circumstance for the means of material conveyance, e.g., pallets,
fixtures, carts, to become autonomous by means of learning and intelligence.
Introduction of Learning
Pallets and Applied Methods
4.1 Learning Pallets (Lpallets)
In order to achieve the measurability of the proposed framework for feasibility of
autonomous logistic objects and conclude it in the current work, the specific aspect for
developing autonomous objects is selected to be partly examined. In other words, after the
brief revision on the current performance of SCM over entire logistics and production
processes in SN, it is defined that feasibility of autonomous processes in logistics can take
place at lower levels of planning and scheduling processes rather than relatively tactical as
well as strategic decisions. It was already argued that integration of planning is a crucial
prerequisite for coordination and efficiency over disseminated members and their
operations in SN. On this basis and according to the purpose of this work as feasibility of
autonomy with respect to current performances in logistics, the suitable candidate for
undertaking autonomy in logistics are the operational and partially tactical decisions,
regarding their localized features and influence realm.
Moreover, respecting the definition and aspects of autonomy in logistics, it is concluded
that autonomous processes are supplementary and can be completed by autonomous
objects in logistics. Even though autonomous processes without any physical autonomous
objects may be solely developed, but it should be taken into account that logistic processes
have direct interventions with physical materials and flow of them. So, this issue leads the
direction of any study about autonomy in logistics to considering development of
competent logistic objects in order to measure the performance of autonomous logistic
processes in general.
In doing so, after a broad investigation over potential objects in logistics—spanning from
single products to containers and transporters—it was concluded on the particular objects
which carry materials in inbound as well as outbound logistics with flexibility regarding
their various types. These novel objects are simply pallets by their variants. The selection
of these specific objects is the result of several explorations in manufacturing and material
flow strategies and control methods. Accordingly, the strategies and control methods have
been deeply investigated in accordance to the prerequisites and fundamentals of
autonomous processes in practical logistics. It has been figured out that the basis of
autonomy is located on decentralized control with heterarchical structure, Intelligence for
rendering real-time decisions autonomously, local operating territory, communication and
interaction, see Figure 29.
So, it has been looked for those systems in logistics and manufacturing, which can comply
with the whole or part of the requirements in realizing autonomy, without any major
reconfiguration or configuration of new performance rules in logistics. During the
investigation, it was distinguished that the decentralized and local control—contrary to the
ordinary beliefs—has been employed in material flow control strategies for years. This
strategy is not more than the strategy of material pull control systems developed initially
by lean manufacturing philosophy. The notion of decentralized control and local
information are deeply studies in literature, e.g., Liberopoulos et al. [260]. As it is well
known, originally, lean manufacturing has commenced the exploitation of pull system to
control constant flow of materials, according to real orders, and to avoid unevenness
(fluctuations) in production. However, the primitive method for pull system was Kanban
that has been extended to more advanced methods like Conwip and Polca in alternative
circumstances. Later, the concept of material pull control has deployed its performance
area from single shop-floors to entire SN operation zone.
Unique Logistic
Autonmous
Local and Fuzzy
and Interaction
(Autonomous)
Figure 29: Features of realizing autonomous objects in logistics.
Furthermore, on the top of the pull notion and its direct relation to real orders, the manner
of pull execution in practical logistics (specially shop-floors) has become relevant. In other
words, application of pull cards (signals) in practice is substituted or coincidentally
authorized by the circulation of conveying means (carts) in a closed loop system. This issue
is reflected in the work of Zhang [261] as well as Li et al. [256]. This privilege, in terms of
the good-natured coalition between three important aspects of autonomous logistic
objects, which is taken place in such carts of pull systems, has been seen as a great
opportunity for developing autonomous objects. Indeed, the four prominent features in
autonomy as decentralized control, real-time operations, compatibility with conventional
pull systems, and unique material flow objects, engaged in frontier of operations, are
simultaneously reflected by pallets (one abundant used cart) in practice of pull systems. In
this manner, the idea of making autonomous pallets has been seen as the most feasible
treatment for realizing autonomy in some parts of logistics. In other words, these
conventional competencies motivated the idea of autonomous pallets in practice.
In doing so, the research for autonomous objects in logistics is sharpened and delimitated
to a specific area of logistics, which resembles physical material flows by means of pull
control or alike. Therefore, the different systems in pull control strategy have been
generally reviewed. Besides, the pertinent aspects of each system to the concept of
autonomous pallets are underscored in the next sections. However, after the feasibility
study in those pull systems suitable for autonomous pallets some other sections became
important in developing the concept of autonomous pallets in practice. These sections had
to illustrate the working area of autonomous pallets in practice as well as answering the
main question about how to realize autonomous control for such autonomous objects.
Retail Outlet
Outbound Logistic
Figure 30: Exemplary outbound logistics with closed loop pallets circulation, authorized by third party logistics.
In the current work, despite the short discussion about the potentials of autonomous
pallets in inbound as well as outbound logistics (see Figure 30), it has been solely focused
on application of autonomous pallets in inbound logistics, i.e., shop-floors with scheduling
problems. However, in addition to this performance area, proceeding with the core of
autonomous control for autonomous objects is a challenging issue in developing any
autonomous logistic objects. Accordingly, autonomous control with the result of
independent decision making, regarding the perception of autonomous objects about their
environments, cannot be realized without any intelligence. Besides, it is known that
intelligence is the product of learning [262] pp 50. For this purpose, those methods built-in
the intelligence, as the result of their performance and outputs, have been taken into
consideration. In fact, the addressed intelligence must be reflected as intelligent controllers
for autonomous objects moving through stations in logistic facilities e.g., warehouses,
shop-floors, machines.
a) Central control
S1_2
Planning and
b) Decentralized control
Demand rate
Figure 31: Exemplary a) Central control b) autonomous/learning pallets with intelligent controller, in shop-floor.
With respect to the fact that learning can be interpreted as a collection of experiments,
which are rendered as knowledge for intelligence (learning by doing), the natural closedloops in pull systems automatically facilitate the require collection of experiments (data),
see Figure 31. Then the experiment must be translated into knowledge to support further
Accordingly, pallets in closed-loops after some training rounds— just following any
changes happened to the system— can distinguish new conditions and adapt themselves to
them. Additionally, learning can be a requirement of being autonomous. Beyond the
research on intelligent products, containers, and autonomous agents (see CRC 637
Autonomous Cooperating Logistic Processes A Paradigm Shift and its Limitations,
http://www.sfb637.uni-bremen.de), learning ability is an alternative to provide required
information for autonomously decision making [263]. It is noticeable that this alternative
is not in parallel of other options, but rather is complimentary. Indeed, learning happens in
closed-loop systems, which can experience new changes. It is noticeable that learning of
pallets without adopting agent negotiation can reduce the technical complexity of
information exchange between agents in real-time. On the other hand, it reduces the
quality of proper decisions based on real-time dynamics in the system, since no exact
awareness about other agents' situation is configured.
Moreover, learning for intelligent decisions approximates the concept of autonomous
pallets to the notion of "learning pallets", as a prominent representation for autonomy and
learning capability/requirements for such objects. In order to meet the competent
techniques for the purpose of learning and intelligent decision making based on
nondeterministic circumstances two main pillars must be considered. Artificial intelligence
and Fuzzy system are the pillars to reflect both intelligence and decision making under
Jones [264] pp 16, generally considers some techniques for AI that among which are
machine learning, evolutionary computation, and ANN. According to him, evolutionary
computation techniques—encompassing evolutionary strategies like GA and SA, as well as
swarm programming—imitate the behavior of biological life. Moreover, he mentions that
neural networks (NN) are the standard techniques in intelligent classification and learning.
Thus, the application of them is undoubtedly one pillar of intelligent decisions in
autonomous objects facing complicated circumstances with various decision factors.
Therefore, between the available techniques for reflecting AI in autonomous objects the
famous ones are selected to be examined by Lpallets in several simulated production
scenarios. More precisely, GA, SA, and a specific neural network are explored to be used by
Lpallets in this work.
In addition to the mentioned intelligent techniques, fuzzy set theory and respectively fuzzy
controller is recognized as another pillar of autonomous decisions. It is obvious that
autonomous objects are faced with uncertain and vague situations that hinder rendering
decisions based on precise information. In doing so, the best employed technique, has been
presented so far, is fuzzy set theory. Indeed, fuzzy controller (system) is abundantly used
in practice for any object with property of rendering fuzzy rule-based decisions.
Accordingly, Lpallets, being equipped with fuzzy controller, are able to cope with inherent
uncertainties in real-time decisions as well as executions. Furthermore, a coalition of fuzzy
set theory with other AI techniques brings about several superiorities in the performance
of intelligent objects under vagueness. Respectively, it is already known that real-life
situations are accompanied with vagueness and fuzzy situations, as is emphasized by
Subramaniam et al. [265]. However, it is noticeable that another alternative for dealing
with uncertainty is the application of stochastic and probability theory. Nevertheless, in
this case the probability distribution of stochastic parameters must be known in advance,
which is not usually configurable in logistics with autonomous objects.
Supply Netwrok Planning: Prodcution and Procurement
Production Planning &
Detailed Scheduling
Scheduling Approaches
•Fininte capacity loading
•Infinte capacity loading
•JIT approach
•Detailed scheduling and
Inputs from local
•Job shop
•Unpaced flow shop
•Paced assembly lines
•Manufacturing cells
•Process Plants
Individual Order Release
Lpallet Independent
Dispatching regarding
Local Condition
Move to next operation
Monitors local &
Figure 32: Conventional production planning, scheduling and execution process flows and its interaction in APS,
adopted from [69].
Figure 32 depicts Lpallets in shop-floors' decision making and execution in relation to the
higher aggregated planning and scheduling levels, as conventional processes. With respect
to the state of the art in ICT and computation, it is assumed that each Lpallet has an
integrated controller. This controller is assumed to be an active sensor with computation
memory, which has the capability of making wireless communications. Such sensors are
currently known as WSN. Additionally, in the final part of the current study WSN are
integrated into prototypes of Lpallets to have a short real-life experiment above
simulations. Figure 33 illustrates the performance of Lpallets within a heterarchical
operational level at shop-floors. Here, the interaction of Lpallets with other autonomous
objects and conventional planning and control packages (APS/ERP) is symbolically shown.
However, it is quite important to know that today MAS in autonomous manufacturing and
logistics processes has a crucial role and made several advances in developing autonomy.
Nonetheless, this technique of autonomy which is derived from rendering decisions based
on negotiation, is not covered by the current study, since this is widely explored in CRC 637
research cluster, for more information see Schuldt [128] as well as www.sfb637.uni88
bremen.de. It is noticeable that the study and performance of Lpallets are quite compatible
and even supplementary to MAS, so that they are not mutually exclusive or in parallel at all
APS / ERP
Fuzzy Production Planning & Detailed Scheduling
Non-hierarchical Shop-floor Level
with intelligent
Figure 33: Performance of the assumed Lpallets in shop-floors and their interactions with other equipments and
ERP system.
Furthermore, in the current study, it is tried to assume a quite simple performance
procedure for Lpallets, since the concept is in its infancy period. Generally, the performance
procedure in Lpallets initiates with some criteria chosen for inputs and outputs of Lpallets. As
material flow control is the main task of Lpallets, as autonomous logistic objects, the
conventional metrics for evaluating a smooth and productive logistic system are
considered. Among all are utilization of machines (working stations), level of WIP,
throughput time (TPT), responsiveness, for more information see Gunasekaran et al. [266],
Wiendahl et al. [267], and [63].
So, each of the metrics solely or simultaneously can be entered as input(s) into each controller
of Lpallets. Once the inputs are entered the controller of an Lpallet starts to map them to
logical outputs as the decision of the respective Lpallet for the moment. Moreover, for each of
the metrics, a target function can be chosen as objective or fitness function in the controller.
Based on the objective functions and regarding the type of controller the decisions reflect
levels of autonomy and intelligence in performance.
However, in this study, just neural network, simple little's law, and fuzzy controllers are
examined as alternative controllers concerning the complexity of inputs and outputs for
Lpallets and operating environment, see Figure 34. These experiments and results are all
given in the experiments' chapter.
Number of Active Pallet?
Batching ?
Shop floor situation
Fuzzy route evaluation
Lot-size ?
Inflow and outflow rates
Due date of jobs
Release time into shop floor ?
Current & coming demand
Machine allocation (Routing?)
xN0
zK 2
Estimation of completion time
Number of Optim. Pallets ?
Figure 34: Symbolic input, controller, and output of Lpallets.
In summary, according to the definition of autonomy each object has the merit of decision
making by itself in an equality circumstance. Thus, autonomous pallets, in this context,
seem to be assisting tools for the individualization. Besides, learning can be a method to
convey autonomy to decision makers (Lpallets represents this fact). However, the notion of
Lpallets is not limited to pallets. It may cover any similar objects to pallets, which have the
ability to carry a limited number of products at outbound as well as inbound (production
lines), e.g., bins, boxes, crates, fixtures. Furthermore, pallets have some unique advantages
to become a responsive candidate for autonomous controlled logistics object. These
benefits can be displayed, for example, by specific material flow controls like pull systems.
Lpallets bring several advantages in conventional logistics environments as well as those
with autonomy. Indeed, the flexibility and adaptability of Lpallets as autonomous objects
can comply with the required specifications of several new emerged strategies in
production and logistics. For instance, a direct application of Lpallets can be in mass
customized manufacturing systems with various individual processes for each product.
Thus, the vicinity of pallets (fixtures, bins, or alike) as the first tier of conveyance means
and direct treatment with individual products suits the Lpallets to be employed in highly
customized environments. It is noticeable that each of the discussed issue pertinent to
Lpallets' concept, development, and application, are broadly explained in the next sections.
Over the last few decades, artificial intelligence (AI) has become a leading-edge technology
with breakthroughs in several engineering applications. Originally, the concept AI was
initiated in computer science with the aim of imitating human intelligence and expertise,
by means of intelligent machines. It mainly focuses on intelligent computer programs that
are central to intelligent objects. This is why the artificial adjective is given to this type of
human-made intelligence. In other words, AI is the capability of doing special things by
machines that accomplishing them require intelligence by human. Millington et al. [268] pp
4 define AI as something which "is about making computers able to perform the thinking
tasks that humans and animals are capable of". Besides, they assume a threefold distinction
for AI by three types of researchers' interests. The distinction includes philosophy
(understanding the spirit of intelligence), psychology (insight in mechanism of the human
brain and mental process), and engineering (developing algorithms to imitate human-like
tasks). Munakata [269] introduce AI as prospective substitution of human intelligence. He
explains AI as "the study of making computers do things that the human needs intelligence
to do". He also considers intelligent computation as complement of AI. The work highlights
the issue that after the industrial revolution to substitute human muscle with machines, AI
is going to replace human intelligence with machines.
Accordingly, intelligence is translated by Engelbrecht [270] pp 3 as "the ability to
comprehend, to understand and profit from experience, to interpret intelligence, having
the capacity for thought and reason". Additionally, he lists some other attributes like
creativity, skill, consciousness, emotion and intuition to describe this term. Wang [271]
defines intelligence as "the overall capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think
rationally, and to deal effectively with the social and cultural environments". As Fogel [272]
expresses, intelligence is "the capability of a system to adapt its behaviors to meet its goals
in a range of environments". Besides, Negnevitsky [273] talks about intelligence as "the
ability to learn and understand, to solve problems and to make decisions". Conclusively,
intelligence has some key features as logistical decision making, learning, and being
purposeful. Correspondingly, intelligence achievement is a consequence of evolution. In
this regard, during the evolutionary process towards intelligence the fact of learning by
doing emerges. Indeed, this importance has led to survival of intelligent creatures [273].
In the same way, machine learning is a branch of AI that employs several methods of
computational intelligence to realize intelligence in human-made objects, by means of
learning. Actually, learning allows machines to enhance their perspectives to the
environment and improve their performances by means of profiting from experience.
Additionally, machine learning is defined as a tool for data mining, and even they are
sometime equally used like in [274] pp 4, [275]. However, computational intelligence is the
core of AI, which encompasses all methods and algorithms that comply with absolute or
partial achievements in the intelligence target, see also Wang's taxonomy of abstract
intelligence [271]. However, among the techniques and tools for realizing AI, are ANN,
evolutionary computing, and fuzzy systems [269] pp 2.
According to Anderson et al. [276] pp 4, learning is a strong tool for getting insight into
studies of AI. Therefore, it is at utmost importance for such researchers to understand the
nature of learning and to implement this merit on machines. Besides, they review learning
as an ability of a system to do similar tasks more effectively after some experiences, which
lead to adaptive changes and modifications in the system's perception. Moreover, the
Importance of learning knowledge for intelligent agents is addressed by Poole et al. [277]
pp 11, and Ramos et al. [275] as well. Besides, the modularity approach for the sake of
simplicity is addressed here. This is quite relevant to the topic of this work in solving
complex problems like logistics. Indeed, learning is a process of rendering decisions and
improving them over time. So, decision making can be an attribute of the process of
learning as well as intelligence. According to Millington et al. [268] pp 10, decision making
is a process of elaborately defining what to do next for a decision maker. Furthermore, for
making decisions an intelligent object must have a strategy (policy).
In addition to ANN— as the famous intelligent methods for learning— and fuzzy systems—
as intelligent decisions support systems— there are some other techniques with learning
capability. Among which are some algorithms with greedy features to solve optimization
problems, which are classified into meta-heuristic algorithms as well. In fact, the greedy
attribute of such causes stepwise local improvements towards global optimum. So, these
algorithms are also known as global optimization algorithms with an iterative procedure
[278], e.g., GA, SA, and tabu search. According to Weise [278] "A heuristic is a part of an
optimization algorithm that uses the information currently gathered by the algorithm to
help to decide which solution candidate should be tested next or how the next individual
can be produced. Heuristics are usually problem class dependent". Accordingly, he explains
meta-heuristic as "a method for solving very general class of problems. It combines
objective functions or heuristics in an abstract and hopefully efficient way, usually without
utilizing deeper insight into their structure, i.e., by treating them as black-box-procedures".
Consequently, several technologies are already introduced to the procedure of realizing AI
into intelligent systems. Among which are expert systems, ANN, fuzzy systems, and
evolutionary computation, see [273]. In the current work ANN, fuzzy systems, and
evolutionary computation are discussed with more details and employed accordingly.
Indeed, evolutionary computation (algorithms) encompasses several techniques that
amongst them, GA, simulated annealing, and tabu search are briefly expressed below.
4.2.1 Genetic Algorithm
GA is the most popular evolutionary algorithm with global search approach towards
finding global optimum or near global optimum solution between a wide range of
possibilities [278]. It is primarily developed in the mid of 1950s when some computer
scientists and biologists started to employ computers to analyze genetic processes and
evolution in the nature [279] [280]. The algorithm is recognized as meta-heuristics with a
broad application's scope for different problem dependent disciplines, e.g., engineering,
medicine, biology, sociology. Moreover, GA resembles the natural behavior governing the
survival mechanisms in the nature by means of evolution. In fact, biological species in the
nature have overcome the challenges of randomness (chance), nonlinear behaviors in
interactions, and temporality leading into chaos, by means of evolution in genes [281] pp 1.
As these challenges are also common in every optimization problem, evolutionary
algorithms are suitable for practical applications. However, there is no guarantee for
achieving the optimum solution by means of GA, since there are several stochastic
parameters affecting the quality of GA, like other meta-heuristics [281] pp 36, [278] pp 60.
For instance, in addition to fitness function, GA has some operators as selection, crossover,
and mutation that directly influence the performance quality of this method in finding
better solutions within step-wise improvements in local solutions. Nevertheless, GA is
suitable for complex problems with NP-hard and nonlinearity attributes that are usually
impossible or very time consuming to be optimally solved by conventional solutions in OR,
e.g., simplex. It has been shown that GA is able to find optimum or near optimum solutions
within a fairy quick time by means of dismissing (hopefully) non-improvable variants in
the solution space  [235].
Generally, GA seeks for the solutions between the elements of genotypes in the space of
genome. In the nature, genotypes— also called chromosomes or individuals— carry the
hereditary information of an organism encoded in its DNA. Indeed, optimization process of
GA starts by randomly generating a population of solutions (individuals), which each
solution is in the format of genotype. The characteristics of a solution of an optimization
problem are basically stored in one or more chromosome(s). In this regard, a chromosome
is made of an ordered sequence of single genes in a linear manner. The position of a gene in
a chromosome is called locus and its content is named allele. Each gene in the chromosome
carries a single parameter of a coded solution (genotype). Thus, a genotype conveys a
complete coded solution in DNA, which in order to find the original solution of that it must
be decoded into its phenotype [282], see Figure 35. In other words, a solution instance of a
problem is originally in a phenotype description that in GA for facilitating the search
process it is decoded into a chromosome description (genotype). Mostly, to codify the
solution of a problem, binary-based encoding procedure is selected. Nonetheless, encoding
is not limited to binary values in strings, but integer or real numbers in the form of vectors
can be used too [278] pp 145.
(search space)
(solution space)
Figure 35: Encoding / decoding of a solution [282] pp 55.
Initially, GA produces a population of random individuals (solutions) in the first
generation, and then this population is iteratively replaced by a new population of
individuals in each new generation, till the termination condition is met. In fact, individuals
in each new generation are bred by the selected individuals (parents) in the previous
population by means of genetic operators like in the nature. Accordingly, the genetic
operators derive the evolution in populations. They include recombination (of two
parents) by means of crossover as well as reproduction (of a single) by means of mutation,
permutation, or inversion. It is also likely to have both operations consecutively in order to
breed new (diverse) children with differences to the parents. Therefore, the genetic
operators, selection process, and termination condition have direct effect on the quality of
the GA results [278] pp 147.
Mutation: is a crucial operator in preventing GA to trap in a local optimum. It preserves
the required diversity of individuals (solutions), as expected from this algorithm. Mutation
like in the nature, which has led to better creatures tailored to their environments, causes
some random changes in the genotypes. This randomness can be applied to the values
(allele) of  genes 0 <  < ℎ () to be changed at once. Moreover, if the
chromosomes' alleles are binary values then they can easily get toggled, while for real
numbers they may be changed by use of the normal distribution with the average value of
that number, see Figure 36.
a) Single-gene mutation
Figure 36: Mutation by means of alternating alleles.
b) Multi-gene mutation
Permutation: is a matter of reproduction in GA. Sometimes it may be seen similar to
mutation, since the both devise random change to genes. Now, permutation does this
randomness to the locus instead of allele. It means the positions of genes in a chromosome
are randomly changed or similarly saying two genes exchange their alleles with each other,
see Figure 37. For instance, this can be used for sequencing problems, which is the matter
of the current work with Lpallets.
Figure 37: Permutation of two genes.
Crossover: is the main operator (recombination) of GA as well as the main player in the
nature. The recombination operators (variants) rarely happen to organisms, but crossover
is very common habit of the nature. Thus, this operation performs as driving engine for GA.
The simple procedure of crossover is just swapping one or more part(s) of two individuals
(parents) to breed a child (offspring) or two children, see Figure 38.
a) Single-point crossover (SPX)
b) Two-point crossover (TPX)
c) Multi-point crossover (MPX)
Figure 38: Simple variants of crossover operation.
However, there are some specific variants of crossover, which may be used in special cases.
Among which are: OX (order crossover), PMX (partially matched crossover), and CX (cycle
crossover) [283]. In PMX-crossover two points in each parent chromosome are randomly
chosen, and then just the genes between both points of each chromosome are exchanged.
Yet, the process is not finished. It should be further looked if the other genes, which are not
exchanged, have similar values as exchanged genes in that respective chromosome. If this
is the case then the repeated genes are changed by their counterparts regarding the
exchanged genes, see Figure 39.
3-1-5-|2-4-9|-6-7-8
PMX
Figure 39: PMX-crossover.
In OX-crossover again two points randomly cut the chromosome of each parent. Then the
same as PMX the bounded genes are exchanges to each offspring, while the rest positions
of the genes in each chromosome are filled by the not repeated genes of the corresponding
parent starting from the second cut-point, see Figure 40.
2-4-9|6-3-7|-8-1-5
Figure 40: OX-crossover.
Contrarily, CX operator is a bit different and has no cut point. Instead, the position of each
gene in each offspring should be inherently chosen from either parent. It means, for
example, starting from the first gene of a parent to make the first gene of a child causes the
second gene to be chosen from the second position of another parent. However, since the
first position is occupied then the gene with the same value should be chosen again from
the first parent. And this procedure continues alternatively to breed the first child. The
second child is bred by complementary cross as well, see Figure 41.
3-1-5-2-4-9-6-7-8
Figure 41: Cycle crossover (CX).
In addition to the mentioned variants, there are some other cases which are pertinent to
variable string length of chromosomes. However, they are not very relevant in the current
work. Furthermore, before inserting any type of GA operations to render a new
population, the individuals in the current population must undergo an evaluation and
selection process. In other words, in a problem first the contribution of each individual
(solution) in a population to the objective function—called fitness function in GA— must be
evaluated. After estimating the quality of each individual (fitness value), according to a
specific selection procedure, each individual may get a proportional probability to be
chosen as a parent of the next generation. However, the goal of the selection process is to
choose the fittest individuals to be selected, distinct from the existing various selection
procedures. The universal algorithm of GA can be simply displayed by Figure 42.
Create the first
population t=1 with N
Evaluate the fitness of
each individual by
fitness function
Max generation
number reached
population t+1
Return best fitness
and individual(s)
Select fitess
Alter (crossover,
mutate)
N children with
permitted attributes
Figure 42: Simple flow chart of GA.
Moreover, there are several selection processes which each of them may cause diverse
generations in an alternative manner. Some selection procedures include truncation
selection, roulette-wheel selection, tournament selection, ordered selection, stochastic
reminder selection, stochastic universal sampling, see [284]. However, some of which look
easy and some have more sophisticated functions. In the current work just the famous and
traditional one of them, as roulette-wheel selection, is introduced and applied. This is
because of its simple procedure (function), fair performance, and abundant use in
academic papers, see, [285] pp 20.
Roulette-wheel selection intends for fitness maximization. Here, each individual
proportional to its fitness value gets a chance to be selected as a parent of the next
generation [278] pp 124 and [286]. According to (2.2.1), individuals are selected and
added to mate pool to breed a new generation. The procedure of this selection method is as
follows: each individual between others may fill part of the Rolette-wheel (probability
wheel) based on its probability. It is noticeable that the entire area of the wheel equals one.
Then the wheel rotates for some random rounds and stops afterwards. Wherever the
pointer shows is the individual to be selected, see Figure 43.
Roulette-Wheel-Selection
Ind4=0.1
Ind5=0.15
Figure 43: Roulette-Wheel-Selection for individuals.
where  is the probability of  th individual to be selected,  = {1,2, … , } is the counter of
individuals in a population. Accordingly, for minimization problems and in order to
homogenize the results out of this fitness proportionate selection it is better to normalize
the fitness values of individuals according to (2.2.2), which lead to (2.2.3) with the
minimization target.
=  −
It is noticeable that although GA has had several achievements in solving complex
problems, but its ordinary algorithm does not always lead to an optimum solution, in
limited time. Missing and premature convergence and infeasible solutions (individuals) are
the threats of the general form of GA [287]. Therefore, some local adaptations and
modifications could be integrated to the procedure of producing individuals in order to
evade inefficiency and improve the optimum problem search. In this case, GA is recognized
as Memetic algorithm (MA) [288]. In an optimum seeking search, MA tries to evaluate
different methods of selection, crossover and mutation, with the target of achieving the
best solution in a confined time horizon. However, this is not covered by the current study.
4.2.1.1 Contribution of GA to Lpallets
It can be comprehended in every single Lpallet within a decentralized manner. Besides, GA
can be used as a central controller to authorize the best sequencing of operations by means
of global monitoring and allocating pallets to operations. For instance, in the decentralized
manner, each Lpallet, assuming to circulate in an assembly line, develops a population of
individuals (operations' sequences) and examines them in several rounds. For example,
regarding the dynamic circumstance of assembly lines with customized operation
sequences, the GA of each Lpallet breeds new individuals (operations' sequences)
according to its specific fitness function (e.g., flow time) during the periods. However,
exploitation of GA for Lpallets towards learning the behaviors of a system is subjective and
may have different models. This issue is discussed later in experiments chapter in detail.
4.2.2 Simulated Annealing
SA is a meta-heuristic algorithm for finding (near) optimum solution within an iterative
procedure. The procedure of this method is copied from a physical process in statistical
mechanics in which metal crystals reconfigure and get equilibrium during annealing
process [278]. As a global optimization algorithm SA is suitable for combinatorial problems
with huge solution spaces, function optimization, machine learning, networking and
communication, etc. Unlike to GA, SA algorithm starts with a single initial solution
(individual) and proceeds with unary search mechanism. SA is similar to GA in metaheuristics with small differences in its procedure. Basically, if the population size in GA is
only one then it resembles SA. Thus, in every iteration, the current solution is the only
chromosome in that generation. In this manner, no crossover can be happened with one
individual but only mutation. In fact, this is the major difference between SA and GA.
Obviously, a new solution in GA is the result of combining two different solutions, while SA
brings a new solution by adjusting the previous single solution with a local move. However,
the performance quality of GA and SA depends on the problem and the representation.
Moreover, annealing process in metallurgy is addressed by that procedure in which metal
properties changes to desired ones. In other words, annealing is a heat treatment process
in which a hot metal slowly cools down in order to relocate metal crystals towards a tidy
arrangement. In order to increase the energy of ions heating the metal is the start of this
process, and then during the cooling procedure the structure of the crystals gets
rearrangements till an equilibrium state in the metal is achieved. However, the cooling
schedule, which defines the initial temperature of the metal and the cooling speed, plays an
important role in the final quality of the metal in terms of hardness and, etc. Otherwise, the
system gets trapped into a local minimum of energy and non-crystalline state.
Accordingly, the annealing procedure is simulated by SA in order to find the optimum
solution for a problem in which several local solutions exists on the cooling way. After each
level of cooling in annealing process the energy level of atoms decreases and then a new
geometry of an atom by means of randomly displacement is achieved (a new solution).
Here, the level of energy  (objective function) with new geometry is compared against the
previous one and their difference is computed by ∆ =  −  . Then the probability
of accepting this geometry (∆) is calculated by (2.2.4).
(∆) = �
�−
�;
∆ > 0
; ℎ
If the new neighbor geometry (solution) has less energy than the previous one, then this
transition is accepted, otherwise it can be accepted by probability of (∆). This procedure
iterates till the final temperature is reached. Eventually, at the specific temperature
the system hopefully gets into the global minimum energy. The abstract form of SA
algorithm is depicted in Figure 44.
Create random
configuration X old
and calculate energy
E old
Initialize T
and T min
Randomize X old
current T
Calculate new energy E
∆E=E new -E old
If better than
current solution (∆E<0)
Or Rand< Prob
=exp ( -∆E/T)
X old = X new
E old= E new
Reached
max tries for this
Decrease T by
T>T min
Figure 44: General flow chart of simple simulated annealing algorithm.
Moreover, the cooling schedule is the most important factor in the quality of the algorithm,
since fast cooling leads to a local minimum (no convergence guarantee) and slowly cooling
may exceed the duration of a full exploration of all solutions. Therefore, specific attention
has been paid to this issue in SA and respectively several strategies are already developed.
This schedule is shown in the flow chart (Figure 44) by step decrease of temperature .
Nevertheless, since simplicity of calculation is the key factor in realizing autonomy with
learning and intelligence capability, in this work the simple calculations are undertaken.
Two simple strategies from the book of Weise [278] pp 266, are adopted for this purpose
After each maximum tries (iterations)  for a current temperature  reduce
→ (1 − ), where  > 0 and 0 <  < 1 are empirically defined,
Given a total number of iterations  for the entire algorithm, after each maximum
tries  temperature  reduces to  →  �1 − � , where  is the iteration
number so far and  is a constant like 1,2, or 4 which is rather to be find
subjectively.
Furthermore, if the objective function is extended to multi-objective function, the
algorithm can be developed by reflecting a set of optimal solutions— instead of one— by
making tradeoffs between the objectives. This can be achieved by assuming the multiobjective function as a fitness assignment process, for more information see Weise [278]
pp 267.
4.2.2.1 Contribution of SA to Lpallets
It can be realized in each single Lpallet where its objective function in each cyclic round
returns a value representing the energy of the current geometry (solution) chosen by the
Lpallet. Then this value undergoes the algorithm to define other parameters towards the
global solution. However, the dynamisms of the logistics environment make the algorithm
keep generating new solutions continuously. In the regard, the conventional SA may be
useful in logistic environments with not very transient circumstances. Otherwise, SA
performs like random decision procedure. In this work, because of similarities between GA
and SA, it is not widely applied except a minor example in the experiments' chapter to
justify the results out of GA in offline solution search. Nevertheless, in further works it has
to be adjusted for single Lpallets.
4.2.3 Tabu Search
Appropriately, tabu search is considered as a global optimization meta-heuristic algorithm
that was initiated in the mid of 1980s by Glover [289]. It is principally a simple and
effective technique for such optimization problems. The specification of this algorithm is
the tabu list of visited solutions, which generally avoids redundancy in the algorithm
(visiting local optimum), while ignorance of good visited solutions can be prohibited as
well. In doing so, the respective tabu list, which collects the already visited solutions, has a
finite capacity of . Indeed, the procedure is like other global search algorithms that
stepwise seek for new solutions. It starts with an initial (feasible) solution and iteratively
produces new improved solutions by means of randomly moving to a new neighborhood.
Then if the new emerged solution is already kept in the tabu list it is immediately
neglected, otherwise its contribution to the objective function is evaluated. Then it will be
recorded in the tabu list. Accordingly, right after visiting the  + 1 solution the first visited
one as tabu leaves the list and becomes again authentic to be evaluated by the objective
function as a new solution. The general flow chart of algorithm is displayed in Figure 45,
for more information see [278] pp 274 and [290].
configuration X, X*=X
and put in tabu, t=0
Randomize (mutate) X
X is tabu
If f(X)<f(X*)
X*=X
Tabu length ≥ n
condition reached
Delete first tabu
Put X at the end of
tabu list, t=t+1
Return X*
Figure 45: Simple flow chart of TS algorithm.
In the algorithm,  represents the solution and () returns the value of the objective
function (fitness). However, the mutation process, the length of the tabu list, and the
termination condition can be subjectively selected.
4.2.3.1 Contribution of TS to Lpallets
It can be applied in a single L Pallet as GA or like swarm intelligence. So, like GA and SA it
can be used in centralized as well as decentralized problem-solving contributions.
However, since the general performance of tabu search is similar to GA and SA in single
Lpallets, application of tabu search is recommended as further works.
4.2.4 Fuzzy System
Nowadays, the great interest for precisely solving practical problems is continuously
increasing. However, to proceed with this ambition more details of information are
required, which are not normally available. In this regard, fuzzy set theory is initially
introduced by Zadeh [291] to make a breakthrough in machine understandings about
uncertain and incomplete systems. Generally, fuzzy systems (controllers) are those
systems with uncertain/imprecise inputs— as fuzzy sets— which approximate outputs
with continuous transition. As Zimmerman [292] states, fuzzy set theory reflects a strong
mathematical framework that can analyze and characterize vague conceptual phenomena.
Accordingly, limited capacity of human memory or technical systems causes
incompleteness in the perception process of environment. This shortcoming, to some
degree, can be solved by using fuzzy systems.
Basically, the performance of such systems is based on fuzzy logic with the purpose of
extending the classical logic (with crisp and distinct values, e.g., yes/no, true/false, and
zero/one). In this manner, fuzzy logic is a multi-value logic with continuous values
between [0 1] for qualifying the existence of true or false. This specification makes fuzzy
logic suitable for imprecise and approximate judgments [269] pp 122. For that reason,
processing of inputs in fuzzy systems can be accomplished by the concept of fuzziness by
means of using fuzzy rules. This is discussed here later.
In addition, this capability gives rise to fuzzy decision makings appropriate to vague, illdefined, and complex problems. For instance, in optimization problems with
limited/incomplete knowledge one can exploit fuzzy logic to approximately solving
obscured problems in a proper way. There is a well-known sentence from Zadeh [293] to
explain the appropriateness of fuzzy theory in practice due to vagueness; he says "as the
complexity of a system increases, our ability to make precise and yet significant statement
about its behavior diminishes until a threshold is reached beyond which precision and
significance (or relevance) become almost mutually exclusive characteristics". Accordingly,
practitioners have seen that any human-centered problem has, to some degree, uncertainty
in its nature [179]. In this manner, fuzzy logic embedded in fuzzy systems can be applied to
several practical applications as engineering, medicine, temperature control, electric
current control, AI, robotic, and aerospace [294] pp 44.
Universe of
discourse X
degree µ
containing fuzzy sets
Conventionally, the traditional set theory considers each element either as part of a set or
apart from that with true or false logic (white/black), in addition to the abrupt transition
between crisp values. For instance, this holds true for binary values with being either 0 or
1. However, this precise reasoning is not always practical in the nature and specifically in
those processes with human interventions. The classical reasoning may miss some part of
knowledge by ignoring the intervals between crisp facts. In contrast, human usually has an
approximate understanding of a logical discourse with imprecise terms, which is believed
as an intelligent attribute. Consequently, human is able to roughly comprehend complex
systems without getting a complete insight into their intricate relations. So, similar to the
way of human to formulate practical problems with qualitative perceptions, e.g., linguistic
terms, fuzzy system is able to comprehend such descriptions about problems and to infer
them by (map them to) quantitative measures. This ability of approximation is not limited
to fuzzy systems, but, for example, ANN reflects the same technique. However, fuzzy
systems can facilitate "a more transparent representation of the systems under study,
which is mainly due to the possible linguistic interpretation in the form of rules" [295].
This approximate reasoning is the consequence of fuzzy logic with allowance of uncertain
judgments. Indeed, it can deduce new elements between ordinary sets with some degrees
of certainty, but not an absolute one. However, this brief definition of fuzzy sets is in
contrast with the characteristics of ordinary sets. In fact, each of the mentioned elements
belongs to fuzzy sets with a certain degree of certainty [270] pp 10. Likewise, the
dependency of fuzzy values to a set is represented by their membership values. Besides,
membership values are accordingly reflected by the respective membership function µ� of
the set �. In this regards, fuzzy set can be mathematically described as follows [296] ch. 2:
Definition 3.2.4.1: If  is a space with generic elements of  , and � :  →  ⊆ [0,1] is the
characteristic function that maps  to membership space . Then the following set of pairs
uniquely represents a fuzzy set, see Figure 46.
� = {, µ� ()| ∊ }
where µ� is the membership function of the fuzzy set � to define the membership degrees
in that set as � () ∈ [0 1]. If  = {0,1} then � is changed into a crisp set. And if the
membership function of the maximum value in the fuzzy set � equals to 1 then this fuzzy
set is called normal:  � () = 1. Accordingly, a fuzzy number can be described as
follows [297] pp 3:
Definition 3.2.4.2: A fuzzy number � is a fuzzy set of the real line with a normal, (fuzzy)
convex and continuous membership function of bounded support.
where if � is a fuzzy subset of . Accordingly, the support of �, denoted by ���, is the
crisp subset of  which all of its elements have nonzero membership degree in �.
��� = {|µ� () > 0}
Moreover, in a fuzzy number (a convex and normal fuzzy set �) there exists exactly one
real number  with membership degree of one: µ� () = 1. This point  is called peak
(center) value of �.
Definition 3.2.4.3: A fuzzy set � = {, µ� ()| ∊ } is convex, if for all , ,  ∈  with
≤  ≤  the following (2.2.7) holds true, see [296] ch. 2.
µ� () ≤ µ� () ≤ µ� ()
= {|µ� () ≥ , 0 <  < 1}
Definition 3.2.4.4: α-cut set ( ) of the fuzzy set � = {(, µ� ()), } is a subset of that
whose elements have membership degrees equal or bigger than α. Moreover,  returns a
crisp set.
Furthermore, fuzzy numbers may accept different types regarding the shape of their
membership functions, yet by keeping the generality. The membership function can be
subjectively (directly) designed or may have some conventional shapes to reflect the type
of dependency of fuzzy numbers to their set. So, several shapes can be considered in
defining the membership functions of fuzzy sets, among them are triangular, trapezoidal,
Gaussian, and s-curve [298] [299] [300]. Below three famous of them are explained.
Triangular fuzzy number (Triangular membership function): is defined by three
parameters {, , } as follows, see Figure 47:
µ� () =
⎧
⎨
⎩
(−)
>    <
≤≤
Figure 47: Triangular membership function.
Trapezoidal fuzzy number (Trapezoidal membership function): is characterized by
four parameters {, , , } as follows, see Figure 48:
⎪
⎨1
⎪ (−)
⎩ (−)
≤    <
≤<
(2.2.10)
Figure 48: Trapezoidal membership function.
Gaussian fuzzy number (Gaussian membership function): is described by two
parameters {, } like following, see Figure 49:
−(−)2
µ� () =  �
Figure 49: Gaussian membership function.
Moreover, fuzzy systems have some fundamental theories and operations, which are in the
core of this theory functionality. Accordingly, there exist some operations on fuzzy sets like
other operations in classical sets. The main operations include intersection (AND) as well
as Union (OR) which are done according to t-norm and s-norm, respectively [297], see
Figure 50. Below some important facts about operations which are relevant to this work
are explained:
Intersection: of two fuzzy sets  and  is described by the intersection of their
membership functions:
̃ ∩ � : (�∩�) () = � () ⋀ � () = [� (), � ()] = {� (), � ()}
where [� (), � ()] represents the t-norm of the fuzzy sets for intersection.
Union: of two fuzzy sets  and  is described by the union of their membership functions:
̃ ∪ � : (�∪�) () = � () ⋁ � () = [� (), � ()] =
{� (), � ()}
where s[� (), � ()] represents the s-norm of the fuzzy sets for intersection.
However, the two operations displayed above are just one type of t-norm and s-norm
operations in fuzzy sets. Generally, both of the s-norm and t-norm have some conditions
and variants, which are not covered in this work, for more information see [297] pp 8. Only
two other relevant variants of both norms called product  (algebraic product) and
probabilistic  (algebraic sum) of sets are as below:
�� (), � ()� = � ()� ()
[� (), � ()] = 1 − [1 − � (), 1 − � ()]
�� (), � ()� = �+� () = � () + � () − � ()� ()
a) Intersection:
b) Union:
Figure 50: Intersection and Union of two triangular fuzzy sets.
In addition, after the introduction of an important fuzzy set theory called fuzzy (Zadeh's)
extension principle [301], several arithmetic operations for fuzzy numbers and relations
have become possible. Conventional operations on fuzzy quantities (fuzzy arithmetic) are
essentially important for any intelligent system. For example, composition of fuzzy
relations out of different spaces can be realized by the composition operator. Among some,
the max-min composition operator is the most applied of such. Here, after illustrating the
definition of fuzzy relation and extension principle, some important operations are given
A general fuzzy relation is a classical relation that for each n-tuple (1 , 2 , …  ) a
membership degree is considered. Or in other words:
Definition 3.2.4.5: if  and  are two classical sets ,  ∈  then fuzzy relation � is a
subset of the Cartesian product space from  ×  which is defined as:
� = {[(, ), � (, )]|(, ) ∈  × }
Theorem 3.2.4.1: Let ̃1 , ̃2 , … , ̃ be independent fuzzy numbers with membership
functions of µ1 , µ2 , … , µ respectively defined on universes 1 , 2 , … ,  . And :   →
is a function which maps 1 × 2 × …  (Cartesian product) to the universe Y. Then
according to the extension principle, the fuzzy image � of ̃1 , ̃2 , … , ̃ can be derived with
its membership function � [302]:
� () = sup
=1,2,..,
where  = (1 , 2 , . . ,  ) defines the respective constraint.
By having this extension principle other operations on fuzzy relation and numbers become
possible, some of which are as follow:
�̃ + � �() = =+ {� (), � ()}
�̃ × � �() = =× {� (), � ()}
�̃ − � �() = =− {� (), � ()}
�̃⁄� �() = =⁄ {� (), � ()}
�̃, � �() = =(,) {� (), � ()}
Ũ
a) MIN(Ã,Ũ)
Figure 51: Minimum and maximum of two fuzzy numbers à and Ũ.
a) MAX(Ã,Ũ)
Furthermore, some relations conventionally exist on classical logic which some of them
holds true on fuzzy logic as well. Among them, logical inference using fuzzy rules is
pertinent to the application of fuzzy logic in the current work. It is supposed to employ
fuzzy systems with the core of fuzzy logic to render decisions under complex and vague
circumstances. Accordingly, by extending the concept of fuzzy inference, this becomes
specifically correct for approximate reasoning as a strong framework of fuzzy theory
introduced by Zadeh [303] to deal with uncertain and vague information. Nonetheless,
since application of fuzzy operators on fuzzy sets domain is not always straightforward or
not known in some cases, IF-THEN knowledge-based rules are quite appropriate for
inferring system to be applied by fuzzy systems [297] pp 101.
Moreover, in case of complete information availability about an interaction like  = (),
interpolation of new relations between two interactive variables is easy to be understood
and it can be inference as:
ℎ
= ()   = ́ �⎯�  = (́ )
:   ℎ
� :    ̃ ℎ   ̃
= ��1 , … , � �
Fuzzy knowledge-based systems are quite common systems for inferring and controlling
imprecise environments with a simple format as follows.
where  ;  = 1, … ,  stands for one fuzzy rule. Accordingly, in fuzzy circumstances
incomplete information is unavoidable, so that the use of knowledge-based systems can be
a great assistance to make approximate reasoning in fuzzy logic realm. However, more
than one fuzzy rule is usually required to infer an approximate reasoning of ambiguous
relations, thus, a mechanism is required to aggregate all rules in order to make rough
understanding of the relations, for more information see [297] pp 101. Indeed, decision
making with multi-criteria is a specialty of fuzzy set theory, so that it provides an apt mean
of attractive aggregation connectives for integrating membership values of different
criteria bearing uncertain information [297] pp 65.
(, ) = � () → ̃ ()
where ̃ and ̃ are fuzzy set usually in the form of linguistic terms. Then if aggregation of
rules is done by means OR operator, then  can be calculated as:
(, ) = ⋃
=1  ∶ � (, ) =  �� (, )� =
[�1 (, ), … , � (, )]
(, ) = ⋂
Otherwise, if aggregation of rules is interpreted as AND operator then  is calculated as:
Moreover, this inference mechanism can be simply defined by Figure 52, which is an
extended description to the performance of fuzzy inference systems in rendering decisions,
based on fuzzy logic. This mechanism is sometimes called fuzzy associative memory (FAM).
In fact, the fundaments of fuzzy systems are membership functions, logical operations, and
IF-THEN rules. Generally, fuzzy inference systems have some variants that two famous
ones with rule-based fuzzy models are Mamdani [304] [305] and Takagi-Sugeno [306].
Furthermore, fuzzy systems for inference mechanisms have usually five steps as
fuzzification, application of fuzzy operators, implication of antecedences to consequents in
fuzzy rules, aggregation of the consequents, and defuzzification [175]. However, after
aggregation of rules, defuzzification is the final step of a fuzzy inference system to reflect
the ultimate fuzzy value to a crisp value. Defuzzification process has several types, e.g.,
center of gravity/centroid (COG), weighted average (WA), mean of maxima (MOM), for
more information see [307] [308].
� ()
∑=1
� ( )
where [ ] is the boundary of the area configured out of consequences aggregation (which
is a fuzzy set),  is the number of elements  in the discrete domain of . MOM finds the
highest membership function and then finds all points that have this membership degree
and takes their average.
Premise (Antecedent)
R (1) OR R (2)
α-cut
R (1) AND R (2)
Figure 52: Mamdani fuzzy inference system (FAM) mechanism.
Moreover, it is noticeable that uncertainty subject to fuzzy systems is an intrinsic attribute
of those systems with vague, ambiguous, and ill-defined conditions, which is not
improvable with more observations. On the other side, uncertainty pertinent to statistical
problems is distinguishable and solvable in probability theory by means of observations
[270] pp 10. Thus, no exact observation leads to the fact that the problems with vagueness
are not solvable with conventional probability theory.
Practically, it can be said that fuzzy inference systems are developed to competently
control those systems with imprecise, uncertain and ambiguous information [175].
In summary, fuzzy (inference) systems by encompassing fuzzy logic and fuzzy sets are
complementary and extensible to standard logic. Indeed, fuzzy techniques facilitate
understanding, modeling, simulating, classifying, predicting, controlling, and pattern
recognizing of many systems, which are strange to classical logicians [294]. Therefore, it is
correctly claimed that the fuzzy decision-making system is pertinent to the development of
intelligent systems [297] pp 66.
4.2.4.1 Contribution of fuzzy systems to Lpallets
It is reflected into two sections as: direct controller and indirect planner. In other words,
fuzzy systems with their vast applications in engineering branches can have a great
contribution to practical problems. For the last few years, the ambition for realizing the
paradigm of autonomous control system in production and logistics processes has been
intensively increased. Similarly, investigation for competent methods and strategies to
introduce this paradigm in its best manner has been expanded as well. However, one of the
most appropriate methods is fuzzy logic.
Accordingly, this great method can be used in two formats of fuzzy inference systems and
the pure fuzzy logic. It means, from planning point of view, between tactical and
operational planning, fuzzy logic can be applied to reflect the flexibility and freedom of
real-time controllers. In this regard, real-time controllers play a crucial role, so that they
get the ability to make their own real-time tradeoffs in order to compensate dynamics
happening to short term planning and scheduling activities.
In other words, fuzzy sets instead of crisp numbers get included into mathematical
programming (optimization) in strategic, tactical, and, to some extent, operational
planning levels. This embeds the required flexibility for real-time controllers in operational
level, besides it conveys the existing practical vagueness into static and offline planning
procedure. Since conventional mathematical programming is unable to meet real-time
changes or disruptions in production/logistics operations, insertion of fuzzy sets in their
optimization model gives rise to freedoms in the frontiers of operations. Similarly, this
freedom makes real-time autonomous system to make their own decisions over real-time
conditions, while they keep fuzzy schedules coming from optimization level in one step
higher level.
On the other hand, imaging the autonomous objects, or in this case Lpallets, as frontier
players in logistics, each gets an embedded fuzzy controller, so that the ambiguous
situation in shop-floor and operational level can be perceived and controlled in a proper
manner. It is quite obvious that in operational level by complex and correlated interactions
between decentralized operations decentralized controllers are unable to get complete
information about the entire situation of a production/logistics system. So, the information
to each player is incomplete and subject to fuzzy logic with vague conditions. In contrast, a
central controller for such systems may fail to control the entire system on time because of
the huge complexity accompanied with correlated interactions and time delays in
comprehending local changes and their effects on the global performances. It is noticeable
that this context holds true for relatively massive and complex shop-floors with abundant
customized operations.
Moreover, the respective FAM inside each Lpallet makes that enable to render real-time
decisions based on its adapted (learned) sets in premise and consequence, objectives, and
current fuzzy inputs. This improves the performance of production and logistics operations
by some reasonable degrees as is experienced in corresponding experiments for the
current work. More information is given in the experiments chapter related to Lpallets by
the use of fuzzy system.
4.2.5 Artificial Neural Networks
Neural network (NN) is one of the most outstanding techniques in AI that is inspired by the
performance of the human brain. After the great breakthrough in IT, computational
operations entered into a new age in terms of capacity, speed, and precision. This
revolution gave rise to a new aspiration in doing researches in the field of AI and, in
particular, ANN. Today, ANN have a broad range of applications in aerospace, engineering,
transportation, banking, defense affair, entertainment, medicine, etc. Accordingly, the
performance of a network pertinent to ANN can be thought as a network consisting of a
topology of neurons which together approximate a function to continuously map inputs to
specific outputs.
Generally, two major eras are considered in the development of ANN; some of the initiative
studies in ANN techniques were done at the end of 19th and the beginning of the 20th
century. Some basic theories, concerning learning, looking, and conditioning, were
introduced there. Later, other scientists, like Donald Hebb, continued the investigations
with presenting some mathematical models inspired by the mechanisms of learning in
biological neurons, see Figure 53. There the capability of ANN in computing mathematical
or logical functions has been distinguished and reinforced.
In an organic neuron cell, dendrites are responsible for receiving the electrical signals from
synapse of the other neurons and transmit them to the body of the cell. The cell body
collects the signals and implements a threshold to them, and then when the signals reach
the specific threshold the body releases a signal to other neurons via its Axon. This process
was imitated by McCulloch and Pitts to design the first artificial neuron [309]. Accordingly,
the power of synapse in receiving signals and the layout of neurons in a network configure
the function of an NN.
Figure 53: Two neuron in communication via Synapse and Dendrite.
In the late 1950s Rosenblatt [310] [311] and other researchers initiated the perceptron
networks with their training rules. The neurons in such networks were similar to that
McCulloch and Pitts already developed. Besides, it was verified that perceptrons have the
ability of pattern recognition. Later, the continuous researches over NN resulted in new
types of networks with different specifications for various applications. Generally, there
are two significances in an NN that have been driving further developments in the field of
NN as "architecture" and "training rules" (learning algorithms). Following some facts about
the both significances are given.
In fact, two or more neurons can be combined within a layer and, in addition, a network
may encompass one or several such layers. The architecture of ANN is configured by the
topology of neurons inside networks with regard to the number of neurons in a layer and
number of layers itself. Moreover, a simple architecture of a neuron is depicted in Figure
54, in which two key elements as weight () and transfer function () play crucial roles in
defining a neuron in ANN. Here, the bias () shifts the output of transfer function to right
or left, and it is used for more precision in each neuron.
Neuron with bias
Figure 54: A simple exemplary neuron with bias from a perceptron network.
In this simple neuron the input vector  is multiplied by the weight  and is added to the
bias  to result in the output () through the transfer function .
However, there are several transfer (activation) functions in the form of linear and
nonlinear, which return different values from similar inputs. Some famous transfer
functions are: hard limit, pureline, sigmoid, radial basis, triangular basis, see Figure 55.
Radial basis
Hard limit
Sigmoid
Symmetric hard limit
Figure 55: Some popular transfer functions.
Positive linear
Satline
The combination of weights, biases, transfer functions, and arithmetic operations, i.e.,
product, summation, in parallel neurons configures a layer in an NN. Figure 55 displays a
generic format of ANN with simple multilayer topology. This network has three layers as
input, hidden, and output. In layer of this type of network, an input vector  is multiplied
(dot product) by a weights matrix and then the bias vector  is added to the product to
configure the vector  as the input of transfer functions in that layer. Then the transfer
functions map the vector  onto output vector . This procedure holds true for most
networks but not for all. In the first layer of this network, R is the number of inputs,  1 is
the number of neurons in this layer and  2 is the number of neurons in second layer.
However, each layer of a multilayer ANN by itself can be a single-layer ANN. For example,
the second layer of the network in Figure 56 has  1 inputs,  2 neurons, and 2 weights
matrix with the dimension of  2 ×  1 . Therefore, the number of outputs is always equal to
the number of neurons in output layer.
R×1
IW1,1
S1×R
S1×1
a1=f1(IW1,1p+b1)
S1× 1
LW2,1
S2×S1
a2=f2(LW2,1a1+b2)
a3=y
S×1
a3=f3(LW3,2a2+b3 )
a3=f3(LW3,2 f2(LW2,1 f1(IW1,1+b1)+b2+)+b3 =y
Figure 56: A simple multilayer perceptron network.
Generally, there are two main variants in networks' structures as feed-forward and
recurrent. The feed-forward networks have commonly simpler topology and training rules,
thus they are more popular. On the other hand, recurrent networks have more power in
modeling temporal behaviors, since they use feedbacks from outputs to inputs. For
example, perceptron networks are very famous feed-forward structured networks and
Hopfield networks are pure recurrent structured, while Hamming (competitive) networks
are hybrid networks combined from feed-forward layer and recurrent one.
Perceptron networks are simple feed-forward ANN that may have single-layer or
multilayer structure. Single-layer perceptron networks are suitable for linear data
classification, since the used transfer functions in percetrons are usually linear.
Nevertheless, multilayer perceptrons (MLP), by combining several linear functions in some
layers, can be applied for classification of any nonlinear data as well as for approximation
of any functions by combining linear and nonlinear transfer functions in layers. Each
neuron in a layer has the ability to (linearly) split the input space (vectors) up into two
sections, thus, more neurons in a layer further segments in the input space can be realized.
Accordingly, MLP facilitate complex and nonlinear divisions in the space, since the outputs
of the first layer are the inputs of the second layer with probably different transfer
functions and neuron numbers, and this goes forth in other layers.
Hamming networks are hybrid networks with feed-forward and recurrent layers in their
structure. This type of networks is specifically designed to distinguish binary patterns. In
standard Hamming networks with two layers, the number of neurons in the first layer is
always equal to the number of second layer's neurons, see Figure 56. Indeed, the goal in
Hamming networks is to approximate an input vector to a sample (prototype) pattern,
recorded in the recurrent layer. In other words, the goal is to distinguish the type of an
input vector by approximating that to one sample pattern, so that only one neuron has
nonzero output at the end. For each sample pattern in Hamming networks, one neuron
exists in the recurrent layer, also called competitive layer.
In the standard network, the feed-forward layer uses linear transfer functions with bias,
while transfer functions in the recurrent layer are positive transfer functions as posline 2
[312]. However, in doing so, the input vector and the sample patterns, as the rows of the
weight matrix in feed-forward layer, produce a dot product which is summed up by bias
vector. It is noticeable that if two vectors with similar norms have the same direct, then
their dot product returns the maximum value and if they are perpendicular the value is
minimum. The performance procedure of Hamming networks is following [313].
In fact, the output of the first layer from linear transfer functions defines the correlation
degree between the input vector and sample patterns. The neuron with the highest output
value in feed-forward layer has the most similarity to that sample pattern with the least
Hamming distance 3 from that. This distance can be only described by a binary vector
though. The output of feed-forward layer is always equal to (2.2.35).
−  = 2(     ) −
2(    )
2 (0) = 1
Moreover, neurons in the recurrent layer get the initial values from the outputs of the feedforward layer and then get updated within a recurrent process to approximate the input
values to an initial pattern, by following a competition and wining procedure between
neurons. This is why the recurrent layer is called competition layer as well. At the end of
the competition procedure just one neuron returns a nonzero value which defines the
dependency of the input to a specific pattern. The competition procedure uses the
following formulas within a recurrent cycle till the convergence of the network (when two
consecutive outputs are similar).
2 ( + 1) = � 2 2 ()�
Is a linear function for positive values and zero for negative ones.
Hemming distance between two vectors is equal to the number of entities which are dislike in both vectors.
2 = �
< (−1)
where 1 is the output of the first layer, 2 () is the output of the second layer at time ,
2 denotes the weight matrix in second layer. Also  stands for the number of neurons in
the recurrent layer. Please note that the upper indices are the layers' number in the
Hopfield networks are originally recurrent networks with feedbacks. The procedure of
such networks follows the procedure of the second layer in Hamming networks, as
described above. However, the initial values for the neurons are directly achieved from
input vector, and then the recurrent procedure (2.2.40) (2.2.41) starts till exactly one
sample pattern returns in the output.
(0) =
( + 1) = (() + )
In summary, perceptron networks with hard-limit transfer function return 0 and 1 for two
clusters, in Hamming networks the neuron with a nonzero value defines the respective
pattern corresponding to that neuron, and in Hopfield networks the sample pattern is
directly returned in the output. Moreover, ANN are well-known tools in AI by their learning
abilities and adaption to new conditions. Nevertheless, learning procedure for ANN is not a
trivial process, since the effective and efficient performance of ANN is dependent on their
learning quality. In other words, parameters in an ANN must be adequately trained to
respond properly to inputs. For instance, weights in different layers, biases of neurons, or
other parameters regarding the type of functions in neurons must get adjusted for specific
Generally, there are two main types of learning (training) for ANN: supervised and
unsupervised rules (also reinforcement) [314]. The supervised learning algorithms can be
applied to some ANN (e.g., MLP), which already have some available training data, whilst
those networks which use unsupervised learning rules have no specific pattern to follow
before their own real outputs. Briefly, in supervised learning the training input data and
target outputs are available and then the real outputs from those inputs are compared
against the targets, and then the learning rules are used to adjust the network by means of
approximating the real outputs to targets. On the contrary, unsupervised rules adjust the
networks just by means of inputs and real outputs; such rules are normally used for
classification of limited data clusters.
However, in addition to MLP there are more feed-forward networks like "radial basis
function" (RBF) networks, which both are supervised training network, besides, principal
component analysis (PCA) networks, and self-organizing maps (SOMs) with unsupervised
training manner[315]. Among them, RBF regarding its quick trainability and its
compatibility with fuzzy systems is briefly explained here.
Generally, there are several techniques for training ANN that performance learning,
associative learning, and competitive learning are some of them [316]. In performance
learning, which is the focal subject in this work, the parameters of networks are adjusted to
optimize the performance of the network. In such general techniques two issues are
important as the performance index and the solutions space for parameters toward
decreasing the performance index value (toward performance optimization).
However, the real performance index is not always available and it must be approximated.
In doing so, Taylor series is employed to approximate the index around an optimum point.
In other words, the Taylor series evaluated the shape of performance index in the vicinity
of the optimum points, which are the optimum values for network parameters.
Taylor series in matrix form for approximating the performance index () around the
optimum value  ∗ in the performance learning techniques is as follows:
() = ( ∗ ) + ∇() |= ∗ ( −  ∗ ) + ( −  ∗ )2 ∇2 ()|= ∗ ( −  ∗ ) + ⋯
∇() = � (),  (), … ,  ()�
⎡ 1 2 ()
⎢ 2
∇ () = ⎢ 2 1 ()
⎢
⎣ 1 ()
⋮ ⋯
()⎤
⎥
() ⎦
where () = (1 , … ,  ), and ∇2 () is called Hessian of ().
There are several types of optimization methods which aim to optimize the performance
index by means of iterations, e.g., SD, Newton, and conjugated Gradient, for more
information see [317]. Nevertheless, all of them keep the general form of (2.2.45) for
optimizing the performance index (), i.e., finding  towards minimizing () =
(1 , … ,  ).
+1 =  +
∆ = (+1 −  ) =
where  is the vector to show the search direction for optimization,  is learning speed
that defines the step intervals toward optimization process. However, these methods are
different in their search direction for  .
Additionally, using Taylor series for approximating () it is given:
(+1 ) = ( + ∆ ) = ( ) +   ∆ + 2 ∆   ∆ + ⋯
+1 =  −
where  = ∇() and  is the Hessian matrix. Therefore, SD technique by using the first
derivative in Taylor series results in (2.2.48):
As it can be seen the general form of all training algorithms follows this generic technique
for optimization. Furthermore, in learning algorithms introduced in this work the SD
technique is applied that minimizes a type of error as the performance index, e.g., total
sum-squared error (TSSE), root mean square error (RMSE), mean square error (MSE). The
existence of Hessian matrix in Newton and conjugated gradient optimization technique
burden excessive calculation to objects with low capacity memory, means Lpallets.
Moreover, the backpropagation training algorithm is initiated based on LMS algorithm,
both use SD technique and their performance index is MSE. Indeed, the backpropagation
algorithm is an extension to the LMS algorithm. The only difference between these
algorithms is in their derivative calculations (regarding Taylor series). This is because LMS
algorithm is for single layer networks, while backpropagation is developed for multilayer
ANN. The backpropagation algorithm is explained in detail later.
4.2.6 Multilayer Perceptron and Backpropagation Learning
After the introduction of perceptron networks by Rosenblatt it was seen that such single
layer networks sometime are not able to implement certain elementary functions. This
problem was solved by presentation of MLP. Basically, MLP are multilayer feed-forward
ANN, which have the ability to classify any data as well as to approximate any nonlinear
functions by means of several layers and transfer (activation) functions. Accordingly, MLP
are known as universal approximates, which have simple topology in their structures with
direct weighted connections between neurons in two consecutive layers. A perceptron
network with one layer is just able to classify data linearly, whereas an MLP with two
layers (one hidden and one output) is able to classify convex polygons and an MLP with
three layers (two hidden) is a standard type with the ability of classifying any shapes [408].
hidden layer
wL1
output layer
Figure 57: An exemplary MLP with two layers.
Figure 57 shows an MLP with two layers, as one hidden and one output layer. In this
network, the  th output can be simply calculated by (2.2.49).
=0  Ф �∑=0   � ; ℎ Ф0 (∙) = 1  0 = 1
where  is the th input element in the input vector,  define the weights from input to
hidden layer, Ф denotes the th function in the hidden layer,  stands for th weight from
hidden layer to the  th output in output layer,  represents the  th output of the network,
besides, 0 and 0 are biases. In addition, the functions in hidden layer are usually hard
limit or sigmoid [314] [408]. In addition,  = [1 ⋯  ⋯  ]  = [1 ⋯  ⋯  ] hold true.
Multilayer perceptrons by means of iterative gradient descent optimization routine called
"backpropagation" training algorithm are very popular in several applications of ANN.
However, this algorithm has some shortcomings that do not always guarantee the
convergence in training and is slow in some cases [409]. This problem is addressed by the
difficulty in determining optimal steps in iterations of the algorithm toward optimum
parameters and convergence, i.e., size and direction in the weights' space as well as initial
values. However, this problem is directly dependent on the chosen optimization technique
in the algorithm; if either of these problems can be solved, then training speed and/or
convergence can be improved. Nevertheless, this algorithm has enough calculation
simplicity to be employed by limited memory objects (like Lpallets) for real-time/online
training. Thus, this has motivated its application in the current study. Following a brief
introduction to the origin of the backpropagation algorithm is given.
Now, for perceptron networks there is a general training rule which is extended to develop
other learning rules. Since perceptrons are supervised learning networks, this general rule
operates based on the error between real outputs and target ones in the network. Below
the general format of the rule is represented:
=  +
=−
where  = [1 …  ] is the error vector,  = [1 …  ] denotes the target output
vector,  = [1 …  ] defines the input vector,  = [1 …  ] denotes the real output
vector, and is the weights matrix;
=� ⋮
⋱
⋮ �
On the other hand, one of the preliminary rules for ANN learning was introduced by Donal
Hebb [410] and is called Hebb rule. Generally, the Hebbian theory can be formulated like
(2.2.53), for training parameters of ANN that is called associative learning as well.
=   +
=  + ( −  )
where  = 1, … ,  is the number of training vectors,  is the weight which connects the
input element  to output element ,  defines the target output for th neuron in the  th
training input vector,  stands for the th input element in the  th training input vector. In
order to control the number of members in weights' matrices in the Hebb rule the learning
speed  is initiated. However, the above equation is an unsupervised rule for training. In
case of supervised learning with some available training values, the practical version of
Hebb rule, according to the difference between target outputs and real outputs (error), can
be displayed as (2.2.54):
The above equation is called delta rule, Widrow-hoff rule, and least mean square (LMS)
algorithm between training algorithms [411]. Indeed, this rule by adjusting the weights
matrix minimizes the mean square error (MSE) in this equation. Moreover, if a new pattern
as an input is introduced to an ANN then the delta rule can update the weights. This is the
great advantage of this rule that makes it compatible with continuously adaptive
environments, whereas some other rules like pseudo-inverse rule require the entire
training package for their performance. Please not that in dynamic environments, like
logistics, this property of delta rule is quite appealed.
However, the complete form of LMS algorithm with using MSE as performance index is
+1 =  + 2
However, Hebb rule has several types but most of the available algorithms for training
ANN apply directly or indirectly this rule in their procedure. The backpropagation
algorithm which is explained later is developed based on this rule. Additionally, the
Widrow-hoff rule exploits steepest descent (SD) optimization method. Optimization
methods are to tune the performance of learning algorithms and, basically, each learning
rule follows a specific optimization technique.
4.2.7 Radial Basis Function Networks
RBF networks are originated from multidimensional interpolation models and can also be
classified into feed-forward networks with supervised learning feature, see Figure 58. RBF
networks like MLP have popularity in their ability of approximating nonlinear functions
[318] [319] besides data classification [315] [320]. In fact, an RBF network can
approximate an arbitrary function by linearly combining some basis functions. The simple
structure in RBF networks motivates abundant applications of such networks [321].
Nonetheless, RBF networks have some structural differences from MLP networks as
follows [315]:
Because of transfer functions in the hidden layer of RBF networks, they are
recognized as local approximates, while MLP are known as global approximates.
Each neuron in hidden layer of an RBF network returns a significant nonzero value
just when the input falls within a small localized region of the function center (input
space). Passing through each kernel function limits the response space to a local
zone. But in MLP functions, like sigmoid in output layer, it gives a significant
positive value within a wide range of input space.
Number of hidden layers in MLP can be more than one, whereas RBF networks have
just two layers as one hidden layer, and one output layer (three layers by
considering inputs as the input layer).
The output layer in MLP can be linear or nonlinear (e.g., sigmoid), but RBF networks
have always linear functions in output layer.
The most important difference between the two networks is in their neurons'
performances. Transfer functions in hidden layer of an RBF network compute the
Euclidean distance [322] between input vector and center of transfer function
(usually Gaussian basis function), whilst in MLP dot product between input vector
and the relevant weight vector is calculated.
Figure 58: A simple RBF network with one-node output.
w1M
However, RBF networks have some advantages which make this type of ANN suitable for
data classification as well as function approximation [319]. For instance, RBF networks
have the capability of universal approximation (can approximate any smooth nonlinear
function) like MLP, RBF networks have the attribute of best approximating (precise
approximation, ease of training, robustness, memory complexity, or computational
complexity), which MLP do not always have it. In addition, in very similar applications RBF
networks have some superiority over MLP like accuracy and faster training procedure
[323] [324]. Nevertheless, MLP and RBF networks have several comparable capabilities,
which make the decision over their selection difficult. Thus, their learning performance on
particular data sets is normally a good criterion for selecting one of them. It is noticeable
that locally optimization of parameters in RBF networks [322] is a privilege over MLP to
have better flexibility in decentralized and distributed problems.
Learning algorithms for RBF networks span a wide range of pure and hybrid methods.
Generally speaking, learning an approximation for the correct relationship between the
output and input spaces by means of estimating network parameters is called training
procedure for a network [325]. Indeed, learning for RBF networks encompasses the
configuration of a multidimensional surface that fits best to the training data. Generally,
each RBF network has three main parameters to be learned through a training procedure;
1) number of neurons in hidden layer, 2) center and width of each basis function in a
neuron, 3) the output weights, has to be defined by a training set of  input-output pairs
{ ,  },  = 1, … ,  (if the output has more than one-node then output is a vector too
instead of a single value).
=1  .  �� −  �� + ( )
where ‖∙‖ denotes Euclidean norm,  = [1 ⋯  ] indicates the  th training input vector
with K-dimension,  denotes the number of neurons in hidden layer,  stands for the
weights in output layer (coefficients of the linear combination),  ( ) is the output of the
basis function in th neuron of hidden layer,  is the offset of the output to fit the model to
the true input-output relation (error in each training procedure). Note that the Euclidean
norm is computed for the shifting operation of input vector from center of basis function
by means of Euclidean distance of both vectors, which is minimum when they are in the
least distance and maximum by further distance from each other [319].
Additionally, if the basis function is Gaussian then following equation (2.2.57) holds true.
Then the vector  = �1 ⋯  � denotes the K-dimensional center of the Gaussian function
in th neuron, which is equal to all respective input weights from K-dimensional input
vector to that neuron,  is scale factor (width of Gaussian function).
=1  ∙  �−
� − �
� + ( )
In general, two ways of supervised learning can be imagined in the form of offline and
online learning. However, conventional training algorithms are offline learning by means of
available input and output sample (training) data to train a network. According to Khajeh
et al. [326] training strategies for RBF networks have two main categories; those strategies
that define suitable centers and variances of the trained network like, see also [315] [327]:
Fixed centers selected at random,
Self-organized selection of centers; K-means clustering procedure, the selforganizing feature map clustering procedure,
Supervised selection of centers,
Supervised selection of centers and variances.
The other category encompasses those strategies in which the weights of the network are
distinguished and optimized, like following methods:
The pseudo-inverse,
The least mean square (LMS),
The steepest descent (SD),
The quick propagation method.
One general form of such training methods using the pseudo-inverse to achieve weights in
output layer can be achieved as follows, see [325]:
ℎ ( ) =  �� −  ��
=∙+
ℎ1 (1 )
ℎ1 ( )
ℎ (1 )
ℎ ( )
� = ( ∙ )−1 ∙  ∙  = + ∙
where  denotes the design matrix of the network and + is its pseudo-inverse
= [1 2 ⋯  ] stands for the weights vector and
� is its approximation,  =
[1 2 ⋯  ] represent the vector of outputs for  training inputs,  = [1 2 ⋯  ] is the
error vector. Moreover,
� is approximated by means of MSE, using + by pseudo-inverse
rule [328]. However, other parameters like ,  , and  must be either available (e.g.,
randomly chosen) or estimation of them are due to a complex algorithms like combined
one with regression tree [329], which is computationally complex enough to be
implemented by Lpallets. Furthermore, this method for offline learning requires the
complete training vector of input-output, which is not always available with regard to the
However, other training algorithms for RBF networks include: support vector machines,
relevance vector machines, orthogonal least squares algorithms, recursive least square
based algorithms, generalized growing and pruning [330], the backpropagation algorithm
[331] [332], non-symmetric partition of input space [333]. Among them just
backpropagation as a variant of the gradient descent algorithm, due to its simplicity and
online application capability [331], is selected to be used for Lpallets in the current study.
Here, the online capability means the ability of updating parameters of the training
network immediately after each input-output training pair. In particular, the specific
backpropagation algorithm with best selective training (BST) developed by VakilBaghmisheh et al. [332], because of its calculation simplicity and capability in quick
updating parameters is adopted and briefly explained below. Besides, there the pattern
mode training with single data, which is appropriate for online training with step-by-step
optimization, is advantageous, since in batch mode training all data must be available.
Figure 59: An RBF network with multi-outputs.
Moreover, in their work three common types of functions, which are used to map outputs
of the hidden layer to outputs of the network, are considered as sigmoid, linear with
squashing function, and pseudo-linear, with ∑
squashing function:
⎧ 1+ − ;
=  ;
⎪ ∑ ;  −  (3)
=1   ;  = 1, … ,
where  = [1, … , ] is the number of neurons in hidden layer,  = [1 … 2 …  ] is the  th
output vector which defines  number of neurons in output layer.
Furthermore, always a cost function (performance index) must be defined for training;
there are some types of error evaluations, as mentioned before, which are popular in
different training algorithms. Nonetheless, only TSSE, because of its easy derivative, is used
for following training algorithm. Now, assuming the RBF network in Figure 59, the normal
backpropagation algorithm updates the parameters of the network by the following
equations (2.2.64), (2.2.65), (2.2.66):
( + 1) =  () − 3
2 ( + 1) =  2 () − 1
where 1 , 2 , 3 are the learning speed, which are less than 1 (i.e., the maximum learning
value  < 2⁄λmax that λmax is the biggest eigenvalue of Hessian matrix),  stands for event
(epoch) which new input vector is introduced,  represent coefficient weights in output
(from hidden layer),  denotes weights from inputs to hidden layer,  2 stands for
variance/scale factor of th hidden neuron, and  represents error.
⎧ ��−2( −  )�  � ;
= ��−2( −  )�   � ;
⎩��−2( −  )� (1 −  ) �;
where  is the target (training) output in  th output neuron,  denoted real output from
neuron  in output layer,  stands for output of the th basis function (neuron) in hidden
layer.
⎧ ∑=1�−2( −  )�   2 � −  �;
∑  −
∑=1�−2( −  )�  =1  2  2 � −  �;
�∑=1  �
⎪∑ �−2( −  )� (1 −  )  � −  �;
⎩ =1
�− �
⎧ ∑=1�−2( −  )�   �
∑=1�−2( −  )�  =1  2   �
⎪∑ �−2( −  )� (1 −  )  ��−� � ;
where  denotes the input vector and  is the center vector for th neuron.
Half training: Only the weight matrix of the output layer was under training.
Half training: The weight matrix of the output layer and kernel vectors were under
Full training: The weight matrix of the output layer, kernel vectors and spread
parameters were under training.
Despite good learning algorithms, sometimes the results are not satisfactory this is mostly
because of ill-defined initial values for parameters in such networks. Therefore, well
defining initial values are important as well. However, this issue is dependent on the type
of input data and application of the network. They may be chosen randomly in some cases
(if no initial perception exists for inputs), randomly chosen from sample data (if some
available), they can be derived from first sample data, or using a specific algorithm like kmeans or learning vector quantization (LVQ) [332]. For instance, for scale (spread) factor
in hidden layer (2.2.70) holds true.
where  defines the maximum distance between centers of functions (in hidden layer). Or
logically the standard deviation of vectors in a subclass can be chosen as . Additionally,
for weights in output layer they may be randomly chosen from the range of [−0.1 0.1] with
learning for improvement, or by means pseudo-inverse algorithm calculating the
respective pseudo-inverse matrix from available training data, which is not always the case
in Lpallets. Besides the calculation complexity of achieving the pseudo-inverse matrix
hinders the algorithm in this specific application.
Furthermore, the notion of selective training proposed by Vakil-Baghmisheh et al. is quite
useful in case of intermittently emergence of new patterns after an adequate degree of
learning. In doing so, they suggest selectively using inputs, and not all, for training after the
specific epoch that TSSE gets smaller than a threshold. However, the distinction of this
threshold and the selective inputs is subjective and an empirical procedure. For instance,
the threshold in the current study for Lpallets can be distinguished by simulation
experiments as well as the stability proportion in a certain period. Nonetheless, there, the
selective procedure via online training can automatically be accomplished through
increasing the number of neurons in the hidden layer by a new out of range pattern.
Here, each new input— introduced to the built network of an Lpallet— is fed forward to
the network. Now, if its domain is already met by the current network, then no training
happens to that input. Otherwise, if the input value falls behind the existing ranges, then
either a new neuron is added to the network topology, the current network undergoes a
new training iteration, or both alternatives happen simultaneously.
Moreover, application of RBF network for Lpallets has some specifications, which are
unique in this study. Indeed, employment of dynamic structure for respective RBF
networks in Lpallets— in addition to the competency of online learning— gives rise to
flexibility in RBF networks to adapt to dynamic circumstances given in logistics operations.
There, the number of neurons changes by the stepwise learning method, through
accomplishment of each cyclic operation. Accordingly, when a new pattern in the learning
phase is recognized this is reflected in the network by embedding a new basis neuron,
while the extinct patterns are removed by aborting corresponding neurons. This is talked
later in more details in the section pertinent to Lpallets and experiments.
4.2.7.1 Contribution of ANN to Lpallets
It is realized for each Lpallet as intelligent controller and decision-maker. Each Lpallet is
provided by a neural network for accepting the values of predefined metrics and rendering
decisions based on them. For instance, in an assembly line Lpallets can take the waiting
and processing time of stations and configure (train) their networks in order to make
decisions over the sequence of operations in a closed-loop system. However, this
procedure is deeply explained in the experiments' chapter in the sections relevant to RBF
networks for Lpallets. Furthermore, ANN can be employed centrally to make decisions
over routing, inventory control, and demand forecast in SN, which is not covered in the
current work.
4.3 Simulation
Simulation is a competent approach to reduce the costs of unsuitable strategic decisions,
planning, and performances of a system. It assists improvement of virtual models before
implementing them in the real world. In other words, simulation is a model of a real thing
to be used for learning, sensitivity analysis, or solving complex problems with have no
straightforward solutions. According to Bisschop [334] pp 7, a modeling process can be
divided into five steps as follows.
Defining the goal of the model
Consulting experts and collecting information
Formulating the model
Running the initial test of the model
Validating that by known input/output data
Generally, simulation is defined as a prominent tool in doing experiments before practical
implementations with efficiency [335]. Indeed, simulation is a virtual model of a system's
behaviors with the capability to experiment with different scenarios and making sensitivity
analysis. However, two major classes of simulation are continuous time (e.g., Vensim) and
discrete-event time (e.g., Plant-Simulation). The Plant-simulation package is developed by
SIMENSE for the purpose of simulating production and logistics scenarios with the
capability of programming different policies and scenarios. In the current work, this
package is thoroughly employed to prove theories and suggested concepts.
Moreover, a measurement approach has to be accompanied with modeling of a system to
evaluate the success of key performance indicators (KPI), i.e., KPI show the performance of
the system. These have to be evaluated by simulation. Some underlying KPIs in a supply
chain are cost, cycle time, lead time, completion time, inventory & stock level, customer
satisfaction, and delivery reliability. According to Zagonel et al. [336] testing a model in
practice has to pass some control aspects, among them are:
Boundary adequacy test
Structure assessment test
Dimensional consistency
Parameter assessment
Extreme conditions test
Behavior reproduction
System improvement test
Figure 60: Exemplary simulation model of a car light assembly line located at BIBA institute, modeled by Plantsimulation.
In summary, simulation is thoroughly used in the current work as the main tool for
modeling, experimenting, justifying, and testing different logistics' scenarios with
alternative methodologies, e.g., autonomous objects, conventional flow control.
4.4 Mathematical Programming/Optimization
This section complies with mathematical programming as the general methodology for
studying, modeling, solving, and optimizing those optimization problems with cost
functions as objectives and some linear or non-linear constraints. However, the purpose of
this section is just a brief introduction to this method in order to underscore the role of
fuzzy programming in delimiting the required freedoms in static mathematical
programming at tactical level. This embedded freedom leads to the realization of the
autonomous logistic objects in dynamic environments, while keeping conventional and
integrated plans throughout SN. It is noticeable that the scope of this study is not to widely
cover the contribution of mathematical programming by means of fuzzy to the output of
this work as specific logistic objects (Lpallets).
Generally, an optimization model is a mathematical prototype of a problem which is
intended to be optimally solved according to one or more objective(s) and some
constraints if any. This type of mathematical model is an abstract model that is called
mathematical programming in general [334] pp 14. Basically, optimization of a problem
refers to achievement of maximum degree of satisfaction with doing the least amount of
effort for solving the problem [278] pp 1. Initially, the optimization algorithm deals with
efficiency and effectiveness factors in achieving the optimum degree of satisfaction [337].
Mathematical programming is the core of any organizing framework packages, like ERP
and APS [67] pp 3. The use of mathematical programming gives rise to integration and
optimization of processes throughout any organization spanning from SN to small shopfloors. The tasks of strategic and production planning, inventory management,
transportation, as well as scheduling, all can be modeled by mathematical programming
either solely or in an integrated form to optimize their objectives. The models must be
optimized in such a way that all constraints get satisfied. However, it is not always
straightforward to find optimum values for objectives, since production and logistics
parties in SN have usually different and heterogeneous targets. Therefore, several
alternatives have been developed to hold tradeoffs between such objectives.
In general, several types of mathematical programming with optimization purpose exist
that the major classes of them are as below [334] [338] pp 5:
Linear programming (LP): refers to those minimization/optimization problems
with linear objective(s) and linear equality and inequality constraints. Additionally,
all variables are continuous,
Mixed integer programming (MIP): refers to optimization of linear objective
function(s) with linear constraints like LP, while some variables accept integer
Constraint programming (CP): refers to optimization problems to solve a system of
constraints with alternative forms according to a set of indefinite discrete variables
probably with an objective of minimization/maximization,
Nonlinear programming (NLP): refers to those problems with either nonlinear
objective(s) or constraints or both over unspecified real variables,
Mixed integer nonlinear programming (MINLP): refers to problems with nonlinear
characteristics as well as containing integer variables,
Stochastic programming (SP): contrary to the other programming types, this
optimization problem refers to those of them that take into account uncertainty of
input parameters with a set of states.
Robust optimization (RO): contrary to the other programming types, this
input parameters with uncertain ranges, e.g., fuzzy numbers, see [339].
However, modeling the planning and scheduling problems in logistics and production
networks by mathematical programming is not equivalent to solve them accordingly. The
existence of contradictory goals for each party of such complex interactive networks
necessitates heuristic solutions for solving the models. Nevertheless, the planning and
scheduling of material flow operations is central to organizing operations. Thus,
mathematical programming is conventionally deployed to all sections of SN.
On the other hand, mathematical programming models are subject to be solved by static
solvers. In other words, as Persson et al. [136] say, optimization models reflect SC at a
definite occasion of time without considering dynamic aspects, e.g., in opposite to
simulation. Basically, mathematical programming performs over optimization of one or
more objective function(s) according to some constraints that bound the solution space of
the respective optimization problem. Now, if some of constraints are not available at a
moment, the solution space may be infeasible to get solved.
In fact, in addition to the modeling optimization problem by means of mathematical
programming, the notion of optimization refers to finding the best solution between
several available alternatives (maybe over a time horizon) to find the global optimum.
Moreover, available solvers for mathematical programming are central oriented solvers
with accepting parameters of the problem as inputs and map outputs based on constraints.
Complexity in mathematical programming models and respectively in their solvers makes
them inappropriate tools for real-time decisions by means of local perceptions and under
highly dynamic circumstances. Indeed, these specifications of mathematical programming
contradict that from real-time decision makings, which is inherent to autonomous objects.
However, by proposing fuzzy robust mathematical programming the respective
mathematical model can become subjective and decision maker gets the possibility to
reflect his/her preferences in the model [339]. Thereby, the objective of this work becomes
closer to the reality. It was already explained in the motivation section that confrontation
with dynamics in logistics poses two aspects as: adaptation to dynamics as well as
adoption of dynamic behaviors into own performances. In other words, the suggested
framework for application of autonomous logistic processes depicts two implementation
approaches from top-down as well as bottom-up. The top-down approach considers the
conventional APS into account, and then by an extension to that proposes the required
tolerance (freedom/uncertainty) for autonomous objects in the parameters and variables
of the mathematical programming embedded in APS. In doing so, fuzzy robust optimization
and stochastic programming can be applied solely or in a hybrid form. This leads to
incorporation of the limited freedom caused by decentralized and distributed decision
makings in real-time by autonomous logistic objects to static mathematical programming
for tactical and operational levels. On the other hand, the autonomous objects, as the
frontier players at operational level, acknowledge the given limited freedom to them and
perform by their own decisions on local control problems, while committing to the given
production planning and scheduling fuzzy set outputs.
Moreover, it is already discussed before that the operations in manufacturing and logistics
environment exposed to dynamics and complexity, besides human intervention, resemble
fuzzy nature. Indeed, fuzzy nature holds true rather than stochastic nature; because in a
distributed environment, ill-defined information and lack of all required data for making a
decision in real-time is inevitable [285] pp 6, [340].
However, application of fuzzy set theory in mathematical programming leads to several
advantages. Among which are by setting satisfaction degree for multi-objective problems it
becomes possible to normalize the problem and convert them into a single objective
problem with maximization of satisfaction degrees for every single objective. This case is
broadly discussed by Sakawa in his book [285]. In addition, by means of fuzzy sets it is
possible to define robust dimensions for fuzzy constraints with fuzzy parameters and make
a robust optimization model, according to Zhang et al. [339].
Generally, a linear mathematical model is defined as:
s.t:
where  ∈ {}× ,  ∈ {}×1 ,  ∈ {}1× ,  ∈ {}×1 ,  denotes a set of real number,
and  denote integer values for row and columns of matrix {}× .
According to Zimmermann et al. [341] and Shih et al. [342], fuzzy mathematical
programming can be generally classified into the problems with fuzzy objective, with fuzzy
constraints, and both. Now, if the coefficients in constraints instead of crisp values belong
to fuzzy sets, i.e.,  ∈ {ℜ}× ,  ∈ {ℜ}×1, with ℜ as a set of fuzzy parameters, then the
mathematical programming problem gets into fuzzy space domain with nonconventional
solution methods. Thus, one way to solve such problems is the use of fuzzy robust
programming, so that the difficulties accompanied with fuzzy numbers both on the left132
and right-hand side, see [339]. In this manner, the constraints of the fuzzy problem can be
converted into deterministic constraints by means of delimitation. In fact, this delimitation
represents the required tolerance between inferior and superior values in fuzzy set,
suitable for imprecision in consequent autonomous decisions. Then the fuzzy robust linear
programming can be rewritten as follows, see [339]:
� ≤ � ;  = 1, … , ;  = 1, . . ,
=1�
≥ 0;  = 1,2, … ,
=1�  � ≥  ;  = 1, … , ;  = 1, . . ,
where ̅ = (),  = (),  denotes suprmum and  stands for infimum of sets,
and  represents  levels of α-cut [342] [343] [344].
Moreover, considering the work of Zimmermann et al. [341], mathematical programming
may have fuzzy conditions over the objective and constraints, in a generic form, see also
[340]. In this manner, the problem can be formulated as follows:
� 0
� � =
� is a symbol of relaxed or fuzzy version of conventional inequality, and 0 is called
where ≤
aspiration level of decision maker to define its target for the problem. Then by substituting
following notations:
�0 � = ́
� ́ is interpreted like
Then the linear membership function of  ℎ fuzzy constraint () ≤
below, see Figure 61:
1 ;
(() ) = � 1 −
() −́
� ́
() ≤
� () ≤
� ́ +
; ́ ≤
() ≥ ́ +
membership function
Figure 61: Linear membership function for  fuzzy constraint.
Now, according to the extension principle of Zadeh [345] [346] pp 14, the mathematical
programming can be changed to the maximization of membership function as the purpose
of decision maker, see following.
max min  (() )
0≤≤+1
Thus, according to Zimmerman [347] [348], by means the transformation variable ´´ =
́
�́� = () ⁄ , and auxiliary variable  = min0≤≤+1  (() ) the problem is
transferred into conventional linear programming like below, this methods is called min
operator too.
≤ 1 + ´´ − �́� ;  = 0, … ,  + 1
Another, possibility for fuzzy mathematical programming is to have fuzzy parameters in
both objective and constrains. This situation can be shown as follows, see Sakawa et al.
[346]:
= ̃
̃ ≤ �
where ̃, � , ̃ are matrices with fuzzy parameters as ̃ = �� �;  = 1, … , ;  = 1, … , , and
� = �� �;  = 1, … ,  and ̃ = �̃ �;  = 1, … , .
To solve this problem, one competent solution in literature is α-cut based model, see also
Shih et al. [342]. In doing so, for a certain degree α, defined by decision maker, the ordinary
set of (, , ) , with membership degrees over α, can be written as:
(, , ) = �(, , )|̃ ≥ , � ≥ , � ≥ ,  = 1, … , ,  = 1, … , � (2.4.22)
So, for the sake of simplicity, the problem is changed to non-fuzzy and can be again
rewritten as follows:
1 1 + ⋯ +
⎫
11 1 + ⋯ + 1  ≤ 1 ⎪
1 1 + ⋯ +   ≤  ⎬
≥ 0,  = 1, … ,
(, , ) ∈ (, , ) . ⎭
Here, the parameters (, , ) are changed to decision variables in α-linear programming
problem. Furthermore, the α–cut level defines feasible intervals for each fuzzy number � ,
� , and ̃ , so as left  and right  boundaries ��
, �
�, ��
,  �, and �̃
, ̃
�.
Conclusively, the problem leads into several conventional linear programming with
alternative α–cut levels.
1 + ⋯ + 11
≤ 1
⎬
1 + ⋯ +
≥ 0,  = 1, … , .
⎭
It is noticeable that each fuzzy number may have its own membership function, for more
information see section pertinent to fuzzy set theory. In additional, similarly, the level-cut
(α-cut) method can be used to nonlinear programming, for more information see Shih et al.
Furthermore, multi-objective programming (MOP) facilitates decision-making with
multiple contradictory objectives by means of compromising between alternatives [339].
Moreover, by converting the multi-objective functions into a deterministic problem by
means of the fuzzy programming method and min operator, it becomes possible to
integrate decision maker satisfaction degree with effectively handling uncertainties
between objectives (or constraints) in MOP. One way to convert MOP into a single
objective problem is to simply define a satisfaction degree for each of the objective and
then according to the extension principle maximizing the minimum of membership
degrees in each objective. As mentioned this is broadly explored by Sakawa [285] and used
by Petrovic et al. [298] and Fayad et al. [349]. For example, if we have two contradictory
objectives in a MOP with one maximization and one minimization objective, then the
decision maker should define the intervals and membership functions of each objective. In
fact, each of these membership functions corresponding to an objective is interpreted as
satisfaction degree; so the task is to uniformly maximize the minimum of satisfaction
degrees, like following:
(� , � , ̃ )
� = �
1 −1
1 −ℎ1
� = � 2 −ℎ2
̃ = �
µ~a = 1
µb~ = 1
1 ≤ ℎ1
;  ℎ1 ≤ 1 ≤ 1
1 ≤ 1
2 ≥ 2
µ ~c = 1
Figure 62: a) and c) the membership functions of minimization and b) the membership function of maximization
objective.
where 1 , 2 , and 3 can have any function or value. It is noticeable that each of the
objectives may have some specific interaction with other objectives that can be taken into
account as well. This approach for MOP is the simplest technique for aggregating multiobjectives in a unique satisfaction degree. Here, the aggregation operator is chosen as min
of membership degrees (which is the most commonly used and simpler operator between
others), for more information see, Sakawa [285] pp 58. However, the boundaries for
objectives (i.e., h and q), concerning their satisfaction degrees, have to be subjectively
selected by decision maker, see Figure 62.
Thus, after the brief explanation about fuzzy mathematical programming and cover small
aspects of that, this contribution can be directly used by conventional mathematical
programming embedded in APS.
4.5 Queuing Theory
Queuing theory is a branch of probability theory that emerged 100 years ago, also known
as traffic theory, congestion theory, theory of mass service, and theory of stochastic service
systems [350] pp 16. Basically, queuing theory is a mathematical theory for modeling,
designing, and quantitatively analyzing (the length of service and waiting times in) any
system with servers, and clients. In other words, it is an analysis tool for studying the
relationships between congestion and delay by defining derivation of characteristic
quantities such as TP and waiting time, in those of systems with servers and buffers and
some jobs to be processed, e.g., communication systems, banking systems, production
systems. Additionally, by means of this theory's analysis predicting the future behavior of
queuing systems and optimizing them besides understanding their dynamics is possible.
Some further practical examples of queuing theory are: response times in telephone
exchanges and process computers, buffer dimensioning, TP in wireless networks or
assembly lines, and waiting time for each station in production lines. The results of
queuing analysis can be directly applied in scheduling problems. It is noticeable that this
section is generally written based the lecture note of Professor Görg for Communication
Networks II [351].
Generally, a queuing system can be recognized by three important characteristics: the
input process, the service mechanism, and the queue discipline. The input process is often
described by the probability distribution of the length of time between consecutive
customers' arrival instants. This is because arrivals are mostly the product of external
factors. Thus, the arrival process is described by random variables to represent either the
number of arrivals in a time interval or the time interval between two consecutive arrivals
(inter-arrival time). The service mechanism consists of the number of servers and the
durations of service time for customers and mode of service. The most uncertain value in
this mechanism is the service time that often is represented by a random variable too. The
queue discipline defines the disposition of those customers face busy servers (blocked
customers). Generally, blocked customers either leave the system or wait in a queue for
service. Accordingly, the discipline expresses the rule, based on which a server accepts
customers, waiting in the queue for service [352]. Nonetheless, there are several
disciplines in queues for treating waiting customers, see Figure 63.
Arrivail process A
λ Arrival rate
State Process X
Queuing process W
Service process B
Departure process D
λ=arrival rate=departure rate (without loss)
Events: =arrivals (A) =departures (D)
Figure 63: Details of processes in a queuing system in terms of waiting, processing, and departure times, adopted
from [351].
However, the attributes of queuing systems are usually represented by A/S/n/d/e
symbols, known as Kendall classification, to denote queuing models. Here several symbols
in literature are combined together, and the general format is achieved as below:
A/S/n/c-d/e/f
A= arrival process, e.g., distributions of Markovian (M), Deterministic (D), Erlang-k.
S= service process, e.g., distributions of Markovian (M), Deterministic (D), Erlang-k.
n= number of servers.
c= max size of the waiting line/ queue capacity (if ∞ omitted).
d= queuing discipline/scheduling strategy for queue, e.g., First-Come-First-Serve
(FCFS/FIFO), Last-Come-First-Serve (LCFS/LIFO), Serve-In-Random-Order (SIRO),
Priority queue, round robin (RR), Shortest-Processing-Time (SPT), if FIFO or not
specified can be omitted.
e= scheduling strategy corresponding to external priorities between the queues (if
relevant, otherwise blank).
f= number of possible customers, for open systems omitted.
Furthermore, each of the symbols in the taxonomy of queuing systems can undertake a
variety of possibilities. For instance, M/M/1 represents the arrival and service processes as
Markov with one server, and M/G/3/20 shows Poisson arrival, three servers with the
general distribution (any distribution), maximum number of 20 customers. Following the
important sections of this symbol as arrival and service processes (in detail) as well as
queuing discipline, and scheduling strategy related to external priorities (briefly) are
explained:
4.5.1 Arrival and Service Process
For the inter-arrival and service times of arrival and service process, they may accept
different distributions, and correspondingly probability mass function (pmf) for discrete or
probability density function (pdf) for continuous random variables. Actually, inter-arrival
times or service times are usually continuous random variables unless the processes are
considered in discrete-time. In fact, discrete random variable in an arrival process is the
number of arrivals during a time T.
Initially, queuing systems are based on stochastic processes; thereby, queuing theory has
shown its fertility in fundamentally studying stochastic processes involving mathematical
models. "Queues are special case of stochastic processes that are identified by a state X(t)
denoting the number of queued entities" [412] pp 306. A stochastic process is defined by
several distributions of random variable X at alternative time events t. In fact, a random
variable assigns a value to each output s in a sample space S, while a stochastic or random
process arranges a sample function (, ) to each outcome s.
Generally, a stochastic process is characterized by following, for more information see
[412] p 306:
State of the stochastic process at time t, state X(t)=x
State space, the set of possible values that X(t) can include. The space may be
continuous or discrete (then the stochastic process is called chain)
Time variable t that can be owned by a continuous or discrete set
Correlation characteristics between X(t) random variables at different instant t
values.
Whereas in stochastic process there may be a correlation dependency on time between
two random variables, the random variables in distribution function are independent.
The probability density function (pdf) of random variable X for all instants t={t1, t2,..., tn}
and values of x={x1, x2,..., xn} for any n is described by (13):
(, ) = {(1 ) ≤ 1 , (2 ) ≤ 2 , … , ( ) ≤  , }
The common processes and their distributions for arrival and service are as follows:
M= Markovian process/ negative exponential distribution
D= Deterministic distribution
Ek= Erlang-k distribution
GE= General Erlang distribution
Hr= rth order hyper-exponential distribution
G= General distribution
Markovian process/ negative exponential distribution (M) represents negative
exponential distribution (neg-exp) for continuous and geometric distribution for discrete-
time in the respective process. This type of distribution is derived from Markovian process
and is often used to approximate the distribution of inter-arrival and service times. While
the inter-arrival time follows neg-exp, the number of arrivals within an interval follows
Poisson distribution (2.5.3). The simplicity of this process regarding its memory-less
property makes it abundant in approximating queuing processes. Commonly, in
manufacturing systems the arrival process can be approximated by negative exponential
distribution (Poisson process) [413].
( = ) = (1 − )−1
( ≤ ) = 1 −  −
where  is the probability of success. For illustrating the feature of Markov process it has
to be explained as follows. It is a special case of stochastic process whose specific
characteristic is such that probability distribution for its future development depends only
on its present state and not on its trajectory in the past. (2.5.4)is the definition of Markov
process that signifies its memorylessness:
�+1 = +1 � =  , −1 = −1 , … , 1 = 1 � = �+1 = +1 � =
�; ∀  = 1,2, … ;  ∈ ;
Thus, the cumulative density function (cdf) of a random variable +1 is determined for
any pair of +1 , +1 ∈  via the conditional cdf:
( , , +1 , +1 ) = �+1 = +1 � =  �
Markov chain is a special case of Markov process with discrete state space and time.
Accordingly, the set of stochastic variables {X1, X2,..., Xn} is called Markov chain if for all n
(steps) and all positions of i and j the following equation (2.5.6) holds true.
[+1 = |1 = 1 , 2 = 2 , … ,  =  ] = [+1 = | =  ] =
(1 , 2 ) is the transition probability  →  which gives the conditional probability, that
with the present value of  at time 1 (1 = ) takes the value  at time 2 (2 = ).
Figure 64: The transition of  →  from   to   .
Stochastic (routing) matrix of transition probabilities (1…n states) is following:
(1 , 2 ) =  (2 − 1 ) =  (ℎ)
11 (ℎ)
(ℎ) = � ⋮
1 (ℎ)
⋯ 1 (ℎ)
⋯  (ℎ)
∑=1  (ℎ) = 1, ℎ ≥ 0,
[+ℎ = ] = [ = ] =
However, statistical equilibrium has a crucial role in analyzing stochastic systems. This
specification reflects the equality of entrance rate to a state and departure rate from a
state. These equations hold true in the stationary state of Markov process (2.5.14).
= lim
→0
; ≠
1− ()
= ∑≠
Figure 65: Statistical equilibrium of state transition.
where  is the rate to leave state  (from ),  is the state probability to be in state ,  is
the transition rate from state  to neighboring state . For more information about the
properties of Markov chains and their states see [414] pp 29, [412] pp 305, [415] pp 24.
Therefore, based on Chapman-Kolmogorov equation in a homogenous process (2.5.15)
holds true for two steps of transition:
(+́ ) = �  ()  (́ ) ,
() > 0
where  is step transition with probability  . Moreover, homogenous means the
transition of probability is independent of the step.
A well-known example of Markov process is the special process of birth and death (BD).
Within BD process transitions occur only to direct neighbors. { } counts all the arrivals
and { } counts all the departures up to the time instance . { } = { } − { } is a
homogenous stationary BD process with transition probabilities (ℎ). The state
transition diagram of one dimensional BD process is depicted in Figure 66. Here, the
transition rate can be calculated by (2.5.16):
λ0
λi-1
µi
λi
µi+1
i+1
λi+1
Figure 66: State transition diagram of the BD process.
= �
=  + 1,  = 0,1, … "ℎ "
=  − 1,  = 1,2, … "ℎ "
where the interpretation of λ in queuing systems is the arrival rate and μ is the service rate.
Then according to the statistical equilibrium the state equilibrium of neighboring state in
BD process is as (2.5.17):
−1 −1 =
The best instance for BD process is the Poisson process as a pure BD process [352], pp 229.
A special case of counting process is called Poisson process with λ parameter if probability
of the number of events  () in the time interval  follows Poisson distribution (2.5.18):
() −
,  = 0,1, … ,  ≥ 0
The difference in equations between the Poisson process and Poisson distribution is in
time . If the equation uses  this is the process and if just  is used this represent the
distribution, since there is a direct relation between Poisson process and neg-exponential
distribution with memoryless property.
However, the state transition diagram can be depicted when the system is in discrete-time
domain. For instance, M/M/ describes a station with  servers with Markovian arrival
=  ; ∀  ∈  and service process. Then in this case from the  + 1 state, queue is built up
and this holds true  = +1 = +2 = ⋯. Here, the notations like  is the arrival rate that
follows Poisson distribution,  =  stands for the general service rate of a station,  is the
service rate of one server in the station, and  =  denotes the mean service time for one
server  = 1.
µ1=ε
µ2=2ε
µi=iε
µi+1=iε
Figure 67: Finite state process as special BD process.
Generally, there are some key performance indicators (KPI) for evaluating the
performance of queuing systems [353] [416]. For all KPI it is assumed that system is in a
steady state situation.
The "state probability"  (2.5.19) is the probability of existing  customers in the
queuing system (being served or waiting),
=  = {   }
The "system load" or "traffic intensity"  (2.5.20), which is given by the ratio of
offered traffic and number of servers, arrival rate over service rate, or the ratio of
average service time  and average of inter-arrival time  =  ,
Here, if  > 1 then the system is unstable and the capacity of that is less than
required. This way increases the queue length to infinity over the time. If  < 1 the
system is stable in steady state condition and if  = 1 then there exist no queue.
The "departure rate" or "throughput" (2.5.21) that is the average number of
customers leaving the system. In the steady state situation departure rate and
arrival rate are equal.
= ∑∞
The "average time in system"  and the "average queuing time" or "average waiting
time in queue"  , describe the time a customer has to wait in the system and in the
queue until service starts, respectively ,
= lim→∞ �()� = ∑∞
0 = 0 = 1 −
The "average number of customers in the system" or "average system size"  in
steady state (2.5.23),
The "average queue length/size"  (2.5.24) denotes the mean number of customers
in the queue,
The very last equation for defining the relation between the mean number of customers in
the queue and mean waiting time of them was initially determined by J.D.C. Little, which is
known as "Little's Law". The arrival rate multiplying by mean waiting time in the queue
gives the mean queue size (2.5.24). Correspondingly, (2.5.25) holds true as well.
The Little's Law is a general key for solving and analyzing queuing systems, since it is not
specified for any particular arrival or service distributions, queuing discipline, or number
of servers. In addition, when the system is in a steady state situation the following
equations can be used (fully for single server in each station).
=  =  (1 − )
= 1− = −
= 1− = (−)
= −
= (−)
For other famous distributions in queuing systems see [417]. As mentioned, several
practical systems exist, which can be modeled by means of queuing networks, e.g., jobshops, large computers, department stores. Commonly, queuing networks are
interconnected service stations that each of them provides specific service and are
decoupled through buffers [418], pp 57.
4.5.2 Open Queuing Network
Open queuing networks are those with changing number jobs with entering and departure,
see Figure 68. There are two variants for open networks with feed forward and feedback
structure. In former one a job cannot visit a queue more than once, whilst in feedback
networks jobs may appear more than once in the same queue. Some assumptions are
considered for open queuing networks as below:
The open network is in a steady state (no transient state)
Each station may encompass one or more servers
Some individual transition probabilities can be zero
M/M/n
λ0i
pji
λ0N
pij
pjN
μj
Pj(N+1)
λ0j
P1(N+1)
μi
μN
pN(N+1)
Figure 68: Exemplary of a general open queuing network.
The used notations for open networks are following (Table 6):
Table 6: Used notations for open networks.
=  .
Service rate of one server in station
Number of servers in station
Service rate in (one) station
Transition probability from station  to station
= 0 + ∑
1 − ∑=1
0 = 0 . 0
k = k1 , k 2 , … , k N
k i ; i = 1,2, … , N
pi (k i )
Total arrival rate (TP) at station
Probability (+1) for leaving the network after
Arrival rate from source to station  ;  = 0
State (vector) of the system with N stations
Number of jobs at station
State probability
Boundary probability for having exactly k i jobs in
station i
Relative frequency of visits to station
Total mean response time of the network (sojourn
time)
However, a famous theorem for analyzing open queuing networks is Jackson's theorem,
see [353] pp 46. Briefly saying, Jackson's theorem holds true for open and closed networks
in case of some assumptions:
in a network with  stations all stations must have neg-exponential (Mdistribution) for service time and follow FCFS strategy, and the arrival process is
Poisson, i.e., M/M/n for each station,
just a unique class of jobs exists,
there is no limited capacity for queues
no overload happens to stations  <  .
then the state probability can be calculated in product form (2.5.32)
�� = ∏
=1  ( ) ;  = 1,2, . . . ,  ;  = 0,1, … , ∞
Accordingly, the following equations can be derived.
( ) = �
(0)   !   ≥
( = 1) = 1−
= 1− ;  = 1
=  =  (1−
=  ∑
=1  =  ∑=1 (1− )
=1 0
4.5.3 Closed Queuing Network
The other variant of queuing networks is closed queuing networks with rich application in
practice. When a short circuit happens to the source and the sink of an open
system/network then this system/network resembles a closed system/network, see
Figure 69. The main feature here is that the -number of jobs circulating within a closed
network is always constant, thus, the buffers do not need any capacity more than . Closed
networks facilitate easier mapping of multiple independent resources, in order utilization
of resources by the jobs, concurrent application of alternative resources by unlike jobs
In closed networks the assumptions of Jackson's theorem works as well, just small
modifications have to be done to those in open networks, like:
=1  =
Logically, the number of different states  In closed networks is identical to the number of
possibilities to distribute  jobs between  stations. This can be derived by the
combination (2.5.43).
= �+−1
However, practical operations in different systems like production systems do not only
include manufacturing of homogenous products, but a variety of them by the same
production lines. Thus, the introduction of alternative jobs in queuing networks gives rise
to a better analysis of such systems by means of queuing theory. For this purpose,
generally, jobs in queuing networks can be clustered into job classes/chains. The
classification of jobs distinguishes between jobs with different behaviors, and types, e.g.,
specific processing. Job classes can be used for both open and closed networks, so that via
classification even hybrid form of open-closed networks can be realized. In this manner,
some job classes can arrive at and departure from the network, whilst some other classes
circulate within the network. Correspondingly, for each class a stochastic routing matrix
(matrix of transition probability) must be developed to illustrate the transition
probabilities of specific class of jobs in their routings.
Figure 69: An exemplary closed queuing network.
In addition to the Buzen's algorithm [354] for calculating normalization constant in solving
queuing networks with common jobs, Baskett, Chandy, Muntz and Palacios (BCMP) model
was introduced for those closed networks with different classes of jobs. BCMP model
assumes any finite number of stations , finite number of job classes , arbitrary service
time distributions, and the change in class of job is possible with probability of ,;, . Table
7 shows the specific notations used in the BCMP model for closed networks.
Table 7: Used notations in BCMP model for closed networks.
,;,
= �,;, �
�� � =
∑(,)∈
�� =
=1  ��� ��
= �1 , 2 , … ,  �
(1 , 2 , … ,  )
Probability that a class  job after receiving its service at
station  changes to class  and requires service at station
Matrix of transition probability, defining a Markov chain
with states
Ergodic (irreducible) sub-chains of the Markov chain
Number of class  ∈  jobs in station
Number of jobs in each of the sub-chains in the state ,
constant in closed networks,  = 1,2, , … ,
Number of jobs in the network at the state
Total number of jobs in class  in the network,  = 1,2, … ,
Summarized sate for closed BCMP network
Number of jobs in each class at station  for closed BCMP
Mean system time for class  jobs in station  (mean time
span from the arrival of job to station i to its completion in
that station)
TP of class  jobs at station
Mean number of class  jobs at station
Furthermore, for defining the condition of states in a queuing network the type of stations
plays a crucial role. There are several types of stations that are directly related to the
distribution of service times for each class of jobs and influence the processing of them.
The regular types of stations are 1) M/M/n-FCFS, 2) M/G/1-PS, 3) M/G/∞, 4) M/G/1LCFS-PRE, which have different complexities in calculating parameters of BCMP networks.
Basically, BCMP theorem for open, closed, and hybrid networks with stations out of the
four above mentioned can be described by the product form (2.5.44) for probabilities of
states in different stations.
� = �1 , 2 , … ,  �� = �� �� ∏
=1  � �
where �� is the normal constant. Since the sum of all probabilities is equal 1 in
stationary state then:
�� = ∑∑
�� ∏
=1  � � ;  = (1 , 2 , … ,  )
where �� is dependent on the number of jobs in the network (2.5.46):
∏()−1
�� �−1
() ;
=1 ∏=0
⎨    − ℎ
In addition, calculation of  � � is sometimes quite complex and is dependent on type and
state of the stations. For instance, consideration of total state space in different problems
alternates the volume of mathematical operations in various algorithms for computing
performance measures, e.g., load, TP, mean queue length, and mean system time. However,
out of the different types of stations, the current study proceeds only with M/M/n-FCFS
type for all stations. The advantage of this specific type is its simplicity in calculation
algorithm besides its common application in manufacturing industries.
In the specific type of stations for calculating the performance measures following
equations hold true.
=  =  (
(1 ,…, )
1 ,…, −1,…, )
Nonetheless, for calculating these parameters for closed networks two algorithms are
famous: mean value analysis (MVA) and convolution [355]. Application of the convolution
algorithm is mainly used for evaluating the normalization constant , while MVA directly
aims to calculate the expected values of performance measures in equilibrium [356]. Since
the performance of production mechanisms can be fairly well estimated by the mean
response time (sojourn), TP, and mean queue length, MVA algorithm seems a reasonable
method to solve BCMP networks problems in this work. This algorithm is concisely
explained below.
Mean value Analysis: works based on equilibrium in closed networks as first in 1980
Reiser and Levenberg introduced in their paper [357]. The algorithm does not require
calculating the complex normalization constants and product terms, while still is
applicable to queuing models with product form and non product form solutions,
particularly for abundant chains and jobs networks. Nevertheless, the requirement of large
memory in the calculation and dependency of final results to the intermediate ones are the
weakness of this algorithm. However, its iterative algorithm simplifies the process of
calculation and after some iterations, it leads to good answers.
Following equations reflect the MVA recursive algorithm in a general form with different
job classes and for every type of satiations (as mentioned). Always, the commencement of
the algorithm is with no queue  (0) and one job  = 1 that step by step number of jobs
increases to  = . It is noticeable that for the sake of simplicity the equations used in the
algorithm are only for stations with one sever. Table 8 shows the respective notations used
in the general form of MVA algorithm.
() = �
�1 +  � −  �� ;    1,2,4 ( = 1)
�� = ∑
∈()  ��
=1  ��
�� =  �� ��
�� = ∑()  �� = ∑=1  ��
�� = () ∏
Table 8: Used notations in general form of MVA algorithm.
Number of available jobs in network,  = 1, 2, … ,
TP for  circulating jobs (using little's law)
TP in chain  with population  in network
Average sojourn time (response time) in station
( − 1)
� −  �
−  = (1 , 2 , …  −
1, … ,  )
=1  ,
∑=1  ()
= 1,2, … ,
for  jobs in network
Average system time of a job in chain  at station
between two consequitive vistis of an arbitrarily
selected station  ∗
Service rate in station , dependent on number of
Average number of jobs in station ,  = 1,2, . . . ,
Average number of jobs in station  with population
in network
Average number of jobs in chain  in station  with
population  in network
Average number of jobs in station  when one job is
less in network, (network in view of that respective
job/customer)
Average number of jobs in station  with one job
less in chain
Populations vector from network with one job less
in chain
Total service time of a job in chain  at station
Relative arrival rate of jobs in chain  at station
Total system time for stations with k jobs in
network in a single chain
Set of stations visited by chain
Set of chains that visit station
Counting index for chains
As in the section of the closed-loop system has been reviewed, there exists several
researches in the field of material flow control by means of closed-loop mechanisms.
Explicitly, those systems which follow the principles of material pull control configure
closed-loops in transferring materials between the point of origin and the point of
consumption, apart from the scope of both points. Traditionally, material flow control
structures have been analyzed by queuing theory, since they absolutely represent the
arrangement of queuing systems as jobs, servers, and buffers.
Now, the combination of the queuing theory and the closed-loop material flow in flexible
shop floors builds up closed queuing networks with specific characteristics in the analysis.
In particular, the Kanban, the Conwip, and the Polca are briefly discussed in the current
study, which they resemble closed queuing networks in their performances. The analysis of
such closed queuing networks gives rise to better understanding the dynamism of such
flexible systems with varying job classes and employment of autonomous objects.
4.5.4 Contribution of the queuing theory to Lpallets
It is realized when there is a need for sensitivity analysis in performance of Lpallets within
an assembly line, queuing theory has the capability of modeling assembly lines in either
form of closed or open network. In order to control the general plausibility of autonomous
objects performance, which have the mission of real-time scheduling and control in a
decentralized structure, queuing theory can model the system and approximate the
general expected records of that. In fact, sensitivity analysis is one capability of queuing
theory in modeling complex interactive systems including servers, buffers, and customers.
Generally, sensitivity analysis can be explained as the study of potential changes happening
to any system with uncertain variables and their effects on conclusion and output of the
system, or in general their influence on the system's behavior. There are several methods
and tools for sensitivity analysis like queuing theory [358] [359].
Experiment Scenarios with
This chapter includes several experiments all based on a discrete event simulation
software (called Plant-Simulation package) to evaluate the claimed assumptions for
superiority of the autonomy in logistics. The contributions of the autonomy paradigm to
conventional logistics processes are justified in this chapter. In fact, the main contribution
of the autonomy paradigm to the phenomenon of dynamics in logistics, from different
points of view, is experimented here. In particular, at the final sections of this chapter, the
novel concept of Lpallets is directly evaluated in some specific experiments. They deal with
real-time scheduling problem in alternative assembly shop-floors.
5.1 Integration of Lean-Agile Experiments with Autonomy in Supply Chains
This experiment proceeds with the common aspects of lean, agile and autonomy paradigms
in a generic notion. It is tried here to approximate the three concepts in the way of
improving the general performance of inbound as well as outbound logistics. After a short
introduction to the mutual definitions and tools of each concept, the contribution of
autonomy in fulfilling the targets of lean and agility is experimented in the form of a
simulation scenario.
5.1.1 Introduction of the Experiment
Appearance of new constraints and complexities on manufacturing systems, competition in
markets, customer fulfillment, and resources have brought about several paradigms and
concepts to keep industrial enterprises and sectors alive. Following deployment of lean
concepts into pioneer industries [360], it was distinguished that sometimes leanness,
including its zero inventory approach, is not capable enough of achieving its objective. This
is particularly true, when demand is lumpy and highly varying as a result of new business
environments. For this reason, new production systems were introduced, which are more
flexible and capable of meeting fluctuating demands on time with close adherence to
desired products. Consequently, the flexible manufacturing system, the reconfigurable
manufacturing system, and some other implications of agility concept have been
introduced.
Nowadays, it is known to businesses that one of their major competitive advantages
depends on their SC structure and how they manage it [361]. On a broader scale, lean
concepts can be accomplished for make-to-forecast (MTF) or MTS supply strategies under
a reliable demand forecast, whilst the agile system can be employed for MTO strategies
with the quick-response ability, when demand is uncertain and difficult to forecast [362].
Both, lean and agile paradigms are accompanied with several characteristics and targets,
which can be achieved by several tools and concepts.
For lean manufacturing, because of its precedence, some adequate methods and tools have
been introduced that guide companies to the achievements. However, the core of the
concept is independent of the tools (e.g. leveling and sequencing, one-piece flow, JIT,
Kanban, continual improvement, Kaizen, flexible capabilities value stream mapping, and
automation, see [363] [364]). In lean systems, emphasis is placed on efficiency and cost
reduction, although there are some additional indirect benefits (e.g. lean culture). For agile
systems the core concept deals with increasing flexibility that makes SC responsive to
oscillating demand with reduced lost-sales. There exist still some studies that are
conducted on methods and tools to make production systems agile. These contribute to the
realization of the main principles of this concept (i.e., virtual manufacturing, agile
production design, and knowledge management [364]). Meanwhile, autonomy in functions
and decisions is claimed to be a practical method for more flexibility, agility and lean
targets.
Along with the introduction of new methodologies and concepts, the autonomy paradigm
has become an attractive approach for scientists to tackle the complexities and dynamics
embedded in the supply chains and their related processes under uncertain circumstances
[13] [365]. According to Scholz-Reiter et al., [52] as a general term, autonomy means: "the
independence of a system in making decisions by itself without external instructions and
performing actions by itself without external forces". As a favorable paradigm expanding
over leanness and agility, autonomy may be useful to elaborate the targets of the two
mentioned concepts. The complementary performance of these three concepts is
manifested when they are applied in a supply chain or production network working under
a dynamic environment.
5.1.2 Agile Logistics
Nowadays, it is well known to enterprises that turbulent demand and volatility are the
inseparable conditions in global markets. Market uncertainty and shortened product lifecycles are faced in such a competitive environment. These force a trade-off between the
paradigms of economies of scale and economies of scope in confronting the market
demand as well as suppliers' efficiency and effectiveness targets.
Agile logistics, and its principles, have been applied to supply chains following the flexible
manufacturing system. Agility is an organizational oriented and business-wide capability
with the targets of greater responsiveness, customization and flexibility, that embraces
organizational structures, information systems, logistics processes, and, in particular,
mindsets [366]. In other words, "Agility can be considered as a need to encourage the
enterprise-wide integration of flexible and core competent resources so as to offer valueadded product and services in a volatile competitive environment" [364]. Whereas lean
principles can be part of agile systems, there are some circumstances that lean fails in
facing the customer requirements at the right time, volume, and variety as well as even its
effectiveness targets in supply chains; like the vehicle manufacturing case by Christopher
By evolving agile manufacturing, several tools and techniques have been introduced, as
practical ways, to realize agility in supply chains. Network management, knowledge
management, mass customization, dynamic enterprise reconfiguration, virtual enterprises,
interoperable systems, agile human resources, value chain integration, concurrent
engineering, and agile technologies are some instances of those techniques [366], [367].
Some of them are still in development phase, others already have been installed.
Furthermore, contribution level of those techniques to agility is yet different and may be
ambiguous. There have been several researches over practical techniques and tools to
obtain relevant capabilities and abilities to make manufacturers agile in their
performances [367], [368]. Now, imagine how complex the logistics processes of an entire
supply chain could be to be undertaken by those techniques in order to make flexible
behaviors and real-time decisions. Scholz-Reiter et al. [20] and Duffie et al. [127] have
suggested the new approach to reduce complexity in supply chains and manufacturing as:
decentralized autonomous control for logistics objects instead of the conventional
hierarchical control. This contribution is broadly discussed before.
5.1.3 Autonomous Control System in Logistics
Autonomous control (AC) has shown its capabilities in virtual experiments and
mathematical calculations in bringing the required flexibility, and real-time performance
that an agile system needs [369] [370]. On the other hand, its contribution to lean targets
like enhancement in utilization, and reduction of WIP make the paradigm quite compatible
with the both lean and agility paradigms in a favorable manner. There are several
autonomous control methods for product routing between logistics means and process
priority (e.g. production lines, roads, plants, etc.). For example, queue length estimator
(QLE), Pheromone, earliest due date, are some methods [126] [370] [371] [372]. In this
experiment, it is decided to apply QLE for its easier and understandable operation. It is
noticeable that AC is introduced versus conventional systems (Conv).
QLE method gives to products the capability of locally estimating the next queue length
plus the processing time for each successor (station). Then the product can autonomously
make a decision for its next processing destination. Briefly, the advantage of QLE is that in
each decision point the decision maker compares all precise queue length and
correspondingly the waiting time of all parallel queues. This method leads to smoother
flow of material, less processing time, and avoidance of blindly waiting in queues (as a
waste in lean), specifically, when there is a breakdown in a station (for more information of
QLE see [369] [372] [373]).
5.1.4 Logistics Performance Measures
In general, logistics operations have a very crucial role for businesses to be successful in
the growing global competition. Nonetheless, performance of logistics objectives in SC is
full of conflictions and contradicted desires. Fulfillment of one of the aspects could lead to
abortion of the other ones. This conflict is called by Gutenberg "dilemma of operation
planning" [374]. In order to optimize logistics operations of industries, performance of the
operations should be evaluated. In doing so, several measures and criteria have been
considered to estimate superior results of different experiments. Here, the following
factors are considered to estimate the performance; throughput time (as a factor of
responsiveness in agility), utilization (as a factor of waste elimination and value-adding in
lean), WIP (as a factor in lean), schedule reliability (as a factor of responsiveness and
agility). By considering these measures and their interactions, performance of the applied
strategies will be more apparent. Indeed, these measures are the illustrating factors to
define the degree of achievements in Lean and agile targets.
5.1.5 Push vs. Pull System
In general, Kanban reflects a pure pull system, while Conwip and Polca are two other
systems, which employ both push and pull concepts. These techniques were basically
initiated for shop-floor applications, but their mechanisms are extendable throughout SC.
Typically, there are two general material flow strategies in supply chains. The first one is
push strategy, which can support MTS systems and is dependent on demand forecasting.
This strategy is more efficient and easier to realize MST system. With this respect, capacity
utilization is quite high, because of in advance planning (predefined logistics operations). It
is more suitable for mass production or rather constant (stable) demands. Nevertheless, it
suffers from some shortcomings in complying with new logistics requirements.
Accordingly, its mechanism is usually not compatible with the new targets in logistics, like
less WIP, and may reflect over production and less flexibility in plan or schedule. However,
the second strategy is material pull, which is triggered by (internal or external) customer
orders and is based on MTO / ATO systems. Normally, in MTO/ATO orders are customized,
thus, final assembly is always postponed to concretize the individuals' orders. Indeed, the
later system can be partially suitable for agile principles as well as for lean. In pull systems
storage of WIP and inventory volume is normally constant and low (supermarkets instead
of inventories), obsolete material is avoided, mass customization approach is facilitated
[375], and flexibility, to meet demand fluctuations, is increased.
Here, it is noticeable that pull systems have some controversial aspects in terms of
flexibility and responsiveness. In other words, although pull system can comply with
customized and individual orders, since orders trigger the productions, but the lead time of
customer orders is higher than push systems, and this must be accepted by customers to
keep the satisfactory responsiveness. Then in this manner, the JIT technique is quite
helpful, in its absolute performance, to reduce WIP and stick to individual orders.
Moreover, idealistically, by an absolute JIT performance no demand forecast is needed.
Accordingly, a highly flexible logistics system with autonomous processes may comply
with the mentioned characteristics. It is believed that in a highly flexible system
responsiveness is so high so that every logistical action corresponds to a specific order,
since the system can meet them on time. Then the use of autonomous control makes sense.
However, pull systems have some drawbacks. These include: increased risks in material
procurement, higher lead times for customer orders, fragile continuous material flows, in
case of sudden disturbances (e.g. machine breakdowns), and stock-out situation. The
leagility concept divides supply chains into two parts. One part in upstream from DP with a
push system and the other part from DP in downstream with application of pull system.
This strategy uses the benefits of both lean and agile principles respectively push and pull
systems. However, these claims are partially examined in the following simulation scenario
of an exemplary SN with some metrics, which are pertinent to lean, agile, and logistics in
general, see Figure 70.
Figure 70: Production network scenario.
Furthermore, in macro perspective of SN, for reducing the bullwhip effects and fluctuations
in material flows, some control policies toward hybrid strategies are already developed,
e.g., leagility. Accordingly, in particular, application of Conwip control system seems
suitable for arranging the both sides of supply and demand in equilibrium. This
specification provides a basement for adopting autonomy in logistics networks. For
instance, by using this policy, a plant, as a member of supply network, is able to monitor its
situation in terms of demand as well as supply rates. Therefore, this monitoring brings
some independencies to that member to control its entrance and exit inventories. This
could be done autonomously without being dominated by the predecessors. This
autonomous plant has the authority for asking more or less supply, based on its order rate.
5.1.6 Simulated Scenario
In the simulation model, a special leagile supply chain scenario has been assumed with
fully coupled plants that this resembles a production network. This network is chosen to
show the characteristics of autonomous control in logistics concerning some waste aspects
(less WIP, high utilization) as well as agility factors (less TPT and less customer lead time).
Three steps are supposed for the network, with one source plant in the first stage, two
parallel plants of identical capabilities in stage two, and one original equipment
manufacturer (OEM) in stage three. The flow of products from stage one is equal in either
plant in stage two. For making the model easier to understand, and undertaking the
postponement concept, the DP is located at the entrance of OEM. Thus, demand penetrates
up to this point, i.e., from the source up to DP push system and for the rest of the chain pull
system (as Conwip) are applied. In the Conwip system, there are three types of pallets
(each 25) for each product type (there are three types of products to produce). In this
mechanism, for each order one pallet will be loaded to the exit of DP to carry one piece of
the respective product. This is a one-piece flow in lean concept. It should be mentioned
that the number of pallets, product types, and pallet-size (lot-size), each has a different
effect on logistic performances, which are evaluated in another experiment later. However,
these values are empirically identified and left constant in this experiment, in order to be
easier to illustrate the results. Inside each manufacturing plant, a flexible flow-shop
production system is modeled as a (3×3) production line matrix. In other words, each of
the three stations in a column is connected to three successors (stations) in the next
column. And each column of stations has to be met by each product only once. Table 9
shows the cycle time of each station for each product in the production matrix for each
plant. The performance measures inside each plant are considered as local factors and the
measures for the entire network are used to describe the global behavior.
Table 9: Cycle times for each station for each product type in each plant.
Processing Times [H:Min] At Each Plants
P11;P31
Each two plants are connected via a truck driving with a velocity of 70 km/h. It takes four
hours for each round trip, since the distances are 140 km. The trucks do not pause during
their journeys. Therefore, the carrying load of the truck varies each time concerning the
delivery rate. It should be mentioned that the trucks return empty from their journeys, so
products can meet each plant only once and move in one direction.
5.1.7 Simulation Run and Results
To show the compatibility of the three paradigms (i.e., lean, agile, autonomy) some criteria
of each are selected to be represented on the resulting figures. Here, material load
sequencing and leveling, TPT, utilization, and also standard deviation (STD), besides
customer lead time—as schedule reliability factors—are chosen. In scenario 1, results are
sorted into four different experiments to show the performance of AC and Conv under
fluctuating demand (with and without sequenced loads). The chosen AC for logistics
objects is queue length estimator. QLE gives the ability to products and pallets to make
real-time decisions for their routes according to queue of each line. The experiments are as
Sinusoidal push and pull (both load and demand) rates, which is represented as fluctuating
or seasonal effect, () = 0.4 + 0.15 ∙ sin(t + φ). The mean value of the sine equation
(rates) is 2:30 h. This flow rate holds true for the three types of products, but with a (1/3 ×
φ) phase shift for each type (i.e., φ=0, 2π, 4π). Thus, two scenarios are considered here.
Firstly, simulations are without sequenced material loads, just by loading the three product
types simultaneously under QLE and Conv control, see Figure 71a and Figure 71b. In Conv
products just get processed on the lines with the least cycle time for the corresponding
product type. It totally follows the predefined plan and schedule to control. Secondly,
simulations are with sequencing the loads according to demands' sequences (Figure 71c,
Figure 72a, Figure 72b, Figure 72c, Figure 73a). It should be mentioned that QLE method,
from one point of view, does the task of leveling the lines at real-time, by dispatching
products to stations with less waiting time in queue and bottleneck prevention.
a) Local TPT (for OEM) under sinusoidal demand without
sequencing, under Conv and QLE systems: mean value for Conv=8
hour, QLE=8 h, with STD for Conv=1:31 h, QLE=1:26 h
Local TPT-QLE
Local TPT-Conventional
b) Global TPT under sinusoidal demand without sequencing,
under Conv and QLE systems: mean value for Conv=67 h, QLE=67
h, with STD for Conv=25:15 h, QLE=25:16 h.
Global TPT Conventional
Global TPT QLE
c) Local TPT (for OEM) under sinusoidal
demand with sequencing, under Conv and QLE
systems: mean value for Conv=7 h, QLE=9 h,
with STD for Conv=0:42 h, QLE=1:00 h.
Figure 71: Local TPT and global TPT in alternative scenarios.
As it is shown in Figure 71a, Figure 71b, Figure 71c, the performance of QLE is not better
than Conv. Despite the DP separation task, OEM is still dependent on the incoming rates
into DP; because WIP is not high enough to fulfill demands on time. In this case, concerning
the damping effect of transporters and previous plants, the replenishment rates for OEM is
constant (and in average under processing capacity of OEM lines). Thus, the rate of
processed products is constant too (due to limited numbers of pallets and constant
replenishment rates). So, again, under constant rate Conv obviously works better.
In fact, despite the sinusoidal load, with simultaneous load rates, logistics shows a static
behavior with constant pulse (pace). When three loads pulsate concurrently, the first tier
of logistics is changed to bottleneck and the rest of the tiers have a constant delivery rate.
Thus, Conv works the same or may be better than AC under a stable circumstance.
However, other performance measures like higher utilization (with constant WIP) and
responsiveness are much better, when the system uses AC. As Figure 72a shows, with the
use of QLE, Global TPT has lower mean value and STD. It is the same for utilization in
Figure 73b that AC performs better as well as customer lead times in Figure 72c with QLE
under sequencing that has quicker respond to customers.
a) Global TPT under sinusoidal demand with sequencing, under
Conv and QLE systems: mean value for Conv=42 h, QLE=38 h, with
STD for Conv=2:43 h, QLE=1:00 h.
b) Utilization percentage of stations in OEM for Conv and QLE
systems with sequenced load.
Working Percentage
Working % (QLE)
Working % (Conventional)
Global TPT-QLE
Global TPT-Conventional
S_1_1 S_1_2 S_1_3 S_2_1 S_2_2 S_2_3 S_3_1 S_3_2 S_3_3
c) Customer Lead time for Conv. and QLE, under sine demand and load.
Lead time QLE
Lead time Conventional
Figure 72: Global TPT, utilization and customer lead time under alternative scenarios.
Here, lead time, is the gap between customer order and its fulfillment. This represents the
responsiveness factor of the scenario. The simulations ran for 100 days that the last 60
days of them are depicted on all figures. The results show that when there is a phase shift
between supply rates of products, exploitation of AC makes an improvement into the
system. For showing this a further experiment is done in follows. However, when
replenishment rates are simultaneous and not in sequence of fluctuating demand, then
Conv could make more sense.
Push of materials with semi-constant loads following the normal distribution as load rates
for each product type is scenario 2. Demand follows still the same sinusoidal behavior. The
push load has mean value and STD of (μ=2:35 h, σ=1 h), which is a bit more than the mean
value of sine demand. This is because of shortage avoidance in DP. This simulates constant
loads before DP and fluctuating demand after DP, as leagile SC support that. Figure 73a
represents WIP in OEM lines. The spread of WIP is homogenized with QLE. Figure 73c
shows the local TPT in OEM for scenario 2. The global TPT in this case is increasing in a
linear manner. Because the push rate is higher than pull rate, thus the DP collects more
inventories and, thus, more global TPT. It means the replenishment rate is higher than
demand rate. This is the evidence of material obsolescence. However, the purpose of this
experiment is to show the capability of AC in a chaotic situation, e.g., replenishment is
equal or higher than demand. In scenario 2, the DP has enough inventories to supply pulled
demand, so QLE performs much better under turbulent (sinusoidal) demand rate. Less TPT
and higher utilization are the goals, which are obviously achieved here, see Figure 73b.
a) WIP of buffers in OEM for Conv and QLE systems, under sine
demand and stochastic load.
systems, under sine demand and stochastic push.
Working percentage (%)
B_1_1 B_1_2 B_1_3 B_2_1 B_2_2 B_2_3 B_3_1 B_3_2 B_3_3
c) Local TPT (for OEM) under sinusoidal demand with stochastic push load by normal distribution.
Figure 73: WIP, utilization, and local TPT under alternative scenarios.
5.1.8 Conclusion of the Experiment
After a short introduction to lean, agile and autonomy paradigms, simulation results have
illustrated the complimentary aspects of the paradigms and their correlations. For this
purpose, logistic performance measures are considered to show the trade-off between the
employed strategies' performances. For example, TPT and customer lead time represent
the quickness and responsiveness of each method (Conv or QLE). Also, percentage of
utilization and WIP numbers defined the efficiency and effectiveness of the experimented
methods. Just by these criteria the ratio of autonomy to agility and lean concepts can be
clarified.
Whereas previous works illustrated the superior performance of autonomous control
methods in pure push systems, these experiments' results demonstrate the importance of
improvement in autonomous control methodologies in order to suit the autonomy
paradigm, in particular, to pull systems and alternatively closer to practice. It can be
deduced from simulation results that in a leagile network, before reaching DP a
conventional production plan can be applied properly. This brings cost efficiency and less
setup times e.g., zero changeover percentage. According to the logistic performance
measures and the results of this work, autonomy can be employed for optimizing the
trade-off between the performance measures. Furthermore, lot-size, which in this chapter
has been considered as one piece, and the number of pallets are the other optimizing
factors in pull system logistics. Autonomy concepts can deal with flexible lot-sizes and
other optimizing factors as well.
The examined autonomous control method at this level of research has been regarded as
routing autonomy in SN. However, other aspects of autonomy, besides, the implementation
of other lean improvement techniques— like hybrid working cells in cooperation with
autonomous parts to bring more comfortable customization and assembly according to
real-time orders— could be the other autonomy aspects, to be done in prospective studies.
However, in fully flexible SN even DP may be flexible in terms of its location regarding the
current strategy to be followed. For instance, the autonomous pallets may take the ratio of
supply and demand. Then based on the ratio the pallets decide over push or pull control
individually. Moreover, pallets may have flexible carrying size regarding the current
demand and order rate. These issues are discussed by Scholz-Reiter and Mehrsai in [48].
5.2 Optimization of Material-Pull in a Push-Pull Flow Logistic Network, using
Meta-Heuristic and Fuzzy System
This experiment covers a push-pull system in SN with DP at the entrance of OEM. It is
based on the paper presented at "The 1st International Conference on Logistics and
Maritime Systems (LOGMS)" [235]. Similarly, the leagile concept is employed for an
exemplary SN. The main goal is to show the importance of some decisive factors in such
push-pull networks with fluctuating orders as well as supply. Due to high dynamism in the
material flow system, the complexity is high as well. Here, uncertainty in processing times
and multi-objectives make the problem quite hard to be processes by conventional
mathematical programming. Moreover, the objectives are to reduce the average global TPT
of the entire network as well as local TPT in OEM, besides, increase of stations' utilization
in OEM. Here, with an extension to the previous scenario, the number of pallets, cycling in
Conwip part, and size of each pallet, are considered as optimization factors. They directly
affect a smooth material flow through the conjunction point of push and pull (DP). For this
purpose, two intelligent heuristics (GA and SA) are employed to find the near optimum
values for improving the decision of managers in material handlings. It is noticeable that
the heuristics are run in offline simulation, so the simulation days are known. Besides,
fuzzy set theory is exploited for two reasons. First, it is used in aggregating multi-objective
problem in a normalized unique objective to maximize the satisfaction degrees for all
objectives. Second, the fuzzy system is used to cope with uncertainty in recognizing
consecutive queue lengths in the assumed flexible flow-shop at OEM.
5.2.1 Hybrid Push-Pull Control
Despite the fact that MRP is a central control system, which pushes materials to
downstream of consumption point, in contrary, pull principles are categorized in
distributed control systems. Pull systems work based on WIP limitation and current
demand of the local working area. Concurrent application of both push and pull systems is
a twofold view as: seamless control of material flows and streamlining them. Firstly,
employment of push (by central control) defines the release dates of processing in a global
context. Meanwhile, pull control operates based on local situations of WIP. Consequently,
global and local factors interact with each other. This approach enhances the coordination
of the entire logistics system facing dynamics. However, simultaneously, employment of
push and pull systems is not necessarily required. Inspired by shop-floors control, some
suggested control strategies for logistics networks can be sorted as follows:
Division of the entire network into two parts as push and pull, which is broadly
discussed as Leagile supply chains,
Employment of both push and pull control systems simultaneously within each
member of the network or throughout the whole network, like: Conwip and G-Polca
(this type needs high flexibility overall, which is subject to have distributed and
intelligent control system) [237],
Inspired by Polca, dividing the network into paired-cells and applying the material
release date by push system as well as WIP limitation by pull cards.
In these listed options, dispatching rules and workload balancing are still challenging
issues. However, in this experiment just the first proposed option is analyzed. The
downstream in the network with material pull flow is optimized to coordinate the collision
point of push-pull flows (DP). Dispatching rule and balancing workloads are chosen to be
done based on the autonomous control system, which uses autonomous pallet and QLE
method with precise as well as fuzzy estimations. It follows the bottleneck control rule, but
based on autonomous objects' decisions and less queue length, see Scholz-Reiter et al. [35].
Moreover, the pull side, which is located in OEM, gets triggered by customer orders that
have a stochastic nature with neg-exponential distribution for inter-arrival times between
orders, as in practice [376]. The pdf of neg-exponential is like () =  ∙  �− �, with
= 2: 50 . However, the push side depends on the incoming semi-finished products to
DP, which is dependent on their supply rate.
5.2.2 Problem Definition
The simulated network is constructed by three steps of processing plants, see Figure 74. In
step 1, two plants (P11, P12) are considered to produce three types of raw material in each
plant. Each type of raw material has to get assembled with its counterpart from another
plant, in the next step. The step 2 has two assembly plants (P21, P22) which have the same
processing capability. Therefore, the plants in step 1 are fully connected to the plants in
step 2 and products will be allocated to them based on their queue length and bottleneck
control concept. The plants in step 2 will transfer their assembled products (which are now
just three types) to the final plant called OEM. From sources up to the entrance of OEM
products are pushed regarding the forecasted demand and just inside OEM pull principle is
applied. This is to meet alternations in demands of the three types over the time horizon.
Source2 P12
Queue & Station
Pull flow
Push flow
140 Km distance
Figure 74: Exemplary push-pull network, with lasting each round trip 4 hours for transporters.
Moreover, for explaining the optimization problem, on the one side, material flow
flexibility, in addition to the rate of material push have to be considered. On the other side,
the stochastic upcoming orders on the pull side have to be taken into account. For this
purpose, the supposed flexibilities in this experiment are autonomous control for pallets in
routing as well as flexible lot-sizes and number of cyclic pallets in OEM. Basically, three
types of products are assumed in the simulation scenario that each can be carried by
respective type of pallets. Here, the processing times in stations follow the normal
distribution ~(,  2 ) that is resembled by triangular fuzzy numbers for estimation. Here,
the mean value is equal to the middle range of respective triangular fuzzy number and
standard deviation is  = 10.
Furthermore, despite three types of final products, each type of product is combined of two
raw materials, each coming from a source. However, this stream of flow from sources
follows uncertain delivery intervals. So, the stochastic combination of operations and
transportations between the network's plants make the supply of semi-finished products,
to OEM, fully stochastic natured too. In the same way, demand interval's distribution is
stochastic. Consequently, these stochastic features cause a very complex dynamic system
with vagueness in real-time control decisions.
However, another great complexity accompanied in this problem is on time arrangement
of empty pallets to be available for carrying upcoming orders and products. Since the flow
of pushed materials as well as upcoming demands are uncertain and unstable, the number
of Conwip carts (pallets here), and lot-sizes can be considered as optimizing factors for
making tradeoffs in the flow problem. Nonetheless, their exact contributions to the
objective are mathematically unknown in advance. This is a strong reason for employing
simulation and heuristic methods to solve this problem.
5.2.3 Applied Genetic Algorithm
In general, the procedure of GA in this study is as follows:
General genetic algorithm used in optimizing number of pallets and (lot)size
t = 0;
initialize new population P(t);
evaluate the fitness value of current solutions (individuals)
while (generation number <7) do
t =t+1;
select individuals for P(t) with higher probability from P(t-1);
alter (crossover and mutate) individuals in P(t);
evaluate P(t);
Here, the roulette-wheel section is chosen as the selection operator. The roulette-wheel
function measures a probability of selection for each individual by getting the mean value
of the fitness � = ∑   � of an individual in proportion to all observations of the fitness
values. Here, N is the number of individuals in current population. Easily, the higher the
probability value the more chances have the individuals to be selected.
Furthermore, the specific GA for this problem is supposed to optimize the fitness value,
which is a based on a multi-objective function. So, fitness values (called observation) for
each individual, in each generation, are to be calculated by following objectives:
1 = ∑ ∑  + ∑ ∑
2 = ∑
Table 10: Applied notations in the problem.
Product type;
= 1, … , ;  = 3
Product number ;  = 1, … , ;  = depends on 80 Days simulation run
Average local throughput time (in OEM for type  product )
Average global throughput time for type  product
Total delivery of product type
Maximum Entrance inventory in OEM for type
Nevertheless, these functions are unified to the objective of maximization of satisfaction
degrees by following equation (as it was explained in fuzzy mathematical programming
chapter). Then the GA procedure starts.
The GA continues by selecting parents (by roulette-wheel) for the next generation
according to the probability values of each individual. Then the crossover and mutation
operations are applied to the parent to breed a new generation. Here, crossover function
has the probability of 0.8 and mutation of 0.1, as is common in literature. In the next
generations, the procedure is the same. All individuals in a new generation are evaluated
unless they have been seen in the previous generations. Totally, GA experiments 110
(10+5×20=110 out of 50×10=500) individuals consist of the couple of lot-size and pallets
number, for seeking the excellent performance of the system, see Figure 75.
Figure 75: Exemplary performance of the used GA crossover in breeding children for the next generation and
encoding.
According to the algorithm of SA in previous chapters, here, the step function in decreasing
the temperature  after each loop follows the function of  =  �(⁄
�. The
step function is inspired by literature as well as empirical trials to show the best cooling
schedule. Where,  notices the current temperature,  min is the least temperature,
and  denotes the cycle number in the loop. This special use of cooling procedure assists
the algorithm to avoid local optimum solutions and optimistically escape from local traps
towards a global optimum in a given amount of time.
5.2.5 Fuzzy Set
Fuzzy set theory is a powerful set theory for characterizing uncertainty and stochastic
nature of practical operations in complex systems like logistics. Practitioners are aware
that any human-centered problems in industries, e.g., processing times, due dates, and
delivery time, are uncertain in nature, Sakawa et al. [179]. Specially, in case of logistics
operations, it can be seen that customer orders appear stochastically. Accordingly, the
respective information is usually imprecise throughout SN. For this purpose, fuzzy control
systems by employing fuzzy numbers, their membership functions, and defining fuzzy
inference rules can distinguish the existing uncertainties as well as compromising
imprecision. In fact, they suit to vague or ill-defined problems like logistics. In particular,
here, uncertainty—e.g., processing times with normal or exponential distribution and illdefined—in shop-floors or through outbound logistics causes imprecise decisions over
material flow scheduling and control tasks. This problem can be solved better by taking
into account the fuzzy nature of operations and arranging fuzzy rules for better results in
decisions. Respectively, IF-Then fuzzy rules reflect the policy of decision makers in terms of
the objectives, see Petrovic et al. [298]. However, for this experiment, fuzzy set theory just
accomplishes two tasks. Firstly, it is used in the form of the inference system to distinguish
the least queue length of consecutive stations in the assumed flexible flow-shop problem in
OEM. Secondly, it is applied for unification of disparate multi-objects. Each of these
applications can be explained as follows.
The fuzzy set is merged to the performance of QLE method for estimating ambiguous
queue length of parallel stations, which is explained below. However, ambiguity in the
estimation of queue length may have different aspects. Initially, the processing time can
have a fuzzy nature instead of crisp value, while the exact information about the number of
products and their types in each queue is available for estimation. This case is
experimented in this chapter. Moreover, the other vague aspect of fuzzy QLE may be
imprecise information about the buffers in front of each parallel station. In this case not
only the processing times are imprecise and fuzzy natured, but on the top of that there is
no exact information for QLE to make a precise decision about the least queue length
station as its successor. The latter case is broadly explored in another experiment in the
next chapter.
Fuzzy queue length estimator algorithm
i=Number of parallel stations
for t = 1 to i loop
Estimate the queue length of station i : (regarding number and types of products in buffer)
Aggregate the fuzzy processing numbers for all waiting products in Queue and station
Compare the fuzzy waiting times in i station by using ranking metrics
Choose the station with least waiting in that as successor
In fact, Several shapes can be used for defining membership functions of fuzzy sets, among
them are triangular, trapezoidal, Gaussian, and s-curve [298] [377]. Triangular fuzzy
membership function, because of its simple arithmetic operations, is usually considered for
modeling uncertain processing times. However, the processing times in OEM follow a
triangular fuzzy numbers as in Table 11 the processing time over the entire network
scenario is given.
Table 11: Processing times for each product on each line.
PROCESSING TIMES [H:MIN] FOR EACH PLANT
P11; P12
P3 (OEM)
DETERMINISTIC VALUE
FUZZY VALUE
1:48, 2:00, 2:12
These values are exerted in order to recognize uncertain waiting times and upon them
choosing the best route with the least waiting time. This happens by knowing the exact
number and types of products in each parallel queue and then just by aggregating them
�2 � = (11 + 12 , 21 + 22 , 31 + 32 ) in fuzzy set theory.
�1 � + �Y
based on the fact of �Y
Besides, in order to compare fuzzy waiting times of parallel stations, the pallets have to use
some ranking criteria for comparing the fuzzy waiting values, for more information see
Sakawa et al. [179].
�1 � ≥ C1 �Y
�2 � or C2 �Y
�1 � ≥
Y1 ≥ �
Y2 ���������� C1 �Y
�2 �
C3 �Y
�� = 1 −22+3; C2 �Y
�� = y2 ; C3 �Y
�� = 3 − 1 .
where C1 �Y
This ranking is to compare different fuzzy numbers in each column of parallel stations to
find the smaller one of them. It is directly used in comparing fuzzy parallel queues.
Moreover, the three ranking measures are quite relevant when more than two fuzzy
numbers are to be compared. For this purpose, each time a pallet compares the three
parallel queues, the three fuzzy numbers are compare first by C1 if the ascending values of
C1 are found, then there is no need to get the values of C2 and C3 , otherwise they should be
calculated, respectively.
5.2.6 Experiment Results
In this section, two alternative outcomes of the simulation are displayed by surface graphs.
The two alternatives are as applying fuzzy sets in QLE control and conventional QLE with
crisp estimation, in estimating queues' waiting times. However, the processing times are
stochastic in all. For better perception of both performance alternatives and in order to
evaluate the effect of push flow on the pull section, two supply rates are considered for the
source plants in the network to follow the normal distribution and neg-exponential
distribution. Figure 76 in a1 and a2 depicts the search values of GA for the three
coordinates as: lot-size, number of pallets, and fitness value; when the flow control does
not consider fuzzy sets. In Figure 76a1 supply rate follows neg-exponential distribution
( = 55 min) and in Figure 76a2 normal distribution for supply rate ( = 55,  =
5) is considered. In fact, simple QLE assumes processing times are just crisp, by using
the middle value of the normal distribution in processing times. Obviously, in this
procedure, the satisfaction degrees are unreliable, fluctuating, imprecise, and, in average,
lower than the counterpart experiments with QLE.Fuzzy.
a1) Simple QLE with neg-exp ß=55 min.
b1) QLE.Fuzzy with neg-exp ß=55 min
a2) Simple QLE with Normal μ=55min, σ=5min.
b2) QLE.Fuzzy with Normal μ=55min, σ=5min.
Figure 76: The results for alternative scenarios in the presence of fuzzy sets and without.
On the contrary, Figure 76 in b1 and b2 displays GA search values with the employment of
fuzzy sets in comparing uncertain queues' waiting times, respectively, with negexponential supply ( = 55 min) in Figure 76b1 and normal (µ=55min, σ=5min) supply
rate in Figure 76b2. These figures reflect the fuzzy nature of processes and consider the
Sakawa ranking criteria. In these cases higher satisfaction degrees in average are achieved,
because of better uncertainty distinction in decisions. However, it is obvious that the
supply rates with normal distribution have a smoother surface than those with negexponential. This refers to the higher replenishment rate at OEM, which compensates lack
of material in case of lot-sizes >1. For more results of further alternatives see appendix A.
The results prove that when the system is uncertain using fussy numbers and operations
performs better than crisp values with their conventional calculations. Finally, the
application of meta-heuristics gives the opportunity to a decision maker for adapting its
system to optimality through a broad range of available searched values. The figures show
that satisfaction degrees in the presence of fuzzy sets are higher in the same lots-size and
pallets' number.
Table 12: Satisfaction degrees in SA for two alternatives with neg-exponential supply in Source plants.
SATISFACTORY DEGREE
NUMBER OF PALLETS
SA WITH THREE DIMENSIONS
USING QLE.FUZZY WITH NORMAL
QLE WITH NORMAL
USING QLE.FUZZY WITH NEG-EXP
QLE WITH NEG-EXP
Respectively, the results out of SA (Table 12) can justify the performance of GA, since they
are comparable. However, in the case of SA, because of its essence, just the continuously
improving results are shown to the simulator, according to the temperature and cooling
system. Nevertheless, SA like GA requires several tunings to bring desirable results. In
spite of more calculating time, in our experiments SA brought higher satisfaction degrees
than GA in case of normal supply in source plants. In contrary, GA brought higher
satisfaction degrees in case of neg-exponential supply. This is because of search space.
In conclusion, the main contribution of this experiment approach is to assist managers in
making better decisions for such complex problems like the decision over the number of
Conwip carts as well as their lot-size. It has been seen here that this decision is fully
dependent on the supply and demand rates and may have a very alternating behavior. It is
very hard to use conventional mathematical formulas to calculate the optimum values for
this problem, while the use of GA or SA can give rise to good alternatives within a relatively
short time.
5.3 Toward Learning Autonomous Pallets by Using Fuzzy Rules, Applied in a
Conwip System
This section holds the same SN scenario as the one in previous experiment, while it extends
the experiment in further aspects. It is based on a submitted paper to international journal
of advanced manufacturing by Mehrsai and Scholz-Reiter [378]. The main focus in this
experiment is not on the number of pallet but, here, use of Lpallets in finding better routes
facing uncertainty is emphasized. In this experiment, several trials are done to underscore
the superiority of learning within Conwip closed-loop. In this section, the subjective
algorithms for judgments as well as learning are illustrated. Moreover, by holding the same
scenario the problem can be conventionally reduced to a simple flexible flow-shop
scheduling problem with minimization of average flow time (or TPT). This objective
combines the minimizing of local and global TPT by integrating the waiting time at the
entrance inventory of OEM to the flow time through the flexible shop-floor.
5.3.1 Mathematical Programming Representation
The problem can be mathematical modeled by the following programming. However, it is
noticeable that consideration of imprecise parameters existing in the simulated scenario is
not straightforward. To model the problem is yet easier than solving that conventionally. In
addition to the NP-hard nature of the problem [379] the stochastic and fuzzy parameters
make it quite hard to be solved. Indeed, as mentioned in the relevant section before,
mathematical programming with conventional solutions is not suitable for problems with
dynamics and uncertainty, since the optimization solvers have static nature. The problem
has some real-world specification that requires real-time decision makings. For instance,
number of products is not available in advance to be solved statically, so several
presumptions are required to solve it conventionally without simulation or heuristics.
However, the problem can be fairly good modeled as MINLP like below:
Products: , ℎ = {1, … , }
Family: ,  = {1, … ,3}
Column:  = {1, … ,3}
Station:  = {1, … ,3}
No. of parallel stations () in column ()
Importance weight of family
Stochastic and fuzzy parameters:
Release time of product () in family () to the shop-floor (after entrance inventory)
Entrance time of product  in family  shop-floor (before entrance inventory) following
neg-exponential distribution
�  Availability of pallet family  at the entrance of shop-floor (stochastic)
� Processing time of station  in column  for family  (triangular fuzzy set)
Completion time of product  in family  shop-floor, ∈  +
Number of product  in each family , ∈  +
= 1 if product  family  on station  in column , 0 otherwise
Waiting time of product  in family  before operation on station  in column , ∈  +
Release time of product  in family  on station  in column , ∈  +
Availability time of station  in column  for product  in family , ∈  +
Total (weighted) completion times, ∈  +
.  = ∑ ∑ �
� + ∑ ∑� −  �
= ∑ ∑
�  ,  �; ∀,
− ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑� �� +  �� = 0
Binary decisions
∈ {0,1}; ∀, , ,
∑  = 1; ∀, ,
guarantees only one station in a column to be used
∑  = ∑ (−1) ; ∀, , ;  > 1
guarantees flow goes to next column
∑ ∑1=1   =  ��∑ ∑1=1   −  �, 0� ; ∀, ,  = 1
waiting time in first column
∑   =
��∑   − �∑ (−1) �(−1) + �(−1) ��� , 0� ; ∀, ,  > 1
waiting time for all columns bigger than one
∑3=1   ≥ ∑
ℎ=1 ∑=1�ℎ ℎ + ℎ  � ; ∀, , , ;  ≠
guarantees the total release + processing time ≤ availability of machine.
Sequencing constraints
≥ ℎ + � − �1 − ℎ �
ℎ + ℎ = 1;  ≠ ℎ
ℎ ≥  + � − �ℎ �
ℎ = 0;  = ℎ
where the sequencing constraints guarantee no simultaneous processing happens in the
same station.
5.3.2 Lpallets in Pull System
In addition to advantages of autonomy in macro scale by using hybrid systems, Conwip
system gives a glorious benefit to pallets in shop floors. Since pallets are the means of
Conwip control, they may learn the behavior of their working environment. As referred in
[54], Conwip control, based on the constant work in process, has a limited number of cards
or pallets for moving products. Those industries that use pallets, or alike, as pull signals
give this opportunity to pallets to experience the situation of production lines and get upto-date data in each round trip. In the previous sections, it was already explained that
Conwip resembles closed-loops. In each cyclic round, pallets record some certain values for
metrics in order to evaluate the performance of the system, lines, supply, and fulfillment
Furthermore, for bearing learning ability to pallets, some fuzzy rules, as the controller, are
adopted in order to judge and learn the behaviors. This is particularly applicable because
of the uncertain nature of the supply, demand, and operation times. Although using fuzzy
logic is not the only way of judging and learning, but it is one of the alternatives studied in
this experiment. The exclusive fuzzy rules transmit decision variants that the pallets may
confront with them. Lpallets, after carrying respective product(s), record all data about the
time. It means they save important criteria, e.g., waiting time in a passed queue and its
respective processing time in station, the code name of station, and the average time
expended by pallets passed through this station. To some extent, these data are recorded in
Lpallet as the source of knowledge and decision making. Then, based on some defined
fuzzy rules embedded in the controller, Lpallets make judgments for the past stations
derived from linguistic (qualitative) inputs with membership values. These judgments are
the foundation of later decision makings about routing selection.
After a while, cyclic flows through the lines and collecting experience, now an Lpallet,
derived from its judgments, is able to select a route and proceed over it. This ability is
achieved by two procedures as: judgment process and route selection. Although these
procedures are not mutually exclusive in performance, they have two separate operating
algorithms. The entire judgment process works based on the following algorithm:
Algorithm of judgment process for Lpallets with fuzzy controller
1. Begin
2. If the operation in station is done then
a. Reflect the waiting time and cycle time into fuzzy judgment operator
b. begin
i. fuzzify the crisp input value of waiting plus cycle time into membership
value by the respective membership function
ii. Judge this membership value of the queue and station by linguistic terms
iii. Record this membership and linguistic judgment into the pallet
c. end;
3. end;
Initially, different shapes of membership function are practiced for the fuzzy sets
concerning linguistic judgments for experienced stations and queues. All of them are
assumed to have flexible boundaries due to their moving average value. However, among
all, the most reasonable one is the triangular function with variable space using the control
chart with boundaries of [UCL LCL], inspired by statistical process control, see Haridy et al.
[380]. Now, the fuzzification and linguistic judgment process for the specific [UCL LCL] is
rendered based on its algorithm, as below:
Algorithm of fuzzification for judgment process
2. i= experienced samples number
3.  = 1≤≤ ( ) ,  = 1≤≤ ( ) ,  =  − ,
4.  = ̅ = ∑
5.  = ∑=1
̅
= ∑=1
6.  =  + ( ) × ,
7.  = 1.468
8. If  < () and  >
9. If  <
11. If  < () and  ≥
13. If  <
= ( − ( ) × , 0)
and  > () then
10. If  > () and  ≤
12. If  ≥
µ =
−�
µ = 1
is normal
is bad
is good
14. end;
In fact, there are two alternatives in the presence of vagueness for dispatching pallets to
parallel stations. The first alternative is to rely on the imprecise linguistic terms about
queues at the moment, called here (NoLP), and is not pertinent to the judgment process.
These linguistic terms define the best station for dispatching, see following:
Algorithm of route selection, relying on linguistic terms of queues
a. For i=1 to number of successors
i. Check linguistic terms and membership value of queue (i)
ii. If the term is "Speedy" then has priority 1
iii. If the term is "Lowspeedy" then has priority 2
iv. If the term is "Nospeedy" then has priority 3
b. Next;
c. Take the maximum membership value in each priority
d. Choose the Queue with higher priority and membership value
On the other hand, the second alternative is to use the Lpallets and employ their judgment
ability, called (LP). After judgment of stations, in order to select the best parallel station out
of three, the route selection algorithm is triggered. Here, an extension happens to both
linguistic terms out of a current situation of queues and the recorded judgments
(experiences) inside an Lpallet. Finally, the decision for dispatching is made by the
extension principle of Zadeh [302], see following for its algorithm.
2. While i ≤ number of successors do
a. begin
i. Check the linguistic term and its membership value of station (i)
ii. In Lpallet, check linguistic judgments and membership values of last three
records about queue & station number (i)
1. Take the min operator of the last three records in Lpallet, see table 3
2. Take the max (OR) operator between this derived value of Lpallet and
membership value of linguistic judgment in station (i)
(Zadeh extension, see FAM)
3. Imply the membership values out of premise of respective fuzzy rule to
the consequent by alpha cut method (truncation)
4. Aggregate the consequent membership values by method sum
5. Defuzzify the fuzzy values of consequences to crisp value for the
b. end;
3. Next;
4. Compare the crisp values of each successor and take the one with the least value as
selected successor
(Call Judgment algorithm)
Here, the Mamdani fuzzy inference system [381] [382] is applied. Besides, the
defuzzification method is the weighted average [383] that its estimation algorithm is
presented in following.
a. 1 = max (membership value of Good station, Speedy station)
2 = max (membership value of Normal station, Lowspeedy station)
3 = max (membership value of Bad station, Nospeedy station)
i. If (1 ⋀ 2 ⋀ 3 ) ≠ 0 then
Crisp value of the respective queue & station =
�(+(−)×1 )+�2 ×
+�+(+(−)×3 )�
1 +2 +3
ii. elseif (1 ⋀ 2 ) ≠ 0 then
Crisp value of the respective queue & station=
iii. elseif (1 ⋀ 3 ) ≠ 0 then
iv. elseif (2 ⋀ 3 ) ≠ 0 then
v. elseif (1 ) ≠ 0 then
vi. elseif (2 ) ≠ 0 then
+��
[(+(−)×1 )+(+(−)×3 )]
��2 ×
[(+(−)×1 )]
Graphical representative of the fuzzy associative memory (FAM) for selection of successor
station based on experienced judgments and current imprecise linguistic terms of
successors is displayed in Figure 77.
Figure 77: Applied fuzzy associative memory.
Table 13 presents the performance of fuzzy rules in the presence of queue linguistic terms,
used in extension. Table 14 defines the FAM in case of Min operator for several records
(experiences). In order to compare the performance of the stated LP method, some
alternatives are used, e.g., QLE. However, for adopting uncertainty in processing time, the
performance of QLE must be adjusted. This adjusted QLE is called (QLE.Fuzzy). The
performance of the adjusted method is exactly the same as QLE but the processing time of
every existing pallet in a queue is fuzzy configured (i.e., triangular). This method is applied
in the experiment in the previous section.
Table 13: Performance of fuzzy rules with the presence of queue linguistic terms, using in extension.
Lowspeedy
Nospeedy
Table 14: Representation of fuzzy rules without presence of queue linguistic terms.
5.3.3 Simulation Results Analysis
Several experiments are conducted for this study. Firstly, local throughput time (LTPT) of
different control methods is compared, by one piece in pallets' lot size. Secondly, this is
experimented for alternative lot sizes in pallets. Thirdly, these states are compared with
two flow alternatives as push and pull. Fourthly, LTPT and global TPT (GTPT) of the
methods are compared against each other in the presence of stochastic breakdowns for all
stations. This time, not only TPT of the methods, but utilization of stations, WIP, and the
makespan of all 500 final products in each type, are given.
Choosing the inflow of the source plants as the Gamma pdf ( = 1.65,  = 1.57) causes
stochastic replenishments in OEM. The mixed average of inflows can be approximated best
by the Gumbel max distribution ( = 1.09,  = 1.96). At the same time, customers' orders
come with neg-exponential pdf ( =  = 0.38) as it is likely in practice. Condensed supply
and demand rates compromises the influence of previous plants upon shortage in entrance
inventory. Nonetheless, the fully stochastic system with random supply, demand, and
operations, addresses a fully dynamic system with highly variable factors. Additionally,
ambiguity in recognizing the exact state of buffers (queues) and stations in each event
leads to imprecise decisions for choosing the best successors. Consequently, it results in
higher GTPT for the general network, and higher LTPT in the OEM. However, in the first
experiment, by considering vague data, application of Lpallets shows an improvement of
(49 minutes) in overall average LTPT (ALTPT), see Figure 78.
Figure 78: Comparison of LTPT for LP, NoLP, and QLE in first pdf circumstance.
In Figure 78, three alternatives are compared against each other; application of Lpallets
with judgment capability (LP), without using Lpallets by just relying on the linguistic terms
of parallel queues based on imprecise information of queues (NoLP), and the precise
estimation of waiting time in each parallel queue and station based on real QLE. As it is
obvious, the trend of ALTPT in Lpallet (Av.LP) is smoothly inclining towards 10 hours that
reflects learning, while ALTPT in NoLpallet (Av.NoLP) constantly follows over 11 hours.
However, QLE is just covered for comparison and is not compatible with the assumed
vagueness in the available data.
Furthermore, by changing the neg-exponential inflow of the sources to ( =  = 0.33) the
inflow stream to the OEM changes as well. In the same way, again the pdf of the mixedaverage of all types supply is approximated by Gumbel Max distribution ( = 1.33,  =
2.36), see Figure 79. For the single type product to OEM see appendix B. This proves that
although changes in flow pdf of previous nodes have effects on the replenishment
distribution in OEM, but its pdf generally stays similar. Simultaneously, the pdf of customer
orders is changed to neg-exponential by  =  = 0.33.
These changes indicate a better sensitive analysis for the entire network as well as inside
the emphasized plant. This time, not only one piece flow but the influence of different lot
sizes of pallets is experimented. In this case, LP alternative has two variants: LP with
constant lot size (LP-No-Va) and LP with flexible lot size (LP-Va). Regarding the learning
ability, in lot sizes with more than one, Lpallets are able to reduce their lot size temporarily
in the presence of congestions. This happens concerning the previous judgments for the
first tier stations, i.e., if the judgment was bad then in this round Lpallet takes one piece
less than the real lot size. Table 15 shows ALTPT in different alternatives with Conwip
Accordingly, the ratio of ALTPT of each control method to the average of all methods, in
each lot size, is compared in Figure 80. Additionally, in order to compare the adopted pull
strategy with material push, the ALTPT ratios of pull to push are displayed on Figure 81.
Table 15: ALTPT in different alternatives for Conwip flow control.
ALTPT (Hour)
LLP-No-Va
LP-Va
No-LP
Lot=1
Figure 80: Ratio of ALTPT to average of all alternatives with different lot sizes.
Figure 81: Ratio of ALTPT in pull to push for all alternatives with different lot sizes.
It is noticeable that although by using push system there is a short increase in the number
of delivered products, but the LTPT increases by hours. This is because; the queue
numbers sophisticatedly rise in the network. Eventually, higher LTPT less delivered
products in a time frame. On the other hand, by increasing the intervals between two
orders the rate of overproduction between interval times and simultaneously LTPT
increases in push. Table 16 presents the ratio of ALTPT for each alternative to the average
of all alternatives in the same lot control system. This happens by three different lot sizes
and with push and pulls systems. It can be seen that one piece flow as an objective of lean
manufacturing makes better results. Additionally, it shows that pull system has more
consistency with LP method.
Table 16: Ratio of ALTPT for each alternative to the average of all alternatives in same lot control system.
LLP-NoVa
Lot1
Obviously, fewer incoming orders' rate more discrepancy between push LTPT and pull
LTPT is expected. Note that GTPT of the entire batch (500 products of each type) in push
system shows a fall in comparison to pull Conwip. This is because the entrance inventory
may be eliminated or reduced, which affect the waiting time there. While the lead time of
assembling semi-finished products to finished products is removed in push, the finished
product inventory may increase dramatically. Therefore, these may cause a decrease in
GTPT whereas the autonomy of a single plant can be beat by push material, since there is
no self-control on both inventories. Furthermore, by considering breakdowns for stations,
the LP scenario reflects again a positive performance in comparison with the other cases as
QLE and NoLP. Here, in addition to the conventional performance of QLE with precise
estimation of queues' waiting times, fuzzy system is included in the estimation process of
QLE in order to take uncertainty into consideration. Figure 82 presents the alternative
methods without breakdowns, while Figure 83 depicts the same alternatives under
breakdown circumstance.
However, in the both figures the best emerged operating method is QLE with fuzzy
capability (QLE.Fuzzy). The stations' availabilities are 80% for stations in column 1, 90%
for column 2, and 80% for stations in column 3 that each mean repair time (MRT) is
assumed to be one day. Nonetheless, the best performing method in the previous
experiments was (QLE) that by considering breakdowns presents the worst case. In Fig. 14,
the LTPT of the introduced methods are illustrated. Here, the standard deviation of LP
=11:33 hour, NoLP =14:20 hour, QLE =15:01 hour, and QLE.Fuzzy =8:23 hour. This reveals
a more stable performance for LP in the absence of QLE.Fuzzy case.
Figure 82: Comparison of LTPT for LP, NoLP, QLE.Fuzzy, and QLE in second pdf circumstance.
Figure 83: Comparison of alternatives with breakdowns in second pdf circumstance.
For all experiments, so far the number of available pallets for each type of product was
considered constant, as six. Nevertheless, by increasing the number of pallets (No. of
Pallet), the ALTPT and AGTPT change. This is caused by the rise in queue lengths of
stations as well as the decrease in entrance inventory. The comparison of ALTPT between
current control methods in alternating the number of pallets is shown in Figure 84. At the
same time, the trend of AGTPT for the similar comparison is given in Figure 85.
Figure 84: ALTPT in presence of different No. of Pallets, for all alternatives.
Figure 85: AGTPT in presence of different No. of Pallets, for all alternatives.
By compromising the behaviors of ALTPT and AGTPT it can be concluded that in LP
method the best performing No. of Pallet equals to 5. This shows a tradeoff between
different decision factors, this was experimented in last section. In addition, Table 17
reflects the performance of all methods with different No. of Pallets in numerical
experiments.
Table 17: Numerical experiments in alternative No. of Pallets and control method in Conwip with breakdowns.
Nopallets
NoLP
QLE_Fuzzy
QLE_noFuzzy
(hour)
(day)
(day:hour)
A_Utilizati
on %
In order to verify the performance of our simulation model in general, a flexible flow shop
scheduling problem with conventional characteristics is considered to be solved classically,
i.e., no breakdowns, 48 jobs to be processed (16 each type), normal processing times, negexponential release times  = 2 hour, and offline manner. Table 18 compares the
completion times (Cmax) of our simulation methods and the classical solutions for
scheduling, using dispatching rules, i.e., shortest processing time (SPT) and longest
processing time (LPT), first come first serve (FCFS), and general shifting bottlenecks
routine (GSBR). The free version of LENKIN scheduling system is utilized to operate the
scheduling, thus the number of jobs is limited here. However, it should be mentioned that
such limited jobs may not cover a proper learning phase. Additionally, in classical solutions
global information about the problem (e.g., all jobs, release and due dates) must be
available as well as no constraints can be assumed in terms of carries number and pull
approach. Nonetheless, in the current study with its individual approach no general
information is required.
Table 18: Comparison of simulation methods with classical scheduling algorithms.
Scheduling Methods Makespan (minute)
QLE.Fuzzy
5.3.4 Experiment Summary
This experiment was generally divided into two parts as conceptual and experimental. In
the first part after a short introduction, a general concept about material flow control
systems was explained. Later, to clarify the basis of Lpallet concept, an introduction was
given to closed-loop systems and respective privileges for learning. Afterwards, application
of Lpallets in logistics was described. In order to enter into the second part, a practice
oriented scenario was presented for the advantages of using Lpallets in Conwip control.
The mathematical representation of the considered problem was given respectively.
Following them, the employed fuzzy sets to control the Lpallets were explained in details.
At the end, the simulation results of the scenario under different circumstances were
analyzed, and the assumptions in the simulation were compared together by means
graphs. In analyzing the performance of Lpallets (LP) under several conditions, its
superiority than other methods is perceived, although its advantage was proportional.
Together with evaluating LP some other effective factors in logistics were presented here.
For instance, there was compared the performances of push material vs. pull material, the
role of the number of carriers (pallets) in congesting the queues, makespan, and utilization.
Eventually, the difference between ambiguous and exact information was given in NoLP
and QLE methods. Additionally, it was shown that despite knowing the exact number of
pallets in queues, facing uncertainty, the sole QLE does not work properly, while the
considering fuzzy numbers (QLE.fuzzy) outperform all other methods. However, the
purpose of this experiment is to show the usability of LPallets with the availability of vague
information. Conclusively, in this experiment, just a learning methodology (i.e., the fuzzy
controller) was exploited that showed some advantages to the learning entities (Lpallets)
as well as the entire system. Here, no direct error is taken into account and no direct
negotiation happens to autonomous entities, which may enhance the merit of adaptability.
Nevertheless, the learning methodology can be equipped with more intelligent
methodologies. As further works, there are some requirements in terms of fuzzy domain
classification and precision in mapping inputs into outputs by considering feedback errors.
This performance can be improved with the assistance of neural networks. In addition,
some evolutionary techniques can be applied to avoid local traps in generating new
combinations of variables and learning; besides, it may be used for experimenting new
decisions. A suitable evolutionary technique is GA and its related features like genetic
programming. Application of these evolutionary techniques and neuro-fuzzy methods for
learning and controlling Lpallet is the subject of future works for the authors.
5.4 Application of Learning Pallets in Hybrid Flow-Open Shop Scheduling,
Using Artificial Intelligence
This experiment is directly inspired by a prototype of an assembly production line placed
in the lab of BIBA Institute at Bremen University for the purpose of autonomous control
experiments, see Figure 86. The same scenario is modeled by simulation with the intension
of purely evaluating the performance of Lpallets in real-time scheduling and control
decisions. The results have been shown that Lpallets can adequately deal with a fully
dynamic assembly line without any information about the situation of semi-finished
products' replenishment time and number of orders as well as the condition of machines in
terms of queues. The goal of this experiment is to evaluate whether Lpallets can enhance
and simplify real-time scheduling and control tasks in inbound logistics. This section is
based on the conference paper by Mehrsai and Scholz-Reiter [176], presented at 44th CIRP
conference at Madison University.
Figure 86: The prototype of assembly line located in the lab of BIBA Institute.
5.4.1 Hybrid Flow-Open Shop Problem
In flow shop problem each job  requires to be processed on all  machines in series. In
other words, all jobs have to follow the same route, i.e., each job is processed with the
similar order on each machine and the operations for each job is equal to . If all machines
follow FIFO rule then the problem is called permutation flow shop scheduling (Per_Flow).
However, there are some other variants defined for this problem. In case of open shop,
each job  has to be processed by each machine with processing times that some of which
may be zero. In open shop, there is no restriction in terms of operations' orders, i.e., each
job can have its own route and different jobs can have different orders (routes). However,
if a job  has some operations to be done on all machines this resembles a hybrid flow-open
shop problem if following condition holds true. If some of the operations have alternative
permutations, while other operations must be done in order, this is called a hybrid flowopen shop. This analogy is used to explain our problem in this experiment.
Fixed Order
Possible Permutation
In/output
Figure 87: Possible permutations in operations order for the current experiment scenario and possible
permutations in operations order (sequence).
5.4.2 Assembly Scenario
Generally, five (5) working stations are assumed for the assembly line with one (un)load
station, see Figure 87. Three (3) final product types are imagined for delivery. Number of
operations  of a job  is equal to the machines' number , so that each operation is for
specific machine. Therefore, each operation has the same number as machines, i.e., 1, 2,...,
5. Although incoming jobs have freedom in selecting the operations from number 1 to 4,
but there is a fixed constraint in the last machine. It means the last operation must be
number 5 or 1, because of design restrictions. In addition, if the last operation is number 1,
then the previous operation of that must be done on machine 5, see Figure 87.
With regard to the probability fact of () = () + () − ( ∩ ), this specific
constraint results in (4! × 1! + 3! × 2! − 3!) = 30 possibilities for allocating jobs'
operations to the  machines. However, without any restriction the number of
+−1
permutation with respect to the combination of �
�, where  defines the number
of station and  denotes product types, would result in 7!⁄(4! × (7 − 4)!) = 35.
Nonetheless, the distributed structure of this problem in terms of machines and pallets
besides the stochastic nature of all processes make this allocation problem a case of
complex real-time scheduling over the time horizon. With this highly dynamic system in
practice, all arrival times of incoming jobs to the assembly line are not fixed in advance. In
other words, the supply rate of incoming jobs is stochastic and their intervals follow negexponential distribution with  = 50 min. Each station has its processing time for each
type of product. Table 19 shows the processing time for each product type on each
machine plus setup time occurs in exchange of product types. Obviously, the line is not
balanced as is expected in conventional pull systems. Finally, there is a batch of products,
i.e., 150 final products in each type, to be assembled in this line.
Table 19: Processing times on each station.
PROCESSING TIME FOR STATIONS
Process time (min)
Setup time (min)
However, in real-world, the semi-finished products replenished externally, are moved
through stations by means of pallets (or fixtures). Here, each product type has its
respective pallet type, and all types have the equal number. The pallets have the duty of
carrying semi-finished products from the entrance inventory, moving them through
stations, and delivering them to the exit stock. The pallets stay there till the next
corresponding semi-finished products comes to the entrance to redoing the same task. This
is inspired by a Conwip that implies just a certain number of pallets circulating in the
system. Additionally, if the product is available but the pallet is not ready, then the product
must wait and it increases the makespan. Therefore, the pallets have iterative tasks to
carry products over the scheduling horizon (assembly time) [261]. Moreover, it is
noticeable that pull principle systems have originally decentralized control on material
flow, which is pertinent to the notion of autonomous control, see Gurgur et al. [384] [385].
5.4.3 Lpallets in the Scenario
In the study, inspired by AI and the closed-loop routing pallets in Conwip, the concept of
Lpallets is developed. It is assumed that pallets in each round trip can experience and learn
the behavior of the local stations as well as the entire system. The GA and fuzzy logic
techniques are separately integrated to Lpallets in order to find the best operation
sequence for each pallet in each respective moment. This happens with regard to the
experiments done by the pallet in the past. In addition, it is tried to combine fuzzy logic
with ANN to improve its performance. Furthermore, Lpallets are able to make
decentralized real-time decisions at each epoch (after triggered order), while defining the
operations' orders for themselves. The best order in each moment tends to minimize the so
far flow time  . However, the general multi-objective of this problem is following:
1=1 1 + ∑2=1 2 + ∑3=1 3 ⎫
∑5=1 1+2+3
∑5=1
where  denotes the stations number, 1, 2, and 3 define the number of products in type
1, 2, and 3, respectively. All in all, the makespan  (completion time of the last product),
flow time, average setup time  should be minimized as well as overall utilization of
stations  have to be maximized.
5.4.4 Application of GA
In this case, each Lpallet randomly generates 5 individuals (representing operations
orders) out of 30 possibilities, as the first generation. Afterwards, in 5 time releases, the
Lpallet examines all of the 5 individuals. Regarding the minimization objective (  ),
considered as Fitness function. At the end of each round (at un-load station) the fitness
value of every round is calculated. When all individuals in a generation have fitness values
( ), by using the roulette-wheel, the selection probability of each parent for mutation and
crossover can be achieved. The mutation and the crossover rates are 0.02 and 0.8,
respectively. In crossover, the selected parents mate by each other, so that two places of
genes out of five (each representing an operation) in each parent are exchanged, according
to the same operation place in the other parent. Figure 88 shows the crossover operation
in the problem. The mutation happens to children randomly.
Operation sequence
Figure 88: Crossover in the used GA.
This evolution procedure in generations holds on till no change happens to the operations'
sequence (order) in new generations. This evolution procedure is always triggered again
once any dynamics happens to the steady state of the assembly system. Although this
model has individual Lpallets blindly operated— careless of other Lpallets—
simultaneously the flow time in the end of each round reflects some characteristics of the
current operating system in general, inspired by others' performances.
5.4.5 Application of Fuzzy Inference System
By integrating fuzzy controller (system) into Lpallets, each of which has the capability of
estimating every station separately and judging them based on their current situation.
These judgments are the decision criteria in the next rounds to define operations' sequence
for each Lpallet. Similarly, this judgment technique is the same as the fuzzy system in the
previous section, however, with small differences as follows.
If pallet's judgment is bad then line is slow
If Normal then Medium
(LCL+Aavg)/2
Figure 89: The applied FAM.
µŨ
If Good then Fast
µÃ
of line i
If Bad then Slow
=7n =9n
If pallet's judgment is normal then line is
=6n
(Line2)
Input n
(Line n)
If pallet's judgment is good then line is fast
Aavg
(UCL+Aavg)/2
It is supposed that the waiting time in the queue of a station plus the processing time
results in vague performance estimation in the respective station. Now, this criterion, as
input of fuzzy system, is judged by three linguistic terms as: good, normal, and bad. Then,
by means of alpha-cut technique, the membership values of these fuzzy linguistic terms are
mapped into some other fuzzy terms (as fast, medium, slow) in the conclusion of the
predefined rules. Afterwards, the judgments of stations accompanied with their associative
membership values (� ) are recorded in Lpallets. Later in every decision era, these fuzzy
values are defuzzified to a crisp value for every station. It means, in the entrance of each
station, the fuzzy controller is triggered and compares the defuzzified (crisp) values of all
left operations and will select the operation with the best crisp value (the least one), as the
first operation. This sequence is achieved in descending order. These all happens via the
corresponding fuzzy associative memory (FAM). Figure 89 displays the FAM used for this
5.5 Application of Radial Basis Function Network
In this experiment, the considered ANN is RBF network (RBFN). This type of ANN is a two
layer neural network with (usually) Gaussian transfer functions in the layer one (hidden)
and sigmoid or linear functions in the second layer (output), to aggregate the outputs of
the first layer. This type of neural network has a quicker training phase in comparison with
other feed-forward networks [324]. For each station, there is an input vector, presenting
the waiting time plus operating time of that station. In this experiment just three neurons
are considered in the hidden layer, to represent the dependency strength of inputs to each
linguistic term as good (G), normal (N), and bad (B). In the second layer the linear function
outputs a crisp value revealing the performance of that station, see Figure 90. This crisp
value for each station is the criterion for sequencing the operations of assembly.
Figure 90: Topology of the applied RBF network for the experiment.
Moreover, it is assumed that there is no initial data for training the network. So, the
training happens through the simulation run and in iterative routes of Lpallets between
stations. With respect to the real-time training condition, one of the best training
algorithms for this network is backpropagation with the steepest descent that is used by
each Lpallet, for more information see ANN section. However, in this experiment each
station has its own network embedded in Lpallets. In other words, the weights and kern
vectors (centers of RBF) in hidden layer are specific for each station and the output of the
network is just authentic for the respective station. Additionally, the training in this
experiment is half-training just for defining up-to-date weights with regard to the current
situation of a station.
Furthermore, the mechanism of the RBFN is inspired by the mechanism of the fuzzy
controller in this experiment. Therefore, each new input from a station is treated like a
fuzzy number and is tried to be fitted to one of the linguistic terms, represented by three
RBFs in the hidden layer. In initial rounds of training the worst performance is considered
as the kern vector of (B) of RBF, the best performance is placed in the kern of (G), and the
kern of (N) is considered as the mid-point of the two others. However, in this experiment,
the spreads (σ) of all functions are equal and are calculated by the distance of the G kern
and B kern divided by 6. And the learning speed is selected as  = 0.2.
5.5.1 Simulation Results
After examining several combinations of possibilities, the following results are achieved.
The first examined variant is 15 pallets (5 each type), 150 product each type in batch, and
the supply rate is neg-exponential with  = 1� = 50. The second variant is 12 pallets
(4 each type), 150 product each type, supply rate is constant with 50 min inter-arrival time
(rate=0.02). Table 20 exhibits the numerical experiments for the two variants and each
Table 20: Numerical experiments for each method for all three products as flow times and makespan.
NUMERICAL PERFORMANCE OF METHODS (IN TIME)
Per_Flow
RBN+Fuzzy
Flow,Type1
7days+18:14
7days+ 9:23
7days+9:18
Figure 91: a) Makespan in every method, b) Stations working percentage in every method, c) Stations setup
percentage in every method.
Figure 91a depicts the makespan of each AI method in the two variants. The utilization
factor for each station is displayed by mean value of all stations' working percentage and
setup percentage in Figure 91b and Figure 91c, respectively. However, there are some
performances that the Per_Flow is the best schedule, e.g., if the incoming products' interval
is constant, no setup time is required, and the processing time is not stochastic, then
Per_Flow is the best choice.
5.5.2 Analysis by Closed Queuing Network
This section presents the application and suitability of closed queuing network theory in
the sensitivity analysis as well as prediction of such closed-loop assembly systems. This is
specifically important for checking the authenticity of Lpallets' decisions in real-time, in
addition to the comparisons with conventional dispatching rules. In fact, queuing theory is
recognized as a competent technique to model and analyze manufacturing networks and
production lines. Thus, this theory is selected to reflect plausibility of Lpallets in the
selected method with fuzzy controller system. This section is based on the paper by
Mehrsai et al. [175] published by IEEE explore. The equations and explanations about
queuing theory and closed queuing network are avoided here but for more information see
the section of queuing theory.
Basically, the queuing theory may be used to analyze those systems that work based on
certain characteristics of this theory. In general, a system that consists of server(s) and
customers with specific service and arrival rates, and a network of queues are the relevant
subject for this theory. Here, since the number of pallets is fixed and the pallets just carry
new arriving products through the stations in a cyclic manner, the entire system resembles
a closed network with certain jobs and types. The key point is that the incoming products
can just change the class of the jobs (Lpallets) and not the jobs' nature. Consequently,
different sensitivity analysis can be exerted to this scenario by use of queuing network
theory. The best queuing network model that fits best to the current scenario is called
BCMP networks [386]. The BCMP networks consider a finite number of jobs with different
types (classes) moving in a closed network with equilibrium [387]. However, some
provided algorithm for analyzing closed networks are Marie, extended product form (EPF),
and mean value analysis (MVA) [388] [389]. Accordingly, the most pertinent algorithm to
the current problem is MVA that analyzes this network [390].
Furthermore, the specialty of the BCMP model by considering job classes and transition of
them from one to another, by changing stations, represents different types of products in
our problem. ,,, denotes the probability, that a class r job after receiving its service at
station  changes to class s and requires service at station . The network can be
characterized by the following equations (3.4.2), (3.4.3), (3.4.4), which in certain iterations
can be achieved. The size of iteration covers all possibilities of  = 1 , 2 , … ,  , so that
is the number of available jobs in class  in the network. Each  must span from zero to
the existing number of jobs in that class. The iteration for solving such a network may
require a large calculation memory and time. The visiting frequencies in all classes and all
stations are calculated by solving the linear system (3.4.5).
() =  �1 + ∑=1  � −  ��; ∀ , ∀
; ∀
�� =  �� ∙  (); ∀ , ∀
1 = 1 1,1 + 2 2,1 + 3 3,1
+4 4,1 + 5 5,1 + 6 6,1 = 1
2 = 1 1,2 + 3 3,2 + 4 4,2 + 6 6,2
5 = 1 1,5 + 2 2,5 + 3 3,5 + 4 4,5 + 6 6,5
6 = 1 1,6 + 5 5,6
Possible Material Flow
Figure 92: Closed loop assembly system (queuing network).
(Un)Load Station
Indeed, in order to assimilate the current assembly problem to a real closed queuing
network the (un)load station has to be considered as the sixth station in the network, see
Figure 92. However, in order to solve the problem, an available software package called
"WinPEPSY" is employed to solve the closed queuing network. Moreover, the simulation
results from plant simulation software are quite comparable with the results out of
WinPEPSY. The assumptions for the queuing model consist of  = 3,  = 15 (5 in each
class),  = 6, i.e., the (un)load station in the closed network is considered as a station with
its average service time, which explains the average waiting time of Lpallets in this station
from unloading time to loading the next incoming product. However, in this experiment,
the processing times in stations are different from the previous experiment. The mean
service times (), as neg-exponential, for all types of products are equal in the same
stations. However, mean service times for all 6 stations are 1 = 30, 2 = 20 , 3 =
35 , 4 = 20 , 5 = 35 , 6 = 0.5 , respectively.
a) Mean waiting time in queues in both approaches.
Waiting time in Q
by WinPEPSY
by Plant-Simulation
b) Utilization of stations in both approaches.
S_1
Figure 93: Waiting time and utilization with Plant simulation and WinPEPSY.
a) Length of queues by 3 products in class one and 7 in class
b) Mean waiting time in queues by 3 products in class one and 7
three.
in class three.
Queue Length
c) Utilization of stations by 3 products in class one and 7 products in class three.
Figure 94: Sensitivity analysis for the number of jobs in queues, mean waiting time, and utilization with the use
of closed queuing theory by WinPEPSY.
Figure 93a depicts the utilization of each station with the application of queuing theory and
the use of discrete-event simulation model. Figure 93b compares both approaches in terms
of the mean waiting times for all types in all queues. As it can be seen, these results have
similarities in the magnitude, for both discrete-event and queuing network. The figures
show the authenticity of the comparable queuing network model for this problem.
Therefore, it is possible to perform a sensitivity analysis by the MVA algorithm. The chosen
criterion for analysis is the number of jobs in classes. The results can be judged as follows.
Figure 93c defines the utilization of the stations— using closed queuing network— when
the number of products in class one changes from 5 to 3 and the products in class three
change from 5 to 7. Figure 94a, Figure 94b, Figure 94c reflect the performance metrics
under the scenario of 3 products in class one and 7 products in class three. However, these
analysis metrics can be subjectively selected.
5.5.3 Extended RBF Network
However, an extension has been made to this current experiment in terms of RBF network.
The extension is written in a paper by Mehrsai et al. [391] accepted by 5th IEEE
International Conference on Software, Knowledge, Information Management and
Applications, SKIMA2011 in Italy. In that extended work, there exists a free number of
RBFs in the hidden layer, each representing a pattern from inputs. Nevertheless, this time
three output functions are considered to reflect the three qualitative linguistic terms as (G),
(N), and (B), see Figure 95. In contrast to the previous experiment, in this extended
experiment just one network is considered for all stations, so that the global perception
besides local decisions is given to Lpallets. Here, each RBF is supplementary to other two
neighbor RBFs, in order to partially cover each of which.
n=1,..,N
y M1
m=1,..,M
k=1,..,K
Figure 95: RBF network with unlimited RBFs in the hidden layer and three output functions to represent good,
normal, and bad.
Accordingly, each Gaussian function covers (3) from its center, while the spread () of
each new embedded function is equal to the standard deviation of so far input data. Here,
again the half-training of backpropagation is adopted to find the (inputs and outputs)
weights of the network. However, the trainable factors are always exposed to learning new
changes. In other words, throughout the running simulation each time an Lpallet meets a
station the respective kern vector adapts itself to the new possible condition. In the initial
training rounds, this adaption occurs by substituting the average of the last 3 recorded
times of that respective station to the kern vector. However, each new recognized pattern
builds a new RBF neuron. Indeed, when an input vector is not covered by the range of
existing RBF (starting from first neurons to the last one) in the hidden layer, then this is
assumed as a new pattern. So, in the hidden layer, a new RBF is configured with embedding
the new input value as the center (kern vector) of the RBF. However, at the entrance of
each station, there is a choice of getting in or over taking that. After training RBFNs each
Lpallet as an individual module decides over its own sequence of operations. At the
entrance of each station, every pallet is a decision maker for its respective operations'
sequence. After several round trips of pallets instead of the actual waiting time as input the
average of last three records for the corresponding station is taken as the real input to the
RBFN. This results in a smoother perception to the dynamic waiting times.
5.5.4 Extended Scenario and Results
In this experiment again RBFN as an intelligent method is compared against the FIFO
conventional dispatching rule. The FIFO dispatching rule is intentionally selected for the
entire assembly line because of no available information about due dates and order batchsize in advance. In other words, each single supply of semi-finished products arrives
spontaneously with a stochastic manner, and they have to be promptly released to the
system with real-time dispatching decision. Here, different alternative scenarios are
examined. Variable (stochastic) and constant intervals in the replenishments— between
supplies of semi-finished products to the entrance (un/load station) —as well as
unbalanced processing times are the considered alternatives (scenarios). The scenarios are
defined with the intention of depicting the performances of Lpallets under different
circumstances. Furthermore, working time, waiting time, and blocked time of each station
as well as average flow time (AFT) of finished products and makespan (completion time of
last product) of all orders (150 each type) are the criteria to be compared. Here, the
blocked time is the time that a product is asking for operation on a machine, but the
machine is busy. In contrary, the waiting time is the time that machine is waiting for a
product to be processed on. Table 21 defines the specification of the three alternative
scenarios. Figure 96a and Figure 96b depict the stable performance of Lpallets with RBFN
versus FIFO dispatching rules in the permutation flow shop. It can be seen that in both
scenarios, the use of RBF leads to smoother AFT with a convergence tendency. Table 22
shows the numerical results in details for each of the scenarios.
Table 21: Examined scenarios with three alternatives.
Process time of each station
Neg. Exp with ß=10 min, for all
ß1=8, ß2=8, ß3=8, ß4=10, ß5=8
a) Scenario 1: AFT for three product types by RBF vs. FIFO
Supply inter-arrival time for
each product type
Constant 50 min
Type 3 by FIFO
Type 1 by RBF
AFT (hour)
5 min, for all
b) Scenario 2: AFT for three product types by RBF vs. FIFO
Setup time
Figure 96: AFT with RBF vs. FIFO flow control in scenario 1 and 2.
Table 22: Performance of RBF against flow-shop with FIFO (Permutation flow shop) in stations and flow times.
Performance of RBF against flow-shop with FIFO
Scenario 1
RBFN
Av.Flow time
(AFT)
3.06 hour
5 day+12 hour+ 37 min
Flow shop- FIFO
5 day+8 hour+ 33 min
4 day+20 hour+53 min
5 day+44 min
In this experiment, a new assembly scenario has been introduced that resembles a hybrid
flow-open shop real-time scheduling problem. One conventional dispatching rule (FIFO)
for complying with real-time allocation of materials in such assembly systems has been
compared against three intelligent methods for real-time decision making and learning i.e.,
GA, fuzzy system, and ANN. In the initial experiments, the applied RBF networks have been
assigned exclusively to each station. In other words, each station had its own parameters in
the RBF network embedded in each Lpallet. So, there was no real global perception about
the system just the changes in the condition of station in terms of processing and waiting
times affect the changes in the RBF network. On the contrary, in the extended experiment
on the same assembly scenario, the RBF network embedded in each Lpallet has been used
universally for all stations. Therefore, the perception about each station has been
dependent on the performance of the other stations in general. With this respect, the global
perception about the entire assembly system is given to Lpallets, so that their decisions are
pertinent to others' performances. In doing so, the shortcoming about the lack of global
awareness of autonomous objects in confronting dynamics can be, to some extent, solved.
However, in spite of relatively long term training for MLP and the variable number of
layers with direct effect on the output quality, MLP network seems irrelevant for Lpallets
with the mission of real-time training as well as decision making under highly transient
production circumstances.
Moreover, in the initial experiment GA and fuzzy controller have shown their competency
in running Lpallets with real-time scheduling and control tasks. It is noticeable that each of
the experimented intelligent techniques may be tuned in different ways with much better
performances. This is one of the future works proposed by the current study. Additionally,
it has been proved that analysis with queuing theory can be compared by the results out of
Lpallets in discrete-event simulation. It has been shown that plausibility of decisions done
by Lpallets in real-time are not worse than the conventional analysis results by closed
queuing network with offline solutions. This fact illustrates the suitability of Lpallets in
practice. Moreover, this assembly scenario has another variant, which is presented in the
paper by Mehrsai and Scholz-Reiter [392]. There the performance of GA and fuzzy system
is compared with FIFO dispatching rule done by LISA conventional scheduling software.
Physical Implementation of
The state of the art in ICT has gradually facilitated the realization of autonomous agents in
academic labs as well as some experimental implementations. One of the most abundantly
used technologies to carry the mission of data storage (and further processing) is RFID,
which is currently very much used in industrial applications, e.g., for tracing materials and
identification. As a matter of fact, cheap price, relatively reasonable memory capacity, tags
with flexibility forms, and adjustable applications, make the RFID technology quite suitable
for intelligent products towards autonomy. This issue is recently addressed in autonomous
products by CRC 637 research cluster at Bremen University, for more information see
www.sfb637.uni-bremen.de.
However, RFID tags as pure data collection memories are clustered in the category of
passive data processing nodes (even if in active or passive forms) with no selfcomputational competence. In other words, the computing operations have to be
transferred to another computing object and they have no capability in this regard. This
fact makes them impractical means of ICT; to be used by autonomous controlled logistics
objects with the requirement of self-organized decision making. On the contrary, WSN are
another means of ICT to be investigated by CRC 637 research cluster for autonomous
controlled objects, see Figure 97. These WSN have some capabilities, which made them
suitable to be employed by the project of intelligent containers in the same research
cluster. Among these competencies of WSN, their abilities in collecting and processing data,
interacting with their environments via sensors, communicating with each other, and
monitoring other objects, which can be directly used in logistic operations, have
underlined this state-of-the-art. For more information about the WSN (Telos), see [393].
Figure 97: Exemplary wireless sensor nodes.
For the purpose of developing prototypes of Lpallets, it was decided to employ wireless
nodes with limited computations as well as communication abilities. In the final part of this
study, this importance has been occurred by means of connecting WSN directly to the
already developed simulation scenario. In the model of the assembly line developed in the
Plant - Simulation package, the module of TCP/IP (communication protocol) socket has
been employed to integrate the WSN as representatives of Lpallets to an assembly
scenario. This has been done to experiment on the performance of the real WSN in
rendering control decisions for assembly lines, see Figure 98.
Converting the
Scenario into
Simulation Model
Assembly Scenario of CRC Demonstrator
Plant-Simulation
Exemplary Prototype of Lpallets
Figure 98: Integration of WSN representing Lpallets in the rare light assembly scenario of CRC 637 by means of
simulation and TCP/IP protocol.
Figure 99: A Java-based control system for monitoring the performance of connecting WSN by means of TCP/IP
Figure 99 displays the monitoring package for some connected WSN, each representing an
Lpallet. This package is developed in a pertinent doctoral work to centrally observe the
performance of distributed WSN in terms of power supply, strength of data transfer,
proper communication, and so forth, within an open environment, for more information
see [394].
The procedure of connecting WSN, or wireless node (WN) in general, to the simulation
scenario and the use of them in representing Lpallets can be shortly described by the flow
chart, shown in Figure 100.
Take required
list from MPS
Is any
in WS?
Randomly choose a
sequence for operation
and take the first
Take the first prior
Reached the
correct station in
Output of
sequence list?
Send signal to WN via
TCP/IP and get inside
Wait until process is
Input to
Is process
Record time duration
in WN
All operations
Done?
Figure 100: Flow chart of processes of connecting WSN as Lpallets to assembly scenario.
Concerning the limited memory and computational capacity, in this level of prototype
development just a simple algorithm has to be applied. In fact, instead of the sophisticated
algorithms explained in the chapter of experiment scenarios, here, the used algorithm is
easily inspired by Little's law, which is deeply described in queuing theory. Each node,
representing an Lpallet, collects information about waiting time at every station and builds
a list of waiting times in each visiting event from every station. This leads to a matrix of
waiting times collected in different events. In this regard, each Lpallet derives the length of
queues for every station; according to the moving average value of experienced waiting
times for each station and the current service rate of each station by (4.1.2).
where  is the current record of utilization for station , and  is the service rate of
station , which is considered constant over the simulation horizon. Eventually, according
to the real-time values about utilization of each station every WN approximates the queue
length of the respective station. Upon that a priority list (sequencing) for operations can be
configured. However, this sequence list is dynamic and after completion of each operation
it is recalculated according to the current situation of the system (utilization and waiting
times). Figure 101 defines the procedure of calculating and controlling the operations'
sequence in WN.
(station &
waiting time w)
Delete this L from the
Take input data and
calculate up-to-date
average waiting time
Past waiting
time list
Calculate queue
length (L) by L=λw for
repepective station
λ=ρε
Compare queue
Length of all stations
and sort them in
ascending manner
length list
Is any done
as output
In conclusion, Table 23 shows again the conditions of the three scenarios and Table 24
depicts some numerical data derived from this strategy (Little's Law) for the
aforementioned hybrid flow-open shop problem, in the extended version of RBFN in the
final experiment of the last section. The results are quite comparable with RBFN and even
show a bit better performance. This can be explained by the simple procedure of this
strategy. It can be judged that because of the simplicity of the scenario, the straightforward
strategy requires no complex and long-term learning procedure, thereby, in turn presents
better outputs.
Table 23: Examined scenarios with the three alternatives.
Neg. Exp with ß=50 min, for
Table 24: Performance of Lpallets with the use of Little's law.
Performance of Lpallets with the use of Little's law
Little's Law
Conclusion and Outlook
In conclusion, it can be claimed that the current study has broadly complied with the
notion of feasibility study in interpreting autonomous logistics in practice. In fact, the
present and prospective situations of dynamics in logistics' practices have initiated the
current work. Accordingly, the main target of the work has been located on the issue of
handling the dynamics in logistics. Since in literature one of the most advanced strategies
to deal with dynamics and complexities is autonomy, the major effort has thoroughly been
put on this topic. In the beginning, the fairly detailed exploration of the state of the art in
current organizational processes— in terms of logistics and SCM— has facilitated the
notion of feasibility study for the autonomy paradigm. Basically, here, the autonomy
paradigm in logistics has been classified into two major features as autonomous logistic
processes and autonomous logistic objects. Indeed, by means of this classification, both
macro features of autonomy in logistics as well as micro perspectives of that in practice are
reasonably covered. With this respect, the current study has been divided into conceptual
and empirical parts. Hence, the initial chapters have rather addressed the conceptual
issues, regarding dynamics and autonomy, whereas the latter chapters have more
emphasized on empirical approaches for the feasibility of the conceptual parts.
Moreover, it has been shown that the autonomy can be competently used in operational
levels, since it focuses on local and decentralized decision making and executions, as well
as relying on local information. However, in the current tactical and strategic practices in
logistics, the autonomy paradigm seems impractical, since coordination in aggregated
levels plays a crucial role in effective and efficient achievements. In this respect, the
superior contributions of the autonomy to the concurrent production strategies and SCM
(e.g., mass-customization, MTO, pull control, detailed scheduling) have been underscored.
Here, it has been discussed that some specific material flow control systems, like pull
control, are in congruence with the decentralization, the individualization, and the
distributed features of the autonomy. Thus, the roles of material pull control and other
competent strategies have been fairly discussed in the chapters. Correspondingly, the
aspects of planning and scheduling in detailed and preferably in operational level have
been taken into account. This approach has led the study to more elaborations in terms of
scheduling and mathematical programming. In doing so, the focal area of the autonomy's
practices in this study has been concretized and justified. To this level, the feasibility study
has spanned most of the relevant aspects of logistics to autonomy merit. For instance, it
was mentioned that by realizing autonomy in logistics a great assistance happens to the
mass-customization goal in industries with individualized orders, or scheduling in realtime can be facilitated. It is noticeable that until this era, the work has been more focusing
on the first aspect of autonomy (autonomous logistic processes).
Afterwards, the study has started to proceed with another importance of autonomy,
regarding the issue of autonomous logistic objects. Basically, it has been observed that the
suggestions and claims about the contribution of autonomous processes to logistics have to
be accompanied with some tangible outcomes. Therefore, the concept of Lpallets has been
respectively emerged to the subsequence of this work. Then, in order to develop the novel
idea about feasible objects in logistics— with the competency of undertaking the autonomy
merit— investigations for some intelligent methodologies have become important. By
concentrating on the notion of machine learning and AI some prominent techniques of
them has been emphasized. Later, despite the broad investigation's space in the
highlighted methodologies, it has been tried to explore moderately the famous features in
these aforementioned fields. Therefore, ANN, GA, and Fuzzy system rather than other
techniques have been in details explored. Indeed, each of these techniques can proceed
with some specific aspects of learning and intelligent decision making in manufacturing
and logistics operations. For instance, GA has shown its competency in those scheduling
environments with a relatively lower pace in volatility, regarding its global search
specification. On the contrary, ANN and fuzzy controller are able to make a fairly quick
adaptation to new circumstances, nonetheless, with less attention to the global
performance of the respective and other intelligent objects. However, in the current work
each of these techniques has been covered in small variants, since each of them can be an
individual research topic in the field of learning and intelligent logistic objects with further
work potentials.
Moreover, with respect to the fact that operational processes have to be in compliance with
the tactical planning outputs, mathematical programming has been concisely introduced.
Indeed, the concise contribution of the current work to tactical planning and scheduling
processes has directly been placed on the issue of fuzzy mathematical programming. This
underscored harmony has been reflected by the moderated freedoms in decision
parameters of fuzzy mathematical programming, which later can be used by autonomous
objects to make real-time decisions in logistics. However, this exploration is not extended
in the current work and is open for further elaborations. Afterwards, with the purpose of
analyzing the performance of Lpallets in shop-floors the queuing theory has been briefly
studied. There it has been seen that the performance of Lpallets within production lines
and SC can be assimilated to the notion of queuing networks. With this purpose, the
general behaviors of Lpallets in such production networks can be reasonably justified by
closed networks. Obviously, investigation in Lpallets' routing decisions, by means of closed
queuing networks, has given rise to the fact that Lpallets make relatively logical and
intelligent decisions.
Furthermore, to prove the claims in the feasibility study overall the work, several
simulations scenarios have been developed and experimented. Indeed, in this level of
research the only available and the most reliable tool for justifying the recommendations
resulted from the study has been the simulation. In this regard, the primary experiment
scenarios attempted to resemble macro scale logistics' operations and sought to reveal the
notion of autonomy in conventional logistics. In further experiments with more emphasis
on Lpallets, the scenarios focused on shop-floor performances and directly modeled some
relevant scenarios to other autonomy studies. The 3×3 flexible shop-floor as well as the
assembly shop-floor with five (5) stations both have been inspired by two sections of
research cluster CRC 637 http://www.sfb637.uni-bremen.de/. Specially, the assembly
scenario has directly modeled the prototype of a car's lights assembly line, available at the
lab of BIBA Institute affiliated to Bremen University. In the later experiments, the superior
performance of Lpallets— confronting with transient and fluctuating conditions
(dynamics) — in particular for scheduling and control is illustrated.
All in all, it is fair to claim that this feasibility study with the following framework Figure
102 is a novel research in developing a practice oriented exploration for autonomy in
logistics. The novel advantage of the introduced Lpallets is their full decentralized
practices in simulation and satisfactory results in their performances. Moreover, in
addition to the already developed autonomous control methods, the fuzzy controller, ANN,
and GA methods, introduced in this study, positively contribute to the attempts towards
the realization of practical autonomous objects in logistics. This commitment gives rise to
more competitive and modern industries with the capability of agility. Pallets and similar
logistic objects are quite likely to assist this ambition of factories of the future. Thus, it is
quite fair to claim that Lpallets are novel and, simultaneously, one of the most feasible
logistic objects in practice, which can be autonomous. This statement has been partially
proven by simulation and, in further works, it has to be experimented and justified in
practice, by closer cooperation with industry.
Strategic decisions
Integrated and central
Tactical decisions
for Strategic Network Design
Autonomous Processes
Fuzzy Mathematical
Operational decisions
Autonomous Objects
ERP+APS
Figure 102: The general proposed framework in the study.
7.2 Outlook
On the basis of the optimistic results concluded by this study, several opportunities have
evolved for further works. Indeed, the most important concern about the general concept
of autonomy in logistics is to bring it into reality. Thus, focusing on the feasibility issue, for
different logistic systems as well as logistic objects, plays a crucial role in developing,
improving, and implementing autonomy in logistics. In this manner, by taking into account
the two correlated features in the autonomy (i.e., autonomous processes and autonomous
object), some recommendations for further works are following:
Enhancing the proposed framework upon more precise positioning of autonomous
processes between conventional processes in manufacturing industries.
Defining the interfaces between the suggested autonomous processes, in
operational level, as well as tactical and strategic planning processes,
o Implementing the required (recommended) freedoms in the planning and
optimizing packages like APS and embedding the autonomous operational
decisions (made by autonomous objects), by means of calibrations,
o Combining the fuzzy and stochastic mathematical programming—using
offline optimization solutions— with decentralized autonomous decisions
made in real-time at operational levels, by deep explorations in both realtime decisions and offline optimizations,
o Extending the role of operational autonomous decisions in relaxing the
complex tactical and operational offline planning and scheduling,
o Experimenting on the contribution of autonomous processes in improving
the ATP/CTP capability to increase responsiveness in advanced companies.
Developing the introduced concept about Lpallets with regard to the further
technical requirements as well as the algorithms for decision making,
o The small experimented prototype of Lpallets has been done by means of a
specific WSN, additional state of the art in such technologies must be deeply
explored and classified according to the working environment and required
performances,
o In this work, some general intelligent techniques like ANN, GA, and fuzzy
system have been employed to render complex decisions. Nevertheless, each
of the techniques has several variants, which can be investigated regarding
different circumstances in terms of inputs and outputs of controllers,
o Application of the intelligent techniques in managing complexities in higher
scales like SC and SN, by make use of ANN, GA, and fuzzy system, for making
complex decisions in material flows, even in an offline manner.
Investigating the extended contribution of ANN to Lpallets in more sophisticated
decision atmosphere,
o Expanding the training of the explored RBF network from half training to
full training phase,
o Exploring the effect of other variants in ANN above RBF, like recurrent
networks, towards superior learning by more intensified feedback (closed-)
loops for autonomous Lpallets,
o Extending the learning algorithms from backpropagation (by gradient
descent) to other competent algorithms, which partly were introduced in
the ANN section,
o Considering involvement of GA and other evolutionary algorithms in
training ANN for larger solution space,
o Applying ANN for function approximation in proactively predicting the
behaviors of stations as well as entire logistic systems.
Expanding the study about intelligent methods for autonomous objects with more
precise results from GA, SA, and fuzzy system,
o Considering memetic algorithms in exact adaptation of GA in facing
dynamics within less time,
o Elaborating the performance of GA by moving towards genetic programming
for alternative situations and making use of different programs at the same
time for more intelligent performances,
o Adjusting SA and tabu search techniques in order to be used as real-time
intelligent methods for Lpallets and comparing them against other methods,
e.g., GA.
Configuring some hybrid aspects of the listed intelligent methods in order to
improve the performance of decision making, e.g., neuro-fuzzy and genetic neurofuzzy, see Figure 103.
Developing the extended and more general form of protocols as well as algorithms
for Lpallets to cover further tasks in logistics, in addition to more criteria (KPI) in
learning the behaviors,
o Mounting protocols in connecting wireless autonomous objects (e.g., WSN),
with the purpose of negotiating between objects and intelligent resources in
logistics (e.g., machines),
o Extending some algorithms with the capability of evaluating and analyzing
complex criteria in logistics (e.g., rate of supply and demand, real-time
changes in orders) to make more exact operational decisions.
Investigating the exact contribution of Lpallets (or alike logistic objects) in practical
operations, as the ultimate target and major outlook of this study.
Neuro-Fuzzy system
Gossiping
Decision was
competent?
Figure 103: An exemplary cooperation between ANN, Fuzzy system, GA, and Gossiping (Epidemic) method for upto-dating reactions to changes in an autonomous environment.
On the top of the mentioned outlooks, it has to be emphasized on the issue of
synchronization of autonomous decentralized decisions in real-time with fuzzy and
stochastic mathematical programming in tactical level. Doubtless fuzzy and stochastic
parameters are inherent features in practical operations. Thus, they must be taken into
account as a great further working potential of the current study. This can be realized by
means of developing some competent mathematical programming (e.g., fuzzy
optimization). Since mathematical programming is the basis of any planning optimization
packages (e.g., APS), adjustment of autonomous operations to the mathematical models is
essential. However, a deep exploration in the area is required to investigate the solutions
of fuzzy mathematical programming, in addition to more precise performances of
autonomous objects in association with fuzzy mathematical programming.
Obizhaeva, A. and Wang, J., Optimal Trading Strategy and Supply/Demand Dynamics. 2005,
National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, Mass., USA.
Stuer, G., Vanmechelen, K., and Broeckhove, J., A Commodity Market Algorithm for Pricing
Substitutable Grid Resources. Future Generation Computer Systems, 2007. 23(5): p. 688701. ISBN: 0167-739X.
Li, S., Murat, A., and Huang, W., Selection of Contract Suppliers under Price and Demand
Uncertainty in a Dynamic Market. European Journal of Operational Research, 2009. 198(3):
p. 830-847. ISBN: 0377-2217.
Liao, K., Marsillac, E., Johnson, E., and Liao, Y., Global Supply Chain Adaptations to Improve
Financial Performance: Supply Base Establishment and Logistics Integration. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 2010. 22(2): p. 204-222. ISBN: 1741-038X.
Wagner, C. and Nyhuis, P., A Systematic Approach to Analysis and Design of Global Production
Networks. Production Engineering, 2009. 3(3): p. 295-303. ISBN: 0944-6524.
Beamon, B. M., Sustainability and the Future of Supply Chain Management. Operations and
Supply Chain Management, 2008. 1(1): p. 4-18.
Christopher, M., Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Creating Value-Added Networks.
2005: Pearson education. ISBN: 0273681761.
Harland, C. M., Supply Chain Management: Relationships, Chains and Networks. British
Journal of management, 1996. 7: p. S63-S80. ISBN: 1467-8551.
Wycisk, C., Mckelvey, B., and Hülsmann, M., "Smart Parts" Supply Networks as Complex
Adaptive Systems: Analysis and Implications. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, 2008. 38(2): p. 108-125. ISBN: 0960-0035.
Li, G., Yang, H., Sun, L., Ji, P., and Feng, L., The Evolutionary Complexity of Complex Adaptive
Supply Networks: A Simulation and Case Study. International Journal of Production
Economics, 2009. 124(2): p. 310-330. ISBN: 0925-5273.
Croom, S., Romano, P., and Giannakis, M., Supply Chain Management: An Analytical
Framework for Critical Literature Review. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management, 2000. 6(1): p. 67-83. ISBN: 0969-7012.
Hwarng, H. B. and Xie, N., Understanding Supply Chain Dynamics: A Chaos Perspective.
European Journal of Operational Research, 2008. 184(3): p. 1163-1178. ISBN: 0377-2217.
Windt, K. and Hülsmann, M., Changing Paradigms in Logistics–Understanding the Shift from
Conventional Control to Autonomous Cooperation and Control. In Understanding
Autonomous Cooperation & Control - the Impact of Autonomy on Management,
Information, Communication, and Matrial Flow, Hülsmann, M. and Windt, K., Editors. 2007,
Springer: Berlin. p. 1-16. ISBN: 978-3-540-47449-4.
Schuh, G. and Gottschalk, S., Production Engineering for Self-Organizing Complex Systems.
Production Engineering, 2008. 2(4): p. 431-435. ISBN: 0944-6524.
Lollini, P., Bondavalli, A., and Di Giandomenico, F., A Decomposition-Based Modeling
Framework for Complex Systems. Reliability, IEEE Transactions on, 2009. 58(1): p. 20-33.
ISBN: 0018-9529.
Dominici, G., Argoneto, P., Renna, P., and Cuccia, L., The Holonic Production System: A Multi
Agent Simulation Approach. iBusiness, 2010. 2(3): p. 201-209. DOI: 10.4236/ib.2010.23025.
Keshavarz, N., Nutbeam, D., Rowling, L., and Khavarpour, F., Schools as Social Complex
Adaptive Systems: A New Way to Understand the Challenges of Introducing the Health
Promoting Schools Concept. Social Science & Medicine, 2010. 70(10): p. 1467-1474. ISBN:
Nylund, H. and Andersson, P. H., Framework for Extended Digital Manufacturing Systems.
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 2011. 24(5): p. 446-456. DOI:
10.1080/0951192X.2010.542179. ISBN: 0951-192X.
Aslam, T. and Ng, A., Agent-Based Simulation and Simulation-Based Optimisation for Supply
Chain Management. In Enterprise Networks and Logistics for Agile Manufacturing, L., W.
and S.C.L., K., Editors. 2010, Springer: London. p. 227-247.DOI: 10.1007/978-1-849962445. ISBN: 978-1-84996243-8.
Scholz-Reiter, B., Freitag, M., De Beer, C., and Jagalski, T., Modelling Dynamics of Autonomous
Logistic Processes: Discrete-Event Versus Continuous Approaches. Cirp Annals-Manufacturing
Technology, 2005. 54(1): p. 413-416. DOI: 10.1016/S0007-8506(07)60134-6.
Pathak, S. D., Day, J. M., Nair, A., Sawaya, W. J., and Kristal, M. M., Complexity and Adaptivity in
Supply Networks: Building Supply Network Theory Using a Complex Adaptive Systems
Perspective*. Decision Sciences, 2007. 38(4): p. 547-580. ISBN: 1540-5915.
Meepetchdee, Y. and Shah, N., Logistical Network Design with Robustness and Complexity
Considerations. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
2007. 37(3): p. 201-222. ISBN: 0960-0035.
Buckley, C. L., Bullock, S., and Barnett, L., Spatially Embedded Dynamics and Complexity.
Complexity, 2010. 16(2): p. 29-34. ISBN: 1099-0526.
Sarimveis, H., Patrinos, P., Tarantilis, C. D., and Kiranoudis, C. T., Dynamic Modeling and
Control of Supply Chain Systems: A Review. Computers & Operations Research, 2008. 35(11):
p. 3530-3561. ISBN: 0305-0548.
Vlachos, D., Georgiadis, P., and Iakovou, E., A System Dynamics Model for Dynamic Capacity
Planning of Remanufacturing in Closed-Loop Supply Chains. Computers & Operations
Research, 2007. 34(2): p. 367-394. ISBN: 0305-0548.
Kumar, S. and Yamaoka, T., System Dynamics Study of the Japanese Automotive Industry
Closed Loop Supply Chain. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 2007. 18(2):
p. 115-138. ISBN: 1741-038X.
Sterman, J. D., Forthcoming in the Bullwhip Effect in Supply Chains. O. Carranza and F.
Villegas,(Eds.) Palgrave Mcmillan. Operational and Behavioral Causes of Supply Chain
Instability*. 2008.
Váncza, J., Egri, P., and Monostori, L., A Coordination Mechanism for Rolling Horizon Planning
in Supply Networks. Cirp Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 2008. 57(1): p. 455-458. ISBN:
Torabi, S. and Hassini, E., An Interactive Possibilistic Programming Approach for Multiple
Objective Supply Chain Master Planning. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2008. 159(2): p. 193-214.
Kanda, A. and Deshmukh, S., Supply Chain Coordination: Perspectives, Empirical Studies and
Research Directions. International Journal of Production Economics, 2008. 115(2): p. 316335. ISBN: 0925-5273.
Jiao, J., You, X., and Kumar, A., An Agent-Based Framework for Collaborative Negotiation in
the Global Manufacturing Supply Chain Network. Robotics and Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, 2006. 22(3): p. 239-255. ISBN: 0736-5845.
Lou, P., Zhou, Z., Chen, Y. P., and Ai, W., Study on Multi-Agent-Based Agile Supply Chain
Management. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2004.
23(3): p. 197-203. ISBN: 0268-3768.
Duffie, N., Roy, D., and Shi, L., Dynamic Modeling of Production Networks of Autonomous
Work Systems with Local Capacity Control. Cirp Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 2008.
Duffie, N. and Shi, L., Maintaining Constant Wip-Regulation Dynamics in Production Networks
with Autonomous Work Systems. Cirp Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 2009. 58(1): p.
399-402. ISBN: 0007-8506.
Scholz-Reiter, B., Görges, M., and Philipp, T., Autonomously Controlled Production Systems-Influence of Autonomous Control Level on Logistic Performance. Cirp Annals-Manufacturing
Technology, 2009. 58(1): p. 395-398. ISBN: 0007-8506.
Duffie, N. A., Synthesis of Heterarchical Manufacturing Systems. Computers in industry, 1990.
14(1-3): p. 167-174. ISBN: 0166-3615.
Windt, K., Böse, F., and Philipp, T., Autonomy in Production Logistics: Identification,
Characterisation and Application. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 2008.
Bongaerts, L., Monostori, L., Mcfarlane, D., and Kádár, B., Hierarchy in Distributed Shop Floor
Control. Computers in industry, 2000. 43(2): p. 123-137. ISBN: 0166-3615.
Phukan, A., Kalava, M., and Prabhu, V., Complexity Metrics for Manufacturing Control
Architectures Based on Software and Information Flow. Computers & industrial engineering,
2005. 49(1): p. 1-20. ISBN: 0360-8352.
Prabhu, V. V., Performance of Real-Time Distributed Arrival Time Control in Heterarchical
Manufacturing Systems. IIE Transactions, 2000. 32(4): p. 323-331. ISBN: 0740-817X.
Guttmann, C., Towards a Taxonomy of Decision Making Problems in Multi-Agent Systems.
Multiagent System Technologies, 2009: p. 195-201.
Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., and Kaeschel, J., A Multi-Structural Framework for Adaptive Supply
Chain Planning and Operations Control with Structure Dynamics Considerations. European
Journal of Operational Research, 2009. 200(2): p. 409-420. ISBN: 0377-2217.
Symeonidis, A. L., Kehagias, D. D., and Mitkas, P. A., Intelligent Policy Recommendations on
Enterprise Resource Planning by the Use of Agent Technology and Data Mining Techniques.
Expert Systems with Applications, 2003. 25(4): p. 589-602. ISBN: 0957-4174.
March, J. G., Rationality, Foolishness, and Adaptive Intelligence. Strategic Management
Journal, 2006. 27(3): p. 201-214. ISBN: 1097-0266.
Macal, C. M. and North, M. J., Tutorial on Agent-Based Modeling and Simulation. Journal of
Simulation, 2009. 4: p. 151-162. DOI: 10.1057/jos.2010.3.
Symeonidis, A. L., Kehagias, D., Koumpis, A., and Vontas, A., Open Source Supply Chains.
International Journal of Agile Manufacturing (Invited Paper), 2005.
Labarthe, O., Espinasse, B., Ferrarini, A., and Montreuil, B., Toward a Methodological
Framework for Agent-Based Modelling and Simulation of Supply Chains in a Mass
Customization Context. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 2007. 15(2): p. 113-136.
ISBN: 1569-190X.
Scholz-Reiter, B. and Mehrsai, A., Superior Performance of Leagile Supply Networks by
Application of Autonomous Control. Advances in Production Management Systems. New
Challenges, New Approaches, 2010: p. 333-341.
Böse, F., Piotrowski, J., and Scholz-Reiter, B., Autonomously Controlled Storage Management
in Vehicle Logistics–Applications of Rfid and Mobile Computing Systems. International Journal
of RF Technologies: Research and Applications, 2009. 1(1): p. 57-76. ISBN: 1754-5730.
Hülsmann, M., Windt, K., Wycisk, C., Philipp, T., Grapp, J., and Böse, F. Identification,
Evaluation and Measuring of Autonomous Cooperation in Supply Networks and Other Logistic
Systems. In the 4th International Logistics and Supply Chain Congress. Izmir, Turkey. 2006:
Citeseer.
Dolgui, A. and Proth, J. M., Supply Chain Engineering: Useful Methods and Techniques. 2010,
London Heidelberg New York: Springer-Verlag. DOI: 10.1007//978-1-84996-017-5. ISBN:
978-1-84996-016-8.
Scholz-Reiter, B. and Freitag, M., Autonomous Processes in Assembly Systems. Cirp AnnalsManufacturing Technology, 2007. 56(2): p. 712-729.
Sun, H. and Venuvinod, P. K., The Human Side of Holonic Manufacturing Systems.
Technovation, 2001. 21(6): p. 353-360. ISBN: 0166-4972.
Scholz-Reiter, B., Mehrsai, A., and Görges, M., Handling Dynamics in Logistics-Adoption of
Dynamic Behaviour and Reduction of Dynamic Effects. Asian International Journal of Science
and Technology in Production and Manufacturing Engineering (AIJSTPME), 2009. 2(3): p.
Sarkis, J., An Empirical Analysis of Productivity and Complexity for Flexible Manufacturing
Systems. International Journal of Production Economics, 1997. 48(1): p. 39-48. ISBN: 09255273.
Hsieh, F. S., Design of Reconfiguration Mechanism for Holonic Manufacturing Systems Based
on Formal Models. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2010. ISBN: 09521976.
Gao, G. H., Guo, M., and Li, N., The Research of Distributed Manufacturing System Based on
Agent. Advanced Materials Research, 2011. 143: p. 448-451. ISBN: 1662-8985.
Liang, W. Y. and Huang, C. C., The Agent-Based Collaboration Information System of Product
Development. International Journal of Information Management, 2002. 22(3): p. 211-224.
Trappey, A. J. C. and Hsiao, D. W., Applying Collaborative Design and Modularized Assembly
for Automotive Odm Supply Chain Integration. Computers in industry, 2008. 59(2-3): p. 277287. ISBN: 0166-3615.
Lu, L. and Wang, G., A Study on Multi-Agent Supply Chain Framework Based on Network
Economy. Computers & industrial engineering, 2008. 54(2): p. 288-300. ISBN: 0360-8352.
Sterman, J. D., Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World.
2000: McGraw Hill Higher Education. ISBN: 0071179895.
Sanchez, L. M. and Nagi, R., A Review of Agile Manufacturing Systems. International Journal of
Production Research, 2001. 39(16): p. 3561-3600. ISBN: 0020-7543.
Wiendahl, H. P., Elmaraghy, H., Nyhuis, P., Zäh, M., Wiendahl, H. H., Duffie, N., and Brieke, M.,
Changeable Manufacturing-Classification, Design and Operation. Cirp Annals-Manufacturing
Barták, R., Salido, M. A., and Rossi, F., Constraint Satisfaction Techniques in Planning and
Scheduling. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 2010. 21(1): p. 5-15. ISBN: 0956-5515.
Klaus, H., Rosemann, M., and Gable, G. G., What Is Erp? Information Systems Frontiers, 2000.
2(2): p. 141-162. DOI: 10.1023/A:1026543906354. ISBN: 1387-3326.
Robert Jacobs, F. and Ted'weston, F., Enterprise Resource Planning (Erp)--a Brief History.
Journal of Operations Management, 2007. 25(2): p. 357-363. ISBN: 0272-6963.
Stadtler, H. and C., K., Supply Chain Management and Advanced Planning: Concepts, Models,
Software, and Case Studies. 4th ed. ed. 2008, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. ISBN: 9783-540-74511-2.
Chen, I. J., Planning for Erp Systems: Analysis and Future Trend. Business Process
Management Journal, 2001. 7(5): p. 374-386. ISBN: 1463-7154.
Günther, H. O., Supply Chain Planning and Advanced Planning Systems Part Ii, Lecture Notes.
2006, Technical University of Berlin: Berlin.
Karaarslan, N. and Gundogar, E., An Application for Modular Capability-Based Erp Software
Selection Using Ahp Method. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 2009. 42(9): p. 1025-1033. ISBN: 0268-3768.
Botta-Genoulaz, V., Millet, P. A., and Grabot, B., A Survey on the Recent Research Literature on
Erp Systems. Computers in industry, 2005. 56(6): p. 510-522. ISBN: 0166-3615.
Daft, R. L., Organization Theory and Design. 2009, Mason, USA: South-Western Pub. ISBN:
978-0-324-59889-6.
Møller, C., Erp Ii: A Conceptual Framework for Next-Generation Enterprise Systems? Journal
of Enterprise Information Management, 2005. 18(4): p. 483-497. ISBN: 1741-0398.
Hamilton, S., Maximizing Your Erp System: A Practical Guide for Managers. 2003, New York:
McGraw-Hill Companies. ISBN: 0071406115.
Günther, H. O., Supply Chain Management and Advanced Planning Systems: A Tutorial. Supply
Chain Management und Logistik, 2005: p. 3-40.
Barman, A. G., Bhattacharya, R., and Deb, S. K., Strategic Initiatives and Automated Decision
Support with Erp System Environment. Information Processing and Management, 2010: p.
Rudberg, M. and Thulin, J., Centralised Supply Chain Master Planning Employing Advanced
Planning Systems. Production Planning & Control, 2009. 20(2): p. 158-167. ISBN: 09537287.
Meyr, H., Wagner, M., and Rohde, J., Structure of Advanced Planning Systems. Supply chain
management and advanced planning, 2005: p. 109-115.
Kreipl, S. and Dickersbach, J. T., Scheduling Coordination Problems in Supply Chain Planning.
Annals of Operations Research, 2008. 161(1): p. 103-122. ISBN: 0254-5330.
Chase, C., Demand-Driven Forecasting: A Structured Approach to Forecasting. 2009, New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN: 978-0-470-41502-3.
Sayed, H. E., Gabbar, H. A., and Miyazaki, S., A Hybrid Statistical Genetic-Based Demand
Forecasting Expert System. Expert Systems with Applications, 2009. 36(9): p. 11662-11670.
[82] Carbonneau, R., Laframboise, K., and Vahidov, R., Application of Machine Learning
Techniques for Supply Chain Demand Forecasting. European Journal of Operational
Research, 2008. 184(3): p. 1140-1154. ISBN: 0377-2217.
[83] Efendigil, T., Önüt, S., and Kahraman, C., A Decision Support System for Demand Forecasting
with Artificial Neural Networks and Neuro-Fuzzy Models: A Comparative Analysis. Expert
Systems with Applications, 2009. 36(3): p. 6697-6707. ISBN: 0957-4174.
[84] Gutierrez, R. S., Solis, A. O., and Mukhopadhyay, S., Lumpy Demand Forecasting Using Neural
Networks. International Journal of Production Economics, 2008. 111(2): p. 409-420. ISBN:
[85] Deng, W., Li, W., and Yang, X., A Novel Hybrid Methodology of Bp Neural Network and Rough
Set for Railway Passenger Traffic Demand Forecasting. Expert Systems with Applications,
2010. ISBN: 0957-4174.
[86] Pinedo, M., Scheduling: Theory, Algorithms, and Systems. 2008, New York: Springer-Verlag.
ISBN: 978-0-387-78934-7.
[87] Rekersbrink, H., Makuschewitz, T., and Scholz-Reiter, B., A Distributed Routing Concept for
Vehicle Routing Problems. Logistics Research, 2009. 1(1): p. 45-52. ISBN: 1865-035X.
[88] Stadtler, H., A Framework for Collaborative Planning and State-of-the-Art. Or Spectrum,
[89] Stadtler, H., Supply Chain Management and Advanced Planning--Basics, Overview and
Challenges. European Journal of Operational Research, 2005. 163(3): p. 575-588. ISBN:
[90] Caridi, M. and Sianesi, A. Scm-Erp Integration: Organisational, Managerial and Technological
Issues. 2000: Citeseer.
[91] Entrup, M. L., Advanced Planning in Fresh Food Industries: Integrating Shelf Life into
Production Planning, ed. Müller, W. A. and Bihn, M. 2005, Heidelberg New York: SpringerVerlag. ISBN: 3790815926.
[92] Moeslinger, C., Schmickl, T., Crailsheim, K., Kampis, G., Karsai, I. N., and Szathmã¡Ry, E. R., A
Minimalist Flocking Algorithm for Swarm Robots
Advances in Artificial Life. Darwin Meets Von Neumann. 2011, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. p. 375382.DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-21314-4_47. ISBN: 978-3-642-21313-7.
[93] Yoon, S. W. and Nof, S. Y., Demand and Capacity Sharing Decisions and Protocols in a
Collaborative Network of Enterprises. Decision Support Systems, 2010. 49(4): p. 442-450.
[94] Li, S., Ragu-Nathan, B., Ragu-Nathan, T., and Subba Rao, S., The Impact of Supply Chain
Management Practices on Competitive Advantage and Organizational Performance. Omega,
[95] Cooper, M. C., Lambert, D. M., and Pagh, J. D., Supply Chain Management: More Than a New
Name for Logistics. International Journal of Logistics Management, The, 1997. 8(1): p. 1-14.
[96] Coyle, J. J., Langley, C. J., Bardi, E. J., Gibson, B. J., and Novack, R. A., Supply Chain
Management: A Logistics Perspective. 2008: South-Western Pub. ISBN: 0324224338.
[97] Harrison, A. and Van Hoek, R. I., Logistics Management and Strategy: Competing through the
Supply Chain. 2008: Prentice Hall. ISBN: 0273712764.
[98] Tan, K. C., A Framework of Supply Chain Management Literature. European Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management, 2001. 7(1): p. 39-48. ISBN: 0969-7012.
[99] Monczka, R. M., Handfield, R. B., Guinipero, L., Patterson, J. L., and Walters, D., Purchasing
and Supply Chain Management. 2010, Singapore: Cengage Learning EMEA. ISBN: 978-14080-1744-9.
[100] Ben Naylor, J., Naim, M. M., and Berry, D., Leagility: Integrating the Lean and Agile
Manufacturing Paradigms in the Total Supply Chain. International Journal of Production
Economics, 1999. 62(1-2): p. 107-118. ISBN: 0925-5273.
[101] Moyaux, T., Chaib-Draa, B., and D'amours, S. Multi-Agent Simulation of Collaborative
Strategies in a Supply Chain. In the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous
Agents and Multiagent Systems. 2004. New York: IEEE Computer Society. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/AAMAS.2004.184. ISBN: 1-58113-864-4.
[102] Sabri, E. H. and Shaikh, S. N., Lean and Agile Value Chain Management: A Guide to the Next
Level of Improvement. 2009: J. Ross Publishing. ISBN: 978-1-60427-025-9.
[103] Tian, Y., Automotive Supply Chain Evaluation with Conventional Model and Integrated Model,
in Maschinenbau und Verfahrenstechni. 2011, Universität Duisburg-Essen: Duisburg-Essen.
[104] Rogalski, S., Flexibility Measurement in Production Systems: Handling Uncertainties in
Industrial Production. 2011: Springer. ISBN: 3642181163.
[105] Koren, Y., The Global Manufacturing Revolution: Product-Process-Business Integration and
Reconfigurable Systems. vol. 75. 2010, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN: 978-0-47058377-7.
[106] Yang, B., Burns, N. D., and Backhouse, C. J., Management of Uncertainty through
Postponement. International Journal of Production Research, 2004. 42(6): p. 1049-1064.
[107] Sudo, Y., Sakao, N., and Matsuda, M., An Agent Behavior Technique in an Autonomous
Decentralized Manufacturing System. Journal of Advanced Mechanical Design, Systems, and
Manufacturing, 2010. 4(3): p. 673-682. ISBN: 1881-3054.
[108] Windt, K., Becker, T., Jeken, O., and Gelessus, A., A Classification Pattern for Autonomous
Control Methods in Logistics. Logistics Research, 2010: p. 1-12. ISBN: 1865-035X.
[109] Duffie, N. A. and Shi, L., Dynamics of Wip Regulation in Large Production Networks of
Autonomous Work Systems. Automation Science and Engineering, IEEE Transactions on,
2010. 7(3): p. 665-670. ISBN: 1545-5955.
[110] Scholz-Reiter, B., Windt, K., and Freitag, M. Autonomous Logistic Processes: New Demands
and First Approaches. In 37th CIRP International Seminar on Manufacturing Systems. 2004.
Budapest, Hungaria: Citeseer.
[111] Romano, P., Co-Ordination and Integration Mechanisms to Manage Logistics Processes across
Supply Networks. Purchasing & Supply Management, 2003. 9: p. 119-134.
[112] Onlinedictionary, System. 2011, BusinessDictionary.
[113] Zhang, D., Lowry, P. B., Zhou, L., and Fu, X., The Impact of Individualism—Collectivism, Social
Presence, and Group Diversity on Group Decision Making under Majority Influence. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 2007. 23(4): p. 53-80. ISBN: 0742-1222.
[114] Van De Mortel-Fronczak, J., Schmitz, J., and Rooda, J. Experimental Comparison of Control
Architectures. In APMS. 1999.
[115] Van Dongen, J., Van De Mortel-Fronczak, J., and Rooda, J., Heterarchical Control of a
Lithoshop. Master's thesis. Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Mechanical
Engineering. Eindhoven, the Netherlands, 1998.
[116] Jafari, A. M. M., Development and Evaluation of an Autonomous Wireless Sensor Actuator
Network in Logistic Systems. 2010, Bremen University.
[117] Rupp, B., Okelberry, R., Wipful, R., and Jones, R., Method for Consensus Decision Making in a
Distributed System. 2009, Google Patents.
[118] Kurokawa, H., Tomita, K., Kamimura, A., Kokaji, S., Hasuo, T., and Murata, S., Distributed SelfReconfiguration of M-Tran Iii Modular Robotic System. The International Journal of Robotics
Research, 2008. 27(3-4): p. 373. ISBN: 0278-3649.
[119] Matsumoto, A., Asama, H., Ishida, Y., Ozaki, K., and Endo, I. Communication in the
Autonomous and Decentralized Robot System Actress. In Proceedings. IROS '90. IEEE
International Workshop on Intelligent Robots and Systems '90. 'Towards a New Frontier of
Applications'. 1990. Ibaraki , Japan IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/IROS.1990.262503
[120] Ahituv, N., Neumann, S., and Zviran, M., Factors Affecting the Policy for Distributing
Computing Resources. MIS Quarterly, 1989. 13(4): p. 389-401. ISBN: 0276-7783.
[121] Kumar, R. and Takai, S., Inference-Based Ambiguity Management in Decentralized DecisionMaking: Decentralized Diagnosis of Discrete-Event Systems. Automation Science and
Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 2009. 6(3): p. 479-491. ISBN: 1545-5955.
[122] Meyer, R. E. and Hammerschmid, G., The Degree of Decentralization and Individual Decision
Making in Central Government Human Resource Management: A European Comparative
Perspective. Public Administration, 2010. 88(2): p. 455-478. ISBN: 1467-9299.
[123] Eymann, T., Reinicke, M., Ardaiz, O., Artigas, P., Diaz De Cerio, L., Freitag, F., Messeguer, R.,
Navarro, L., Royo, D., and Sanjeevan, K. Decentralized Vs. Centralized Economic Coordination
of Resource Allocation in Grids. 2004: Springer.
[124] Rehtanz, C., Autonomous Systems and Intelligent Agents in Power System Control and
Operation. 2003: Springer Verlag. ISBN: 3540402020.
[125] Scholz-Reiter, B., Kolditz, J., and Hildebrandt, T., Specifying Adaptive Business Processes
within the Production Logistics Domain–a New Modelling Concept and Its Challenges. In
Understanding Autonomous Cooperation and Control in Logistics: The Impact of Autonomy
on Management, Information, Communication and Material Flow, Hülsmann, M. and Windt,
K., Editors. 2007, Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg New York. p. 275. ISBN: 978-3-54047449-4.
[126] Scholz-Reiter, B., Freitag, M., De Beer, C., and Jagalski, T. Analysing the Dynamics Caused by
Autonomously Controlled Logistic Objects. In Int. Conf. on Changeable, Agile, Reconfigurable
and Virtual Production. 2007. University of Windsor: Citeseer.
[127] Duffie, N. A., Prabhu, V. V., and Kaltjob, P. O., Closed-Loop Real-Time Cooperative DecisionMaking Dynamics in Heterarchical Manufacturing Systems. Journal of manufacturing
systems, 2002. 21(6): p. 409-418. ISBN: 0278-6125.
[128] Schuldt, A., Multiagent Coordination Enabling Autonomous Logistics. 2011, Heidelberg,
Germany: Springer-Verlag. ISBN: 978-3-642-20091-5.
[129] Scholz-Reiter, B., Sowade, S., Hildebrandt, T., and Rippel, D., Modeling of Orders in
Autonomously Controlled Logistic Systems. Production Engineering, 2010: p. 1-7. ISBN:
[130] Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E., Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and Its
Social and Political Consequences. vol. 13. 2002: Sage Publications Ltd. ISBN: 0761961127.
[131] Pfister, C., Getting Started with the Internet of Things. 1st ed. ed, ed. Jepson, B. 2011,
California, USA: O'Reilly Media. ISBN: 978-1-4493-9357-1.
[132] Uckelmann, D., Harrison, M., and Michahelles, F., Architecting the Internet of Things. 2010,
New York: Springer-Verlag DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-19157-2. ISBN: 978-3-642-19156-5.
[133] Kopetz, H., Real-Time Systems: Design Principles for Distributed Embedded Applications. 2nd
ed. ed. 2011, New York: Springer-Verlag DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-8237-7. ISBN: 978-14419-8236-0.
[134] Poluha, R. G., Application of the Scor Model in Supply Chain Management. 2007: Cambria Pr.
ISBN: 978-1-1934043-23-3.
[135] Olhager, J., The Role of the Customer Order Decoupling Point in Production and Supply Chain
Management. Computers in industry, 2010. ISBN: 0166-3615.
[136] Persson, F. and Araldi, M., The Development of a Dynamic Supply Chain Analysis Tool-Integration of Scor and Discrete Event Simulation. International Journal of Production
[137] Gosling, J. and Naim, M. M., Engineer-to-Order Supply Chain Management: A Literature
Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Production Economics, 2009. 122(2):
[138] Persson, F., Scor Template-a Simulation Based Dynamic Supply Chain Analysis Tool.
International Journal of Production Economics, 2010. ISBN: 0925-5273.
[139] Verdouw, C., Beulens, A., Trienekens, J., and Verwaart, T., Towards Dynamic Reference
Information Models: Readiness for Ict Mass Customisation. Computers in industry, 2010.
[140] Chan, F. T. S., Kumar, V., and Tiwari, M. K., The Relevance of Outsourcing and Leagile
Strategies in Performance Optimization of an Integrated Process Planning and Scheduling.
International Journal of Production Research, 2009. 47(1): p. 119-142. ISBN: 1366-588X.
[141] Pavnaskar, S., Gershenson, J., and Jambekar, A., Classification Scheme for Lean Manufacturing
Tools. International Journal of Production Research, 2003. 41(13): p. 3075-3090. ISBN:
[142] Narasimhan, R., Swink, M., and Kim, S. W., Disentangling Leanness and Agility: An Empirical
Investigation. Journal of Operations Management, 2006. 24(5): p. 440-457. ISBN: 02726963.
[143] Shah, R. and Ward, P. T., Lean Manufacturing: Context, Practice Bundles, and Performance.
[144] Alford, D., Sackett, P., and Nelder, G., Mass Customisation--an Automotive Perspective.
International Journal of Production Economics, 2000. 65(1): p. 99-110. ISBN: 0925-5273.
[145] Powell, D., Alfnes, E., and Semini, M., The Application of Lean Production Control Methods
within a Process-Type Industry: The Case of Hydro Automotive Structures. Advances in
Production Management Systems. New Challenges, New Approaches, 2010: p. 243-250.
[146] James-Moore, S. and Gibbons, A., Is Lean Manufacture Universally Relevant? An Investigative
Methodology. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 1997. 17(9):
[147] Jina, J., Bhattacharya, A. K., and Walton, A. D., Applying Lean Principles for High Product
Variety and Low Volumes: Some Issues and Propositions. Logistics Information Management,
[148] Nagel, R. N., Dove, R., Goldham, S., and Preiss, K., 21st Century Manufacturing Enterprise
Strategy. vol. 2. 1991: Iacocca Institute, Lehigh University. ISBN: 0962486639.
[149] Hallgren, M. and Olhager, J., Lean and Agile Manufacturing: External and Internal Drivers and
Performance Outcomes. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
2009. 29(10): p. 976-999. ISBN: 0144-3577.
[150] Sharifi, H. and Zhang, Z., Agile Manufacturing in Practice-Application of a Methodology.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 2001. 21(5/6): p. 772-794.
[151] Barker, J. and Finnie, G., The Next Generation Demand Network in Quick Response Systems:
Intelligent Products, Packet Switching and Dynamic Information. Innovative Quick Response
Programs in Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 2010: p. 243-263.
[152] Flocchini, P., Prencipe, G., Santoro, N., and Widmayer, P. Distributed Coordination of a Set of
Autonomous Mobile Robots. 2000: IEEE. ISBN: 0780363639.
[153] Frazzoli, E., Dahleh, M. A., and Feron, E., Real-Time Motion Planning for Agile Autonomous
Vehicles. JOURNAL OF GUIDANCE, CONTROL, AND DYNAMICS, 2002. 25(1): p. 116-129
[154] Van Hoek, R. I., Harrison, A., and Christopher, M., Measuring Agile Capabilities in the Supply
Chain. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 2001. 21(1/2): p.
[155] Scholten, K., Scott, P. S., and Fynes, B., (Le) Agility in Humanitarian Aid (Ngo) Supply Chains.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 2010. 40(8/9): p.
[156] Krishnamurthy, R. and Yauch, C. A., Leagile Manufacturing: A Proposed Corporate
Infrastructure. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 2007. 27(6):
[157] Mason-Jones, R., Naylor, B., and Towill, D. R., Engineering the Leagile Supply Chain.
International Journal of Agile Management Systems, 2000. 2(1): p. 54-61. ISBN: 1465-4652.
[158] Christopher, M. and Towill, D. R., Supply Chain Migration from Lean and Functional to Agile
and Customised. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 2000. 5(4): p. 206213. ISBN: 1359-8546.
[159] Haug, A., Ladeby, K., and Edwards, K., From Engineer-to-Order to Mass Customization.
Management Research News, 2009. 32(7): p. 633-644. ISBN: 0140-9174.
[160] Scholz-Reiter, B. and Mehrsai, A. Integration of Lean-Agile Experiments with Autonomy in
Supply Chains. In Proc. of the 7th International Conference on Manufacturing Research
(ICMR09). 2009. Warwick, England: University of Warwick.
[161] Trentin, A., Salvador, F., Forza, C., and Rungtusanatham, M. J., Operationalising Form
Postponement from a Decision-Making Perspective. International Journal of Production
Research, 2011. 49(7): p. 1977-1999. ISBN: 0020-7543.
[162] Davis, S. M., From "Future Perfect": Mass Customizing. Strategy & Leadership, 1989. 17(2): p.
16-21. ISBN: 1087-8572.
[163] Liu, G. J. and Deitz, G. D., Linking Supply Chain Management with Mass Customization
Capability. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 2011.
41(7): p. 2-2. ISBN: 0960-0035.
[164] Zipkin, P., The Limits of Mass Customization. Harvard Business Review, 1997. 75: p. 91-101.
[165] Zhang, L. L., Lee, C. K. M., and Xu, Q., Towards Product Customization: An Integrated Order
Fulfillment System. Computers in industry, 2009. 61(3): p. 213-222. ISBN: 0166-3615.
[166] Brabazon, P. G., Maccarthy, B., Woodcock, A., and Hawkins, R. W., Mass Customization in the
Automotive Industry: Comparing Interdealer Trading and Reconfiguration Flexibilities in
Order Fulfillment. Production and Operations Management, 2010. 19(5): p. 489-502. ISBN:
[167] Karpowitz, D. J., Cox, J. J., Humpherys, J. C., and Warnick, S. C., A Dynamic Workflow
Framework for Mass Customization Using Web Service and Autonomous Agent Techniques.
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 2008. 19(5): p. 537-552. ISBN: 0956-5515.
[168] Gehrke, J. D., Herzog, O., Langer, H., Malaka, R., Porzel, R., and Warden, T., An Agent-Based
Approach to Autonomous Logistic Processes. KI-Künstliche Intelligenz, 2010: p. 1-5. ISBN:
[169] Salvador, F., Rungtusanatham, M., Forza, C., and Trentin, A., Mix Flexibility and Volume
Flexibility in a Build-to-Order Environment: Synergies and Trade-Offs. International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, 2007. 27(11): p. 1173-1191. ISBN: 0144-3577.
[170] Tseng, M. M. and Jiao, J., Mass Customization. Handbook of Industrial Engineering, 3rd
edition, New York: Wiley, 2001: p. 684-709.
[171] Monfared, M. A. S. and Yang, J., Design of Integrated Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling and
Control Systems: A New Framework for Automation. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 2007. 33(5): p. 545-559. ISBN: 0268-3768.
[172] Moon, C., Lee, Y. H., Jeong, C. S., and Yun, Y. S., Integrated Process Planning and Scheduling in
a Supply Chain. Computers & industrial engineering, 2008. 54(4): p. 1048-1061. ISBN:
[173] Pinedo, M. L., Planning and Scheduling in Manufacturing and Services. 2009, Heidelberg
London New York: Springer-Verlag. ISBN: 978-1-4419-0909-1.
[174] Brucker, P., Scheduling Algorithms. 2007, Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer-Verlag.
ISBN: 354069515-8.
[175] Mehrsai, A., Scholz-Reiter, B., and Wenning, B. L. Analysis of Learning Pallets in Flexible
Scheduling by Closed Queue Network. In Assembly and Manufacturing (ISAM), 2011 IEEE
International Symposium on. 2011. Tampere: IEEEXplore. DOI:
10.1109/ISAM.2011.5942357 ISBN: 978-1-61284-342-1
[176] Mehrsai, A. and Scholz-Reiter, B. Application of Learning Pallets in Hybrid Flow-Open Shop
Scheduling, Using Artificial Intelligence. In The 44th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing
Systems. 2011. Madison, USA: CIRP.
[177] Blazewicz, J., Lenstra, J. K., and Kan, A., Scheduling Subject to Resource Constraints:
Classification and Complexity. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 1983. 5(1): p. 11-24. ISBN:
0166-218X.
[178] Allahverdi, A., Ng, C., Cheng, T., and Kovalyov, M. Y., A Survey of Scheduling Problems with
Setup Times or Costs. European Journal of Operational Research, 2008. 187(3): p. 985-1032.
[179] Sakawa, M. and Kubota, R., Fuzzy Programming for Multiobjective Job Shop Scheduling with
Fuzzy Processing Time and Fuzzy Duedate through Genetic Algorithms. European Journal of
Operational Research, 2000. 120(2): p. 393-407. ISBN: 0377-2217.
[180] Frantzén, M., Ng, A. H. C., and Moore, P., A Simulation-Based Scheduling System for Real-Time
Optimization and Decision Making Support. Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, 2011. 27(4): p. 696-705. DOI: 10.1016/j.rcim.2010.12.006. ISBN: 07365845.
[181] Essafi, I., Mati, Y., and Dauzère-Pérès, S., A Genetic Local Search Algorithm for Minimizing
Total Weighted Tardiness in the Job-Shop Scheduling Problem. Computers & Operations
[182] Mahdavinejad, R. A., Job Shop-Scheduling Problems-Single Process. Applied Mechanics and
Materials, 2011. 44: p. 330-334. ISBN: 1662-7482.
[183] Noori-Darvish, S. and Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Solving a Bi-Objective Open Shop
Scheduling Problem with Fuzzy Parameters. Journal of Applied Operational Research, 2011.
3(2): p. 59-74.
[184] Pezzella, F., Morganti, G., and Ciaschetti, G., A Genetic Algorithm for the Flexible Job-Shop
Scheduling Problem. Computers & Operations Research, 2008. 35(10): p. 3202-3212. ISBN:
[185] Ochoa, G., Vázquez-Rodríguez, J. A., Petrovic, S., and Burke, E. Dispatching Rules for
Production Scheduling: A Hyper-Heuristic Landscape Analysis. In IEEE Congress on
Evolutionary Computation, 2009. CEC '09. 2009: IEEEXplore. DOI:
10.1109/CEC.2009.4983169 ISBN: 978-1-4244-2958-5
[186] Alumur, S. and Kara, B. Y., Network Hub Location Problems: The State of the Art. European
Journal of Operational Research, 2008. 190(1): p. 1-21. ISBN: 0377-2217.
[187] Oey, K. and Mason, S. J. Scheduling and Dispatching: Scheduling Batch Processing Machines in
Complex Job Shops. 2001: IEEE Computer Society. ISBN: 078037309X.
[188] Sexton, R. S., Dorsey, R. E., and Johnson, J. D., Toward Global Optimization of Neural
Networks: A Comparison of the Genetic Algorithm and Backpropagation. Decision Support
[189] Kao, Y. T. and Zahara, E., A Hybrid Genetic Algorithm and Particle Swarm Optimization for
Multimodal Functions. Applied Soft Computing, 2008. 8(2): p. 849-857. ISBN: 1568-4946.
[190] Yu, W., Liu, Z., Wang, L., and Fan, T., Routing Open Shop and Flow Shop Scheduling Problems.
European Journal of Operational Research, 2011. 213(1): p. 24-36 DOI:
10.1016/j.ejor.2011.02.028 ISBN: 0377-2217.
[191] Ham, M., Lee, Y. H., and Kim, S. H., Real-Time Scheduling of Multi-Stage Flexible Job Shop
Floor. International Journal of Production Research, 2011. 49(12): p. 3715-3730. ISBN:
[192] Lin, T. L., Horng, S. J., Kao, T. W., Chen, Y. H., Run, R. S., Chen, R. J., Lai, J. L., and Kuo, I., An
Efficient Job-Shop Scheduling Algorithm Based on Particle Swarm Optimization. Expert
[193] Sha, D. and Hsu, C. Y., A New Particle Swarm Optimization for the Open Shop Scheduling
Problem. Computers & Operations Research, 2008. 35(10): p. 3243-3261. ISBN: 0305-0548.
[194] Isovie, D., Handling Sporadic Tasks in Real-Time Systems: Combined Offline and Online
Approach, in Department of Computer Engineering. 2001, Mälardalen University:
Mälardalen, Sweden. ISBN: 9188834204.
[195] Sabuncuoglu, I. and Bayiz, M., Analysis of Reactive Scheduling Problems in a Job Shop
Environment. European Journal of Operational Research, 2000. 126(3): p. 567-586. ISBN:
[196] Cowling, P. and Johansson, M., Using Real Time Information for Effective Dynamic Scheduling.
European Journal of Operational Research, 2002. 139(2): p. 230-244. ISBN: 0377-2217.
[197] Choi, H., Kim, J., and Lee, D., Real-Time Scheduling for Reentrant Hybrid Flow Shops: A
Decision Tree Based Mechanism and Its Application to a Tft-Lcd Line. Expert Systems with
Applications, 2010. ISBN: 0957-4174.
[198] Lu, C., Stankovic, J. A., Son, S. H., and Tao, G., Feedback Control Real-Time Scheduling:
Framework, Modeling, and Algorithms*. Real-Time Systems, 2002. 23(1): p. 85-126. ISBN:
[199] Ben Gaid, M. E. M., Çela, A. S., and Hamam, Y., Optimal Real-Time Scheduling of Control Tasks
with State Feedback Resource Allocation. Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions
on, 2009. 17(2): p. 309-326. ISBN: 1063-6536.
[200] Savkin, A. V. and Somlo, J., Optimal Distributed Real-Time Scheduling of Flexible
Manufacturing Networks Modeled as Hybrid Dynamical Systems. Robotics and ComputerIntegrated Manufacturing, 2009. 25(3): p. 597-609. ISBN: 0736-5845.
[201] Huang, G. Q., Zhang, Y., and Jiang, P., Rfid-Based Wireless Manufacturing for Real-Time
Management of Job Shop Wip Inventories. The International Journal of Advanced
[202] Kim, J. H. and Duffie, N. A., Design and Analysis of Closed-Loop Capacity Control for a MultiWorkstation Production System. Cirp Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 2005. 54(1): p.
[203] Helber, S., Schimmelpfeng, K., and Stolletz, R., Setting Inventory Levels of Conwip Flow Lines
Via Linear Programming. Diskussionspapiere der Wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Fakultät
der Universität Hannover, 2009.
[204] Kannan, G., Sasikumar, P., and Devika, K., A Genetic Algorithm Approach for Solving a Closed
Loop Supply Chain Model: A Case of Battery Recycling. Applied Mathematical Modelling,
2010. 34(3): p. 655-670. ISBN: 0307-904X.
[205] Wang, H. F. and Hsu, H. W., A Closed-Loop Logistic Model with a Spanning-Tree Based Genetic
Algorithm. Computers & Operations Research, 2010. 37(2): p. 376-389. ISBN: 0305-0548.
[206] Yang, G., Wang, Z., and Li, X., The Optimization of the Closed-Loop Supply Chain Network.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 2009. 45(1): p. 1628. ISBN: 1366-5545.
[207] Shi, J., Zhang, G., and Sha, J., Optimal Production Planning for a Multi-Product Closed Loop
System with Uncertain Demand and Return. Computers & Operations Research, 2010. ISBN:
[208] Gupta, A. and Maranas, C., Managing Demand Uncertainty in Supply Chain Planning.
Computers & Chemical Engineering, 2003. 27(8-9): p. 1219-1227.
[209] Sevastjanov, P. and Rog, P., Fuzzy Modeling of Manufacturing and Logistic Systems.
Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 2003. 63(6): p. 569-585.
[210] Mula, J., Poler, R., Garcia-Sabater, J., and Lario, F., Models for Production Planning under
Uncertainty: A Review. International Journal of Production Economics, 2006. 103(1): p. 271285.
[211] Bozarth, C. C., Warsing, D. P., Flynn, B. B., and Flynn, E. J., The Impact of Supply Chain
Complexity on Manufacturing Plant Performance. Journal of Operations Management, 2009.
27(1): p. 78-93. ISBN: 0272-6963.
[212] Lin, J. T., Chen, T. L., and Lin, Y. T., Critical Material Planning for Tft-Lcd Production Industry.
International Journal of Production Economics, 2009. 122(2): p. 639-655. ISBN: 0925-5273.
[213] Cheng, J. C. P., Law, K. H., Bjornsson, H., Jones, A., and Sriram, R. D., Modeling and Monitoring
of Construction Supply Chains. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 2010. ISBN: 1474-0346.
[214] Jain, V. and Deshmukh, S., Dynamic Supply Chain Modeling Using a New Fuzzy Hybrid
Negotiation Mechanism. International Journal of Production Economics, 2009. 122(1): p.
[215] Becker, T., Beber, M. E., Windt, K., Hütt, M. T., and Helbing, D., Flow Control by Periodic
Devices: A Unifying Language for the Description of Traffic, Production, and Metabolic
Systems. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2011. 2011. DOI:
10.1088/1742-5468/2011/05/P05004.
[216] Li, X. and Marlin, T. E., Robust Supply Chain Performance Via Model Predictive Control.
Computers & Chemical Engineering, 2009. 33(12): p. 2134-2143. ISBN: 0098-1354.
[217] Nagy, Z. and Braatz, R., Open-Loop and Closed-Loop Robust Optimal Control of Batch
Processes Using Distributional and Worst-Case Analysis. Journal of process control, 2004.
14(4): p. 411-422.
[218] Kogan, K., Production Control under Uncertainty: Closed-Loop Versus Open-Loop Approach.
IIE Transactions, 2009. 41(10): p. 905-915. ISBN: 0740-817X.
[219] Krishnamurthy, A., Suri, R., and Vernon, M. A New Approach for Analyzing Queueing Models
of Material Control Strategies in Manufacturing Systems. 2000: Citeseer.
[220] Duenyas, I. and Hopp, W. J., Estimating Variance of Output from Cyclic Exponential Queueing
Systems. Queueing Systems, 1990. 7(3): p. 337-353. ISBN: 0257-0130.
[221] Levantesi, R., Analysis of Multiple Loop Assembly/Disassembly Networks. 2001, Politecnico di
Milano.
[222] Gershwin, S. and Werner, L., An Approximate Analytical Method for Evaluating the
Performance of Closed-Loop Flow Systems with Unreliable Machines and Finite Buffers.
International Journal of Production Research, 2007. 45(14): p. 3085-3112.
[223] Helber, S. S., Katja & Stolletz, Raik, Setting Inventory Levels of Conwip Flow Lines Via Linear
Programming, . BuR Business Research, 2011. 4(1): p. 98-115.
[224] Ip, W., Huang, M., Yung, K., Wang, D., and Wang, X., Conwip Based Control of a Lamp Assembly
Production Line. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 2007. 18(2): p. 261-271. ISBN: 09565515.
[225] Li, N., Zheng, L., and Li, Q. L., Performance Analysis of Two-Loop Closed Production Systems.
Computers & Operations Research, 2009. 36(1): p. 119-134. ISBN: 0305-0548.
[226] O'dell, T., A Closed-Loop System for the Measurement of Self-Heating in Bjts. Solid-State
Electronics, 2004. 48(1): p. 167-170. ISBN: 0038-1101.
[227] Borovic, B., Liu, A., Popa, D., Cai, H., and Lewis, F., Open-Loop Versus Closed-Loop Control of
Mems Devices: Choices and Issues. Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, 2005.
15: p. 1917.
[228] Olson, B. and Si, J., Evidence of a Mechanism of Neural Adaptation in the Closed Loop Control
of Directions. International Journal of Intelligent Computing and Cybernetics, 2010. 3(1): p.
5-23. ISBN: 1756-378X.
[229] Rowley, C. and Batten, B., Dynamic and Closed-Loop Control. In Fundamentals and
Applications of Modern Flow Control,, R. D. Joslin and D. N. Miller, Editor. September 2009,
AIAA Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics. p. 115-148,.
[230] Gao, H. and Chen, T., A New Approach to Quantized Feedback Control Systems. Automatica,
[231] Jansson, H. and Hjalmarsson, H. From Open-Loop Learning to Closed-Loop Control. In
Proceedings of the 41st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2002. 2002: IEEEXplore.
DOI: 10.1109/CDC.2002.1185030 ISBN: 0-7803-7516-5
[232] Kulvicius, T., Kolodziejski, C., Tamosiunaite, M., Porr, B., and Wörgötter, F., Behavioral
Analysis of Differential Hebbian Learning in Closed-Loop Systems. Biological Cybernetics,
2010: p. 255-271. DOI: 10.1007/s00422-010-0396-4.
[233] Dorigo, M. and Colombetti, M., Robot Shaping: Developing Autonomous Agents through
Learning. Artificial intelligence, 1994. 71(2): p. 321-370. DOI: 71:321-370. ISBN: 00043702.
[234] Andry, P., Gaussier, P., Moga, S., Banquet, J., and Nadel, J., Learning and Communication Via
Imitation: An Autonomous Robot Perspective. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND
CYBERNETICS—PART A: SYSTEMS AND HUMANS, 2001. 31(5): p. 431.
[235] Mehrsai, A., Teucke, M., and Scholz-Reiter, B., Coordination of Push-Pull Principle Logistics
Network by Optimizing Material-Pull; Applying Genetic Algorithm. In Proceedings: The 1st
International Conference on Logistics and Maritime Systems (LOGMS), 2010, Pusan., 2010:
p. 2-11.
[236] Pahl, J., Voss, S., and Woodruff, D. L., Production Planning with Load Dependent Lead Times.
4OR: A Quarterly Journal of Operations Research, 2005. 3(4): p. 257-302. ISBN: 1619-4500.
[237] Fernandes, N. and Do Carmo-Silva, S., Generic Polca--a Production and Materials Flow
Control Mechanism for Quick Response Manufacturing. International Journal of Production
Economics, 2006. 104(1): p. 74-84.
[238] Germs, R. and Riezebos, J., Workload Balancing Capability of Pull Systems in Mto Production.
[239] Krishnamurthy, A., Suri, R., and Vernon, M., Re-Examining the Performance of Mrp and
Kanban Material Control Strategies for Multi-Product Flexible Manufacturing Systems.
International journal of flexible manufacturing systems, 2004. 16(2): p. 123-150. ISBN:
Krishnamurthy, A. and Suri, R., Planning and Implementing Polca: A Card-Based Control
System for High Variety or Custom Engineered Products. Production Planning & Control,
Yucesan, E. and De Groote, X., Lead Times, Order Release Mechanisms, and Customer Service.
Spearman, M. L., Woodruff, D. L., and Hopp, W. J., Conwip: A Pull Alternative to Kanban.
International Journal of Production Research, 1990. 28(5): p. 879-894. ISBN: 0020-7543.
Sendil Kumar, C. and Panneerselvam, R., Literature Review of Jit-Kanban System. The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2007. 32(3): p. 393-408.
Matsui, Y., An Empirical Analysis of Just-in-Time Production in Japanese Manufacturing
Companies. International Journal of Production Economics, 2007. 108(1-2): p. 153-164.
Sihn, W. and Schmitz, K., Extended Multi-Customer Supplier Parks in the Automotive Industry.
Cirp Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 2007. 56(1): p. 479-482. ISBN: 0007-8506.
Guan, Z., Peng, Y., Ma, L., Zhang, C., and Li, P., Operation and Control of Flow Manufacturing
Based on Constraints Management for High-Mix/Low-Volume Production. Frontiers of
Mechanical Engineering in China, 2008. 3(4): p. 454-461. ISBN: 1673-3479.
Ahmadi, R. H. and Matsuo, H., A Mini-Line Approach for Pull Production. European Journal of
Fernandes, N. O. and Do Carmo-Silva, S., Generic Polca--a Production and Materials Flow
Economics, 2006. 104(1): p. 74-84. ISBN: 0925-5273.
Lödding, H., Yu, K. W., and Wiendahl, H. P., Decentralized Wip-Oriented Manufacturing
Control (Dewip). Production Planning & Control, 2003. 14(1): p. 42-54. ISBN: 0953-7287.
Lage Junior, M. and Godinho Filho, M., Variations of the Kanban System: Literature Review
and Classification. International Journal of Production Economics, 2010. 125(1): p. 13-21.
Miyashita, K. and Rajesh, G., Multiagent Coordination for Controlling Complex and Unstable
Manufacturing Processes. Expert Systems with Applications, 2010. 37(3): p. 1836-1845.
Suri, R., Quick Response Manufacturing: A Companywide Approach to Reducing Lead Times.
1998: Productivity Press. ISBN: 1-56327-201-6.
Geraghty, J. and Heavey, C., A Comparison of Hybrid Push/Pull and Conwip/Pull Production
Inventory Control Policies. International Journal of Production Economics, 2004. 91(1): p.
Thun, J. H., Drüke, M., and Grübner, A., Empowering Kanban through Tps-Principles-an
Empirical Analysis of the Toyota Production System. International Journal of Production
Research, 2010: p. 1. DOI: 10.1080/00207540903436695.
Araz, O. U., Eski, O., and Araz, C., Determining the Parameters of Dual-Card Kanban System:
An Integrated Multicriteria and Artificial Neural Network Methodology. The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2008. 38(9): p. 965-977. ISBN: 0268-3768.
Li, N., Yao, S., Liu, G., and Zhuang, C., Optimization of a Multi-Constant Work-in-Process
Semiconductor Assembly and Test Factory Based on Performance Evaluation. Computers &
industrial engineering, 2010. ISBN: 0360-8352.
Takahashi, K., Comparing Conwip, Synchronized Conwip, and Kanban in Complex Supply
Chains. International Journal of Production Economics, 2005. 93: p. 25-40. ISBN: 09255273.
Lu, J. C., Yang, T., and Wang, C. Y., A Lean Pull System Design Analysed by Value Stream
Mapping and Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Method under Demand Uncertainty.
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 2011. 24(3): p. 211-228. ISBN:
[259] Huang, M., Wang, D., and Ip, W., Simulation Study of Conwip for a Cold Rolling Plant.
International Journal of Production Economics, 1998. 54(3): p. 257-266. ISBN: 0925-5273.
[260] Liberopoulos, G. and Dallery, Y., Comparative Modelling of Multi-Stage Production-Inventory
Control Policies with Lot Sizing. International Journal of Production Research, 2003. 41(6):
[261] Zhang, Z., Analysis and Design of Manufacturing Systems with Multiple-Loop Structures. 2006,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[262] Robinson, D., Becoming a Translator: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of
Translation. 2003: Psychology Press. ISBN: 0415300320.
[263] Stone, P. and Veloso, M., Multiagent Systems: A Survey from a Machine Learning Perspective.
Autonomous Robots, 2000. 8(3): p. 345-383.
[264] Jones, M. T., Artificial Intelligence: A Systems Approach. 2009: Jones & Bartlett Publishers,
LLC. ISBN: 978-0-7637-7337-3.
[265] Subramaniam, V., Ramesh, T., Lee, G., Wong, Y., and Hong, G., Job Shop Scheduling with
Dynamic Fuzzy Selection of Dispatching Rules. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 2000. 16(10): p. 759-764. ISBN: 0268-3768.
[266] Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., and Mcgaughey, R., A Framework for Supply Chain Performance
Measurement. International Journal of Production Economics, 2004. 87(3): p. 333-347.
[267] Wiendahl, H. P. and Lutz, S., Production in Networks. Cirp Annals-Manufacturing Technology,
[268] Millington, I. and Funge, J., Artificial Intelligence for Games. 2009, Burlington: Morgan
Kaufmann Elsevier. ISBN: 978-0-12-374731-0.
[269] Munakata, T., Fundamentals of the New Artificial Intelligence: Neural, Evolutionary, Fuzzy
and More. 2008, London: Springer-Verlag ISBN: 978-1-84628-838-8.
[270] Engelbrecht, A. P., Computational Intelligence: An Introduction. 2nd ed. ed. 2007: John Wiley
& Sons Ltd. ISBN: 978-0-470-03561-0.
[271] Wang, Y., Abstract Intelligence and Cognitive Robots. Paladyn, 2010. 1(1): p. 66-72. ISBN:
[272] Fogel, D. B., Evolutionary Computation: Toward a New Philosophy of Machine Intelligence.
vol. 1. 2006: Wiley-IEEE Press. ISBN: 0471669512.
[273] Negnevitsky, M., Artificial Intelligence: A Guide to Intelligent Systems. 2005: Addison-Wesley
Longman. ISBN: 0321204662.
[274] Witten, I. H. and Frank, E., Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques.
2005: Morgan Kaufmann. ISBN: 0120884070.
[275] Ramos, C., Augusto, J. C., and Shapiro, D., Guest Editors' Introduction: Ambient Intelligence—
the Next Step for Artificial Intelligence. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2008: p. 15-18. ISBN: 15411672.
[276] Anderson, J. R., Michalski, R. S., Carbonell, J. G., and Mitchell, T. M., Machine Learning: An
Artificial Intelligence Approach. vol. 2. 1986: Morgan Kaufmann. ISBN: 0934613001.
[277] Poole, D. L. and Mackworth, A. K., Artificial Intelligence: Foundations of Computational
Agents. 2010: Cambridge Univ Pr. ISBN: 978-0-521-51900-7.
[278] Weise, T., Global Optimization Algorithms–Theory and Application. vol. 2. 2008: Free
Software Foundation.
[279] Barricelli, N. A., Symbiogenetic Evolution Processes Realized by Artificial Methods. Methodos,
1957. 9(35-36): p. 143-182.
[280] Fraser, A. S., Simulation of Genetic Systems by Automatic Digital Computers Vi. Epistasis.
Australian Journal of Biological Sciences, 1957. 13(2): p. 150-162.
[281] Sivanandam, S. and Deepa, S., Introduction to Genetic Algorithms. 2008, Berlin Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag. ISBN: 978-3-540-73189-4.
[282] Schönberger, J., Operational Freight Carrier Planning Basic Concept, Optimzation Models and
Advanced Memetic Algorithm. H.-O. Günther and P. V. Beek (Eds.), Advanced Planning and
Scheduling, ed. Burkard, R. E., Fleischmann, B., Inderfurth, K., Möhring, R. H., and Voss, S.
2005, Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer. ISBN: 3540253181.
[283] Chan, K. and Tansri, H., A Study of Genetic Crossover Operations on the Facilities Layout
Problem. Computers & industrial engineering, 1994. 26(3): p. 537-550. ISBN: 0360-8352.
[284] Cantú-Paz, E., Migration Policies, Selection Pressure, and Parallel Evolutionary Algorithms.
Journal of heuristics, 2001. 7(4): p. 311-334.
[285] Sakawa, M., Genetic Algorithms and Fuzzy Multiobjective Optimization. vol. 14. 2002:
Springer Netherlands. ISBN: 0792374525.
[286] Jong, K., An Analysis of the Behavior of a Class of Genetic Adaptive Systems, in Dissertation
Abstracts International. 1975, University of Michigan.
[287] Whitley, D., A Genetic Algorithm Tutorial. Statistics and computing, 1994. 4(2): p. 65-85.
[288] Ong, Y. and Keane, A., Meta-Lamarckian Learning in Memetic Algorithms. IEEE Transactions
on Evolutionary Computation, 2004. 8(2): p. 99-110.
[289] Glover, F., Future Paths for Integer Programming and Links to Artificial Intelligence.
[290] Gendreau, M. and Potvin, J. Y., Tabu Search. Handbook of Metaheuristics, 2010: p. 41-59.
[291] Zadeh, L., Outline of a New Approach to the Analysis of Complex Systems and Decision
Processes. IEEE transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1973. 3(1): p. 28-44.
[292] Zimmermann, H., Fuzzy Set Theory--and Its Applications. 2001: Springer Netherlands.
[293] Zadeh, L. A., Outline of a New Approach to the Analysis of Complex Systems and Decision
Processes. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on, 1973(1): p. 28-44. ISBN:
[294] Mohit Kumar, Kerstin Thurow, Norbert Stoll, and Stoll, R., Fuzzy Systems. Ahmad, T. A.,
Editor. 2010, InTech. p. 216. ISBN: 978-953-7619-92-3.
[295] Babuška, R., Fuzzy Systems, Modeling and Identification. Delft University of Technology,
Department of Electrical Engineering Control Laboratory, Mekelweg, 2003. 4.
[296] Klimke, W., Uncertainty Modeling Using Fuzzy Arithmetic and Sparse Grids, in Institut für
Angewandte Analysis und Numerische Simulation. 2005, University of Stuttgart: Stuttgart.
[297] Carlsson, C. and Fuller, R., Fuzzy Reasoning in Decision Making and Optimization. vol. 82.
2002: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. ISBN: 3790814288.
[298] Petrovic, S., Fayad, C., Petrovic, D., Burke, E., and Kendall, G., Fuzzy Job Shop Scheduling with
Lot-Sizing. Annals of Operations Research, 2008. 159(1): p. 275-292.
[299] Mitaim, S. and Kosko, B., The Shape of Fuzzy Sets in Adaptive Function Approximation. Fuzzy
Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 2001. 9(4): p. 637-656. ISBN: 1063-6706.
[300] Peidro, D. and Vasant, P., Transportation Planning with Modified S-Curve Membership
Functions Using an Interactive Fuzzy Multi-Objective Approach. Applied Soft Computing,
2010. 11(2): p. 2656-2663. DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2010.10.014. ISBN: 1568-4946.
[301] Zadeh, L. A., The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and Its Application to Approximate
Reasoning--I* 1. Information Sciences, 1975. 8(3): p. 199-249. ISBN: 0020-0255.
[302] Dong, W. and Wong, F., Fuzzy Weighted Averages and Implementation of the Extension
Principle. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1987. 21(2): p. 183-199.
[303] Zadeh, L. A., A Theory of Approximate Reasoning, Machine Intelligence. Hayes, D. Michie and
L. Mikulich (Eds.), 1979. 9: p. 149–194.
[304] Mamdani, E. H. and Assilian, S., An Experiment in Linguistic Synthesis with a Fuzzy Logic
Controller. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 1975. 7(1): p. 1-13. ISBN: 00207373.
[305] Mohan, B. and Sinha, A., The Simplest Fuzzy Two-Term Controllers: Mathematical Models and
Stability Analysis. International Journal of Automation and Control, 2008. 2(1): p. 5-21.
[306] Sugeno, M., Industrial Applications of Fuzzy Control. 1985: Elsevier Science Ltd 278 pages.
ISBN: 0444878297.
[307] Liu, X., Parameterized Defuzzification with Maximum Entropy Weighting Function--Another
View of the Weighting Function Expectation Method. Mathematical and computer modelling,
2007. 45(1-2): p. 177-188. ISBN: 0895-7177.
[308] Chandramohan, A., Rao, M. V. C., and Arumugam, M. S., Two New and Useful Defuzzification
Methods Based on Root Mean Square Value. Soft Computing-A Fusion of Foundations,
Methodologies and Applications, 2006. 10(11): p. 1047-1059. ISBN: 1432-7643.
[309] Mcculloch, W. S. and Pitts, W., A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity.
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 1943. 5(4): p. 115-133. ISBN: 0092-8240.
[310] Rosenblatt, F., The Perceptron: A Probabilistic Model for Information Storage and
Organization in the Brain. Psychological review, 1958. 65(6): p. 386. ISBN: 1939-1471.
[311] Rosenblatt, F., Perceptron Simulation Experiments. Proceedings of the IRE, 1960. 48(3): p.
[312] Kim, J., Lee, S., and Cho, B., Discrimination of Li-Ion Batteries Based on Hamming Network
Using Discharging/Charging Voltage Pattern Recognition for Improved State of Charge
Estimation. Journal of Power Sources, 2011. 196(4): p. 2227-2240 DOI:
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.08.119. ISBN: 0378-7753.
[313] Badel, S., Schmid, A., and Leblebici, Y., Cmos Realization of Two-Dimensional Mixed AnalogDigital Hamming Distance Discriminator Circuits for Real-Time Imaging Applications.
Microelectronics Journal, 2008. 39(12): p. 1817-1828. ISBN: 0026-2692.
[314] Hagan, M. T., Demuth, H. B., and Beale, M., Perceptron Learning Rule. In Neural Network
Design. 1996, PWS-Kent, Boston, MA. ISBN: 0-9717321-0-8.
[315] Haykin, S., Feedforward Neural Networks: An Introduction. In Nonlinear Dynamical Systems:
Feedforward Neural Network Perspectives, Sandberg, I. W., Editor. 2001, WileyInterscience. ISBN: 0471349119.
[316] Hagan, M. T., Demuth, H. B., and Beale, M., Performance Surfaces and Optimum Points. In
Neural Network Design. 1996, PWS-Kent, Boston, MA. ISBN: 0-9717321-0-8.
[317] Hagan, M. T., Demuth, H. B., and Beale, M., Performance Optimzation. In Neural Network
[318] Hush, D. R. and Horne, B. G., Progress in Supervised Neural Networks. Signal Processing
Magazine, IEEE, 1993. 10(1): p. 8-39. ISBN: 1053-5888.
[319] Back, A. D., Radial Basis Functions. In Handbook of Neural Network Signal Processing, Hu, Y.
and Hwang, J., Editors. 2002, CRC Press LLC: New York. p. 2525-2526. ISBN: 0-8493-2359-2.
[320] Jwo, D. J. and Lai, C. C., Neural Network-Based Gps Gdop Approximation and Classification.
GPS Solutions, 2007. 11(1): p. 51-60. ISBN: 1080-5370.
[321] Chang, G. W., Chen, C. I., and Teng, Y. F., Radial-Basis-Function-Based Neural Network for
Harmonic Detection. Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, 2010. 57(6): p. 21712179. ISBN: 0278-0046.
[322] Kuo, R., Hu, T. L., and Chen, Z. Y. Application of Radial Basis Function Neural Network for
Sales Forecasting. In International Asia Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation
and Robotics, 2009. CAR '09. 2009. Bangkok IEEEXplore. DOI: 10.1109/CAR.2009.97 ISBN:
[323] El-Shafie, A., Abdelazim, T., and Noureldin, A., Neural Network Modeling of Time-Dependent
Creep Deformations in Masonry Structures. Neural Computing & Applications, 2010. 19(4): p.
[324] Looney, C., Radial Basis Functional Link Nets and Fuzzy Reasoning. Neurocomputing, 2002.
[325] Corsini, G., Diani, M., Grasso, R., De Martino, M., Mantero, P., and Serpico, S., Radial Basis
Function and Multilayer Perceptron Neural Networks for Sea Water Optically Active
Parameter Estimation in Case Ii Waters: A Comparison. International Journal of Remote
Sensing, 2003. 24(20): p. 3917-3932. ISBN: 0143-1161.
[326] Khajeh, A. and Modarress, H., Prediction of Solubility of Gases in Polystyrene by Adaptive
Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System and Radial Basis Function Neural Network. Expert Systems
with Applications, 2010. 37(4): p. 3070-3074. ISBN: 0957-4174.
[327] Panda, S., Chakraborty, D., and Pal, S., Flank Wear Prediction in Drilling Using Back
Propagation Neural Network and Radial Basis Function Network. Applied Soft Computing,
[328] De Silva, C. R., Ranganath, S., and De Silva, L. C., Cloud Basis Function Neural Network: A
Modified Rbf Network Architecture for Holistic Facial Expression Recognition. Pattern
Recognition, 2008. 41(4): p. 1241-1253. ISBN: 0031-3203.
[329] Orr, M., Hallam, J., Takezawa, K., Murray, A., Ninomiya, S., Oide, M., and Leonard, T.,
Combining Regression Trees and Radial Basis Function Networks. International Journal of
Neural Systems, 2000. 10(6): p. 453-466. ISBN: 0129-0657.
[330] Bortman, M. and Aladjem, M., A Growing and Pruning Method for Radial Basis Function
Networks. Neural Networks, IEEE Transactions on, 2009. 20(6): p. 1039-1045. ISBN: 10459227.
[331] De Jesús Rubio, J., Vázquez, D. M., and Pacheco, J., Backpropagation to Train an Evolving
Radial Basis Function Neural Network. Evolving Systems, 2010. 1(3): p. 1-8. DOI:
10.1007/s12530-010-9015-9. ISBN: 1868-6478.
[332] Vakil-Baghmisheh, M. T. and Pavei, N., Training Rbf Networks with Selective
Backpropagation. Neurocomputing, 2004. 62: p. 39-64. ISBN: 0925-2312.
[333] Alexandridis, A., Sarimveis, H., and Ninos, K., A Radial Basis Function Network Training
Algorithm Using a Non-Symmetric Partition of the Input Space-Application to a Model
Predictive Control Configuration. Advances in Engineering Software, 2011. 42(10): p. 830837. DOI: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2011.05.026. ISBN: 0965-9978.
[334] Bisschop, J., Aimms-Optimization Modeling. 2006: Lulu. Com. ISBN: 1411698991.
[335] Fahringer, T., Jugravu, A., Pllana, S., Prodan, R., Seragiotto Jr, C., and Truong, H. L., Askalon: A
Tool Set for Cluster and Grid Computing. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and
Experience, 2005. 17(2 4): p. 143-169. ISBN: 1532-0634.
[336] Zagonel, A. and Corbet, T. F. Levels of Confidence in System Dynamics Modeling: A Pragmatic
Approach to Assessment of Dynamic Models. In International Conference of the System
Dynamics Society. 2006. Nijmegen, Netherlands.
[337] Liu, D., Tan, K., Huang, S., Goh, C., and Ho, W., On Solving Multiobjective Bin Packing Problems
Using Evolutionary Particle Swarm Optimization. European Journal of Operational Research,
2008. 190(2): p. 357-382. ISBN: 0377-2217.
[338] Bradley, S., Hax, A., and Magnanti, T., Applied Mathematical Programming. 1977: Addison
Wesley. ISBN: 978-0201004649.
[339] Zhang, X., Huang, G. H., Chan, C. W., Liu, Z., and Lin, Q., A Fuzzy-Robust Stochastic
Multiobjective Programming Approach for Petroleum Waste Management Planning. Applied
Mathematical Modelling, 2010. 34(10): p. 2778-2788. ISBN: 0307-904X.
[340] Shavandi, H. and Mahlooji, H., A Fuzzy Queuing Location Model with a Genetic Algorithm for
Congested Systems. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 2006. 181(1): p. 440-456.
[341] Zimmermann, H. J., Applications of Fuzzy Set Theory to Mathematical Programming.
Information Sciences, 1985. 36(1-2): p. 29-58. ISBN: 0020-0255.
[342] Shih, C., Chi, C., and Hsiao, J., Alternative [Alpha]-Level-Cuts Methods for Optimum Structural
Design with Fuzzy Resources. Computers & structures, 2003. 81(28-29): p. 2579-2587. ISBN:
[343] Mitchell, C. and Psihoyios, G., Modelling Fuzzy Universal Resource Identifiers: A First
Approach. Mathematical and computer modelling, 2005. 42(7-8): p. 867-872. ISBN: 08957177.
[344] Inuiguchi, M. and Ramík, J., Possibilistic Linear Programming: A Brief Review of Fuzzy
Mathematical Programming and a Comparison with Stochastic Programming in Portfolio
Selection Problem. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2000. 111(1): p. 3-28. ISBN: 0165-0114.
[345] Boukezzoula, R., Galichet, S., and Foulloy, L., Min and Max Operators for Fuzzy Intervals and
Their Potential Use in Aggregation Operators. Fuzzy Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 2007.
15(6): p. 1135-1144. ISBN: 1063-6706.
[346] Sakawa, M., Nishizaki, I., and Katagiri, H., Fuzzy Stochastic Multiobjective Programming. vol.
159. 2011: Springer New York Heidelberg London. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-8402-9.
ISBN: 978-1-4419-8401-2.
[347] Zimmermann, H. J., Fuzzy Mathematical Programming. Computers & Operations Research,
[348] Zimmermann, H. J., Fuzzy Programming and Linear Programming with Several Objective
Functions* 1. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1978. 1(1): p. 45-55. ISBN: 0165-0114.
[349] Fayad, C. and Petrovic, S., A Fuzzy Genetic Algorithm for Real-World Job Shop Scheduling.
Innovations in Applied Artificial Intelligence, 2005. 3533/2005: p. 76-83. DOI:
10.1007/11504894_71.
[350] Cooper, R., Introduction to Queueing Theory. 2nd ed. 1981: Elsevier North Holland, Inc. 347
pages. DOI: 2002/02/27 17:38:31 US/Mountain. ISBN: 978-0444003799.
[351] Görg, C., Lecture Notes of Communication Network Ii. 2010, University Bremen: Bremen.
[352] Bhat, U. N., An Introduction to Queueing Theory: Modeling and Analysis in Applications. 2008:
Birkhauser. ISBN: 0817647244.
[353] Ravindran, A., Operations Research and Management Science Handbook. 2008: CRC. ISBN:
[354] Buzen, J. P., Computational Algorithms for Closed Queueing Networks with Exponential
Servers. Communications of the ACM, 1973. 16(9): p. 527-531. ISBN: 0001-0782.
[355] Karlsson, V. V. G., Multicast Scheduling with Resource Fairness Constraints. Wireless Netw,
2009. 15: p. 571-583.
[356] Balsamo, S., Queueing Networks with Blocking: Analysis, Solution Algorithms and Properties.
Network Performance Engineering, 2011. 5233/2011: p. 233-257. DOI: 10.1007/978-3642-02742-0_11.
[357] Reiser, M. and Lavenberg, S. S., Mean-Value Analysis of Closed Multichain Queuing Networks.
Journal of the ACM (JACM), 1980. 27(2): p. 313-322. ISBN: 0004-5411.
[358] Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., and Al., E., Global Sensitivity Analysis: The
Primer. 2008: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9780470725184.fmatter. ISBN:
[359] Ke, J. C. and Lin, C. H., Sensitivity Analysis of Machine Repair Problems in Manufacturing
Systems with Service Interruptions. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 2008. 32(10): p. 20872105. ISBN: 0307-904X.
[360] Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., and Roos, D., The Machine That Changed the World. 2007:
HarperPaperbacks. 336 pages. ISBN: 978-0060974176.
[361] Giménez, C. and Ventura, E., Supply Chain Management as a Competitive Advantage in the
Spanish Grocery Sector. International Journal of Logistics Management, The, 2003. 14(1): p.
[362] Xiaomei, L., Zhaofang, M., Guohong, X., and Fu, J. Study on Manufacturing Supply Chain
Leagile Strategy Driven Factors Based on Customer Value. In 4th International Conference on
Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, 2008. WiCOM '08. . 2008:
IEEE Xplore. DOI: 10.1109/WiCom.2008.1642 ISBN: 978-1-4244-2107-7
[363] Cowton, R., Making Sense of Just-in-Time Production: A Resource-Based Perspective. Omega,
1994. 22(5): p. 427-441. DOI: 10.1016/0305-0483(94)90025-6. ISBN: 0305-0483.
[364] Wadhwa, S., Mishra, M., and Saxena, A., A Network Approach for Modeling and Design of Agile
Supply Chains Using a Flexibility Construct. International journal of flexible manufacturing
systems, 2007. 19(4): p. 410-442. DOI: 10.1007/s10696-008-9044-x. ISBN: 0920-6299.
[365] Laure, W. Cycle Time and Bottleneck Analysis. In Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing
Conference and Workshop, 1999 IEEE/SEMI. 1999. Boston, MA , USA IEEE. DOI:
10.1109/ASMC.1999.798179 ISBN: 0780352173.
[366] Christopher, M., The Agile Supply Chain:: Competing in Volatile Markets. Industrial Marketing
Management, 2000. 29(1): p. 37-44. ISBN: 0019-8501.
[367] Vázquez-Bustelo, D., Avella, L., and Fernández, E., Agility Drivers, Enablers and Outcomes:
Empirical Test of an Integrated Agile Manufacturing Model. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 2007. 27(12): p. 1303-1332. ISBN: 0144-3577.
[368] Zhang, Z. and Sharifi, H., A Methodology for Achieving Agility in Manufacturing Organisations.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 2000. 20(4): p. 496-513.
[369] Scholz-Reiter, B., Wirth, F., Freitag, M., Dashkovskiy, S., Jagalski, T., Beer, C., and Rüffer, B.
Some Remarks on the Stability of Production Networks. In Operations Research Proceedings
2005. 2006. ISBN: 978-3-540-32539-0.
[370] Scholz-Reiter, B., Jagalski, T., De Beer, C., and Freitag, M. Autonomous Shop Floor Control
Considering Set-up Times. In 40th CIRP Int. Seminar on Manufacturing Systems. 2007.
Liverpool, UK: Citeseer.
[371] Vogel, A., Fischer, M., Jaehn, H., and Teich, T., Real-World Shop Floor Scheduling by Ant
Colony Optimization. In Ant Algorithms, Dorigo, M., Editor. 2002, Springer: BerlinHeidelberg. p. 173-198.
[372] Scholz-Reiter, B., Freitag, M., De Beer, C., and Jagalski, T. Modelling and Analysis of
Autonomous Shop Floor Control. In 38th Annu. CIRP International Seminar on
Manufacturing Systems. 2005. Florianopolis, Brazil.
[373] Scholz-Reiter, B., Rekersbrink, H., and Görges, M., Dynamic Flexible Flow Shop Problems-Scheduling Heuristics Vs. Autonomous Control. Cirp Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 2010.
[374] Nyhuis, P. and Vogel, M., Adaptation of Logistic Operating Curves to One-Piece Flow Processes.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 2006. 55(3/4): p. 284299. ISBN: 1741-0401.
[375] Lee, H., Padmanabhan, P., and Whang, S., The Paralyzing Curse of the Bullwhip Effect in a
Supply Chain. 1997, Stanford University: Stanford, CA
[376] Daley, D., General Customer Impatience in the Queue Gi/G/1. Journal of Applied Probability,
1965. 2(1): p. 186-205.
[377] Tay, N. and Linn, S., Fuzzy Inductive Reasoning, Expectation Formation and the Behavior of
Security Prices. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 2001. 25(3-4): p. 321-361.
[378] Mehrsai, A. and Scholz-Reiter, Toward Learning Autonomous Pallets by Using Fuzzy Rules,
Applied in a Conwip System. Under revision by International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Systems, Since Feb. 2011.
[379] Wang, H., Flexible Flow Shop Scheduling: Optimum, Heuristics and Artificial Intelligence
Solutions. Expert Systems, 2005. 22(2): p. 78-85. ISBN: 1468-0394.
[380] Haridy, S. and Wu, Z., Univariate and Multivariate Control Charts for Monitoring DynamicBehavior Processes: A Case Study. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 2009.
2(3): p. 464. ISBN: 2013-0953.
[381] Mamdani, E., Application of Fuzzy Algorithms for Control of Simple Dynamic Plant. Proc. Iee,
1974. 121(12): p. 1585-1588.
[382] Ying, H., Ding, Y., Li, S., and Shao, S., Comparison of Necessary Conditions for Typical TakagiSugeno and Mamdani Fuzzy Systems as Universal Approximators. Systems, Man and
Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, IEEE Transactions on, 2002. 29(5): p. 508-514.
[383] Pfluger, N., Yen, J., and Langari, R. A Defuzzification Strategy for a Fuzzy Logic Controller
Employing Prohibitive Information in Command Formulation. In IEEE International
Conference on Fuzzy Systems, 1992. 2002. San Diego, CA , USA IEEE. DOI:
10.1109/FUZZY.1992.258746 ISBN: 0780302362.
[384] Gurgur, C. and Altiok, T., Approximate Analysis of Decentralized, Multi-Stage, Pull-Type
Production/Inventory Systems. Annals of Operations Research, 2004. 125(1): p. 95-116.
[385] Gurgur, C. and Altiok, T., Analysis of Decentralized Multi-Product Pull Systems with Lost Sales.
Naval Research Logistics, 2007. 54(4): p. 357-370.
[386] Balbo, G., Bruell, S., and Sereno, M., On the Relations between Bcmp Queueing Networks and
Product Form Solution Stochastic Petri Nets, in 10th International Workshop on Petri Nets
and Performance Models (PNPM '03). 2003, IEEE: Urbana, Illinois DOI:
http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/PNPM.2003.1231547. ISBN: 0-7695-1976-8.
[387] Baskett, F., Chandy, K., Muntz, R., and Palacios, F., Open, Closed, and Mixed Networks of
Queues with Different Classes of Customers. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 1975. 22(2): p. 248260. ISBN: 0004-5411.
[388] Akyildiz, I., Mean Value Analysis of Closed Queueing Networks with Erlang Service Time
Distributions. Computing, 1987. 39(3): p. 219-232. ISBN: 0010-485X.
[389] Hoyme, K., Bruell, S., Afshari, P., and Kain, R., A Tree-Structured Mean Value Analysis
Algorithm. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS), 1986. 4(2): p. 178-185. ISBN:
[390] Jain, M., Maheshwari, S., and Baghel, K., Queueing Network Modelling of Flexible
Manufacturing System Using Mean Value Analysis. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 2008.
32(5): p. 700-711. ISBN: 0307-904X.
[391] Mehrsai, A., Karimi, H. R., Rügge, I., and Scholz-Reiter, B. Application of Learning Pallets for
Real-Time Scheduling by Use of Artificial Neural Network In SKIMA2011, 5th IEEE
Applications. 2011. University of Sannio, Benevento, Italy: To be published by IEEE Xplore.
[392] Mehrsai, A. and Scholz-Reiter, B. Towards Learning Pallets Applied in Pull Control Job-Open
Shop Problem. In International Symposium on Assembly and Manufacturing (ISAM), 2011
IEEE. 2011. DOI: 10.1109/ISAM.2011.5942354 ISBN: 978-1-61284-342-1
[393] Polastre, J., Szewczyk, R., and Culler, D. Telos: Enabling Ultra-Low Power Wireless Research.
In IPSN '05 Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on Information processing in
sensor networks 2005. Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE Press. ISBN: 0780392027.
[394] Son, V. Q., Wenning, B. L., Gorg, C., and Timm-Giel, A. Wisecomasys:A Tool for Data Collection
and Management of Wireless Sensor Networks. In International Conference on Advanced
Technologies for Communications (ATC), 2010 2010. Ho Chi Minh City IEEE Xplore. DOI:
10.1109/ATC.2010.5672724 ISBN: 978-1-4244-8875-9
[395] Müller, H., Pezzè, M., and Shaw, M. Visibility of Control in Adaptive Systems. In Second
International Workshop on Ultra-Large-Scale Software-Intensive Systems (ULSSIS 2008), at
the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2008). 2008. Leipzig,
Germany: Association for Computing Machinery, One Astor Plaza 1515 Broadway, 17 th
Floor New York NY 10036-5701 USA. ISBN: 0270-5257.
[396] Skyttner, L., General Systems Theory: Problems, Perspectives, Practice. 2nd Edition ed. 2005,
Singapore: World Scientific Pub Co Inc. ISBN: 981256389X.
[397] Franzen, G. and Moriarty, S., The Science and Art of Branding. 2008: ME Sharpe. ISBN: 978-07656-1791-0.
[398] Groff, T. R. and Jones, T. P., Introduction to Knowledge Management: Km in Business. First ed.
2003: Butterworth-Heinemann. 183. ISBN: 0750677287.
[399] Wenfang, S. and Huaizhen, Y. Research on Entropy Model of Order Degree of Fractal Supply
Chain Network. In 2008 International Symposium on Electronic Commerce and Security.
2008. Los Alamitos, CA, USA. DOI:
http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/ISECS.2008.74. ISBN: 978-0-7695-3258-5.
[400] Compte, A. and Jou, D., Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics and Anomalous Diffusion. Journal
of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 1996. 29: p. 4321.
[401] Meralo, Y. and Petter, A., The Sage Handbook of Complexity and Management. Allen, P.,
Maguire, S., and Mckelvey, B., Editors. 2011, Sage Publications Ltd: London, California. ISBN:
[402] Modelling Driver Behaviour in Automotive Environments: Critical Issues in Driver Interactions
with Intelligent Transport Systems. Cacciabue, P. C., Editor. 2007, Springer-Verlag New York
Inc. ISBN: 1846286174.
[403] Wang, A., Afshar, P., and Wang, H., Complex Stochastic Systems Modelling and Control Via
Iterative Machine Learning. Neurocomputing, 2008. 71(13-15): p. 2685-2692. ISBN: 09252312.
[404] Wang, C., Liu, T., and Wang, C. H. Deterministic Learning and Pattern-Based Nn Control. In
International Symposium on Intelligent Control, 2007. ISIC 2007. IEEE 22nd 2007.
Singapore: IEEE Xplore. DOI: 10.1109/ISIC.2007.4450875 ISBN: 1085-1992.
[405] Chien, C. J., A Combined Adaptive Law for Fuzzy Iterative Learning Control of Nonlinear
Systems with Varying Control Tasks. Fuzzy Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 2008. 16(1): p.
[406] Huang, S., Tan, K., and Lee, T., Neural Network Learning Algorithm for a Class of
Interconnected Nonlinear Systems. Neurocomputing, 2009. 72(4-6): p. 1071-1077. ISBN:
[407] Seger, C. A. and Miller, E. K., Category Learning in the Brain. Annual review of neuroscience,
2011. 33: p. 203-219. ISBN: 0147-006X.
[408] Ebert, T., Bänfer, O., and Nelles, O., Multilayer Perceptron Network with Modified Sigmoid
Activation Functions. Artificial Intelligence and Computational Intelligence, 2010.
6319/2010: p. 414-421. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-16530-6_49.
[409] Lehtokangas, M., Saarinen, J., Kaski, K., and Huuhtanen, P., Initializing Weights of a
Multilayer Perceptron Network by Using the Orthogonal Least Squares Algorithm. Neural
Computation, 1995. 7(5): p. 982-999. ISBN: 0899-7667.
[410] Hebb, D. O., The Organisation of Behaviour. 1949, Wiley: New York.
[411] Widrow, B. and Lehr, M. A. 30 Years of Adaptive Neural Networks: Perceptron, Madaline, and
Backpropagation. In Proceedings of the IEEE. 1990. Stanford Univ., CA IEEE Xplore. DOI:
10.1109/5.58323 ISBN: 0018-9219.
[412] Giambene, G., Queuing Theory and Telecommunications: Networks and Applications. 2005:
Springer-Verlag New York Inc. ISBN: 0387240659.
[413] Kesavadas, T. and Sudhir, A. Computational Steering in Simulation of Manufacturing Systems.
In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2000. Proceedings. ICRA'00.
2000. San Francisco, CA , USA IEEE Explore. DOI: 10.1109/ROBOT.2000.846428 ISBN:
[414] Bocharov, P. P. and D'apice, C., Queueing Theory. 2004: Ridderprint bv, Ridderkerk. ISBN:
906764398X.
[415] Cooper, R. B., Introduction to Queueing Theory. 2nd Edition ed. 1981, New York: Elsevier
North Holland, Inc. DOI: 2002/02/27 17:38:31 US/Mountain. ISBN: 978-0444003799.
[416] Dombacher, C., Stationary Queueing Models with Aspects of Customer Impatience and Retrial
Behaviour. 2009, Telecom. p. 131.
[417] Willig, A., A Short Introduction to Queueing Theory. 1999, Technical University Berlin,
Telecommunication Networks Group.
[418] Mitrani, I., Simulation Techniques for Discrete Event Systems. vol. 14. 1982, Cambridge
NewYork Melbourne: Cambridge Univ Press. ISBN: 0521282829.
1. QLE-simple estimation (without Fuzzy), with supply rate following the Neg-Exp
= 55min.
Figure 104: QLE without Fuzzy Supply Neg-Exp 55 min.
2. QLE with Fuzzy estimation, with supply rate following the Neg-Exp  = 55min.
Figure 105: QLE with Fuzzy, Supply Neg-Exp 55 min.
3. QLE-simple, with flexible lot-size, and with supply rate following the Neg-Exp
Figure 106: QLE-Simple with flexible lot-size, Supply Neg-Exp 55 min.
4. QLE-Fuzzy with use of flexible lot-size for pallets, with supply rate following the
Neg-Exp  = 55min.
Figure 107: QLE-Fuzzy with flexible lot-size, Supply Neg-Exp 55 min.
5. Conventional (following the least predefined lines with least processing time for
each type), with supply rate following the Neg-Exp  = 55min.
Figure 108: Conventional, Supply Neg-Exp 55 min.
6. Fuzzy Lpallet, with supply rate following the Neg-Exp  = 55min.
Figure 109: Fuzzy Lpallet, Supply Neg-Exp 55 min.
7. When supply rate follows neg-exponential distribution ( = 55 min), then the
entrance inter-arrival time for replenishment of semi-finished products to OEM
follows neg-exponential distribution. Its pdf is approximated by neg-exp with
=  = 0.37. Moreover, the neg-exponential distribution is described by the pdf
() =   �− �.
Figure 110: The pdf of the entrance inter-arrival time for replenishment of semi-finished products to OEM that
follows neg-exp distribution.
8. The supply rate of sources follow the normal distribution with pdf
(−)2
�, where ~( = 55,  = 5). Then the entrance inter-arrival
time for replenishment of semi-finished products to OEM is best approximated by
general logistic distribution (pdf) as with  = 0.18,  = 1.22,  = 2.41.
≠0
−1�
⎪ 1 + �1 +  � − ��
�− �  ��
k=0
− 2
⎩ �1 +  �− �  ���
Figure 111: The pdf of the entrance inter-arrival time for replenishment of semi-finished products to OEM.
9. QLE with simple estimation, and with supply rate following the normal distribution
with with ~( = 55,  = 5).
Figure 112: QLE, supply rate follow normal distribution with μ=55min and σ=5.
10. QLE with fuzzy estimation, and with supply rate following the normal distribution
with ~( = 55,  = 5).
Figure 113: QLE with fuzzy, supply rate follow normal distribution with μ=55min and σ=5.
11. Using Fuzzy Lpallet, with a supply rate which follows the normal distribution with
~( = 55,  = 5).
Figure 114: Fuzzy Lpallet, supply rate follow normal distribution with μ=55min and σ=5.
When the sources fulfill materials by a rate following neg-exponential inflow ( =  =
0.33) then the pdf of supply for a single type of product at the entrance of OEM follows negexp distribution.
Figure 115: The pdf of one type product at OEM that follows neg-exp distribution.
für die Bereiche
Fertigungsmanagement
und Organisation
77100 Krallmann, Herrmann
Produktkonfiguration (Industrie Management 1/2003)
82 S. 978-3-936771-00-8
77101 Gronau, Norbert
ERP-Technologien (PPS Management 1/2003)
77102 Scholz-Reiter, Bernd
Manufacturing Execution Systems (Industrie Management
2/2003)
PPS-/ERP-Integration (PPS Management 3/2003)
77111 Scholz-Reiter, Bernd;
Scharke, Heiko
Comprehensive Information Chain of Automated Disassembly of 256 S. 978-3-936771-11-4
Obsolete Technical Appliances
Kundenzufriedenheit bei ERP und PPS (PPS Management
Unternehmensarchitekturen (ERP Management 1/2005)
ERP-Qualifizierung (ERP Management 2/2005)
77147 Gronau, Norbert;
Schmid, Simone
Wissensmanagement im Betrieb komplexer ERP-Systeme
312 S. 978-3-936771-47-3
Geschäftsprozessmanagement (ERP Management 3/2005)
Web Services (ERP Management 1/2006)
Support von ERP-Systemen (ERP Management 2/2006)
Customer Relationship Management (ERP Management 4/2006)
77188 Eggert, Sandy
Eggert, Sandy (Hrsg.)
1902 Gronau, Norbert
Auswahl, Einführung und Integration von ERP-Systemen
Personalmanagement (ERP Management 1/2007)
Gronau, Norbert;
Wandlungsfähige ERP-Systeme - Entwicklung, Auswahl und
Lämmer, Anne;
Methode (2. Auflage)
Andresen, Katja (Hrsg.)
Gronau, Norbert
ERP-Systeme für die öffentliche Verwaltung (ERP Management
Industrielles Informationsmanagement (Industrie Management
Outsourcing (ERP Management 3/2007)
Gronau, N.
Bichler, Martin;
Hess, Thomas;
Krcmar, Helmut;
Lechner, Ulrike;
Matthes, Florian;
Picot, Arnold;
Speitkamp, Benjamin;
Wolf, Petra (Hrsg.)
ERP-Systeme im Dienstleistungssektor (ERP Management
Serviceorientierte Architekturen (ERP Management 1/2008)
Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2008
Business Performance Management (ERP Management 2/2008)
ERP-Modernisierung (ERP Management 3/2008)
Beratung, Service und Vertrieb für ERP-Anbieter
Security-Management (ERP Management 4/2008)
Internationalisierung im Mittelstand (ERP Management 1/2009)
Prozessmanagement (ERP Management 2/2009)
ERP-Integration (ERP Management 3/2009)
Architekturen, Geschäftsmodelle und Marketingstrategien für
ERP-Anbieter
Usability (ERP Management 4/2009)
Schmidt, Benedikt
Wettbewerbsvorteile im SAP-Outsourcing durch
Wissensmanagement - Methoden zur effizienten Gestaltung des
Übergangs ins Application Management
ERP-Architekturen (ERP Management 1/2010)
Eggert, Sandy
Wandlungsfähigkeit von Enterprise Content Management Gestaltung wandlungsfähiger ECM-Prozesse unter Verwendung
kartographischer Methoden
Digital Factory (Productivity Management 1a/2010)
Open Source (Industrie Management 3/2010)
Scholz-Reiter, Bernd
Business Intelligence mit ERP-Systemen (ERP Management
Kopplung MES - ERP (Productivity Management 2/2010)
Fohrholz, Corinna
Business Software für Apple-Plattformen (iSuccess 1/2010)
ERP-Auswahl und -Einführung (ERP Management 3/2010)
Software as a Service, Cloud Computing und Mobile
Gronau, N.;
Eggert, S.;
Fohrholz, C. (Hrsg.)
Lizenzmodelle für ERP-Systeme (ERP Management 4/2010)
Mobiles Arbeiten und Sicherheit (iSuccess 1/2011)
Effizienz durch ERP (ERP Management 1/2011)
Handbuch der ERP-Auswahl
Anpassungsfähigkeit und Flexibilität (ERP Management 2/2011)
Kostenreduktion durch ERP (ERP Management 3/2011)
Fohrholz, C.
Wirtschaftliche Geschäftsprozesse durch mobile ERP-Systeme
ERP-Strategien (ERP Management 4/2011)
Produktionsnahe Informationssysteme (Industrie Management
Wettbewerbsfähigkeit (ERP Management 1/2012)
115 ERP-Systeme im Vergleich (ERP Marktüberblick 1/2012)
Produktkonfiguration - 53 Anbieter im Vergleich (Productivity
Marktüberblick 1/2012)
ERP-Markt.info 1/2012
A Dynamic Bottleneck-oriented Manufacturing Control System
(Hrsg.);
Liu, Huaxin
Höhere Produktivität durch moderne ERP-Systeme
Fohrholz, Corinna (Hrsg.)
ERP-Technologien (ERP Management 3/2012)
86 ERP-Systeme im Vergleich (ERP Marktüberblick 2/2012)
Prozessmanagement mit ERP (ERP Management 4/2012)
ERP Trendreport 2013 – Neue Märkte durch neue Technologien?
Schmalzried, Dirk
In-Memory-basierte Real-Time Supply Chain Planung
Wirtschaftlichkeit (ERP Management 1/2013)
ERP Markt.info 1-2013
14 S. 978-3-95545-012-0
Big Data (ERP Management 2/2013)
ERP Add-ons (ERP Management 3/2013)
250 S. 978-3-95545-003-8
Fertigungsmanagement (PPS)
Mehrwerkesteuerung (PPS Management 2/2003)
Prozessorientierte Fertigung (PPS Management 4/2003)
Advanced Planning and Scheduling (PPS Management 2/2004)
Bestandsmanagement (PPS Management 1/2005)
Planung und Steuerung (PPS Management 2/2005)
Manufacturing Execution Systeme (PPS Management 3/2005)
PPS und Controlling (PPS Management 4/2005)
RFID in Produktion und Logistik (PPS Management 1/2006)
Mobile Technologien (PPS Management 2/2006)
77173 Blecker, Thorsten;
Friedrich, Gerhard;
Hvam, Lars; Edwards,
Kasper (Hrsg.)
Customer Interaction and Customer Integration
Störungsmanagement (PPS Management 4/2006)
Termintreue (PPS Management 1/2007)
Simulation in Produktion und Logistik (PPS Management
Serienfertigung (PPS Management 3/2007)
Standardisierung produktionsnaher IT (PPS Management
Qualität in der Produktion (PPS Management 1/2008)
Prozessfertigung (PPS Management 2/2008)
Innerbetriebliche Logistik (PPS Management 3/2008)
Lieferantenmanagement (PPS Management 4/2008)
Kolditz, Jan
Mobile Technologien in der Produktion (PPS Management
Vorgehensmodell zur Erstellung von Fachkonzepten für
selbststeuernde produktionslogistische Prozesse
Schlanke Produktionssysteme (PPS Management 2/2009)
Logistisches Prozessmanagement (Productivity Management
Effiziente Kleinserienfertigung (Productivity Management
Factory Automation (Productivity Management 1/2010)
Digital Engineering (Industrie Management 2/2010)
Qualitätsmanagement (Industrie Management 4/2010)
Nyhuis, Peter (Hrsg.)
Wandlungsfähige Produktionssysteme
Globale Logistik (Industrie Management 5/2010)
Störungsmanagement (Productivity Management 3/2010)
Prozessmanagement (Productivity Management 4/2010)
Autonome Systeme (Industrie Management 1/2011)
Simulation in Produktion und Logistik (Productivity
Management 1/2011)
Industrial Automation (Productivity Management 2/2011)
Wandlungsfähige Produktionssysteme (Industrie Management
Produktivität steigern (Productivity Management 3/2011)
Siepermann/Eley (Hrsg.) Logistik – Gestern, heute, morgen - Festschrift für Richard
Vahrenkamp zur Vollendung des 65. Lebensjahres
Intralogistik (Productivity Management 4/2011)
Produktentstehung (Industrie Management 5/2011)
Selbstoptimierende Produktion (Productivity Management
Grüne Technologien (Industrie Management 6/2011)
Borg, Erik;
Daedelow, Holger;
Johnson, Ryan (Hrsg.)
RapidEye Science Archive (RESA) - Vom Algorithmus zum
Kundenindividuelle Produktion (Productivity Management
Russland (Industrie Management 2/2012)
Wissensarbeit (Industrie Management 3/2012)
Dezentralisierung (Productivity Management 3/2012)
Technische Dokumentation (Industrie Management 4/2012)
Selbststeuerung in der Fahrzeuglogistik
Böse, Felix
Neuausrichtung der Automobilindustrie (Industrie Management
Energieeffiziente Produktion (Productivity Management 4/2012)
Energieeffiziente MES - 39 Anbieter im Vergleich (Productivity
Diskrete Fertigung (Productivity Management 5/2012)
Hidden Champions (Industrie Management 6/2012)
Vierte industrielle Revolution (Industrie Management 1/2013)
Industrie 4.0 (Productivity Management 1/2013)
Kundenzufriedenheit (Productivity Management 2/2013)
Qualitätsmanagement Systeme (Productivity Marktüberblick
Desktop Manufacturing (Industrie Management 2/2013)
Standardisierung (Productivity Management 3/2013)
Scholz-Reiter, Bernd;
Krohne, Farian
Entwicklung einer Bewertungsmethode für das
Anlaufmanagement (Informationstechnische Systeme und
Organisation von Produktion und Logistik, Band 15)
Cloud Computing (Industrie Management 4/2013)
Nachhaltige Produktion (Productivity Management 4/2013)
Eco-Innovation (Industrie Management 5/2013)
Mobile Industry (Industrie Management 6/2003)
Benger, Alf
77116 Bichler, Martin;
Holtmann, Carsten
JXTA Workshop: Potenziale, Konzepte, Anwendungen
Coordination and Agent Technology in Value Networks
Wandlungsfähigkeit (Industrie Management 2/2004)
Interoperabilität (Industrie Management 4/2005)
77149 Lenz, Richard;
Hasenkamp, Ulrich;
Hasselbring, Wilhelm;
Reichert, Manfred
EAI-Workshop 2005
Enterprise Content Management (ERP Management 4/2005)
77156 Hasselbring, Wilhelm;
Giesecke, Simon
Dependability Engineering
Research Methods in Software Engineering
Wandlungsfähige Informationssystemarchitekturen Nachhaltigkeit bei organisatorischem Wandel (2. Auflage)
Szenario Produktion 2020 (Industrie Management 1/2006)
Automatisierung (Industrie Management 2/2006)
Kooperationsnetzwerke (Industrie Management 3/2006)
Building intelligent electronic Services
Friedrich, Gerhard
(Hrsg.) ;
Jannach, Dietmar
77174 Aier, Stephan; S
Enterprise Application Integration - Serviceorientierung und
chönherr, Marten (Hrsg.) nachhaltige Architekturen (2. Auflage)
77175 Aier, Stephan;
Unternehmensarchitekturen und Systemintegration (2. Auflage)
Schönherr, Marten
(Hrsg.)
Enterprise Application Integration - Flexibilisierung komplexer
Unternehmensarchitekturen (2. Auflage)
77178 Gronau, Norbert (Hrsg.); Design and Use Patterns of Adaptability in Enterprise Systems
Andresen, Katja
M-WISE: Modellierung wissensintensiver Prozesse im Software
Hasselbring, Wilhelm
77181 Strüver, Sven-Carsten
Standardbasiertes EAI-Vorgehen am Beispiel des Investment
Bankings
77182 Ahrens, Maximilian;
Service Oriented Modeling - 1st International Workshop on
Service Oriented Modeling
Business Intelligence (ERP Management 3/2006)
77187 Happe, Jens;
Koziolek, Heiko;
Rohr, Matthias;
Storm, Christian;
Warns, Timo (Hrsg.)
Proceedings of the International Research Training Groups
77192 Kratzke, Nane
Modellbasierte Analyse interorganisationaler Wissensflüsse
77194 Aier, Stephan
Integrationstechnologien als Basis einer nachhaltigen
Unternehmensarchitektur - Abhängigkeiten zwischen
Organisation und Informationstechnologie
Gestaltung von Wertschöpfungsnetzwerken
77196 Benger, Alf
77198 Gronau, Norbert (Hrsg.) 4. Konferenz Professionelles Wissensmanagement - Erfahrungen
und Visionen, Band 1 / D
77199 Gronau, Norbert (Ed.)
4th Conference on Professional Knowledge Management Experiences and Visions, Band 2 / E
Steffens, Ulrike;
Addicks, Jan Stefan;
Streekmann, Niels
Schmid, Simone;
Rüsike,Tilman
Michael A. Herzog
Freund, Tessen
Gronau, Norbert; S
tein, Moreen (Hrsg.)
MDD, SOA und IT-Management (MSI 2007) Workshop,
Oldenburg, April 2007
Qualifizierung und Support von ERP-Systemen - Ergebnisse
einer empirischen Untersuchung
Content Engineering - Konzepte, Technologien und
Anwendungen in der Medienproduktion
Software Engineering durch Modellierung wissensintensiver
Entwicklungsprozesse
ERP-Systeme in der öffentlichen Verwaltung
Dietrich, Jens
Nutzung von Modellierungssprachen und -methodologien
standardisierter B2B-Architekturen für die Integration
unternehmensinterner Geschäftsprozesse
Müller-Birn, Claudia;
Analyse sozialer Netzwerke und Social Software - Grundlagen
Gronau, Norbert (Hrsg.) und Anwendungsbeispiele
Appelrath, H.-Jürgen;
Felden, Carsten;
Uslar, Mathias (Hrsg.)
Großmann, Uwe;
Kawalek, Jürgen;
Sieck, Jürgen (Hrsg.)
Diehl, Malte;
Lipskoch, Henrik;
Meyer, Roland;
Storm, Christian (Hrsg.)
IT in der Energiewirtschaft: Track Proceedings der MKWI 2008
MDD, SOA und IT-Management (MSI 2008) - Workshop,
Oldenburg, Sept. 2008
Information, Kommunikation und Arbeitsprozessoptimierung
mit Mobilen Systemen - Zahlen, Ergebnisse und Perspektiven
zum IKAROS-Projekt
Proceedings des gemeinsamen Workshops der
Graduiertenkollegs 2008
Kognitive Automatisierung (Industrie Management 4/2008)
Industrielle Dienstleistung (Industrie Management 5/2008)
Architectural Styles for Early Goal - driven Middleware Platform
Produktpiraterie (Industrie Management 6/2008)
Gäbler, Andreas
Rohloff, Michael
Einführung in die Wirtschaftsinformatik, Band 1 (2.
durchgesehene Auflage 2010)
Integrierte Gestaltung von Unternehmensorganisation und IT
Felden, Carsten
Energiewirtschaftliche Fragestellungen aus betrieblicher und
ingenieurwissenschaftlicher Sicht
GeoForum MV 2009 – Geoinformation für jedermann
Bill, Ralf;
Flach, Guntram;
Klammer, Ulf;
Niemeyer, Cindy (Hrsg.)
Avanes, Artin;
Dagstuhl 2009 - Proceedings des gemeinsamen Workshops der
Fahland, Dirk;
Informatik-Graduiertenkollegs und Forschungskollegs
Geibig, Joanna;
Haschemi, Siamak;
Heglmeier, Sebastian;
Sadile, Daniel A.;
Theisselmann, Falko;
Wachsmuth, Guido;
Weißleder, Stephan
WISENT: Wissensnetz Energiemeteorologie
Offermann, Philipp
Eine Methode zur Konzeption betrieblicher Software mit einer
Serviceorientierten Architektur
Oldenburg, October 2009
Ulrike Steffens,
Jan Stefan Addicks,
Matthias Postina,
Niels Streekmann (Eds.)
Broy, M.,
Gronau, N.,
Wildemann, H.
Gestaltung interorganisationaler Software-Entwicklung Herausforderungen durch Wandlungsfähigkeit und
Prozessorientiertes Wissensmanagement (Industrie
E-Government-Anwendungen
(Hrsg.)/Stein/RöchertVoigt/u.a.
Schröpfer, Christian
Sommer, Björn
Bill, R.,
Flach, G.,
Klammer, U.,
Niemeyer, C. (Hrsg.)
Das SOA-Management-Framework - Ein ganzheitliches,
integriertes Konzept für die Governance Serviceorientierter
Informationsmodell für das rechnerunterstützte Monitoring von 202 S. 978-3-940019-99-8
Engineering-Projekten in der Produktentwicklung
GeoForum MV 2010 – Vernetzte Geodaten: vom Sensor zum Web 148 S. 978-3-942183-01-7
Sultanow, Eldar
Gronau, N.; L
indemann, M.
Zusammenarbeit in verteilten Projekten - Dekomposition,
Barrieren und Lösungen im Kontext der Webentwicklung
Einführung in das Informationsmanagement (2., überarbeitete
Auflage)
Amt24 e.V.;
Tanja Röchert-Voigt;
Denise Berg
Web 2.0 in der öffentlichen Verwaltung
Flach, G.;
Schultz, J. (Hrsg.)
Betriebliche Informationssysteme: Grid-basierte Integration und
Orchestrierung
5. Rostocker eGovernment-Forum 2010 - Wissensbasiertes
eGovernment: Erschließung und Nutzung von
Verwaltungswissen
Brasilien (Industrie Management 2/2011)
GeoForum MV 2011 – Geodateninfrastrukturen: Drehscheibe für
Lerche, T. (Hrsg.)
Krallmann, Hermann;
Chronik des Fachgebiets Systemanalyse und EDV
Levina, Olga;
Schulz, Marcel
Hölzl, Ribe-Baumann,
Joint Workshop of the German Research Training Groups in
Brückner (Ed.)
Dr. Erik Borg,
RapidEye Science Archive (RESA) - Erste Ergebnisse
Holger Daedelow (Hrsg.)
Handbuch gegen Produktpiraterie - Prävention von
Meier, Horst;
Produktpiraterie durch Technologie, Organisation und
Bahrs, Julian (Hrsg.)
Wissensflussmanagement
Kretzer, Michael (Hrsg.) Spannungsfelder des Software-Engineering im Medizin- und
Pharmaumfeld
6. Rostocker eGovernment-Forum 2011 - Nachhaltiges
Schultz, Jürgen (Hrsg.) eGovernment: Herausforderung und Notwendigkeit
Lerche, Tobias (Hrsg.)
GeoForum MV 2012 – GIS schafft Energie: Beiträge der
Geoinformationswirtschaft zur Energiewende
Weber, Nadja;
Jähnchen, Marie
Wettbewerbsfaktor Analytics - Status, Potenziale,
7. Rostocker eGovernment-Forum Schultz, Jürgen (Hrsg.) Innovatives eGovernment: Effizienzsteigerung durch Wandel
GeoForum MV 2013 – Neue Horizonte für
Geodateninfrastrukturen
Bill, R.;
Korduan, P.;
Zehner, M.;
Seip, S. (Hrsg.)
Einführung in die Wirtschaftsinformatik, Band 1 (3. überarbeitete 310 S. 978-3-942183-89-5
Auflage 2012)
Produkte und Services (Industrie Management 4/2003)
77119 Krallmann, Herrmann;
Prozessgestaltung (Industrie Management 1/2004)
Materialfluss (Industrie Management 3/2004)
Logistik-Technologien (PPS Management 3/2004)
Wertschöpfung durch Logistik (Industrie Management 5/2004)
Dynamik in Produktion und Logistik (Industrie Management
Logistik (Industrie Management 5/2007)
China (Industrie Management 1/2008)
de Beer, Christoph
Untersuchung der Dynamik von selbststeuernden Prozessen in
produktionslogistischen Systemen anhand ereignisdiskreter
Simulationsmodelle
Frazzon, Enzo Morosini Sustainability and Effectiveness in Global Logistic Systems
Selbstorganisation (Industrie Management 3/2009)
Strategisches Management (Industrie Management 4/2009)
Schenk, Michael
Digital Engineering - Herausforderung für die Arbeits- und
Automatisierungstechnik in der Logistik (Industrie Management
Bastian-Köpp, Dörte
Cooperative design of manufacturing systems in SME's Development of an integration approach and a groupwarebased cooperation concept Effiziente Kleinserienfertigung (Productivity Management
Indien (Industrie Management 6/2009)
Müller, Egon (Hrsg.)
Demographischer Wandel – Herausforderung für die Arbeitsund Betriebsorganisation der Zukunft
1903 Blecker, Thorsten;
Edwards, Kasper;
Hvam, Lars; Salvador,
Fabrizio (Hrsg.)
8317 Scholz-Reiter, Bernd
Innovative Processes and Products for Mass Customization
Demografische Veränderung der Arbeitswelt (Industrie
Unternehmensführung und Organisation
Innovationsmanagement (Industrie Management 3/2005)
77158 Kern, Eva-Maria
Verteilte Produktentwicklung - Rahmenkonzept und
Vorgehensweise zur organisatorischen Gestaltung
nachhaltige Architekturen (2. Auflage)
Fabrikcontrolling (Industrie Management 4/2006)
Globalisierung und Produktion (Industrie Management 1/2007)
Gronau, Norbert (Hrsg.); Wissensmanagement in der Praxis - Ergebnisse einer
Bahrs, Julian; Schmid, empirischen Untersuchung
Simone; Müller, Claudia;
Fröming, Jane
Dezentrale Veränderungen in Produktionsunternehmen (Hrsg.); Gavirey, Sylvie Potenziale und Grenzen lokaler Maßnahmen für
organisatorisches Lernen
Wettbewerbsfähigkeit (Industrie Management 2/2008)
Beschäftigungssicherung (Industrie Management 2/2007)
Bichler, Martin; Hess,
Thomas; Krcmar,
Helmut; Lechner, Ulrike;
Matthes, Florian; Picot,
Arnold; Speitkamp,
Benjamin; Wolf, Petra
Kuster, Jürgen
Providing Decision Support in the Operative Management of
Process Disruptions
Graphentheoretische Analyse der Evolution von Wiki-basierten
Netzwerken für selbstorganisiertes Wissensmanagement
Gronau, Norbert (Hrsg.) Wettbewerbsfähigkeit durch Arbeits- und Betriebsorganisation
Technologiegetriebene Veränderungen der Arbeitswelt
Strickmann, Jan
Analysemethoden zur Bewertung von Entwicklungsprojekten.
Ein integriertes semantisches Modell von Projekt- und
Produktdaten zur Bewertung der Entwicklungsleistung im
Projektcontrolling
Lindemann, M.
Nösekabel, Holger
Mobile Education, 2. Auflage
Lindemann, Marcus
Einführung in das Produktionsmanagement (2., überarbeitete
Heine, Moreen
Transfer von E-Government-Lösungen - Wirkungen und
Erfolgsfaktor Personal (Industrie Management 4/2011)
Bentele, Markus; Gronau,KnowTech - Unternehmenswissen als Erfolgsfaktor mobilisieren!
Norbert;
Schütt, Peter;
Weber, Mathias (Hrsg.)
Stracke, Christian M.
Competence Modelling for Human Resources Development and
European Policies
Soelberg, Christian
Wissenskapital als Instrument der strategischen
Gronau, Norbert (Hrsg.);
Thim, Christof;
Röchert-Voigt, Tanja;
Proske, Niels;
Heine, Moreen;
Korte, Edgar
Bentele, Markus;
Organisation des Schutzes der Kritischen Infrastruktur
Wasserversorgung - Grundlagen und praktische Anwendung für
KnowTech - Neue Horizonte für das Unternehmenswissen –
Social Media, Collaboration, Mobility
The Future of Learning Innovations and Learning Quality - How
do they fit together?
Lehner, Franz;
Amende, Nadine;
Fteimi, Nora (Hrsg.)
Konferenzbeiträge der 7. Konferenz Professionelles
IFSA-EUSFLAT 2009 Proceedings
2 | Classroom phrases
O Programa de Pós-graduação em Engenharia de Produção da
Internships and Jobs - Leuphana Universität Lüneburg
Books from