Sequencing in Process Manufacturing The Product Wheel

Approach
Shellyanne Wilson ([email protected])
The University of Trinidad and Tobago

Abstract
Sequencing is perhaps the single most important production planning routine for mix flexibility
achievement on a shared manufacturing resource. However, unlike discrete manufacturing, there
are limited prescribed techniques for sequencing routines in process manufacturing. This paper
explores sequencing via the product wheel technique through its application in two case studies.
Keywords: Mix Flexibility, Sequencing, Product Wheel

Introduction
Production planning and control is the single decision area in a companys manufacturing
strategy that most directly impacts the manufacturing systems ability to achieve operational mix
flexibility. With product variety being a fundamental industrial feature in modern manufacturing
environments, mix flexibility is a key objective for manufacturing companies to meet customer
requirements, with regard to the correct mix of products, at the required volumes and at the
required timing.
This research paper centres on one of the key production planning and control functions:
sequencing, through an investigation of the impact of the product wheel method on the ordering
of products manufactured on a shared manufacturing resource in two process industries.
The research paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 presents an overview of two of the
key constructs to be examined in this paper: mix flexibility and sequencing. Section 3 reviews
the product wheel method. Section 4 presents the application of the product wheel in the case
companies. Section 5 presents the discussion and conclusion of the paper.
Mix Flexibility and Sequencing
Mix flexibility and sequencing go hand-in-hand when the production of a companys range of
products is done on a shared resource. The following sub-sections discuss the two constructs:
mix flexibility and sequencing.

Mix Flexibility
Mix flexibility is the ability to manufacture a range of products in a given time period. As a type
of manufacturing flexibility objective, mix flexibility is required because of product variety,
defined as the number of different product versions or variants offered by a company at a given
time (Randall and Ulrich, 2001). Product variety can be analysed in terms of Range Number
(RN) or the actual count of product variants and versions; and Range-Heterogeneity (RH) or the
degree of differences among the product variants or versions. Further, product variety can be
considered in terms of fundamental variety and peripheral variety, where the former refers to
elemental differences in the products making up the product mix; and the latter refers to the
varied options that do not alter the core design of the product (MacDuffie & Sethuraman, 1996).
In addition to the range of products offered by a company, mix flexibility is also required
because of uncertainty. There is the external uncertainty regarding customer orders: the mix of
the products ordered, the volumes of the products ordered and the required delivery dates of the
orders; as well as competitor and supplier uncertainties. Further, there is internal uncertainty
regarding the companys ability to meet the required production schedule, which could be
affected by machine breakdowns, absenteeism and quality issues.
In addition to variety and uncertainty, Wilson and Platts (2010) argued that mix
flexibility requirements are also affected by the resource configuration of the company, and
further, mix flexibility, on a day-by-day basis, is achieved via the coordination mechanisms used
to manage the resource configuration.
Coordination theory is one approach that can be used to study a companys resource
configuration, in terms of the relationships between resources and activities, also referred to as
dependencies. Three basic dependencies have been identified: shared resources or shared
dependencies, flow dependencies or producer consumer relationships and fit dependencies
(Malone, et al., 1999), where shared resources refer to some organisational resource sharing, the
flow dependencies refer to two activities where the output of one activity is the input of the other
activity, and fit dependencies refer to multiple activities combining to produce a single output.
For mix flexibility achievement, the shared resource is a critical dependency, primarily
because companys product mix can be achieved via concurrent production on independent
resources, sequential production on shared resources or via the combined use of both
independent and shared resources. The latter two approaches: sequential production and
combined concurrent and sequential production, are the more common of the three approaches,
and hence point to the importance of effective sequencing practices on shared resources.
Sequencing
While pointing to the relationships among production planning, production scheduling and
production sequencing, Stoop and Wiers (1996) identified the differences among the three
activities. Production planning concerns the required level of production in a specified time
horizon. Production scheduling concerns the allocation of finite resources to meet the demand

requirements, paying heed to constraints such as capacity, precedence and start and due dates.
Production sequencing concerns the resource level ordering of jobs on a shared workstation.
For discrete manufacturing, there are a number of sequencing rules that can be used to
prioritise jobs on shared machines. There are at least four popular priority rules for sequencing
jobs. There is the First Come, First Served (FCFS) priority rule, where jobs are assigned to a
shared resource in the order in which they are placed. There is the Shortest Processing Time
(SPT), where jobs are ordered based on the length of the processing time, and the jobs with the
shortest processing time are ordered first. Similarly, there is the Longest Processing Time
(LPT), where, jobs with the longest processing time are ordered first. Lastly, there is the Earliest
Due Date (EDD), where jobs are ordered based on their required delivery dates, and the jobs
with the earliest due dates are ordered fist on the shared resource.
For process industries, the implementation of these rules is not as straightforward.
Products are typically liquids, powders and gases, and are produced using minimal interruptions
in any given production run. Further, for large scale production, investment costs are high, and
so, to achieve efficiency, high equipment utilization must be maintained. In cases where small
medium scale production is employed, batch-type production can be employed.
From a mix flexibility perspective, process-type operations were traditionally high
volume, low variety type operations. However, as consumer tastes have evolved, process
industries have had to not only produce high volumes, but also be able to manufacture high
variety of end products. Further, with the high variety, high variability or demand uncertainty is
also a feature that process manufacturers have to manage.
Whilst there are several characteristics that distinguish process industries from a product
variety viewpoint, product differentiation points will be the key characteristic discussed in this
paper. A product differentiation point is that area where a material, be it a raw material or an
intermediate good, can be transformed into WIP variants or finished product variants.

The Process Wheel Approach

The process wheel approach has been popularized by Peter L. King, in his work relating to lean
manufacturing in process industries. King, like a number of other lean manufacturing
researchers acknowledged that because the lean production philosophy originated in the Japan
auto industry, the vast majority of research in lean has been conducted in discrete-type
manufacturing, leaving a dearth of knowledge in lean manufacturing process industries.
Abdulmalek & Rajgopal (2007) put forward a number of arguments that also point to the
reasons that practitioners may not gravitate towards lean production, which include the
characteristics of large inflexible machines, long setup times, difficulty in manufacturing small
batches and the inherent efficency of process industries.
Product wheels have been derived from one of the common lean manufacturing tools
used in lean manufacturing, referred to as production smoothing or heijunka, where the aim, like
3

with all lean tools, is to reduce or eliminate waste (King, 2009). Heijunka allows for smoothing
production, by levelling both volume and product mix, so that the same quantity and mix of
product can be made each day. Further, production of the various products in the companys
product mix is achieved via the production of small quantities, as opposed to large lots.
The product wheel is therefore a modified version of the production scheduling tool, and
is defined as: a visual metaphor for a structured, regularly repeating sequence of the
production of all the materials to be made on a specific piece of equipment, within a reaction
vessel, or within a process system. (King, 2009, p 206). A visual representation of the product
wheel approach is provided in Figure 1.

b
g
c
d

f
e

Figure 1: The Product Wheel Approach (Adapted from King, 2009)

King (2009) outlined the following 10-steps for the development of a product wheel:
1.
Decide which assets would benefit from product wheels
2.
Analyze product demand variability
3.
Determine the optimum production sequence
4.
Calculate the shortest wheel time based on time available for changeovers
5.
Estimate the economic optimum wheel time based on EOQ model
6.
Determine the basic wheel time; determine which products get made on every
cycle and the frequency for others
7.
Calculate inventory levels to support the wheel
8.
Repeat Steps 3 7 to fine-tune the design
9.
Revise all scheduling processes, as appropriate
10.
Create a visual display (heijunka) to manage the leveled production

Introduction to the Case Studies

The product wheel approach is applied in two companies in the process industry. The following
sections provide an overview of the case companies, and because of space constraints, provides
an abbreviated report of Steps 1- 5 on the product wheel results.

Case 1 BMC: A Bleach Manufacturing Company

BMC is a company operating in the chemical manufacturing company, producing sodium
hypochlorite, or bleach, as well as chloride gas and sodium hydroxide. For the purposes of this
case study, the focus is on the sodium hypochlorite product line, which amounts to 14 stockkeeping units (skus). There is no fundamental variety, as there is only one type of bleach
produced. The peripheral variety comprises five different bottle sizes: 300 ml, 500 ml, 1 L, 2 L
and 4 L; under four different labels. Table 1 displays BMCs product mix.
Table 1 BMC Product Mix

Product

Size

A1
B1
C1
D1
E1
F1
G1
H1
I1
J1
K1
L1
M1
N1

300 ml

Number of
Bottles per
Case
48

500 ml

24

1L

12

2L

4L

4L

Brand
Alpha
Alpha
Beta
Gamma
Alpha
Beta
Gamma
Alpha
Beta
Gamma
Alpha
Beta
Gamma
Delta

The manufacturing process for BMC is given in Figure 2, where the peripheral variety is
achieved via a single bottling line, which is a shared resource.

Raw
Material

Bleach
Processing

Bleach
Storage

Bleach
Bottling

Finished Product
Storage

Figure 2 BMCs Manufacturing Process

Case 2 FMC: A Flour Manufacturing Company

FMC is a food manufacturing company, producing a range of flour products. The product line is
made up of 18 skus. In terms of fundamental variety, there are seven flour types: All Purpose,
Bakers, Whole-wheat, High Fibre Whole-wheat, F-Special, K-Special and Untreated Patent. In
5

terms of peripheral variety, there are four product sizes: 1 kg, 2 kg, 10 kg and 45 kg; and five
different labels. Table 2 displays FMCs product mix.
Table 2 FMCs Product Mix

Product
A2
B2
C2
D2
E2
F2
G2
H2
I2
J2
K2
L2
M2
N2
O2
P2
Q2
R2

Flour Type

Package
Size
1 kg
2 kg

All Purpose

10 kg
45 kg
Bakers

45 kg

Whole-wheat
High Fibre Whole-wheat
F-Special
K-Special
Untreated Patent

1 kg
2 kg
10 kg
45 kg
45 kg
45 kg
45 kg
45 kg

Brand
Zeta
Kappa
Zeta
Kappa
Lambda
Sigma
Lambda
Lambda
Sigma
Omega
Zeta
Kappa
Lambda
Omega
Lambda
Lambda
Lambda
Lambda

The manufacturing process for FMC is given in Figure 3, where there are two shared
resources in the form of packaging machines
.

Figure 3 FMC Manufacturing Process

Applying the Product Wheel

Step 1: Decide which assets would benefit from the product wheel
6

In BMC, the bottling line is the obvious choice for the application of the product wheel,
as it fills, labels, caps and boxes all of the bleach products manufactured by the company. In
FMC, Flour Packaging Machine 2 is the best candidate for the application of the product wheel.
It is involved in the packaging of nine of the companys 18 products, and these nine products
represent both fundamental and peripheral variety.
Step 2: Analyse product demand variability
The product demand variability is examined to determine whether products should be
classified as Make-To-Stock (MTS) or Make-To-Order (MTO), using both weekly demand
figures and demand variability. For demand variability, the co-efficient of variation is
calculated. The results for both BMC and FMC are represented in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

Figure 4 Product Demand Variability for BMC

Product 5 Product Demand Variability for FMC

Step 3: Determine the Production Sequence

For BMC, the changeover time for label changes is 10 minutes and the changeover time
for bottle size changes is 1 hour. As such, the optimum sequence on the bottling line is assumed
to occur when products are grouped by bottle size. For FMC, the changeover time for label sizes
is 5 minutes, the changeover time for flour types is 10 minutes, the changeover for the bag size
changes is 2 hours. As such, the optimum sequence on the Machine 2- Flour Packaging is
assumed to occur when products are grouped by bag size.
7

For the Steps 4 5, only the results for FMC will be discussed.
Step 4: Calculate the shortest wheel time possible (Available Time Model)
The Available Time Model is based on the formulae given in Equation 1 and Equation 2
(King, 2009).
Wheel cycles per period =

Wheel time =

Total available time Total production time

Changeover times per cycle

(1)

Total available time

Number of wheel cycles per period

(2)

The wheel cycle for FMC, the total weekly available time is 1920 minutes, while the total
production time to meet demand was calculated as 1650 minutes. For this schedule, there are
three flour type changes, six label changes and one pack size change, which amount to a total of
180 minutes of changeover time. Hence, the calculated wheel cycles per week are 1.5, and
wheel time amounts to 1280 minutes.
Because the Available Time model assumes that all products are produced in each cycle,
and there are MTO products, this assumption will not hold true.
Step 5: Estimate the economic optimum wheel time (The EOQ Model)
The EOQ Model is based on the formula given in Equation 3.
EOQ =

2 x COC x D

(3)

Vxr

Where: COC = Changeover cost

D = Demand per time period
V = Unit cost of the material
r = % carrying cost of inventory per time period
Table 3 shows the EOQ analysis for FMCs flour packing Machine 2, where the optimum
frequency is calculated by dividing the EOQ by weekly demand for each product.
Based on the EOQ results, we are able to determine the optimum frequency for each
product, as shown in Table 4.

Table 3 EOQ Analysis for FMC

Product

Weekly
Demand
D

EOQ
(Bags)

Optimum
Frequency
(Days)

E2
F2
G2
H2
I2
J2
P2
Q2

248
285
587
1803
869
838
45
26

160.6
172.2
247.1
433.0
300.6
295.2
68.4
52.0

3.24
3.02
2.10
1.20
1.73
1.76
7.60
10.00

R2

45

68.4

7.60

Table 4 Wheel Time Determination for FMC

Product

Weekly
Demand
D

EOQ
(Bags)

Optimum
Frequency
(Days)

E2
F2
G2
H2
I2
J2
P2
Q2

248
285
587
1803
869
838
45
26

160.6
172.2
247.1
433.0
300.6
295.2
68.4
52.0

3.24
3.02
2.10
1.20
1.73
1.76
7.60
10.00

R2

45

68.4

7.60

Recomed
Days

4
4
2
2
2
2
MTO
MTO
MTO

TOTALS

Cycle 1
(2 Days)

Cycle 2
(2 Days)

Cycle 3
(2 Days)

250
250
600
300
300

300
250
600
300
300

1700

1750

250
600
300
300
45
25
45
1545

Discussion and Conclusion

The product wheel concept is essentially a sequencing coordination routine that can be used in
process industries to order production on a shared resource. For the FMC case study above, the
first of a number of iterative steps needed to achieve an optimum sequence of production on
Machine 2 is presented.

When the product wheel design was tested using historical data for Machine 2, we found
that there were both product excesses and product deficits over the course of a one month period.
Further, we found that the prescribed wheel design exceeded the historical changeover times.
As such, we can conclude that the product wheel design has both advantages and
disadvantages. The advantages include the grouping of similar products, which will naturally
lead to ease of product changeovers. The disadvantages include the prescribed product wheel
leading to higher combined changeover times, and notable variations between the actual product
volumes and the demanded product volumes.
However, King (2009) acknowledges that in order to obtain an optimal product wheel
design, a number of iterations are needed. We found this to be true. When two iterations were
made for the bottling line for the BMC case study, there was a 33% improvement regarding the
changeover time. Further, we found that the degree of variation between actual and required
production volumes was lower by at least 10%.
The product wheel approach therefore is a heuristic approach, rather than an optimization
approach. It requires both experience and judgment in order to achieve a workable product
sequence on a shared resource.
Bibliography
Abdulmalek, F., Rajgopal, J. (2007). Analyzing the Benefits of Lean Manufacturing and Value Stream Mapping via
Simulation: A Process Sector Case Study. International Journal of Production Economics, 107: 223-236.
King, P. (2009). Lean for Process Industries: Dealing with Complexity. CRC Press, Michigan.
MacDuffie, J., Sethuraman, K. F. (1996). Product Variety and Manufacturing Performance: Evidence from the
International Automotive Assembly Plant Study. Management Science, 42 (3): 350-369.
Malone, T., Crowston, K., Lee, J., Pentland, B., Dellarocas, C., Wyner, G., Quimby, J., Osborn, C., Bernstein, A.,
Herman, G., Klein, M. and ODonnell, E. (1999). Tools for Inventing Organizations: Toward a Handbook
of Organizational Processes. Management Science, 45 (3): 425-443.
Randall, T., Ulrich, K. (2001). Product Variety, Supply Chain Structure, and Firm Performance: Analysis of the U.S.
Bicycle Industry. Management Science, 47 (12): 1588-1604.
Stoop, P., Wiers, V. (1996). The Complexity of Scheduling in Practice. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 16 (10): 37-53.
Wilson, S., Platts, K. (2010). How Do Companies Achieve Mix Flexibility? International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 30 (9): 978-1003.

10