Scribd
Upload
82 views9 pages

Assignment 1 On Scheduling & Operations Management (Supply Chain)

The document discusses scheduling and operations management for 4 jobs - A, B, C, D. It analyzes the performance of different priority rules - Earliest Due Date (EDD), Shortest Processing Time (SPT), Longest Processing Time (LPT) and Critical Ratio (CR). The average completion time, utilization, average number of jobs in the system and average lateness is calculated for each rule. SPT performs the best with lowest completion time, highest utilization and lowest lateness. Therefore, SPT is concluded to be the best sequencing rule.

Uploaded by

greatlakes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
82 views9 pages

Assignment 1 On Scheduling & Operations Management (Supply Chain)

The document discusses scheduling and operations management for 4 jobs - A, B, C, D. It analyzes the performance of different priority rules - Earliest Due Date (EDD), Shortest Processing Time (SPT), Longest Processing Time (LPT) and Critical Ratio (CR). The average completion time, utilization, average number of jobs in the system and average lateness is calculated for each rule. SPT performs the best with lowest completion time, highest utilization and lowest lateness. Therefore, SPT is concluded to be the best sequencing rule.

Uploaded by

greatlakes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 9

ASSIGNMENT 1 ON SCHEDULING & OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

Presented by: Group 11


PGPMex Apr_A’21
JOSH, SAIKRISHNA, SYED, AKHILA, BHARAT
ATIONS MANAGEMENT (SUPPLY CHAIN)
JOB SEQUENCE JOB WORK FLOW TIME JOB DUE DATE JOB LATENESS
(PROCESSING) TIME
A 5 5 20 0
B 25 30 35 0
C 20 50 40 10
D 10 60 25 35
TOTAL 60 145 120 45

RANK ORDERING OF
PRIORITY RULES
JOBS
EDD A-D-B-C
SPT A-D-C-B
LPT B-C-D-A
CR B-C-D-A

Priority Rule 1 EDD A-D-B-C

JOB SEQUENCE JOB WORK FLOW TIME JOB DUE DATE JOB LATENESS
(PROCESSING) TIME
A 5 5 20 0
D 10 15 25 0

B 25 40 35 5
C 20 60 40 20
TOTAL 60 120 120 25

Priority Rule 2 SPT A-D-C-B

JOB WORK
JOB SEQUENCE FLOW TIME JOB DUE DATE JOB LATENESS
(PROCESSING) TIME
A 5 5 20 0
D 10 15 25 0
C 20 35 40 0
B 25 60 35 25
TOTAL 60 115 120 25

Priority Rule 3 LPT B-C-D-A


JOB SEQUENCE JOB WORK FLOW TIME JOB DUE DATE JOB LATENESS
(PROCESSING) TIME
B 25 25 35 0
C 20 45 40 5
D 10 55 25 30
A 5 60 20 40
TOTAL 60 185 120 75

Priority Rule 4 CR B-C-D-A

JOB WORK
JOB SEQUENCE (PROCESSING) TIME FLOW TIME JOB DUE DATE JOB LATENESS

B 25 25 35 0
C 20 45 40 5
D 10 55 25 30
A 5 60 20 40
TOTAL 60 185 120 75

Rule Analysis

AVG. NO OF AVG.
RULE AVG.COMPLETION TIME UTILIZATION JOBS IN LATENESS
(DAYS) METRIC (%) SYSTEM (DAYS)
EDD 30 50 2 6.25
SPT 28.75 52 1.91 6.25
LPT 46.25 32 3.08 18.75
CR 46.25 32 3.08 18.75
SPT SPT SPT EDD
SPT

From the table, it is evident that SPT should be the sequencing rule adopted as it has the best results (all four) when
CRITICAL RATIO (CR)

4
1.4
2
2.5
9.9

* Values are rounded off in the Main Document

CRITICAL RATIO (CR)

4 Avg.Completion Time 30 Days


2.5 Utilization Metric 0.5 50%
Avg.no of jobs in the
1.4 System 2 Jobs
2 Avg. Job Lateness 6.25 Days
9.9

CRITICAL RATIO (CR)

4 Avg.Completion Time 28.75 Days


2.5 Utilization Metric
Avg.no of jobs in the 0.521739 52%
2 System 1.916667 Jobs
1.4 Avg. Job Lateness 6.25 Days
9.9
CRITICAL RATIO (CR)

1.4 Avg.Completion Time 46.25 Days


2 Utilization Metric
Avg.no of jobs in the 0.324324 32%
2.5 System 3.083333 Jobs
4 Avg. Job Lateness 18.75 Days
9.9

CRITICAL RATIO (CR)

1.4 Avg.Completion Time 46.25 Days


2 Utilization Metric
Avg.no of jobs in the 0.324324 32%
2.5 System 3.083333 Jobs
4 Avg. Job Lateness 18.75 Days
9.9

he best results (all four) when compared to other priority rules


Tata Motors
Year 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
Profit 17314 25016 21154 20427 21886
Investor Turn Over 9.055602 17.80528 13.0716 10.47908 12.04909
Ashok Leyland
Year 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
Profit 5608 4444 5481 4337 3970
Investor Turn Over 10.18169 8.714646 6.867089 6.034978 5.450181

A comparison of Profit and Investor Turn Over of Tata Motors and Ashok Leyland leads to the conclusion that Tata Motors is p
e conclusion that Tata Motors is performing much better year over year, than Ashok Leyland. Both metrics are increasing over the years fo
e increasing over the years for Tata Motors.

You might also like