MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152294486 · doi:10.1287/inte.1110.0590

Kimberly-Clark Latin America Builds an Optimization-Based System for Machine Scheduling

2011· article· en· W2152294486 on OpenAlexaff
Nazrul I. Shaikh, Vittal Prabhu, Danilo Abril, David Torres Sanchez, Jorge Arias, Esteban Rodríguez, Germán Riaño

Bibliographic record

VenueINFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsKimberly-Clark (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScheduling (production processes)SizingOperations researchProduction planningSingle-machine schedulingComputer scienceJob shop schedulingMathematical optimizationProduction (economics)EngineeringOperations managementScheduleEconomicsMathematicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During a single planning period, Kimberly-Clark Latin America manufactures dozens of stock-keeping units (SKUs) in varying quantities using a few machines. The same SKU can be manufactured on multiple machines, some of which are more efficient than others. In addition, the setup time for an SKU is sequence dependent, and its demand is stochastic between planning periods. The stochastic demand necessitates changing production plans each planning period; given the large number of SKUs and small number of machines, this leads to inefficiencies. This paper describes the formulation and corresponding solution approach of an integrated inventory, production-planning, and detailed scheduling model to address the inefficiencies in lot sizing, production scheduling, and inventory management. The paper's key contribution is the solution approach, which solves the resultant industry-size NP-hard problem in minutes. The solution quality and its implementation have been tested extensively, and the model has been successfully deployed in five countries. A reduction in finished product inventories of up to 45 percent, an increase in yield and uptime of 2 percent, and improvements in service levels of 2.4 percent are directly attributable to the model and the solution approach highlighted in the paper.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINFORMS Journal on Applied AnalyticsSame topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207