MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471040427 · doi:10.1111/poms.12584

Scheduling Methods for Efficient Stamping Operations at an Automotive Company

2016· article· en· W2471040427 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProduction and Operations Management · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJob shop schedulingComputer scienceAutomotive industryScheduling (production processes)MinificationMathematical optimizationTime horizonScheduleInteger programmingStampingOperations researchAlgorithmMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider scheduling issues at Beyçelik, a Turkish automotive stamping company that uses presses to give shape to metal sheets in order to produce auto parts. The problem concerns the minimization of the total completion time of job orders (i.e., makespan) during a planning horizon. This problem may be classified as a combined generalized flowshop and flexible flowshop problem with special characteristics. We show that the Stamping Scheduling Problem is NP‐Hard. We develop an integer programming‐based method to build realistic and usable schedules. Our results show that the proposed method is able to find higher quality schedules (i.e., shorter makespan values) than both the company's current process and a model from the literature. However, the proposed method has a relatively long run time, which is not practical for the company in situations when a (new) schedule is needed quickly (e.g., when there is a machine breakdown or a rush order). To improve the solution time, we develop a second method that is inspired by decomposition. We show that the second method provides higher‐quality solutions—and in most cases optimal solutions—in a shorter time. We compare the performance of all three methods with the company's schedules. The second method finds a solution in minutes compared to Beyçelik's current process, which takes 28 hours. Further, the makespan values of the second method are about 6.1% shorter than the company's schedules. We estimate that the company can save over €187,000 annually by using the second method. We believe that the models and methods developed in this study can be used in similar companies and industries.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.285 · 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