Planning Production Capacity Using Time Series Forecasting Method and Linier Programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this research is to determine the amount of production planning capacity sow talc products in the future utilizing previous data from january to december in year 2017. This researched considered three forecasting method, there are Weight Moving Average (WMA), Moving Average (MA), and Exponential Smoothing (ES). After calculating the methods, then measuring the error value using a control chart of 3 (three) of these methods. After find the best forecasting method, then do linear programming method to obtain the exact amount of production in further. Based on the data calculated, the method of Average Moving has a size of error value of Mean Absolute Percentage Error of 0.09 or 9%, Weight Moving Average has a size error of Mean Absolute Percentage Error of 0.09 or 9% and with Exponential Method Smoothing has an error value of Mean Absolute Percentage Error of 0.12 or 12%. Moving Average and Weight Moving Average have the same MAPE amount but Weight Moving Average has the smallest amount Mean Absolute Deviation compared to other method which is 262.497 kg. Based on the result, The Weight Moving Average method is the best method as reference for utilizing in demand forecasting next year, because it has the smallest error size and has a Tracking Signal not exceed the maximum or minimum control limit is ≤ 4. Moreover, after obtained Weight Moving Average method is the best method, then is determine value of planning production capacity in next year using linier programming method. Based on the linier programming calculation, the maximum amount of production in next year by considering the forecasting of raw materials, production volume, material composition, and production time obtained in one (1) working day is 11,217,379 pcs / year, or 934,781 pcs / month of finished product. This paper recommends the company to evaluate the demand forecasting in order to achieve higher business growth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".