Impact of dual uptime-reducing strategies, postponement, multi-delivery, and rework on a multiproduct fabrication-shipping problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the joint impact of outsourcing, overtime, multi-delivery, rework, and postponement on a multiproduct fabrication problem. A growing/clear trend in today’s customer requirements turned into rapid response and desired quality of multi-merchandises and multiple fixed-amount deliveries in equal-interval time. To satisfy customers’ expectations, current manufacturing firms must effectively design/plan their multiproduct production scheme with minimum fabrication-inventory-shipping expenses and under confined capacity. Motivated by assisting manufacturing firms in making the right production decision, this study develops a decision-support delayed-differentiation model considering multi-shipment, rework, and dual uptime-reducing strategies (namely, overtime and outsourcing). Our delayed-differentiation model comprises stage one, which makes all common/standard parts of multi-end-merchandises, and stage two, which produces multiple end merchandise. For cutting making times, the study proposes subcontracting a portion of the common/standard part’s lot size and adopting overtime-making end merchandise in stage two. The screening and reworking tasks identify and repair faulty items to ensure customers’ desired quality. The finished lots of end merchandise are divided into a few equal-amount shipments and distributed to customers in equal-interval time. We employ mathematical derivation and optimization methodology to derive the annual expected fabrication- inventory-shipping expense and the cost-minimized production-shipping policy. A numerical demonstration is presented to exhibit our research scheme’s applicability and exposes the studied problem’s critical managerial insights, which help the management make beneficial decisions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".