Analysis of a new dynamic capacity management approach in DDMRP: Application on a real industrial case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Although the authors of the Demand Driven Material Requirements Planning (DDMRP) argue that the method DDMRP is the solution to the limitations of traditional production management methods, its capacity management system remains unclear. Since DDMRP operates at infinite capacity, it is important to consider a capacity management approach to avoid under- or overloading production workshops.Design/methodology/approach: We propose a new dynamic capacity management approach for the DDMRP method. Our approach is based on the calculation of the anticipated workload, using DDMRP stock buffers and considering customer order spikes. Considering a real industrial case, we compare the proposed approach to a static one and a dynamic approach from the literature.Findings: The analysis of the results, supported by a two-way ANOVA, indicates that the proposed capacity management approach outperforms the performance of the other two approaches by maximizing the resource loading rate while ensuring a high customer service level.Originality/value: The originality of the article comes on the one hand from the capacity adjustment module by calculating the anticipated workload, and on the other hand from the comparison of this approach with two others, one of which comes from the literature.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".