IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/proeco/v118y2009i1p199-207.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Restricted work-in-process: A study of differences between Kanban and CONWIP

Author

Listed:
  • Pettersen, Jan-Arne
  • Segerstedt, Anders

Abstract

This article presents a simulation study over a small supply chain, where the amount of work-in-process (WIP) is restricted. The supply chain consists of five linked machines, or production facilities, with stochastic operation times. A number of test cases are made where the number of jobs in the machines and the buffer areas are restricted. The restrictions are designed both in the Kanban way, linked to every machine, and in the CONWIP way, connected only to the total production line. But no Kanban-cards and -cells are involved in our study, just restricted inventories between the machines. With the same amount of limited WIP, CONWIP-control compared to Kanban-control presents a higher throughput rate, less time between jobs out, but the jobs stay on average longer in the system. The stochastic operation times cause that the upstream machine sometimes consumes the jobs in a rate that the downstream machine does not catch up with, therefore all available storage room temporarily are not used. Kanban- and CONWIP-control presents the same amount of average outflow per time unit with the same variation in operation times and with the same amount of real average WIP. But Kanban-control causes a lower utilisation of present available storage room and storage equipment than CONWIP. The user of Kanban and CONWIP can only control maximum WIP and not average WIP; average WIP is a consequence of existing variations, so the difference is important. The coefficient of variation of the lead-times increases when WIP increases; this is very difficult to handle in practical applications. Restricted WIP that shortens the lead-time and decreases its variation is more important than if it is a "push" or "pull" system. Finally, it is argued that CONWIP-control is to prefer over Kanban-control in theory, but in practice there is a lack of CONWIP installation guidelines.

Suggested Citation

  • Pettersen, Jan-Arne & Segerstedt, Anders, 2009. "Restricted work-in-process: A study of differences between Kanban and CONWIP," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 199-207, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:proeco:v:118:y:2009:i:1:p:199-207
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925-5273(08)00265-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Takahashi, Katsuhiko & Myreshka & Hirotani, Daisuke, 2005. "Comparing CONWIP, synchronized CONWIP, and Kanban in complex supply chains," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 25-40, January.
    2. Geraghty, John & Heavey, Cathal, 2004. "A comparison of Hybrid Push/Pull and CONWIP/Pull production inventory control policies," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 75-90, September.
    3. Framinan, Jose M. & Gonzalez, Pedro L. & Ruiz-Usano, Rafael, 2006. "Dynamic card controlling in a Conwip system," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(1-2), pages 102-116, February.
    4. Bonney, M. C. & Zhang, Zongmao & Head, M. A. & Tien, C. C. & Barson, R. J., 1999. "Are push and pull systems really so different?," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1-3), pages 53-64, March.
    5. Sridhar R. Tayur, 1993. "Structural Properties and a Heuristic for Kanban-Controlled Serial Lines," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(11), pages 1347-1368, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Park, Chan-Woo & Lee, Hyo-Seong, 2013. "Performance evaluation of a multi-product CONWIP assembly system with correlated external demands," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 334-344.
    2. Lavoie, P. & Gharbi, A. & Kenné, J.-P., 2010. "A comparative study of pull control mechanisms for unreliable homogenous transfer lines," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 241-251, March.
    3. Gong, Qiguo & Yang, Yuru & Wang, Shouyang, 2014. "Information and decision-making delays in MRP, KANBAN, and CONWIP," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 208-213.
    4. Segerstedt, Anders, 2017. "Cover-Time Planning/Takt Planning: A technique for materials requirement and production planning," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 25-31.
    5. Bertazzi, Luca, 2011. "Determining the optimal dimension of a work-in-process storage area," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(2), pages 483-489, June.
    6. Onyeocha, Chukwunonyelum Emmanuel & Wang, Jiayi & Khoury, Joseph & Geraghty, John, 2015. "A comparison of HK-CONWIP and BK-CONWIP control strategies in a multi-product manufacturing system," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 137-149.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lage Junior, Muris & Godinho Filho, Moacir, 2010. "Variations of the kanban system: Literature review and classification," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1), pages 13-21, May.
    2. Gosavi, Abhijit & Gosavi, Aparna A., 2024. "CONWIP control in the digitized world: The case of the cyber-physical jobshop," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    3. Park, Chan-Woo & Lee, Hyo-Seong, 2013. "Performance evaluation of a multi-product CONWIP assembly system with correlated external demands," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 334-344.
    4. Onyeocha, Chukwunonyelum Emmanuel & Wang, Jiayi & Khoury, Joseph & Geraghty, John, 2015. "A comparison of HK-CONWIP and BK-CONWIP control strategies in a multi-product manufacturing system," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 137-149.
    5. Yang, Taho & Fu, Hsin-Pin & Yang, Kuang-Yi, 2007. "An evolutionary-simulation approach for the optimization of multi-constant work-in-process strategy--A case study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 104-114, May.
    6. Hoogstra-Klein, Marjanke A. & Meijboom, Kars, 2021. "A qualitative exploration of the wood product supply chain – investigating the possibilities and desirability of an increased demand orientation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    7. Jung, Jung Woo & Lee, Young Hae, 2010. "Heuristic algorithms for production and transportation planning through synchronization of a serial supply chain," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 433-447, April.
    8. Lavoie, P. & Gharbi, A. & Kenné, J.-P., 2010. "A comparative study of pull control mechanisms for unreliable homogenous transfer lines," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 241-251, March.
    9. Kim, Ilhyung & Tang, Christopher S., 1997. "Lead time and response time in a pull production control system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 474-485, September.
    10. Patrick Dallasega & Erwin Rauch, 2017. "Sustainable Construction Supply Chains through Synchronized Production Planning and Control in Engineer-to-Order Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-25, October.
    11. Munyaradzi Bvuchete & Sara Saartjie Grobbelaar & Joubert van Eeden, 2021. "A Network Maturity Mapping Tool for Demand-Driven Supply Chain Management: A Case for the Public Healthcare Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-29, October.
    12. Michael Reiß & Tobias Bernecker, 2006. "Conjoint Controlling: Organisationsgerechte Controllingsysteme zwischen Better Budgeting und komplex-hybrider Steuerung," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 5-26, March.
    13. Sang M. Lee & David L. Olson & Sang-Heui Lee & Taewon Hwang & Matt S. Shin, 2007. "Entrepreneurial applications of the lean approach to service industries," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(7), pages 973-987, November.
    14. Papadopoulos, H. T. & Heavey, C., 1996. "Queueing theory in manufacturing systems analysis and design: A classification of models for production and transfer lines," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 1-27, July.
    15. Peng Lin & Leidi Shen & Zhiheng Zhao & George Q. Huang, 2019. "Graduation manufacturing system: synchronization with IoT-enabled smart tickets," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 2885-2900, December.
    16. Askin, Ronald G. & Krishnan, Shravan, 2009. "Defining inventory control points in multiproduct stochastic pull systems," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 418-429, August.
    17. Wallace J. Hopp & Mark L. Spearman, 2004. "To Pull or Not to Pull: What Is the Question?," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 6(2), pages 133-148, August.
    18. Fernandes, Nuno Octavio & do Carmo-Silva, Silvio, 2006. "Generic POLCA--A production and materials flow control mechanism for quick response manufacturing," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 74-84, November.
    19. Takahashi, Katsuhiko & Nakamura, Nobuto, 2002. "Decentralized reactive Kanban system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 262-276, June.
    20. Patricia Deflorin & Maike Scherrer-Rathje, 2009. "Aligning manufacturing strategy content with heterogeneous requirements," Working Papers 0110, University of Zurich, Institute for Strategy and Business Economics (ISU).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:proeco:v:118:y:2009:i:1:p:199-207. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.