Goal Programming

download Goal Programming

of 40

  • date post

    15-Dec-2014
  • Category

    Business

  • view

    2.774
  • download

    3

Embed Size (px)

description

 

Transcript of Goal Programming

  • 1. GOAL PROGRAMMING SerhatKSZ AhmetTATI Mehmet YILMAZ

2. THE VIEW OF THE PRESENTATION

  • Introduction
  • System approach to concurrent engineering
  • Goal Programming
  • Application Areas
  • Weighting Method and Preemptive Method
  • The Case Study and The Example
  • Demonstration of The Model By Using Sets
  • Managerial implications for the company
  • Conclusions and assessment

3. INTRODUCTION

  • Life-Cycle Costing (LCC) ;
  • Time-Based Competition (TBC) ;
  • T he three planning-horizon levels ;
  • S trategic,
  • I ntermediate ,
  • T actical ,

4. Concurrent Engineering

  • Is the collaboration among functional areas;
  • Product design ,design for quality ,process design, designfor manufacturing and planning ,logistic designetc.
  • In the early phases of product design
  • CE requires:
  • fast adaptation
  • product innovation
  • short product delivery time to market
  • for a firm to remain competitive .

5. 6. GOAL PROGRAMMING

  • Introduced by Charnes and Cooper in 1960s
  • Provides a method of dealing with a
  • collection of goals, rather than an explicit
  • objective function.
  • Objective is to minimize the deviation from each of the goals that have been established.
  • Constraints are soft in that you may
  • violate one (i.e. not meet one goal) if it
  • means you can make better progress
  • toward one of the other goals.

7. Goal Programming Versus Linear Programming

  • Multiple Goals (instead of one goal)
  • Deviational Variables Minimized (instead of maximizing profit or minimizing cost of LP)
  • Satisficing (instead of optimizing)

8. APPLICATION AREAS

  • Accounting
  • Agriculture
  • Economics
  • Engineering
  • Finance
  • Government
  • I nternational Context
  • Management
  • Marketing

9. Types Of Goal Programming

  • Weights method: the single objective
  • function is the weighted sum of the of the functions representing the goals of the problem.
  • MIN Z= w 1 d 1 +w 2 d 2 ++w n d n
  • Preemptive method: prioritizes the goals in
  • order of importance, then optimizes onegoalat a time.

10. CASE STUDY AND THE EXAMPLE

  • COMPANY PROFILE
  • Medical manufacturing company
  • producing skin prepping applicators
  • 10 years in the Industry
  • Hospitals, first aid users and indust rial
  • companies are the customers
  • 125 employees
  • 17 million $ annual sales

11. Aim of the study

  • Minimizedlife cycle cost and time
  • Timely introduction of products to market
  • Increased deliver reliability
  • Measurable improvement in supplier performance
  • Improvements in changeover and setup technologies

12. CE TEAM

  • Product designer
  • Manufacturing engineer
  • Quality control manager
  • Marketing manager
  • Purchasing manager
  • Product design activities and practices are coordinated and accomplished concurrently.
  • Suppliersinputs and assistance is in terms of part and product is taken into consideration.

13. STRATEGIC GOALS (P 1 ) COST OF PRODUDUCTS TO MARKET (P 11 ) TIME OF PRODUDUCTS TO MARKET (P 12 ) Products research anddevelopment cost Engineering design cost Product investment cost Product investment anddeveloping cost Cost of quality Speed of response to customers Product time to market Design lead time Order-to-delivery cycle Total product deliverytime 14. INTERMEDIATE GOALS (P 2 ) THROUGHPUT COST (P 21 ) THROUGHPUT TIME (P 22 ) Procurement cost Non-recurring manufacturingcosts Recurring manufacturing costs Facilities cost Initial logistics/support costs Cost of quality Manufacturing lead time Set-up time Producrtion cycle time Changeover time Delay time Distribution lead time Manufacturing response time Procurement lead time 15. TACTICALGOALS (P 3 ) OPERATIONAL AND MATERIAL COST (P 31 ) DELIVERY TIMES (P 32 ) Operations cost Maintenancecost Product modification cost Facilities cost Product phase-out anddisposal cost Delivery reliability Delivery speed 16. 17. THE GOALS OF THE COMPANY

  • For products X 1and X 2;
  • STRATEGIC GOALS
  • Engineering Des i gn Cost under 240 $
  • Cost Of Quality under 130 $
  • MinimumValue Added to Product320 $
  • INTERMED I ATE GOALS
  • Recurring manufacturing cost under 170 $
  • Set up Time under 60 min
  • TACTICAL GOALS
  • Delivery Reliability over 22
  • Operation Cost under 45 $

18. Strategic Goal Engineering Design Cost

  • TotalEDC : 2x 1+4 x 2
  • Upper Resource Limit : 240
  • 2x 1+4 x 2 =240 +d 1 + - d 1 -
  • 2x 1+4 x 2 +d 1 -- d 1 + =240
  • { 2x 1+4 x 2 < =240 }
  • d 1 + indicates theEDCover240 while d 1 -
  • indicatestheEDCunder thegoal .
  • The objective is to minimized 1 +

19. Strategic Goal Cost of Quality

  • TotalCOQ : 1x 1+2 x 2
  • Upper Resource Limit : 130
  • 1x 1+2 x 2 =130 +d 2 + -d 2 -
  • 1x 1+2 x 2 +d 2 -- d 2 += 130
  • { 1x 1+2 x 2 < = 130 }
  • d 2 + indicates theCOQover130while d 2 -
  • indicates theCOQunder thegoal .
  • The objective is to minimized 2 +

20. Strategic Goal Value Added to Product

  • TotalVAP : 4 x 1+5 x 2
  • Upper Resource Limit : 320
  • 4 x 1+5 x 2 =320 +d 3 + - d 3 -
  • 4 x 1+5 x 2 +d 3 -- d 3 += 320
  • { 4 x 1+5 x 2> = 320 }
  • d 3 + indicates theVAPover320 while d 3 -
  • indicates theVAPunder thegoal .
  • The objective is to minimized 3 -

21. I ntermediate Goal Recurring Manufacturing Cost

  • TotalRMC : 4 x 1+3 x 2
  • Upper Resource Limit : 170
  • 4 x 1+3 x 2 =170 +d 4 + - d 4 -
  • 4 x 1+3 x 2 +d 4 -- d 4 += 170
  • { 4 x 1+3 x 2 < = 170 }
  • d 4 + indicates theRMCover170 while d 4 -
  • indicates theRMCunder thegoal .
  • The objective is to minimized 4 +

22. I ntermediate Goal Set-Up Time

  • TotalSUT: 3 x 1+4 x 2
  • Upper Resource Limit : 60
  • 3 x 1+4 x 2 =60 +d 5 + - d 5 -
  • 3 x 1+4 x 2 +d 5 -- d 5 += 60
  • { 3 x 1+4 x 2 < = 60 }
  • d 5 + indicates theSUTover60 while d 5 -
  • indicates theSUTunder thegoal .
  • The objective is to minimized 5 +

23. Tactical Goal Delivery Reliability

  • TotalDR: 3 x 1+4 x 2
  • Upper Resource Limit : 22
  • 4 x 1+5 x 2 =22 +d 6 + - d 6 -
  • 4 x 1+5 x 2 +d 6 -- d 6 += 22
  • { 4 x 1+5 x 2 > = 22 }
  • d 6 + indicates theDRover22 while d 6 -
  • indicates theDRunder thegoal .
  • The objective is to minimized 6 -

24. Tactical Goal Operations Cost

  • TotalOC: 3 x 1+4 x 2
  • Upper Resource Limit : 45
  • 6 x 1+3 x 2 =45 +d 7 + - d 7 -
  • 6 x 1+3 x 2 +d 7 -- d 7 += 45
  • { 6 x 1+3 x 2 < = 45 }
  • d 7 + indicates theOCover45 while d 7 -
  • indicates theOCunder thegoal .
  • The objective is to minimized 7 +

25. The Model 26. The Model

  • The strategic goal:
  • Min d 1 ++ d 2 ++ d 3 -;
  • { Minw 1 d 1 ++w 1 d 2 ++w 1 d 3 - + w 2 d 4 ++w 2 d 5 + + w 3 d 6 -+ w 3 d 7 + }
  • 2 x 1+4 x 2 +d 1 -- d 1 + =240 ;
  • 1 x 1+2 x 2 +d 2 -- d 2 += 130 ;
  • 4 x 1+5 x 2 +d 3 -- d 3 += 320 ;
  • 4 x 1+3 x 2 +d 4 -- d 4 += 170 ;
  • 3 x 1+4 x 2 +d 5 -- d 5 += 60 ;
  • 4 x 1+5 x 2 +d 6 -- d 6 += 22 ;
  • 6 x 1+3 x 2 +d 7 -- d 7 += 45 ;
  • x 1 ,x 2 , d i +, d i - 0

27. The solution

  • Let the solution be:
  • x 1 =80, x 2 = 0 ,
  • d 1 +=0 , d 2 += 0 , d 3 - =0

28. The Model

  • The intermediate goal:
  • Min d 4 ++ d 5 +;
  • 2 x 1+4 x 2 +d 1 -- d 1 + =240 ;
  • 1 x 1+2 x 2 +d 2 -- d 2 += 130 ;
  • 4 x 1+5 x 2 +d 3 -- d 3 += 320 ;
  • 4 x 1+3 x 2 +d