Within this section we give a classification of reviewed literature, explicitly dealing with the ALFP, in Table 2.5. The paper’s classifications are split up into two groups: papers that aim to optimise decision making in the ALFP and papers investigating the selection of line feeding options by other methodological means. In case a paper comprises multiple options for a single subfield, e.g., if multiple problems are compared or a more detailed planning step is included only for some of the processes or line feeding policies, only the most complex notation is denoted.
In the rightmost column, the research methodology is stated according to the table’s legend.
PublicationClassificationMethodology α1α2α3α4β1β2β3β4β5β6β7γ Optimisationbased: Lim`ereetal.(2012)LKsmisfflmftcsct,l,aE Faccio(2014)BKtmis˜λflmftl,h,fuDM,S Caputoetal.(2015a)LBKtflmftcsci,s,t,l,h,aE Lim`ereetal.(2015)LKsmisfflmftdsct,l,aE Sternatz(2015)∗LKsmisflmftcrsceqt,l,aH SaliandSahin(2016)LSKtmisfflmftdrscs,t,l,aE Battinietal.(2016a,2017)∗LKsmisflmftcrscergt,l,aE Schmidetal.(2018)LBSKsKtmfflmftdscsht,l,aE Othermethodology: BozerandMcGinnis(1992)LKsKtflofts,t,l,hDM Battinietal.(2009)LKsKtM˜λolmftct,l,aDM W¨anstr¨omandMedbo(2009)LBSm˜λfloftcscs,t,lCS Battinietal.(2010a)LKsKtM˜λolmftct,hDM HuaandJohnson(2010)LKsKtmf˜λolsoftscsh,eqCS,LR,S CaputoandPelagagge(2011)LBKtflmfti,s,t,l,hDM HansonandBrolin(2013)LSKsKtmflmftsct,l,h,aCS HansonandFinnsgard(2014)LBSflmftscs,lCS Salietal.(2015)LSKtmisfflmftds,t,l,aDM Caputoetal.(2015c)LBflmftci,s,t,l,h,a,fuDM Caputoetal.(2016,2017b)LBKtflmftci,s,t,l,h,aDM Caputoetal.(2017a)LBKtflmftfuDM Ustaetal.(2017)LKsflmfts,t,l,fuC Faccioetal.(2018)BKsmisftmftcscl,t,aDM,S DM:DescriptiveModel,CS:CaseStudy,LR:LiteratureReview,C:Clustering E:Exactsolutionwasfound,H:Heuristicsolutionwasfound,S:Simulation ∗Although,thesepapersdescribeanintegrationofassemblylinebalancingandassemblylinefeeding, theyareconsideredinthisclassificationbyclassifyingtheaspectsonassemblylinefeeding. Table2.5Classifiedliteratureonassemblylinefeeding
Additionally, classified papers are briefly reviewed, sorted by time of publication to emphasize the evolution of the field.
Bozer and McGinnis (1992) describe differences between line stocking and kitting in a conceptual way. For this, relevant concepts like kits are formally introduced. Furthermore, a first descriptive cost model is formulated. This paper can be seen as the seminal paper in line feeding.
W¨anstr¨om and Medbo (2009) research different types of racks and packaging types at the BoL.
From analysing two case studies, it was found that line side presentation has an impact on assem-bly performance regarding different characteristics like work task efficiency and manufacturing flexibility.
Battini et al. (2010a) examine (de)centralization of stocks and utilization of different feeding policies in order to keep assembly systems flexible and efficient. The paper is an integration of Battini et al. (2009) on feeding policy selection and Battini et al. (2010b) on decentralization of storages by establishing multiple supermarkets. To combine these approaches, a hierarchical decision framework is introduced and demonstrated for some industrial examples.
Hua and Johnson (2010) describe a number of issues that may influence the assembly line feeding problem, focussing on line stocking and kitting, by reviewing the literature and analyzing a case company. The main influences are expected to be in the fields of product characteristics, storage, production control and system design.
Caputo and Pelagagge (2011) provide a descriptive cost model for line stocking, boxed-supply and traveling kits in order to provide production managers with information on improving the structure of part feeding. For an easy assignment of parts to line feeding policies, an ABC-methodology is described to group parts. Case data is used to show benefits of the proposed methodology.
Lim`ere et al. (2012) utilize a mixed integer programming model to optimise the assignment of parts to kitting and line stocking at mixed model assembly lines, minimizing overall system costs. Storage, preparation, transport, line side presentation and usage of parts are taken into account. Computational results are basing on case study data and demonstrate that hybrid policies perform better than a single policy.
Faccio (2014) quantitatively analyzes boxed-supply and kitting for feeding mixed model assem-bly lines. This research is generally building on Faccio et al. (2013). But in contrast to the previous paper, which is focusing on fleet size and inventory level optimization, this paper is on the assignment of parts to line feeding policies by taking into account stochastic demand.
For evaluation a simulation of a large amount of scenarios is carried out. Rules of thumb are summarized in a decision map.
Hanson and Brolin (2013) analyze the introduction of kitting instead of boxed-supply and se-quencing by analyzing two case studies of two production environments. The effects on man-hour consumption, quality and flexibility are discussed.
Hanson and Finnsgard (2014) examine the effect of different sizes of load carriers on man-hour consumption by means of a case study. It was found that the size has an influence on differ-ent tactical decisions, like the materials handling equipmdiffer-ent used, and on operational assembly performance. However, the results show that the overall man-hour consumption does not
signif-icantly decrease with an increase of load carrier size, but activities are locally shifted.
Caputo et al. (2015c) aim at supporting the managerial decision between line stocking and boxed-supply for single model assembly lines. Costs are analyzed using a descriptive model for both feeding policies. It is assumed that only one line feeding policy is applied at once. It was found, that there is no general superiority of one of these line feeding policies. In another study, Caputo et al. (2015a) propose an optimization model to examine the assignment of single parts to line feeding policies. Line stocking, boxed-supply and kitting are taken into account to provide a model, aiming at managerial decision support.
Sternatz (2015) is the first to integrate assembly line feeding and assembly line balancing. A given layout was assumed and all processes of line stocking and stationary kitting were taken into account. A given cycle time was assumed, so that single-model line balancing could be performed. Optimizing the integrated problem, lower costs could be achieved in comparison to the suboptimal solution obtained by sequentially solving both problems.
Lim`ere et al. (2015) extend previous work by Lim`ere et al. (2012) by incorporating dynamic walk-ing distances in preparation and usage, leadwalk-ing to dynamic operation times. Other assumptions remain the same as in the previous study. New data instances, created with a data generator, are used to conduct computational studies showing the influence of product characteristics on the ALFP decision.
Sali et al. (2015) formulate a descriptive cost model for line stocking, sequencing and kitting for a real-world production system. The least costly line feeding policies for that setting are determined. Later, Sali and Sahin (2016) provide an optimization model for the decision between line stocking, sequencing and kitting. Computational results show that available space at the BoL and kitting container capacity have a major influence on this decision.
A descriptive model is used to evaluate the influence of part characteristics on the choice of line feeding policies by Caputo et al. (2016, 2017b). A map is created to show rules of thumb for line feeding policy decision.
Battini et al. (2016a, 2017) provide a decision support model, jointly optimizing assembly line balancing and assembly line feeding by considering ergonomic aspects. For this, a mixed integer programming model is proposed and solved for a small case study.
In Caputo et al. (2017a) a model for calculating error costs in picking operations for line stocking, boxed-supply and traveling kits is presented.
A decision making approach by clustering parts into groups is proposed by Usta et al. (2017).
The results obtained for the data of a case study are compared to the current situation.
Faccio et al. (2018) examine the selection of line feeding policies (boxed-supply and stationary kitting) by proposing a descriptive cost model together with a rule of thumb for decision making.
This model is applied to the feeding systems of five case study companies and results are tested by simulating varying parameters.
Schmid et al. (2018) propose a model to optimise decision making, considering all possible line feeding policies simultaneously. Multiple products on a single assembly line are considered and the effect of shared space is investigated. The effect of these traits of assembly lines have been compared on multiple artificial, though case study based, datasets.