Manufacturing classifications: relationships with
production control systems
Keywords
Planning, Scheduling,
Manufacturing,
Production management
Abstract
Since the early 1970s, production
planning systems have evolved from
material requirements planning
(MRP) through manufacturing re-
source planning (MRPII) into enter-
prise resource planning (ERP) with
simultaneous development of re-
lated control systems such as
theory of constraints (epitomised by
OPT), just-in-time (JIT), etc. One
key area for all manufacturing
companies is the planning and
control function. There is a wide
range of generic proprietary soft-
ware available that aims to meet a
company's planning and scheduling
requirements. The difficulty experi-
enced by many companies is not
only in examining available soft-
ware, but also in understanding the
match between business needs and
the capabilities of that software.
This paper first sets out some
common manufacturing classifica-
tion systems, then attempts to map
them against accepted paradigms
for production planning and control
approaches. Analysis confirms the
need for a more rigorous approach
to software selection, and the need
for a complete understanding of the
drivers of the production control
process before this can be
achieved. The paper goes on to
discuss a method for mapping these
drivers, with the aim being to create
a series of reference models for
production planning and scheduling.
The authors are indebted to
the Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council
(EPSRC) for supporting the
research mentioned in the
latter part of this paper, and
for the award of a research
grant.
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/4 [1999] 189±198
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0957-6061]
Keith Porter
Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK
David Little
University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK
Matthew Peck
University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK
Ralph Rollins
University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK
Introduction
Examination of the literature and personal
experience both demonstrate that there are
many mechanisms by which it is possible to
classify, and thereby describe, the structure
and features of manufacturing systems. The
main aim of such classification and descrip-
tion being to make possible a better under-
standing of those systems, the processes they
contain, their constraints and their controls.
Once classified and described, it is possible to
relate those individual classes to their own
production control systems and significant
factors from the environments within which
they operate.
This understanding can be further
devolved to the examination of individual
organisations that operate within a defined
class of manufacture using a case study
approach. A generic profile of systems,
processes and activities that model fitness for
class can be provided to form the comparator
within a self-audit method or bench marking
tool. Using such a method enables manufac-
turing organisations to identify strengths or
weaknesses within their own systems,
thereby facilitating change management to
increase or maintain competitive advantage.
The value of a method of providing best fit
or best practice reference models for the
traditional classifications of manufacturing
is in itself limiting. Nature has conditioned
us to look backwards to build on experience
when planning the future. Therefore the
criteria for being best are structured on past
successes and historical data, thus providing
only static models of best fit now or more
usually best fit yesterday. At their optimum,
such best fit models are useful tools that
provide a valuable insight, aiding less ad-
vanced organisations to restructure their
systems to meet the demand of fitness for
class. The end result of this exercise is, of
course, that once identified, best becomes
commonplace and its usefulness as a factor
for competitive advantage will diminish with
time.
It is innovation that drives the leading edge
of competitive advantage. A particular inno-
vation might of course be a radically new
idea or technological advancement but in
practice innovation is usually the adaptation
of a successful idea or technology from one
manufacturing class that migrates or is
transferred to another. Here the true inno-
vation is first identifying the feature and the
possible advantage of initiating such a
transfer. Many manufacturing organisations
are not in a position to explore other
organisations for potential competitive
advantage. Benchmarking is becoming pop-
ular but is constrained by the need to identify
new opportunities and potential partners.
With this in mind what would be useful is a
method that identifies competitive features
from one sector that could be applied in a
completely different sector.
Within discrete manufacture, the reality is
that the activities of most organisations do
not fall neatly into any one sub-division but
can overlap on many places along the man-
ufacturing continuum. The result of this is
that hybrid manufacturing systems are
operating in many production facilities. This
hybridisation further complicates the calcu-
lation of capacity and the tasks of planning
and control.
Management information systems account
for almost a quarter of all information
technology (IT) investment within major
manufacturing companies. In the UK, 75
percent of these firms still use the material
requirements planning (MRP)/manufactur-
ing resource planning (MRPII) paradigm
regardless of its suitability to their specific
requirements (Little et al., 1997). However,
the introduction of these planning and sche-
duling systems to smaller companies pro-
gresses at a much slower rate, with only 25
percent of companies employing fewer than
200 people introducing MRP type manage-
ment systems.
[ 189 ]
Keith Porter, David Little,
Matthew Peck and
Ralph Rollins
Manufacturing classifications:
relationships with production
control systems
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/4 [1999] 189±198
[ 190 ]
One reason for this is that the needs of
small and large businesses are different with
each making differing demands of their IT
systems; smaller businesses often do not need
the full capabilities of systems required by
larger companies. The slow uptake of IT in
smaller companies is caused, in some part, by
difficulties experienced in fitting proprietary
management and control software (a major
investment) into the diverse business needs
of individual companies and, more signifi-
cantly, by lack of management time and
capability.
Since the early 1970s systems have evolved
from MRP through MRPII into enterprise
resource planning (ERP) with simultaneous
development of related control systems such
as theory of constraints (epitomised by OPT),
just-in-time (JIT), etc. The marketplace for
ERP systems is vast, featuring global players
like SAP, Baan, Oracle, BPCS ..., with the
market leader having already sold over 10,000
installations world-wide. Installation of such
packages is usually an expensive and lengthy
process, often beyond the smaller firm on
both counts which nevertheless looks to buy
some sort of ``appropriate'' software often
based on what appears to be the standard for
the type of organisation. This often overlooks
the fact that firms might be competing in the
same marketplace, yet their business drivers
might be very specific, requiring a particular
configuration of business control software.
Recent research (Kenworthy et al., 1994)
has shown that one key area for all manu-
facturing companies is the manufacturing
control function. There is a wide range of
generic proprietary software available that
meets, to varying degrees of success, a
company's planning and scheduling require-
ments. The difficulty experienced by many
companies is not only in examining available
software, but also in understanding the
match between their business needs and the
capabilities of that software.
The purpose of this paper is first to set out
the most common manufacturing classifica-
tion systems, then to attempt to map them
against the accepted paradigms for produc-
tion planning and control approaches. Ana-
lysis of the success or otherwise of this
mapping confirms that a more rigorous
approach to software selection is necessary,
and that a complete understanding of the
drivers of the production control process is
required before this can be achieved. The
paper then goes on to discuss a method for
mapping these drivers, with the stated aim
being to create a series of reference models
for production planning and scheduling.
The classifications mechanisms
Examination of the literature shows that
there are many different classifications sys-
tems for a manufacturing environment.
Some (for example, Job/Batch/Continuous)
are well-known and widely applied, others
are more novel (Complexity and Uncer-
tainty). It is worth reviewing some of the
more common systems and mapping these
against current production planning and
control approaches in order to demonstrate
the dangers of making simplistic judgements
when looking to select appropriate software.
One of the problems facing a firm seeking
to select control software is that of classifying
itself against some spectrum of measure-
ment. Much work has been done in this area
(Hill, 1991; Browne et al., 1996) and the
number of ways of classifying a manufactur-
ing environment probably exceed 20 (perhaps
not as many as Hill suggests). The most
common are briefly discussed below.
1. Job-to-continuous
Manufacturing activity can be viewed as a
series of continua. These can be separated
into two distinct categories, and can be
described (Wild, 1980) as continuous process
and discrete parts manufacture, where dif-
ferent characteristics typically apply. Brown
et al. (1996) define continuous process as
involving the continuous production of a
product, often using a chemical process
rather than physical or mechanical means. In
their work they go on to further sub-divide
discrete parts manufacture (the production of
individual items) into mass, batch and job-
bing production of a unique item. This is also
discussed by Hill (1991).
Depicted along a continuum whose extre-
mities are the jobbing production to the true
flow facility of continuous production which
operates 24 hours per day, these classifica-
tions and sub-divisions can be further related
to the scale of production and the degree of
product variety (see Figure 1).
The descriptive attributes of the above sub-
divisions of discrete manufacture are:
Jobbing production
Jobbing production is characterised by low
volume (often one-off) production of a wide
range of products with demand for any one
single product being difficult to forecast. For
one-off production it is not normally expected
that a product once produced will be required
in that exact form again (or if it is there will
be a long period between orders). Plant
capacity is difficult to define being dependent
on the product mix at any one time. Route-
ings through this type of production facility
Keith Porter, David Little, are dictated by the manufacturing needs of
Matthew Peck and the individual products and work centre
Ralph Rollins layout is based on manufacturing processes.
Manufacturing classifications:
relationships with production This class of manufacture, usually labour
control systems intensive, requires a highly skilled labour
Integrated Manufacturing force, working in a flexible production facil-
Systems
10/4 [1999] 189±198 ity, often referred to as a job shop. Typical
examples of this class of manufacture are
high-fashion garment manufacturing and the
production of capital equipment such as
customer specific machine tools.
Flow production
Flow production is characterised by the large
volume production of a small range of
standard products. Demand over the short to
medium term is stable and design changes
over the life of a product are minimal. Plant
capacity is calculable, determined by the
output of bottle-neck processes. Routeings
through the highly dedicated (hard automa-
tion type) production facilities are fixed and
the plant layout is based on the needs of the
products. This class of manufacturing has
lower levels of skill and labour intensity than
jobbing production. Automotive manufac-
ture is a typical example of this class of
manufacturing.
Taylor and Bolander (1994) have sum-
marised and compared the attributes of
jobbing production and flow production
(mass-continuous production) and conclude
there are significant differences which might
point to appropriate choices of planning and
scheduling approach.
Batch production
Following jobbing production on the manu-
facturing continuum and characterised by
small or medium volume production of a
Figure 1
Volume ± variety
medium-sized range of products is batch
production, defined by Brown et al. (1996) as
the creation of a product in small lots, by a
series of operations, each operation typically
being carried out on the whole batch before a
subsequent operation is started. Many of the
complexities of jobbing production are evi-
dent in the batch production environment.
Layout of the plant comprising flexible
multipurpose machinery is dictated by pro-
cess. Demand is difficult to forecast and
capacity is dependent on the product mix at
any one time. Batch production is so posi-
tioned on the continuum by its product
profile and the volumes in which those
products are demanded. The majority of
products produced by batch manufacture do
not have a demand that justifies the capital
expenditure of mass production where a
specific facility is set up for manufacture.
However, they do have volumes of demand
that offer economies of scale by amortising
set-up and purchasing costs.
Project or complex production
Project or complex production falls within
the above broad definition of jobbing pro-
duction. However, by its nature, being domi-
nated by the scale and uniqueness of its
products, it occupies a class of manufacture
in its own right. Positioned at the very end of
the manufacturing continuum, every product
is a one-off. Hill (1991) defines project pro-
duction as being the provision of a unique
product, requiring large-scale inputs to be co-
ordinated so as to achieve customers'
requirements.
Capacities within this class of manufac-
turing are variable, dependent on the time-
table of the project. Often built on the site of
use, the inputs, resources and activities
necessary for manufacturing a product are
scheduled to a project plan. Some of the
inputs to a project will be manufactured on
site within the project schedule but most will
be externally sourced, to be assembled on site
having been produced under another classi-
fication of manufacture. Work in progress
levels will increase through the life of the
project often paid for by the customer in
stage payments.
The key task of project manufacturing is to
meet customer specifications within the
contracted timeframe while maintaining
profitability.
2. Make to stock vs make/assemble to
order
Producing stock to buffer between manufac-
turing and its customers is a dominant
feature of many industries, while success in
other sectors relies on responsiveness to
customer demand. An ability to rapidly
[ 191 ]
Keith Porter, David Little,
Matthew Peck and
Ralph Rollins
Manufacturing classifications:
relationships with production
control systems
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/4 [1999] 189±198
[ 192 ]
customise products to meet individual cus-
tomers' requirements is becoming an emer-
gent trend as manufacturing capacity evolves
to meet demand. For many companies, future
success or survival may depend on their
ability to balance stockholding against speed
of response to the marketplace. An alterna-
tive mechanism for classification is to iden-
tify and differentiate between stock driven
and order driven manufacturing systems. In
this context, investigation suggests that there
are five classes within which manufacturing
systems can be described. These are sum-
marised below:
1 Make to Stock (MTS).
2 Assemble to Order (ATO).
3 Make to Order (MTO).
4 Engineer to Order (ETO).
5 Design to Order (DTO).
The class of ``Make to Stock'' describes a
manufacturing system where the demand for
a clearly-defined product range is known or
forecast. The input of individual customers
to product specification and design is limited.
Economies of scale often lead to large pro-
duction volumes of each product being man-
ufactured. Customer satisfaction is
dependent on product being available in a
warehouse which operates as a buffer against
the possibility of uncertain demand. Inven-
tory costs of maintaining the buffer are high
as is the risk of product obsolescence, both of
which increase the final price of the product.
In the class ``Assemble to Order'', compo-
nents are manufactured to forecast, possibly
part assembled and stored in a warehouse
buffer. Product is configured to a range of
available specifications from the stock of
core sub-assemblies or modules on receipt of
an order. Contact with the customer is often
through the sales organisation or a third-
party agent. In a true Assemble to Order
system there is no buffer of finished stock
and lead time is dependent on the availability
of sub-assembly stock from the warehouse.
In the class ``Make to Order'', standard
products from a predefined range or catalogue
are requested by the customer or their agents.
Although materials may be purchased and
production planned, manufacturing begins
only after the receipt of a firm order.
In the class ``Engineer to Order'', a standard
product range is offered with the added avail-
ability of modifications and customisations
being made to request. Contact with customers
is often direct and lead times are extended to
include extra design and manufacturing time.
In the class ``Design to Order'', an area of
general expertise is offered by a manufac-
turer. Product is designed and developed to
meet an individual customer's needs or
specification. By its definition, all products
manufactured from this class will be unique
and have long lead times.
This form of classification can be depicted
(see Figure 2) on a continuum between stock-
and order-driven production. In reality most
manufacturing organisations do not fall
wholly within any one class. Their systems
cross over the artificial boundaries of
description and contain elements from
neighbouring classes.
3. Complexity and uncertainty
In their report, ``Manufacturing for the Late
1990s'', PA Consulting (1989) illustrate the use
of manufacturing grids (a tool for thinking
about business). A set of 2 6 2 matrices (the
base level matrix is shown in Figure 3)
classify manufacturing organisations in
terms of product and market characteristics
and their relationship to the complexities
and uncertainties that act within and on the
organisation. Once classified, the necessary
criteria and competencies for successfully
operating in a particular manufacturing
environment are described or questioned
using a succession of overlay grids.
In this context, PA describe complexity to
concern the volume and variety of different
products, components, processes and sources
of supply. Uncertainty concerns the volume
and stability of demand, also the degree of
product design rigidity.
The four contrasting product sectors are
defined as:
1 Capital equipment, where the product is
highly customised, always undergoing
design changes, and is highly complex.
2 Durables traditionally have a stable but
limited degree of demand and design
changes but life-cycles are getting shorter
to meet changes in the marketplace.
Usually more complex assemblies than
commodities.
3 Fashion and jobbing products are gener-
ally less complex than the above but they
are subject to highly variable demand and
short product life-cycles.
4 Commodity products which have rela-
tively stable and enduring demand with
few design changes.
4. Product sector
Perhaps the most common and least helpful
classification system, at least with regard to
production control systems, is one which
describes the type of product made; for
example, pharmaceuticals, soaps and
detergents, consumer durables, electronics,
etc.
Keith Porter, David Little,
Matthew Peck and
Ralph Rollins
Manufacturing classifications:
relationships with production
control systems
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/4 [1999] 189±198
Figure 2
Stock and manufacturing volume relationships
Other classification systems
Without further expansion, these are listed:
5 Bill-of-material topography (e.g. A defines
many raw materials, few end variants).
6 Customer order decoupling point (point
along supply chain when production
becomes customer specific; low = raw
material highly customer-order specific.
7 No. of components per end item vs time
between manufactured units.
8 Relationship between intensity of capital
and labour requirement.
Depending on viewpoint, there may be many
other classifications and variants of the
above.
Current planning approaches
In this section, the common approaches to
production planning and control are briefly
reviewed, together with a summary of their
defining characteristics.
Figure 3
Complexity and uncertainty
Just-in-time (JIT)
JIT is both a philosophy and a PP&C
technique. Most would agree that the
approach traditionally works best in simple
product/process environments though suc-
cessful applications can now be found in non-
repetitive, more complex manufacturing
areas.
Best results for application of JIT techni-
ques have been found in repetitive, or flow-
manufacturing environments, particularly in
FMS or cell manufacturing, where aggregate
demand can be stabilized. In essence, JIT
works by the pulling of materials for proces-
sing, through a form of back-scheduling to
upstream processes; cards (Kanbans) are
often used as control mechanism, the sending
of a control signal (a card or an electronic
equivalent) being the trigger to activate an
upstream process to feed the immediate
downstream process. Success is achieved
through setting the working buffer to such a
size that it will not be fully consumed before
a replenishment arrives.
Some preconditions are usually necessary
for the successful application of JIT techni-
ques:
. Usually connected processes are balanced
for flow, and have some degree of excess
capacity, to allow for unexpected events in
the flow of work.
. All suppliers (whether external or another
process within the organisation) must be
reliable.
. Some form of planning is needed as an
initial driver, to establish the flow rate
and composition of work. This is often
MRP or some simple form of schedule.
Project evaluation and review (PERT) and
critical path (CPM)
This approach is best suited to processes
which manufacture few, large, one-off items
over an extended period of time. The pro-
cesses will necessarily be sequential (one
process cannot take place until the preceding
step is completed, as for example in garment
manufacturing where no sewing can take
place until material has been cut) and some
processes can proceed independently in par-
allel with others provided that they ``come
together'' at some point. Usually one of the
parallel processes will be time critical.
Features of this planning and control
approach are:
. set-up costs normally high;
. often relatively low-tech, but using highly-
skilled labour;
. lead times often long (perhaps years not
months);
. cost overruns commonly, owing to large
number of possible perturbations to plan;
[ 193 ]
Keith Porter, David Little,
Matthew Peck and
Ralph Rollins
Manufacturing classifications:
relationships with production
control systems
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/4 [1999] 189±198
[ 194 ]
. process connections are complex;
. subcontracting is a common feature and
the control of subcontracted processes is
commonly fraught with difficulty.
Constraint based scheduling (CBS)
Many manufacturing environments contain
a constraint or bottleneck somewhere in the
process structure. In his celebrated work in
the area, Goldratt crystallised an approach
which recognised that:
1 bottlenecks exist;
2 steps should be taken to maintain opera-
tion of the bottleneck at all possible times;
and
3 other non-constraint resources should
only be operated when required to serve
the constraint.
In summary:
. a ``bottleneck'' always exists somewhere
in the process structure;
. the planning technique is to identify the
bottleneck, schedule its operations against
due date to ensure that throughput is
maximised, and schedule other operations
such that flow is protected. Operations
upstream are back-scheduled, those
downstream forward-scheduled;
. commercially available algorithms
schedule material and capacity at the
same time.
One of the reasons why CBS has not been
applied more widely is that some of its
principles are strongly counter-intuitive; not
to run a work centre and have idle time for
all to see runs so counter to manufacturing
management culture that there is often
overwhelming pressure to run a process,
perhaps to ``recover the overheads ... improve
efficiencies ... put down some stock against
possible peak demand ...''.
Process flow scheduling (PFS)
In this approach, the philosophy is based
around the process structure rather than the
product structure which is the dominant
theme of MRP. Indeed the concept has
evolved largely as a result of the inability of
the MRP approach to operate with even
modest effectiveness in process environ-
ments. Here the planning and control pro-
blem is concerned with a rapidly changing
demand profile, possibly together with a
changing resource profile, and where fast,
approximate answers to product availability
are of far greater value than an exact
solution. The trade-off decisions involving
resource availability and/or utilisation,
against operating costs, against customer
service, and probably against logistics costs,
are so complex to compute that an exact
solution is worthless anyway, since the
underlying conditions behind any one eva-
luation will be changing as it is computed.
This approach to planning carries features
as follows:
. Planning and scheduling take place in the
same general hierarchical sequence as
MRP but use finite capacity scheduling
logic.
. PFS has been found to be particularly
successful in high-volume, near repeat,
close family manufacturing environ-
ments. Typically unit costs are low, BOMS
not complex, long runs are usual, set-ups
and sequence dependencies are key ele-
ments of ``efficient'' scheduling.
. The process must be identifiably flow in
character, that is all production passes
through the same connected stages.
. Processing often high-tech, low/medium
operator skill.
Manufacturing resource planning (MRP)
and derivations
In summary, MRP is described by the
following:
. Philosophy based around the product
structure; production flow is modelled via
routeings and bills of material.
. Often described as a ``push'' system where
end due dates are back-scheduled through
the product structure and routeings to
create launch dates for components,
which when produced or acquired, are
pushed into a queue in front of the next
work centre, and so on.
. Considered highly suitable for environ-
ments where material control is complex;
i.e. complex product construction (bills),
many process routeings possible, difficult
to discern many common flow character-
istics.
. For environments where new products
are being introduced frequently, where
there is much parts commonality, long
leadtime components, sometimes uncer-
tain product lifetimes, frequent specifica-
tion changes, increasing product range
and variety, process rates variable or
output quality subject to variation. Such
``disturbances'' often difficult to control,
build into a reschedule.
. Workflow monitoring (WIP, job status,
lead time ...) is at the core of the
technique.
. Material planning is either time-phased
(through traditional re-order point, re-
order quantity or dependent demand sys-
tems such as materials requirements
planning) or rate-based (similarities exist
to PFS here).
Keith Porter, David Little,
Matthew Peck and
Ralph Rollins
Manufacturing classifications:
relationships with production
control systems
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/4 [1999] 189±198
Finite capacity scheduling (FCS)
Early developments of FCS consisted of
attempts to schedule work-to lists derived
from some higher level planning tool, such as
MRP. Within MRP logic, the master produc-
tion schedule (MPS) used an infinite capacity
approach to help derive a feasible plan. Many
MRP vendors felt obliged to offer an FCS
module working ``underneath'' the MRP
engine, so as to give users greater short-term
visibility, and these competed in the early
days with stand-alone FCS. It is now gener-
ally recognised that FCS logic is fundamen-
tally different from MRP and, given modern
computing power, is capable of exact sche-
duling solutions almost instantaneously
without the need for detailed, higher level
planning. A growing number of software
solutions can be found, which were initially
targeted by vendors at particular sectors
(FMCG, food and drink...) which do not
require MRP logic to drive them provided
that the data source (resource data, bills-of-
material, routeings ...) lies within the
scheduling model or can be accessed by it.
Connections
It is instructive now to analyse how the
above techniques map to the various manu-
facturing classification systems to see if
there is a consistency across them which
would provide some degree of comfort that,
whatever the system chosen, the selection of
the appropriate planning control approach
would still be valid.
Vollmann et al. (1994) have proposed that a
firm's manufacturing planning and control
approach should be an integrated set compris-
ing a suitable MPS approach, with either a time-
phased or rate-based material planning ap-
proach, together with either an MRP or JIT
shop floor control approach. In the case of the
MPS, they propose that the choices lie between
ATO, MTO and MTS; in other words the ATO/
MTO/MTS status determines the planning
approach. This might be reasonable (except that
engineer-to-order is excluded) particularly
given that for most organisations, the market-
place and the production processes dictate their
ATO/MTO/MTS status. Most organisations
would like to be able to only make (or engineer)
to order, since this reduces uncertainty; many
are seeking to increase the element of order-
driven rather than stock-driven production,
through approaches like vendor managed in-
ventory, etc.
Taylor and Bolander (1994) prefer to ana-
lyse manufacturing according to their posi-
tion on a dimension covering jobshop
through to flowshop environments. They
argue that all firms can be located on a
matrix according to their job vs flow char-
acteristics and according to their position on
a product-dominated vs process-dominated
manufacturing axis. Significantly, they con-
clude that no single production planning and
scheduling system is likely to fit one manu-
facturing environment (one size does NOT fit
all) but that the optimum configuration for a
given environment is likely to be unique to
that environment.
This has important implications when
considering the strategic developments of
firms; a satisfactory planning and scheduling
system may become unsuitable overnight if
the market direction of the firm (for example,
customer base, product offering ...) is
changed. Practically every organisation
would like to move along the continuum from
job-to-continuous to reap economies of scale
benefits, but at the same time every organi-
sation is looking to offer greater product
customisation, to differentiate its offering to
the customer. Virtual or mass customisation
(motor cars?) is the usual compromise here.
Clearly, classifications by standard indus-
trial classification (SIC) codes are no longer
appropriate; even the generic descriptors such
as consumer electronics, fast moving consu-
mer goods (FMCG), automotive ... do not line
up with any clear divisions of planning and
scheduling systems. For example, a pharma-
ceutical manufacturer who moves from 100 per
cent ethical market into a mix of OTC and
ethical is going to be subjected to some of the
characteristics of FMCG marketplaces and his
planning/scheduling system must become
much more reactive.
There has been some success in the applica-
tion of the BOM structure classification,
particularly in the marketing of FCS tools
(Harrison, 1994). Indeed, some independent
consultants use this approach to help select the
most appropriate software package for a given
environment. In this approach, schedulers are
classed as either rate-of-use, post-works order
schedulers, or structured schedulers, and each
type aligned with a BOM structure. There are a
good number of examples of successful appli-
cations of this FCS approach, some of them
perhaps not as intended by the vendor or the
package designer. The heaviest concentration
seems to be found in fast-moving consumer
goods and the process industries. A manufac-
turer of power tools and powered garden tools
has installed a scheduler with good results, yet,
at first sight, one would not place this firm in a
category of FMCG. This perhaps serves to
underline that it is the marketplace and the
way in which a firm chooses to organise itself
to serve that marketplace that is dominant.
This is a more important determinant of the
[ 195 ]
Keith Porter, David Little,
Matthew Peck and
Ralph Rollins
Manufacturing classifications:
relationships with production
control systems
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/4 [1999] 189±198
[ 196 ]
production planning and scheduling system
than any other simplistic classification. As
already noted earlier, there may be a range of
different conditions in force across the manu-
facturing and distribution activity of a firm,
and it may not be appropriate to select the
dominant theme on which to build a planning
and scheduling approach. Rather it might be
that a mix of approaches is appropriate
according to the drivers in force at a particular
stage of the manufacturing process. A well-
known detergent manufacturer relies on a
form of MRP linked to a finite scheduler for
short-term scheduling in the short- to medium-
range operation control. Yet for major product
launches or re-launches they use project plan-
ning software to monitor and control progress
against key events. MRP and a finite scheduler
approach is quite useless in this aspect. Thus,
while routine production control is achieved
through rate-based scheduling, new product
introduction is controlled through project
planning techniques.
The firm's position in its product life-cycle
is also likely to have a major bearing on the
most suitable choice of planning and sche-
duling system; Ralston (1996) argues that
during the growth and decline phase of a
product, a combination of MRP and JIT
techniques would be appropriate to control
planning and scheduling, while during the
``plateau'' phase, some form of rate-based
scheduling may well be appropriate. It could
be argued that this is incorrect in that during
sales growth, all the traditional MRP para-
meters such as batch size, process time, etc.
are changing continuously making the set-
ting of stock levels, re-order points, re-order
quantities processes which themselves re-
quire frequent resetting. Without the proper
disciplines and management of data, control
is easily lost in this situation.
Arguably none of the accepted mechanisms
for defining manufacturing classification
gives an unequivocal pointer to the ``correct''
choice of production control system, or the
most appropriate planning and scheduling
system (see Table I). Certainly the selection
of a control system on the basis of what other
industry members use, or on the product
type, or indeed on any of the single mechan-
isms described above is not likely to succeed
despite the claims of software vendors.
In order to best understand the most suitable
approach to planning and scheduling, a firm
needs to understand its key business processes,
both those currently in force and those likely to
be required as a result of any strategic changes
in business direction. The ideal control system
will be assembled from a number of building
blocks (business process components) which
are generic in themselves but in the aggregation
may well be unique to the individual firm.
Given the above, it is suggested that this
aggregation may not necessarily be predicted
by simply considering what the firm makes,
whether it is MTO or MTS, whether it is in a
process or jobshop manufacturing environ-
ment, or any of the traditional ``sector'' classi-
fications discussed earlier.
The foregoing debate has led the authors to
research into what drivers should determine
the planning and scheduling approach.
Through gaining an understanding of the key
business processes involved across a number
of manufacturing environments, and through
the construction of a number of proposed
reference models, they aim to develop unique
sector architectures. The investigation into
establishing the key business components
involved in the customer order conversion
process will be analysed through the rigorous
application of process modelling software,
which will facilitate the identification of
differences in the ``building blocks'' of the
planning and scheduling system.
From the activity of mapping the business
processes, and particularly through the use
of an advanced process mapping software
tool, a significant number of other important
business characteristics can be uncovered,
such as the proportion of added value time
compared to the total lead time, the time an
order spends in different parts of the process
train, the identification of duplicated or
unnecessary activity and so on.
Research programme
Method
A range of case study companies will initially
be grouped from responses to a questionnaire
establishing the business context and oper-
ating variables. The PA complexity/uncer-
tainty model will be used together with
grouping under product type. Each case
study firm will be subjected to an extensive
mapping of its order fulfilment process, using
a combination of GRAI GRIDS (Doumeingts
et al., 1993), IDEF0 and the ARIS (Scheer,
1994) modelling tool. The latter is now widely
used to assist configuration of ERP systems.
The main stages in the process (shown in
Figure 4) are as follows:
1 Use a ``top-down'' approach to develop an
overview of company structure, strategy
and operation using:
. a function relation diagram;
. a GRAI GRID to represent the decision-
making processes;
. an organisation chart.
2 Use a ``bottom-up'' approach to identify
sub-processes and characteristics by
Keith Porter, David Little, Table I
Matthew Peck and Comparison matrix
Ralph Rollins
Manufacturing classifications: Mechanism PERT/CPM MRP MRP/JIT Shopfloor Process
relationships with production
control systems type techniques systems systems scheduling scheduling
Integrated Manufacturing 1 Complex Jobbing Batch Mass Continuous
Systems 2 DTO/MTO MTO MTO/MTS MTS/ATO MTS
10/4 [1999] 189±198
3 Uncertainty high ? ? ? Uncertainty low
Complexity low ? ? ? Complexity high
4 Engineering ? ? Food and drink
environments General process
5 A A, V A, V, T, X A, T, X, I I
6 Many components ? ? ? Few components
Long intervals ? ? ? Short intervals
7 WIP low ? ? ? WIP high
8 Capital low High Low Low Capital high
Labour high Labour low

Figure 4 reference model for that cluster of

Modelling method
generating a data flow diagram to show
the flow of resources and paper work/
screen instruction from activity to activ-
ity with each process, adopting a modified
IDEF0 method.
3 Generate a data capture grid to detail all
activities of the sub-processes.
4 Verify models produced with the input of
the study company.
5 Input data from above into ARIS and
develop a set of models.
6 Using ARIS, create a planning and sche-
duling process map for the study company
and validate this with the company.
7 Build up a series of process maps from the
study of several companies across a
chosen sector.
8 From the process maps of the study
companies within the chosen sector, de-
velop a draft planning and scheduling
companies.
9 Produce an audit method for companies
based on steps 1-5 which examines the
current approach to planning and sche-
duling and identifies discrepancies with
the cluster reference model. Reference to
Figure 5 shows that through the use of the
process mapping tool (ARIS) differences
between the business processes of the
target firm and the reference model can be
highlighted and used to explain the dif-
ferences in the respective planning and
scheduling approaches.
10 Identify key differences (shown in sche-
matic form in Figure 6), assess improve-
ment options if appropriate, leading to a
uniquely defined architecture for that
company from which to base planning and
scheduling and thus production control
system software selection.
It is hoped that by this approach, a company
will be able to select the most appropriate
system which fits its particular business
drivers, methods of operation, etc., rather
than find itself purchasing software on the
basis of what others in the same apparent
manufacturing sector have purchased. The
method will allow the smaller company to
assess its requirements without the need for
a lengthy process mapping exercise which so
often accompanies installation of major ERP
systems.
Conclusions
Earlier research (Little et al., 1997) has shown
that MRP logic-based production control
systems are very common across the spec-
trum of UK manufacturing environments, yet
in many cases the system was failing to
deliver anticipated benefits, and was almost
useless in high-volume process
[ 197 ]
Keith Porter, David Little, environments. In this environment, finite
Matthew Peck and capacity scheduling tools were often being
Ralph Rollins
Manufacturing classifications: used with a fair degree of success, yet even
relationships with production here firms were installing software systems
control systems on the basis that another firm apparently
Integrated Manufacturing engaged in similar manufacturing and mar-
Systems
10/4 [1999] 189±198 ketplaces had implemented such a system.
This was to overlook subtle differences in
business processes and marketplace posi-
tioning.
Over the past decade, ERP systems have
evolved from MRPII with the marketplace for
software systems being dominated by BAAN,
SAP and ORACLE. It is interesting to note
that such systems tend to be targeted at the
larger organisation, presumably those able to
afford the very large implementation and
installation costs. The approach taken by
these vendors is very much based around a
detailed analysis of business process, and
subsequent configuration of the ERP model
to reflect this business process architecture.
Figure 5
ARIS modelling
Figure 6
Order process profile
[ 198 ]
As installations increase in number, the need
to analyse firms in great depth reduces, since
the ``library'' of past installations should
enable some short cuts to be taken.
Unfortunately at the present time, the
organisation which cannot afford or does not
need an ERP system from the major vendors
must still select from the generic MRP
market, with vendor advice which is far from
independent. The authors argue, and are
investigating through the current research
programme, that a simplified business pro-
cess analysis, capable of being performed by
the firm itself, will allow for better informed
software selection. This will be from a route
of gaining understanding of the key business
processes and not from the purchase of the
industry sector standard software.
References
Browne, J., Harhen, J. and Shivnan, J. (1996),
Production Management Systems, 2nd edition,
Addison-Wesley.
Doumeingts, G., Chen, D., Vallespir, B. and Fenie,
P. (1993), GIM (GRAI Integrated Methodology)
and Its Evolutions ± A Metholodogy to Design
and Specify Advanced Manufacturing Systems,
IFIP, pp. 101-17.
Harrison, M. (1994), ``Finite capacity moves to the
heart of MRPII'', Manufacturing Systems,
May, pp. 12-16.
Hill, T. (1991), Production/Operations Manage-
ment; Test and Cases, Prentice-Hall.
Kenworthy, J.G., Little, D., Jarvis, P.C. and Porter,
J.K. (1992-1994), SERC/ACME Grant GR/H/
20473; Investigation of Best Practice in Short-
term Scheduling, University of Liverpool.
Little, D., Gavin, C., Hodgson, N. and Guenaoui,
D. (1997), ``Survey of SME information sys-
tems for planning and operations, CON-
TROL'', Institute of Operations Management,
No. 5, June, pp. 17-20.
PA Consulting Group (1989), ``Manufacturing into
the late 1990s'', HMSO ISBN 0-11-515206-7,
London.
Ralston, D. (1996), ``A brief history of manufac-
turing control systems'', Control (publication
of the Institute of Operations Management),
Parts 1-4.
Scheer, A.W. (1994), Business Process Engineering,
Reference Models for Industrial Enterprises,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg ISBN 3-
540-58234-7.
Taylor, S.G. and Bolander, S.F. (1994), Process
Flow Scheduling, APICS.
Vollmann, T.E., Berry, W.L. and Whybark, D.C.
(1994), Manufacturing Planning & Control
Systems, 4th edition, Irwin.
Wild, R. (1980), Production Operations Manage-
ment, 2nd edition, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.