Service Levels in Make-to-Order Production: 3D Printing Applications
- 127 Downloads
Consumer 3D printing services offering to print customer’s models on-demand must achieve high service with the available capacity. While the bulk of production tends to come from in-house capacity, overtime is also viable for managing demand peaks. This chapter shows how 3D printers can manage their order book releases to deliver on time, while keeping production costs low. Applying order book smoothing to a numerical case reveals a cost–service trade-off that is not convex, as typically seen in inventory models, but of sigmoid type. This results in two attractive configurations: atrocious service at a minimal cost, or near-perfect service at a higher cost.
- Axsäter, S. (2006). Inventory Control. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
- Hedenstierna, C. P. T. (2016). Staggered Deliveries in Production and Inventory Control. Cardiff: Cardiff University.Google Scholar
- Hedenstierna, C. P. T., & Disney, S. M. (2012, February 20–24). Impact of Scheduling Frequency and Shared Capacity on Production and Inventory Costs. 17th International Working Seminar on Production Economics. Innsbruck, pp. 277–288.Google Scholar
- Hosoda, T., & Disney, S. M. (2012). On the Replenishment Strategy When the Market Demand Information is Lagged in a Supply Chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 135, 458–467.Google Scholar
- Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Shapeways. (2016). Materials Shipping Status Page—Shapeways [Online]. Retrieved May 28, 2016, from http://www.shapeways.com/materials/material-status.
- Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
- Wikner, J., Naim, M. M., & Rudberg, M. (2007). Exploiting the Order Book for Mass Customized Manufacturing Control Systems with Capacity Limitations. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54, 145–155.Google Scholar