PRODUCTION PLANNING AND INVENTORY

CONTROL

Arranged by:

Erick Kurniawan H 004201600016

Jayaraman Rishikesan 004201600028
Jovan Bernard 004201600025
Pingky Kharamoy 004201600033

INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING
PRESIDENT UNIVERSITY
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, authors would like to give thanks to God because of his grace and blessing
so authors can finished this report. This report cannot be finished without the
contribution of the members of this group.

Authors would like to say a sincere thank you for those who help authors to complete
this final report:

 Mrs. Anastasia Lidya Maukar, S.T., M.Sc., M.MT as the lecturer of Production
Planning and Inventory Control for her generous support and guidance that
gave to authors, that made author gained a lot of knowledge from her.
 Furthermore, authors would like to thank you to authors’ family who always
encourage and support us so we can finished this report with enthusiasm.
 Authors’ beloved friends that always stick together through ups and downs.

This reports is still far away from perfection. Therefore author would like to apologize
from the bottom of authors’ heart for any mistakes and imperfection in this report.
Authors hope that the readers can give critics and inputs for authors to improve the
authors. Authors hope this report could help the readers learn more about forecasting,
aggregate planning, capacity planning, MRP and CRP.

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................... i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ ii

REPORT I ............................................................................................................ 1.1

REPORT II .......................................................................................................... 2.1

REPORT III ......................................................................................................... 3.1

REPORT IV ......................................................................................................... 4.1

REPORT V .......................................................................................................... 5.1

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I ............................................................................................................................ 2
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Objectives................................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Tools and Equipment(s) ............................................................................................... 3
1.4 Steps ............................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER II ........................................................................................................................... 4
LITERATURE STUDY.......................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Forecasting............................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Measurement of Forecasting Error ....................................................................... 7
2.4 Scatter Diagram ...................................................................................................... 8
2.5 Validation Test ........................................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER III ....................................................................................................................... 12
DATA COLLECTION ......................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER IV........................................................................................................................ 13
DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 13
4.1 Scatter Diagram for Demand ..................................................................................... 13
4.2. Forecasting Six Month Demand (September 2018-February 2019) using
Several Methods ................................................................................................................ 14
4.2.1 Weighted Moving Average ...................................................................................... 14
4.2.2 Double Moving Average .......................................................................................... 32
4.2.3 Double Exponential Smoothing (DES)-Brown Method ........................................ 51
4.2.4 Cyclic Method........................................................................................................... 77
4.2.5 Linear Cyclic Regression ......................................................................................... 91
CHAPTER V ................................................................................................................... 112
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................................ 112
5.1 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 112
5.2 Recommendation................................................................................................. 112
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 113

1.1
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Demand management is a methodology used to forecast and manage the demand
for products and services. Forecasting is a technique that uses historical data as inputs
to make informed estimates that are predictive in determining the directions of the
future trends. Qualitative forecasting models are useful in developing forecasts with a
limited scope. Quantitative methods of forecasting exclude expert opinions and utilize
statistical data based on quantitative information. Quantitative forecasting models
include time series methods, discounting, analysis of leading or lagging indicators
and econometric modeling.

Successfully forecast the demand in the future is the main goal of the Production
Planning and Control assignment. The demand of a certain product from the last 20
months is provided to make a better forecast result. This assignment is contains the
forecast of 6 following months from September 2018 until February 2019. The
forecasting method that used are Last Period Demand (LPD), Arithmetic Average,
Single Moving Average (SMA), Weighted Moving Average (WMA), Double
Moving Average (DMA), Single Exponential Smoothing (SES), Double Exponential
Smoothing Brown methods (DES), Double Exponential Smoothing Holt methods
(DES), Cyclic Method, Linear Cyclic Method, Linear Constant Method, and
Comparative Analysis.

To test the result of the forecast there are some error test method that used Mean
Absolut Deviation (MAD), Mean Standard Error (MSE), Mean Absolut Percentage
Error (MAPE). The validation to forecasting model test that used are Verification
Test and Tracking Signal. The best method to predict the future demand is the most
accurate method.

1.2
1.2 Objectives
The main objectives of this research are as follow:

1. To calculate the future demand by using several forecasting method.

2. To analyze the result of several forecasting method used.
3. To analyze the trend of the demand data.
4. To provide the scatter diagram of the demand data.
5. To validate the result of the forecasting data.
6. To determine and analyze the best forecasting method in this case.

1.3 Tools and Equipment(s)

The tools and equipment that were used for this assignment are:
1) Microsoft excel is used for the calculation
2) Mini tab is used for the chart / diagram creation and data analysis
3) Papers
4) Laptop
5) Printer

1.4 Steps

There are several steps to determine the data, which are:

1. Plot the data to the scatter diagram for the previous twenty months demands.
2. Determine the forecast data from September 2018 until February 2019
3. Evaluate the error test using MAD, MSE, and MAPE.
4. Check the validation of each forecasting method using IIDN and verification
and tracking signal.
5. Choose the most accurate method.

1.3
 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE STUDY

2.1 Forecasting
Forecasting is an expectation of future requests based on several natural variables,
often based on historical time series data. According to Gaspersz (2004), forecasting
activity is a business function that seeks to estimate product demand and use so that
products can be made in the right quantity and according to Biegel (1999),
forecasting is an estimate of the expected level of demand for a product or product in
a certain period of time in the future. It can be said that forecasting is the process of
making predictions of the future based on past and present data and most commonly
by analysis of trends.

2.2 Types of Forecasting Method

Based on this project, the quantitative forecasting method has 2 types in it,
extrinsic and intrinsic. For extrinsic there are simple linear regressions and multiple
linear regressions. For the intrinsic method there are weighted moving average,
double moving average, double exponential smoothing, cyclic method, and linear
cyclic.

2.2.1 Weighted Moving Average

Weighted moving averages can provide somewhat more sophisticated basis for
discerning data trends. To do this weighted average usually places more emphasis on
recent periods and less on earlier periods, assuming that more recent periods have
better predictive relevance. When using a moving average method described before,
each of the observations used to compute the forecasted value is weighted equally. In
certain cases, it might be beneficial to put more weight on the observations that are
closer to the time period being forecast. When this is done, this is known as a

1.4
weighted moving average. The weights in a weighted moving average must sum to 1.
Where, C is the weight.

WMA (N) = dt’= (𝐶𝑡−1 𝑑𝑡−1+𝐶𝑡−2 𝑑𝑡−2+⋯+𝐶𝑡−𝑁 𝑑𝑡−𝑁) / Σ𝐶 (2-1)

2.2.2 Double Moving Average

For this method quite same with the single moving average but for this method
the calculation of moving averages as much as two times then followed by predicting
using a certain equation. Here are the steps for double moving average:

1. Calculate the Single Moving Average from the data set. (St’)

2. Calculate the second moving average. (St”)

3. Calculate the at.

At = 2 (St’) – St” (2-2)

4. Calculate the bt.

Bt = 𝑡 𝑡 (2-3)

6. Calculate the forecasting.

Ft+m = At + Bt . M (2-4)

2.2.3 Double Exponential Smoothing (Browns Method)

Double Exponential Smoothing is an improvement of Simple Exponential

Smoothing, also known as Exponential Moving Average or (DEMA) which is the
recursive application of an exponential filter twice, thus being termed "double
exponential smoothing". Here are the steps:

1. Calculate the first exponential smoothing. (st’)

St’ = 𝛼. 𝑑𝑡 + (1 − 𝛼). S(t – 1) (2-5)

1.5
2. Calculate the second exponential smoothing. (st”)

St” = 𝛼. 𝑑𝑡 + (1 − 𝛼). S(t – 1)’ (2-6)

3. Calculate At.

At = 2 (St’) – St” (2-7)

4. Calculate Bt.

Bt = 𝑡 𝑡 (2-8)

5. Calculate the forecasting.

Ft + m = At + Bt. M (2-9)

2.2.4 Cyclic Method

Cyclic data patterns occur when the data series is affected by long-term
economic fluctuations such as those related to the business cycle. Cyclic variations
will usually return to normal every 10 or 20 years, it can also not be repeated in the
same time period. this distinguishes between cyclical and seasonal variations. There
are several product marketing that shows cyclic method, which are cars, steel, and
workshop things. Here are the formulas for cyclic method:

Dt' = a + b. cos [(2π/N)t] + c. sin [(2π/N)t] (2-10)

(1) Σ dt = a. n + b Σ cos [(2π/N)t] + c Σ sin [(2π/N)t] (2-11)

(2) Σ dt. cos [(2π/N)t] = a Σ cos [(2π/N)t] + b Σ cos2 [(2π/N)t] + c Σ sin [(2π/N)t]
cos [(2π/N)t] (2-12)

(3) Σ dt sin [(2π/N)t] = a Σ sin [(2π/N)t] + b Σ sin [(2π/N)t] cos [(2π/N)t]

+ c Σ sin2 [(2π/N)t] (2-13)

1.6
Where N is total period in 1 cycle and n is total period.

2.2.5 Linear Cyclic

Here are the formulas for linear cyclic method:

Dt' = a + bt + c. cos [(2π/N)t] + d sin [(2π/N)t] (2-14)

(1) Σ dt = a. n + b Σt + c Σ cos [(2π/N)t] + d Σ sin [(2π/N)t] (2-15)

(2) Σ dt.t = a. Σt + b Σt2 + c Σ t.cos [(2π/N)t] + d Σ t.sin [(2π/N)t] (2-16)

(3) Σ dt. cos [(2π/N)t]= a. Σcos [(2π/N)t] + b Σt.cos [(2π/N)t] + c Σ cos2 [(2π/N)t]
+ d Σ sin [(2π/N)t] cos [(2π/N)t] (2-17)

(4) Σ dt. sin [(2π/N)t]= a. Σsin [(2π/N)t] + b Σt.sin [(2π/N)t] + c Σ cos[(2π/N)t] sin
[(2π/N)t]+ d Σ sin2 [(2π/N)t] (2-18)

2.3 Measurement of Forecasting Error

Doing a forecasting, sometime there is an error in it and it can cause a biased.
Here are some of the measurements of forecasting error used for test the performance
of forecasting result:

2.3.1 Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) / Mean Absolute Error (MAE)

Mean absolute error (MAE) is a measure of difference between two

continuous variables. Assume X and Y are variables of paired observations that
express the same phenomenon. Examples of Y versus X include comparisons of
predicted versus observed, subsequent time versus initial time, and one technique of
measurement versus an alternative technique of measurement.

1.7
2.3.2 Mean Squared Error (MSE)
Mean squared error (MSE) of an estimator (of a procedure for estimating an
unobserved quantity) measures the average of the squares of the errors that is, the
average squared difference between the estimated values and what is estimated. MSE
is a risk function, corresponding to the expected value of the squared error loss. The
fact that MSE is almost always strictly positive (and not zero) is because of
randomness or because the estimator does not account for information that could
produce a more accurate estimate. Mean Squared Error (MSE) is measures the
average of the squares of the errors or deviations.

2.3.3 Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE)

The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), also known as mean absolute
percentage deviation (MAPD), is a measure of prediction accuracy of a forecasting
method in statistics, for example in trend estimation. It usually expresses accuracy as
a percentage, and is defined by the formula. Here is the formula:

PEt = [(dt – dt') / dt].100% (2-19)

MAPE = Σ PEt / n (2-20)
Where, PEt is the percentage of error during period t.

2.4 Scatter Diagram

Scatter plot (also called a scatterplot, scatter graph, scatter chart, or scatter
diagram) is plot or mathematical diagram using Cartesian coordinates to display
values for typically two variables for a set of data. If the points are color-coded, one
additional variable can be displayed. The Scatter Diagram Method is the simplest
method to study the correlation between two variables wherein the values for each
pair of a variable is plotted on a graph in the form of dots thereby obtaining as many

1.8
points as the number of observations. Then by looking at the scatter of several points,
the degree of correlation is ascertained.

2.5 Validation Test

For validation of forecasting model, this project used three tests which are
verification test, tracking signal, and IIDN.

2.5.1 Verification Test

Verification is the evaluation of whether or not a product, service, or system
complies with a regulation, requirement, specification, or imposed condition. It is
often an internal process.

2.5.2 Tracking signal Test

Tracking signal is a measure used to value if the actual demand does not
reflect the assumptions in the forecast about the level and perhaps trend in the
demand profile. In Statistical Process Control, people study when a process is going
out of control and needs intervention.

Similarly Tracking signal tries to flag if there is a persistent tendency for

actuals to be higher or lower systematically. If Forecast is consistently lower than the
actual demand quantity, then there is persistent under forecasting and Tracking Signal
will be positive.

Tracking Signal is calculated as the ratio of Cumulative Error divided by the

mean absolute deviation. The cumulative error can be positive or negative, so the TS
can be positive or negative as well. TS should pass a threshold test to be significant.
If Tracking Signal > 3.75 then there is persistent under forecasting. On the other
hand, if this is less than -3.75 then, there is persistent over-forecasting. So in essence,

1.9
|TS| > 3.75 implies a forecast bias ==> TS < -3.75 or TS > 3.75 implies a bias. So
what is magical about 3.75. This is an approximation using the relationship between a
normally distributed forecast error and the Mean Absolute deviation.

In General, Forecast Error (using RMSE) * 0.8 = MAD. At 99% promised

service level, you will be using a 3 Sigma level. As a measure of MAD, this translates
into 3.75 MAD hence the 3.75 as the threshold for TS.

2.5.3 Integrated and Independently Distributed Normalize

Normal distributions are important in statistics and are often used in the
natural and social sciences to represent real-valued random variables whose
distributions are not known. A random variable with a Gaussian distribution is said to
be normally distributed and is called a normal deviate. In its most general form, it
states that averages of samples of observations of random variables independently
drawn from independent distributions converge in distribution to the normal, that is,
become normally distributed when the number of observations is sufficiently large.

2.5.3.1 Normalization Test

Normalization is a database design technique which organizes tables in a
manner that reduces redundancy and dependency of data. Normalization of ratings
means adjusting values measured on different scales to a notionally common scale,
often prior to averaging. In more complicated cases, normalization may refer to more
sophisticated adjustments where the intention is to bring the entire probability
distributions of adjusted values into alignment. Normalization refers to the creation
of shifted and scaled versions of statistics, where the intention is that
these normalized values allow the comparison of corresponding normalized values
for different datasets in a way that eliminates the effects of certain gross influences,
as in an anomaly time series. Some types of normalization involve only a rescaling, to
arrive at values relative to some size variable.

1.10
2.5.2 Autocorrelation Test
Autocorrelation is a characteristic of data in which the correlation between the
values of the same variables is based on related objects. It violates the assumption of
instance independence, which underlies most of the conventional models. It
generally exists in those types of data-sets in which the data, instead of being
randomly selected, is from the same source.

The presence of autocorrelation is generally unexpected by the researcher. It

occurs mostly due to dependencies within the data. Its presence is a strong
motivation for those researchers who are interested in relational learning and
inference. Autocorrelation depicts various types of curves which show certain kinds
of patterns, for example, a curve that shows a discernible pattern among the residual
errors, a curve that shows a cyclical pattern of upward or downward movement, and
so on. Autocorrelation is a matter of degree, so it can be positive as well as negative.
If the series (like an economic series) depicts an upward or downward pattern, then
the series is considered to exhibit positive autocorrelation. If, on the other hand, the
series depicts a constant upward and downward pattern, then the series is considered
to exhibit negative autocorrelation.

1.11
 CHAPTER III

DATA COLLECTION

The table below shows the demand of Car Toy for the past 20 months.
Table 3.1 Demand of Car Toy

Month Demand (In Units)

Jan 2017 1,620
Feb 2017 1,674
Mar 2017 1,708
Apr 2017 1,782
May 2017 1,623
Jun 2017 980
Jul 2017 1,322
Aug 2017 1,567
Sep 2017 1,434
Oct 2017 1,609
Nov 2017 1,648
Dec 2017 1,540
Jan 2018 1,784
Feb 2018 1,688
Mar 2018 1,766
Apr 2018 1,876
May 2018 1,906
Jun 2018 1,136
Jul 2018 1,560
Aug 2018 1,715

1.12
 CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 Scatter Diagram for Demand

Figure 4.1 Scatterplot of Demand vs Month

Figure 4.2 Scatterplot of Demand vs Month with Connect Line

1.13
 From the scatter plot below, it shows the pattern of the data. It shows
fluctuations of the demands from January 2017 until August 2018. From January
2017 until April 2017 the trend is in the positive direction. The demand is decreasing
in May 2017 and it significantly decreasing in June 2017. The trends slowly increase
until May 2018. In June 2078 the trend is extremely decreasing, but starting to
increase in the following months. The conclusion is, this scatter plot is following the
seasonal pattern.

4.2. Forecasting Six Month Demand (September 2018-February 2019) using

Several Methods
The demand will be calculated by weighted moving average, double moving
average, double exponential smoothing-Brown, cyclic method, and linear cyclic
method.

4.2.1 Weighted Moving Average

A moving average is one of the most popular tools used by active traders to
measure momentum. The primary difference between the simple moving average and
the weighted moving average is the formula used to create them.

4.2.1.1 Forecast of six-month demand

Table 4.1 Forecast of Six Month Demand by Using Weighted Moving Average

WMA
Month Demand forecast demand n=3 forecast n=5 forecast n=7
1 1620
2 1674
3 1708
4 1782 1682
5 1623 1739.333
6 980 1690.167 1689

1.14
 WMA
Month Demand forecast demand n=3 forecast n=5 forecast n=7
7 1322 1328 1455.2
8 1567 1258.167 1378.067 1445.321
9 1434 1387.5 1406.067 1454.607
WMA
Month Demand forecast demand n=3 forecast n=5 forecast n=7
10 1609 1459.667 1399.133 1432.536
11 1648 1543.667 1473.733 1462.786
12 1540 1599.333 1562.267 1506.321
13 1784 1587.5 1570.267 1527.643
14 1688 1680 1645.067 1612.929
15 1766 1695.333 1673.4 1645.5
16 1876 1743 1710.8 1684.5
17 1906 1808 1774.4 1743.893
18 1136 1872.667 1832.8 1795
19 1560 1516 1610.133 1643
20 1715 1476.333 1572 1615.286
21 1566.833 1594.067 1625.607
22 1566.833 1594.067 1625.607
23 1566.833 1594.067 1625.607
24 1566.833 1594.067 1625.607
25 1566.833 1594.067 1625.607
26 1566.833 1594.067 1625.607

The table above shows the forecast of the demand from September 2018 until
February 2019. The calculation is categorized in N=3, N=5, N=7. The purpose of the
different value of N is to get the best forecast by trying different N.

4.2.1.2 Error Test

Table 4.2 Error Test Weighted Moving Average N=3

ERROR
N=3

dt-dt' (dt-dt')^2 Pet ABS PET ldt-dt'l

1.15
 ERROR
N=3

dt-dt' (dt-dt')^2 Pet ABS PET ldt-dt'l

100 10000 5.611672 5.611672 100

-116.333 13533.44 -7.1678 7.167796 116.3333
-710.167 504336.7 -72.466 72.46599 710.1667
-6 36 -0.45386 0.453858 6
308.8333 95378.03 19.70857 19.70857 308.8333
46.5 2162.25 3.242678 3.242678 46.5
149.3333 22300.44 9.281127 9.281127 149.3333
104.3333 10885.44 6.330906 6.330906 104.3333
-59.3333 3520.444 -3.85281 3.852814 59.33333
196.5 38612.25 11.01457 11.01457 196.5
8 64 0.473934 0.473934 8
70.66667 4993.778 4.00151 4.00151 70.66667
133 17689 7.089552 7.089552 133
98 9604 5.141658 5.141658 98
-736.667 542677.8 -64.8474 64.84742 736.6667
44 1936 2.820513 2.820513 44
238.6667 56961.78 13.91642 13.91642 238.6667
TOTAL 1334691 237.421 3126.333

MSE MAPE MAD

78511.25 13.96594 183.902

1.16
 Table 4.3 Error Test Weighted Moving Average N=5

ERROR n=5
dt-dt' (dt-dt')^2 Pet abs pet ldt-dt'l

-709 502681 -72.3469 72.34694 709

-133.2 17742.24 -10.0756 10.07564 133.2
188.9333 35695.8 12.05701 12.05701 188.9333
27.93333 780.2711 1.947931 1.947931 27.93333
209.8667 44044.02 13.0433 13.0433 209.8667
174.2667 30368.87 10.57443 10.57443 174.2667
-22.2667 495.8044 -1.44589 1.445887 22.26667
213.7333 45681.94 11.98057 11.98057 213.7333
42.93333 1843.271 2.543444 2.543444 42.93333
92.6 8574.76 5.243488 5.243488 92.6
165.2 27291.04 8.80597 8.80597 165.2
131.6 17318.56 6.904512 6.904512 131.6
-696.8 485530.2 -61.338 61.33803 696.8
-50.1333 2513.351 -3.21368 3.213675 50.13333
143 20449 8.338192 8.338192 143
1241010 229.859 3001.467

MSE MAPE MAD

82734.01 15.32393 200.0978

1.17
 Table 4.4 Error Test of Weighted Moving Average N=7

ERROR n=7
dt-dt' (dt-dt')^2 Pet abs pet ldt-dt'l

121.6786 14805.67 7.765065 7.765065 121.6786

-20.6071 424.6543 -1.43704 1.437039 20.60714
176.4643 31139.64 10.96733 10.96733 176.4643
185.2143 34304.33 11.23873 11.23873 185.2143
33.67857 1134.246 2.18692 2.18692 33.67857
256.3571 65718.98 14.3698 14.3698 256.3571
75.07143 5635.719 4.44736 4.44736 75.07143
120.5 14520.25 6.82333 6.82333 120.5
191.5 36672.25 10.20789 10.20789 191.5
162.1071 26278.73 8.505097 8.505097 162.1071
-659 434281 -58.0106 58.01056 659
-83 6889 -5.32051 5.320513 83
99.71429 9942.939 5.814244 5.814244 99.71429
681747.4 147.0939 2184.893

MSE MAPE MAD

52442.11 11.31491 168.0687

1.18
 N MSE MAPE MAD
3 78511.25 13.96594 183.902
5 83734.01 15.32393 200.0978
7 52443.11 11.31491 168.0687

4.2.1.3 Validation Test

This part contains the verification test, tracking signal test and the IIDN test
for the weighted moving average.

4.2.1.3.1. Verification Test

Table 4.5 Verification Test of Weighted Moving Average N=3

Verification Test N=3

Mrt Ucl Lcl 2/3 ucl 1/3 ucl 2/3 lcl 1/3 lcl

216.3333 1036.279 -1036.28 690.8524 345.4262 -690.852 -345.426

593.8333 1036.279 -1036.28 690.8524 345.4262 -690.852 -345.426
704.1667 1036.279 -1036.28 690.8524 345.4262 -690.852 -345.426
314.8333 1036.279 -1036.28 690.8524 345.4262 -690.852 -345.426
262.3333 1036.279 -1036.28 690.8524 345.4262 -690.852 -345.426

102.8333 1036.279 -1036.28 690.8524 345.4262 -690.852 -345.426

45 1036.279 -1036.28 690.8524 345.4262 -690.852 -345.426
163.6667 1036.279 -1036.28 690.8524 345.4262 -690.852 -345.426
255.8333 1036.279 -1036.28 690.8524 345.4262 -690.852 -345.426

1.19
Verification Test N=3

Mrt Ucl Lcl 2/3 ucl 1/3 ucl 2/3 lcl 1/3 lcl
188.5 1036.279 -1036.28 690.8524 345.4262 -690.852 -345.426
62.66667 1036.279 -1036.28 690.8524 345.4262 -690.852 -345.426
62.33333 1036.279 -1036.28 690.8524 345.4262 -690.852 -345.426
35 1036.279 -1036.28 690.8524 345.4262 -690.852 -345.426
834.6667 1036.279 -1036.28 690.8524 345.4262 -690.852 -345.426
780.6667 1036.279 -1036.28 690.8524 345.4262 -690.852 -345.426
194.6667 1036.279 -1036.28 690.8524 345.4262 -690.852 -345.426
1805.5 1036.279 -1036.28 690.8524 345.4262 -690.852 -345.426
MR 389.5784

Table above shows the verification test of N=3.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Figure 4.3 verification test of Weighted Moving Average N=3

1.20
 Table 4.6 Verification Test of Weighted Moving Average N=5

N=5
mrt Ucl Lcl 2/3 ucl 1/3 ucl 2/3 lcl 1/3 lcl

N=5
mrt Ucl Lcl 2/3 ucl 1/3 ucl 2/3 lcl 1/3 lcl

575.8 964.8588 -964.859 643.2392 321.6196 -643.239 -321.62

322.1333 964.8588 -964.859 643.2392 321.6196 -643.239 -321.62
161 964.8588 -964.859 643.2392 321.6196 -643.239 -321.62
181.9333 964.8588 -964.859 643.2392 321.6196 -643.239 -321.62
35.6 964.8588 -964.859 643.2392 321.6196 -643.239 -321.62
196.5333 964.8588 -964.859 643.2392 321.6196 -643.239 -321.62
236 964.8588 -964.859 643.2392 321.6196 -643.239 -321.62
170.8 964.8588 -964.859 643.2392 321.6196 -643.239 -321.62
49.66667 964.8588 -964.859 643.2392 321.6196 -643.239 -321.62
72.6 964.8588 -964.859 643.2392 321.6196 -643.239 -321.62
33.6 964.8588 -964.859 643.2392 321.6196 -643.239 -321.62
828.4 964.8588 -964.859 643.2392 321.6196 -643.239 -321.62
646.6667 964.8588 -964.859 643.2392 321.6196 -643.239 -321.62
193.1333 964.8588 -964.859 643.2392 321.6196 -643.239 -321.62
1737.067 964.8588 -964.859 643.2392 321.6196 -643.239 -321.62
MR 362.7289

1.21
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Figure 4.4 Verification Test of Weighted Moving Average N=5

Table 4.7 Verification Test of Weighted Moving Average N=7

Verification Test n=7

Mrt Ucl Lcl 2/3 ucl 1/3 ucl 2/3 lcl 1/3 lcl

142.2857 891.0123 -891.012 594.0082 297.0041 -594.008 -297.004

197.0714 891.0123 -891.012 594.0082 297.0041 -594.008 -297.004

1.22
Verification Test n=7

Mrt Ucl Lcl 2/3 ucl 1/3 ucl 2/3 lcl 1/3 lcl
8.75 891.0123 -891.012 594.0082 297.0041 -594.008 -297.004
151.5357 891.0123 -891.012 594.0082 297.0041 -594.008 -297.004
222.6786 891.0123 -891.012 594.0082 297.0041 -594.008 -297.004
181.2857 891.0123 -891.012 594.0082 297.0041 -594.008 -297.004
45.42857 891.0123 -891.012 594.0082 297.0041 -594.008 -297.004
71 891.0123 -891.012 594.0082 297.0041 -594.008 -297.004
29.39286 891.0123 -891.012 594.0082 297.0041 -594.008 -297.004
821.1071 891.0123 -891.012 594.0082 297.0041 -594.008 -297.004
576 891.0123 -891.012 594.0082 297.0041 -594.008 -297.004
182.7143 891.0123 -891.012 594.0082 297.0041 -594.008 -297.004
1725.321 891.0123 -891.012 594.0082 297.0041 -594.008 -297.004
MR 334.967

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Figure 4.5 Verification Test of Weighted Moving Average N=7

1.23
 Table 4.8 Tracking Signal of Weighted Moving Average N=3

1906.00 1808.00 98.00 231.00 98.00 231.00 16.50 14.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00

Tracking Signal
Test N=3
rsfe trackin
cum
g
dt dt' dt- cumulative ldt- mad Ucl Cl lcl
ldt-dt'l
dt' dt'l signal
1620.00
1674.00
1708.00
1782.00 1682.00 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.00 100.00 1.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00
0 0
1623.00 1739.33 - -16.33 116.3 216.33 108.17 -0.15 4.00 0.00 -4.00
116.3 3
3
980.00 1690.17 - -826.50 710.1 826.50 275.50 -3.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00
710.1 7
7
1322.00 1328.00 -6.00 -716.17 6.00 716.17 179.04 -4.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00
1567.00 1258.17 308.8 302.83 308.8 314.83 62.97 4.81 4.00 0.00 -4.00
3 3
1434.00 1387.50 46.50 355.33 46.50 355.33 59.22 6.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00
1609.00 1459.67 149.3 195.83 149.3 195.83 27.98 7.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00
3 3
1648.00 1543.67 104.3 253.67 104.3 253.67 31.71 8.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00
3 3
1540.00 1599.33 - 45.00 59.33 163.67 18.19 2.47 4.00 0.00 -4.00
59.33
1784.00 1587.50 196.5 137.17 196.5 255.83 25.58 5.36 4.00 0.00 -4.00
0 0
1688.00 1680.00 8.00 204.50 8.00 204.50 18.59 11.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00
1766.00 1695.33 70.67 78.67 70.67 78.67 6.56 12.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00
1876.00 1743.00 133.0 203.67 133.0 203.67 15.67 13.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00
0 0

1.24
1136.00 1872.67 -736.67 -638.67 736.67 834.67 55.64 -11.48 4.00 0.00 -4.00

1560.00 1516.00 44.00 -692.67 44.00 780.67 48.79 -14.20 4.00 0.00 -4.00

1715.00 1476.33 238.67 282.67 238.67 282.67 16.63 17.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00

1.25
 Table 4.9 Tracking Signal of Weighted Moving Average N=5

Tracking Signal
Test N=5
dt dt' dt-dt' rsfe ldt-dt'l cum mad tracking ucl cl lcl
ldt-
cumulati signal
ve dt'l
1620.00
1674.00
1708.00
1782.00
1623.00
980.00 1689.00 -709.00 -709.00 709.00 709.00 709.00 -1.00 4 0.00 -4.00
.
0
0
1322.00 1455.20 -133.20 -842.20 133.20 842.20 421.10 -2.00 4 0.00 -4.00
.
0
0
1567.00 1378.07 188.93 55.73 188.93 322.13 107.38 0.52 4 0.00 -4.00
.
0
0
1434.00 1406.07 27.93 216.87 27.93 216.87 54.22 4.00 4 0.00 -4.00
.
0
0
1609.00 1399.13 209.87 237.80 209.87 237.80 47.56 5.00 4 0.00 -4.00
.
0
0
1648.00 1473.73 174.27 384.13 174.27 384.13 64.02 6.00 4 0.00 -4.00
.
0
0
1540.00 1562.27 -22.27 152.00 22.27 196.53 28.08 5.41 4 0.00 -4.00
.
0
0
1784.00 1570.27 213.73 191.47 213.73 236.00 29.50 6.49 4 0.00 -4.00
.
0
0

1.26
Tracking Signal
Test N=5
dt dt' dt-dt' rsfe ldt-dt'l cum mad tracking ucl cl lcl
ldt-
cumulati signal
ve dt'l
1688.00 1645.07 42.93 256.67 42.93 256.67 28.52 9.00 4 0.00 -4.00
.
0
0
1766.00 1673.40 92.60 135.53 92.60 135.53 13.55 10.00 4 0.00 -4.00
.
0
0
1876.00 1710.80 165.20 257.80 165.20 257.80 23.44 11.00 4 0.00 -4.00
.
0
0
1906.00 1774.40 131.60 296.80 131.60 296.80 24.73 12.00 4 0.00 -4.00
.
0
0
1136.00 1832.80 -696.80 -565.20 696.80 828.40 63.72 -8.87 4 0.00 -4.00
.
0
0
1560.00 1610.13 -50.13 -746.93 50.13 746.93 53.35 -14.00 0.00
4 -4.00
.
0
0
1715.00 1572.00 143.00 92.87 143.00 193.13 12.88 7.21 0.00
4 -4.00
.
0
0

Table 4.10 Tracking Signal of Weighted Moving Average N=7

Tracking Signal
Test N=7
dt dt' dt-dt' rsfe ldt-dt'l cum mad tracking ucl cl Lcl
ldt-
cumulati signal
ve dt'l
1620.00

1.27
Tracking Signal
Test N=7
dt dt' dt-dt' rsfe ldt-dt'l cum mad tracking ucl cl Lcl
ldt-
cumulati signal
ve dt'l
1674.00
1708.00
1782.00
1623.00
980.00
1322.00
1567.00 1445.32 121.68 121.68 121.68 121.68 121.68 1.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00
1434.00 1454.61 -20.61 101.07 20.61 142.29 71.14 1.42 4.00 0.00 -4.00
1609.00 1432.54 176.46 155.86 176.46 197.07 65.69 2.37 4.00 0.00 -4.00
1648.00 1462.79 185.21 361.68 185.21 361.68 90.42 4.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00
1540.00 1506.32 33.68 218.89 33.68 218.89 43.78 5.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00
1784.00 1527.64 256.36 290.04 256.36 290.04 48.34 6.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00
1688.00 1612.93 75.07 331.43 75.07 331.43 47.35 7.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00
1766.00 1645.50 120.50 195.57 120.50 195.57 24.45 8.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00
1876.00 1684.50 191.50 312.00 191.50 312.00 34.67 9.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00
1906.00 1743.89 162.11 353.61 162.11 353.61 35.36 10.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00
1136.00 1795.00 -659.00 -496.89 659.00 821.11 74.65 -6.66 4.00 0.00 -4.00
1560.00 1643.00 -83.00 -742.00 83.00 742.00 61.83 -12.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00
1715.00 1615.29 99.71 16.71 99.71 182.71 14.05 1.19 4.00 0.00 -4.00

Normality Test

These hypotheses are used for all the data below.

H0 : residual is normally distributed.

1.28
H1 : residual is not normally distributed.

Mean 1591
StDev 166.1
18
AD 0.197
P-Value 0.868

Figure 4.6 normality test of weighted moving average N=3

The p value of the figure above is more than 0.05, so it is not normally distributed.

Figure 4.7 normality test weighted moving average N=5

1.29
The p value of the figure above is more than 0.05, so it is not normally distributed.

Figure 4.8 normality test of weighted moving average N=7

The p value of the figure above is more than 0.05, so it is normally distributed.

Autocorrelation Test

Autocorrelation Function for C1

1.30
 Figure 4.9 autocorrelation test weighted moving average N=3

Since the blue line touches the red line, it can be said that the residual are correlated
to each other and not independent or randomized.

Autocorrelation Function for C2

Figure 4.10 autocorrelation test weighted moving average N=5

Since the blue line touches the red line, it can be said that the residual are
correlated to each other and not independent or randomized.

Autocorrelation Function for

C3

Figure 4.11 autocorrelation test weighted moving average N=7

1.31
Since the blue line touches the red line, it can be said that the residual are correlated
to each other and not independent or randomized.

4.2.2 Double Moving Average

In this method, we also use moving average as our method but will be done twice.

4.2.2.1. Forecast of Six Month Demand

Table 4.11 Forecast of six month demand using Double Moving Average

Double Moving
Average N=3
month demand st' st" at bt ft+m
1 1620
2 1674
3 1708 1667.333
4 1782 1721.333
5 1623 1704.333 1697.667 1711 6.666667
6 980 1461.667 1629.111 1294.222 -167.444 1717.667
7 1322 1308.333 1491.444 1125.222 -183.111 1126.778
8 1567 1289.667 1353.222 1226.111 -63.5556 942.1111
9 1434 1441 1346.333 1535.667 94.66667 1162.556
10 1609 1536.667 1422.444 1650.889 114.2222 1630.333
11 1648 1563.667 1513.778 1613.556 49.88889 1765.111
12 1540 1599 1566.444 1631.556 32.55556 1663.444
13 1784 1657.333 1606.667 1708 50.66667 1664.111
14 1688 1670.667 1642.333 1699 28.33333 1758.667
15 1766 1746 1691.333 1800.667 54.66667 1727.333
16 1876 1776.667 1731.111 1822.222 45.55556 1855.333
17 1906 1849.333 1790.667 1908 58.66667 1867.778

1.32
 Double Moving
Average N=3
month demand st' st" at bt ft+m
18 1136 1639.333 1755.111 1523.556 -115.778 1966.667
19 1560 1534 1674.222 1393.778 -140.222 1407.778
20 1715 1470.333 1547.889 1392.778 -77.5556 1253.556
21 1315.222
22 1237.667
23 1160.111
24 1082.556
25 1005
26 927.4444

Table above shows the forecast of six month demand N=3.

Table 4.12 Forecast of six month demand using Double Moving Average

Double Moving
Average N=5
month demand st' st" at bt ft+m
1 1620
2 1674
3 1708
4 1782
5 1623 1681.4
6 980 1553.4
7 1322 1483
8 1567 1454.8
9 1434 1385.2 1511.56 1258.84 -63.18
10 1609 1382.4 1451.76 1313.04 -34.68 1195.66

1.33
 Double Moving
Average N=5
month demand st' st" at bt ft+m
11 1648 1516 1444.28 1587.72 35.86 1278.36
12 1540 1559.6 1459.6 1659.6 50 1623.58
13 1784 1603 1489.24 1716.76 56.88 1709.6
14 1688 1653.8 1542.96 1764.64 55.42 1773.64
15 1766 1685.2 1603.52 1766.88 40.84 1820.06
16 1876 1730.8 1646.48 1815.12 42.16 1807.72
17 1906 1804 1695.36 1912.64 54.32 1857.28
18 1136 1674.4 1709.64 1639.16 -17.62 1966.96
19 1560 1648.8 1708.64 1588.96 -29.92 1621.54
20 1715 1638.6 1699.32 1577.88 -30.36 1559.04
21 1547.52
22 1517.16
23 1486.8
24 1456.44
25 1426.08
26 1395.72

Table above shows the forecast of six month demand N=5.

Table 4.13 forecast of six month demand using double moving average N=7.

Double Moving
Average N=7
Month demand st' st" at bt ft=m
1 1620
2 1674
3 1708

1.34
 Double Moving
Average N=7
Month demand st' st" at bt ft=m
4 1782
5 1623
6 980
7 1322 1529.857
8 1567 1522.286
9 1434 1488
10 1609 1473.857
11 1648 1454.714
12 1540 1442.857
13 1784 1557.714 1495.612 1619.816 20.49367
14 1688 1610 1507.061 1712.939 33.9698 1640.31
15 1766 1638.429 1523.653 1753.204 37.87592 1746.909
16 1876 1701.571 1554.163 1848.98 48.64469 1791.08
17 1906 1744 1592.755 1895.245 49.91082 1897.624
18 1136 1670.857 1623.633 1718.082 15.58408 1945.156
19 1560 1673.714 1656.612 1690.816 5.643673 1733.666
20 1715 1663.857 1671.776 1655.939 -2.61306 1696.46
21 1653.326
22 1650.713
23 1648.1
24 1645.487
25 1642.873
26 1640.26

Table above shows forecast of six month demand N=7.

1.35
 Table 4.14 Error test of Double Moving Average N=3

ERROR N=3
dt-dt' (dt-dt')^2 Pet ABS PET ldt-dt'l

-737.667 544152.1 -75.2721 75.27211 737.6667

195.2222 38111.72 14.76719 14.76719 195.2222
624.8889 390486.1 39.87804 39.87804 624.8889
271.4444 73682.09 18.92918 18.92918 271.4444
-21.3333 455.1111 -1.32588 1.325875 21.33333
-117.111 13715.01 -7.10626 7.106257 117.1111
-123.444 15238.53 -8.01587 8.015873 123.4444
119.8889 14373.35 6.720229 6.720229 119.8889
-70.6667 4993.778 -4.18641 4.186414 70.66667
38.66667 1495.111 2.189505 2.189505 38.66667
20.66667 427.1111 1.101635 1.101635 20.66667
38.22222 1460.938 2.005363 2.005363 38.22222
-830.667 690007.1 -73.1221 73.12207 830.6667
152.2222 23171.6 9.757835 9.757835 152.2222
461.4444 212931 26.90638 26.90638 461.4444
total 2024701 291.284 3823.556

MSE MAPE MAD

134980 19.41893 254.9037

1.36
 Table 4.15 Error test of Double Moving Average N=5

ERROR N=5
dt-dt' (dt-dt')^2 Pet ABS PET ldt-dt'l

413.34 170850 25.68925 25.68925 413.34

369.64 136633.7 22.42961 22.42961 369.64
-83.58 6985.616 -5.42727 5.427273 83.58
74.4 5535.36 4.170404 4.170404 74.4
-85.64 7334.21 -5.07346 5.07346 85.64
-54.06 2922.484 -3.06116 3.061155 54.06
68.28 4662.158 3.639659 3.639659 68.28
48.72 2373.638 2.556139 2.556139 48.72
-830.96 690494.5 -73.1479 73.14789 830.96
-61.54 3787.172 -3.94487 3.944872 61.54
155.96 24323.52 9.093878 9.093878 155.96
1055902 158.2336 2246.12

MSE MAPE MAD

95991.12 14.38487 204.1927

1.37
 Table 4.16 Error test of Double Moving Average N=7

ERROR N=7
dt-dt' (dt-dt')^2 Pet ABS PET ldt-dt'l

47.69 2274.336 2.825237 2.825237 47.69

19.09143 364.4826 1.081055 1.081055 19.09143
84.92 7211.406 4.526652 4.526652 84.92
8.375714 70.15259 0.439439 0.439439 8.375714
-809.156 654733 -71.2285 71.2285 809.1557
-173.666 30159.78 -11.1324 11.13242 173.6657
18.54 343.7316 1.08105 1.08105 18.54
695156.9 92.31435 1161.439

MSE MAPE MAD

99308.12 13.18776 165.9198

1.38
 Table 4.17 error test comparison

N MSE MAPE MAD

3 134980 19.41893 254.9037
5 95991.12 14.38487 204.1927
7 99308.12 13.18776 165.9198

Based on the table above, we can see that N=7 got the smallest error test.
Table 4.18 verification test of double moving average

n=3
mrt Ucl Lcl 2/3 ucl 1/3 ucl 2/3 lcl 1/3 lcl

932.8889 1175.247 -1175.25 783.4981 391.749 -783.498 -391.749

429.6667 1175.247 -1175.25 783.4981 391.749 -783.498 -391.749
353.4444 1175.247 -1175.25 783.4981 391.749 -783.498 -391.749
292.7778 1175.247 -1175.25 783.4981 391.749 -783.498 -391.749
95.77778 1175.247 -1175.25 783.4981 391.749 -783.498 -391.749
6.333333 1175.247 -1175.25 783.4981 391.749 -783.498 -391.749
243.3333 1175.247 -1175.25 783.4981 391.749 -783.498 -391.749
190.5556 1175.247 -1175.25 783.4981 391.749 -783.498 -391.749
109.3333 1175.247 -1175.25 783.4981 391.749 -783.498 -391.749
18 1175.247 -1175.25 783.4981 391.749 -783.498 -391.749
17.55556 1175.247 -1175.25 783.4981 391.749 -783.498 -391.749

1.39
 868.8889 1175.247 -1175.25 783.4981 391.749 -783.498 -391.749
982.8889 1175.247 -1175.25 783.4981 391.749 -783.498 -391.749
309.2222 1175.247 -1175.25 783.4981 391.749 -783.498 -391.749
1776.667 1175.247 -1175.25 783.4981 391.749 -783.498 -391.749
Table above shows verification test of N=3.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Figure 4.12 Verification test of N=3

Table 4.19 Verification test using double moving average

n=5
mrt Ucl lcl 2/3 ucl 1/3 ucl 2/3 lcl 1/3 lcl

1.40
43.7 1102.328 -1102.33 734.8855 367.4427 -734.885 -734.885
453.22 1102.328 -1102.33 734.8855 367.4427 -734.885 -734.885
157.98 1102.328 -1102.33 734.8855 367.4427 -734.885 -734.885
160.04 1102.328 -1102.33 734.8855 367.4427 -734.885 -734.885
31.58 1102.328 -1102.33 734.8855 367.4427 -734.885 -734.885
122.34 1102.328 -1102.33 734.8855 367.4427 -734.885 -734.885
19.56 1102.328 -1102.33 734.8855 367.4427 -734.885 -734.885
879.68 1102.328 -1102.33 734.8855 367.4427 -734.885 -734.885
769.42 1102.328 -1102.33 734.8855 367.4427 -734.885 -734.885
217.5 1102.328 -1102.33 734.8855 367.4427 -734.885 -734.885
1703.48 1102.328 -1102.33 734.8855 367.4427 -734.885 -734.885

1.41
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Figure 4.13 verification test using double moving average

Table 4.20 Verification test using double moving average

n=7
mrt Ucl Lcl 2/3 ucl 1/3 ucl 2/3 lcl 1/3 lcl

1.42
 n=7
mrt Ucl Lcl 2/3 ucl 1/3 ucl 2/3 lcl 1/3 lcl

28.59857 1325.464 -1325.46 883.643 441.8215 -883.643 -441.821

65.82857 1325.464 -1325.46 883.643 441.8215 -883.643 -441.821
76.54429 1325.464 -1325.46 883.643 441.8215 -883.643 -441.821
817.5314 1325.464 -1325.46 883.643 441.8215 -883.643 -441.821
635.49 1325.464 -1325.46 883.643 441.8215 -883.643 -441.821
192.2057 1325.464 -1325.46 883.643 441.8215 -883.643 -441.821
1671.866 1325.464 -1325.46 883.643 441.8215 -883.643 -441.821

1.43
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Figure 4.14 Verification test using double moving average

Table 4.21 Tracking Signal Test Using Double Moving Average

rsfe cum ldt- trackin
g
dt dt' dt-dt' cumulati ldt-dt'l dt'l mad ucl cl lcl
ve signal
1620
1674
1708
1782
1623
980 1717.667 - -737.667 737.6667 737.6667 737.6667 -1 4 0 -4
737.667
1322 1126.778 195.222 -542.444 195.2222 932.8889 466.4444 -1.16293 4 0 -4
2
1567 942.1111 624.888 820.1111 624.8889 820.1111 273.3704 3 4 0 -4
9
1434 1162.556 271.444 896.3333 271.4444 896.3333 224.0833 4 4 0 -4
4
1609 1630.333 - 250.1111 21.33333 292.7778 58.55556 4.27134 4 0 -4
21.3333 7
1648 1765.111 - -138.444 117.1111 138.4444 23.07407 -6 4 0 -4
117.111

1.44
 rsfe cum ldt- trackin
g
dt dt' dt-dt' cumulati ldt-dt'l dt'l mad ucl cl lcl
ve signal
1540 1663.444 - -240.556 123.4444 240.5556 34.36508 -7 4 0 -4
123.444
1784 1664.111 119.888 -3.55556 119.8889 243.3333 30.41667 -0.11689 4 0 -4
9
1688 1758.667 - 49.22222 70.66667 190.5556 21.17284 2.32478 4 0 -4
70.6667 1
1766 1727.333 38.6666 -32 38.66667 109.3333 10.93333 -2.92683 4 0 -4
7
1876 1855.333 20.6666 59.33333 20.66667 59.33333 5.393939 11 4 0 -4
7
1906 1867.778 38.2222 58.88889 38.22222 58.88889 4.907407 12 4 0 -4
2
1136 1966.667 -830.667 -792.444 830.6667 868.8889 66.83761 -11.8563 4 0 -4
1560 1407.778 152.222 -678.444 152.2222 982.8889 70.20635 -9.66358 4 0 -4
2
1715 1253.556 461.444 613.6667 461.4444 613.6667 40.91111 15 4 0 -4
4
Table above shows tracking signal test of N=3.

Table 4.22 Tracking signal test using double moving average

rsfe cum ldt- trackin

g
dt dt' dt-dt' cumulat ldt-dt'l dt'l mad ucl cl lcl
ive signal
1620
1674
1708
1782
1623
980
1322
1567
1434

1.45
 rsfe cum ldt- trackin
g
dt dt' dt-dt' cumulat ldt-dt'l dt'l mad ucl cl lcl
ive signal
1609 1195.66 413.34 413.34 413.34 413.34 413.34 1 4 0 -4
1648 1278.36 369.64 782.98 369.64 782.98 391.49 2 4 0 -4
1540 1623.58 -83.58 286.06 83.58 453.22 151.0733 1.89351 4 0 -4
7
1784 1709.6 74.4 -9.18 74.4 157.98 39.495 - 4 0 -4
0.23243
1688 1773.64 -85.64 -11.24 85.64 160.04 32.008 - 4 0 -4
0.35116
1766 1820.06 -54.06 -139.7 54.06 139.7 23.28333 -6 4 0 -4
1876 1807.72 68.28 14.22 68.28 122.34 17.47714 0.81363 4 0 -4
4
1906 1857.28 48.72 117 48.72 117 14.625 8 4 0 -4
1136 1966.96 -830.96 -782.24 830.96 879.68 97.74222 - 4 0 -4
8.00309
1560 1621.54 -61.54 -892.5 61.54 892.5 89.25 -10 4 0 -4
1715 1559.04 155.96 94.42 155.96 217.5 19.77273 4.77526 4 0 -4
4
Table above shows tracking signal test of N=5.

Table 4.23 Tracking signal test using double moving average

rsfe cum ldt- trackin
g
dt dt' dt-dt' cumulati ldt-dt'l dt'l mad ucl cl Lcl
ve signal
1620
1674
1708
1782
1623
980
1322

1.46
 rsfe cum ldt- trackin
g
dt dt' dt-dt' cumulati ldt-dt'l dt'l mad ucl cl Lcl
ve signal
1567
1434
1609
1648
1540
1784
1688 1640.31 47.69 47.69 47.69 47.69 47.69 1 4 0 -4
1766 1746.909 19.09143 66.78143 19.09143 66.78143 33.39071 2 4 0 -4
1876 1791.08 84.92 104.0114 84.92 104.0114 34.67048 3 4 0 -4
1906 1897.624 8.375714 93.29571 8.375714 93.29571 23.32393 4 4 0 -4
-
1136 1945.156 -809.156 -800.78 809.1557 817.5314 163.5063 4.89755 4 0 -4
1560 1733.666 -173.666 -982.821 173.6657 982.8214 163.8036 -6 4 0 -4
-
1715 1696.46 18.54 -155.126 18.54 192.2057 27.45796 5.64957 4 0 -4

Table above shows tracking signal test of N=7.

1.47
Normality Test

Mean 1440

StDev 339.8

N 21

AD 0.720

P-Value 0.051

Figure 4.15 Normality test double moving average N=3

The p value of the figure above is more than 0.05, so it is not normally distributed.

Mean 1591

StDev 211.8

N 17

AD 0.156

P-Value 0.944

Figure 4.16 Normality test double moving average N=5

1.48
The p value of the figure above is more than 0.05, so it is not normally distributed.

Mean 1718

StDev 103.0

N 13

AD 1.204

P-Value <0.005

Figure 4.17 Normality test double moving average N=7

The p value of the figure above is less than 0.05, so it is normally distributed.

Autocorrelation Test

Autocorrelation Function for C6

La
Figure 4.18 Autocorrelation test double moving average N=3

1.49
Since the blue line touches the red line, it can be said that the residual are correlated
to each other and not independent or randomized.

Autocorrelation Function for C7

Figure 4.19 Autocorrelation test Double Moving Average N=5

Since the blue line touches the red line, it can be said that the residual are correlated
to each other and not independent or randomized.

Autocorrelation Function for C8

Figure 4.20 Autocorrelation test double moving average N=7

1.50
Since the blue line touches the red line, it can be said that the residual are correlated
to each other and not independent or randomized.

4.2.3 Double Exponential Smoothing (DES)-Brown Method

The double exponential smoothing is based on averaging past values of a series on a
decreasing or exponential manner.

4.2.3.1 Forecast of Six Month Demand (September 2018-February 2019)

1.51
Table 4.24 Forecast of Six Month Demand by Using Double Exponential Smoothing α=
0,1

St'
Month Dt (a=0,1) St'' at bt Ft+m

Jan-17 1620 1620,00 1620,00

Feb-17 1674 1625,40 1620,54 1630,26 0,54

Mar-17 1708 1633,66 1621,85 1645,47 1,31 1630,80

Apr-17 1782 1648,49 1624,52 1672,47 2,66 1646,78

Mei-17 1623 1645,94 1626,66 1665,23 2,14 1675,14

Jun-17 980 1579,35 1621,93 1536,77 -4,73 1667,37

Jul-17 1322 1553,62 1615,10 1492,13 -6,83 1532,04

Agt-17 1567 1554,95 1609,08 1500,82 -6,01 1485,30

Sep-17 1434 1542,86 1602,46 1483,26 -6,62 1494,81

Okt-17 1609 1549,47 1597,16 1501,78 -5,30 1476,63

Nov-17 1648 1559,33 1593,38 1525,27 -3,78 1496,48

Des-17 1540 1557,39 1589,78 1525,01 -3,60 1521,49

Jan-18 1784 1580,05 1588,81 1571,30 -0,97 1521,41

Feb-18 1688 1590,85 1589,01 1592,69 0,20 1570,33

Mar-18 1766 1608,36 1590,95 1625,78 1,94 1592,89

1.52
 Apr-18 1876 1635,13 1595,36 1674,89 4,42 1627,72

Dt St' St'' at bt Ft+m

Month (a=0,1)

Mei-18 1906 1662,21 1602,05 1722,38 6,69 1679,31

Jun-18 1136 1609,59 1602,80 1616,38 0,75 1729,06

Jul-18 1560 1604,63 1602,99 1606,28 0,18 1617,14

Agt-18 1715 1615,67 1604,25 1627,09 1,27 1606,46

Sep-18 1628,35

Okt-18 1629,62

Nov-18 1630,89

Des-18 1632,16

Jan-19 1633,43

Feb-19 1634,70

The table above shows the forecast for the next six months for α = 0,1.

Table 4.25 Forecast of Six Month Demand by Using Double Exponential Smoothing α=
0,5

St'
Month (a=0,5) St'' at bt Ft+m

Jan-17 1620,00 1620,00

Feb-17 1647,00 1633,50 1660,50 13,50

Mar-17 1677,50 1655,50 1699,50 22,00 1674,00

Apr-17 1729,75 1692,63 1766,88 37,13 1721,50

1.53
 St'
Month (a=0,5) St'' at bt Ft+m

Mei-17 1676,38 1684,50 1668,25 -8,13 1804,00

Jun-17 1328,19 1506,34 1150,03 -178,16 1660,13

Jul-17 1325,09 1415,72 1234,47 -90,63 971,88

Agt-17 1446,05 1430,88 1461,21 15,16 1143,84

Sep-17 1440,02 1435,45 1444,59 4,57 1476,38

Okt-17 1524,51 1479,98 1569,04 44,53 1449,16

Nov-17 1586,26 1533,12 1639,39 53,14 1613,57

Des-17 1563,13 1548,12 1578,13 15,00 1692,53

Jan-18 1673,56 1610,84 1736,28 62,72 1593,14

Feb-18 1680,78 1645,81 1715,75 34,97 1799,00

Mar-18 1723,39 1684,60 1762,18 38,79 1750,72

Apr-18 1799,70 1742,15 1857,24 57,55 1800,97

Mei-18 1852,85 1797,50 1908,20 55,35 1914,79

Jun-18 1494,42 1645,96 1342,89 -151,54 1963,55

Jul-18 1527,21 1586,59 1467,84 -59,37 1191,35

Agt-18 1621,11 1603,85 1638,37 17,26 1408,46

Sep-18 1655,63

Okt-18 1672,89

Nov-18 1690,14

1.54
 St'
Month (a=0,5) St'' at bt Ft+m

Des-18 1707,40

Jan-19 1724,66

Feb-19 1741,92

The table above shows the forecast for the next six months for α = 0,5.

Table 4.26 Forecast of Six Month Demand by Using Double Exponential Smoothing α=
0,9

St'
Month (a=0,9) St'' at bt Ft+m

Jan-17 1620,00 1620,00

Feb-17 1668,60 1663,74 1673,46 43,74

Mar-17 1704,06 1700,03 1708,09 36,29 1717,20

Apr-17 1774,21 1766,79 1781,62 66,76 1744,38

Mei-17 1638,12 1650,99 1625,25 -115,80 1848,38

Jun-17 1045,81 1106,33 985,29 -544,66 1509,45

Jul-17 1294,38 1275,58 1313,19 169,25 440,64

Agt-17 1539,74 1513,32 1566,15 237,75 1482,43

Sep-17 1444,57 1451,45 1437,70 -61,87 1803,90

1.55
 St'
Month (a=0,9) St'' at bt Ft+m

Okt-17 1592,56 1578,45 1606,67 127,00 1375,83

Nov-17 1642,46 1636,05 1648,86 57,61 1733,67

Des-17 1550,25 1558,83 1541,66 -77,23 1706,46

Jan-18 1760,62 1740,44 1780,80 181,62 1464,44

Feb-18 1695,26 1699,78 1690,74 -40,66 1962,42

Mar-18 1758,93 1753,01 1764,84 53,23 1650,08

Apr-18 1864,29 1853,16 1875,42 100,15 1818,07

Mei-18 1901,83 1896,96 1906,70 43,80 1975,57

Jun-18 1212,58 1281,02 1144,14 -615,94 1950,49

Jul-18 1525,26 1500,83 1549,68 219,81 528,20

Agt-18 1696,03 1676,51 1715,54 175,67 1769,50

Sep-18 1891,22

Okt-18 2066,89

Nov-18 2242,56

Des-18 2418,23

Jan-19 2593,91

Feb-19 2769,58

The table above shows the forecast for the next six months for α = 0,9.

4.2.3.2 Error Test

1.56
Table 4.27 Error Test of Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,1

Error Test α=0,1

|dt-dt'| (dt-dt')^2 Pet

77,20 5959,84 4,52

135,22 18284,45 7,59

52,14 2718,16 3,21

687,37 472481,64 70,14

210,04 44117,32 15,89

81,70 6674,55 5,21

60,81 3697,90 4,24

132,37 17520,76 8,23

151,52 22956,87 9,19

18,51 342,66 1,20

262,59 68954,76 14,72

117,67 13846,80 6,97

173,11 29967,25 9,80

248,28 61645,08 13,23

226,69 51389,34 11,89

593,06 351725,33 52,21

57,14 3264,58 3,66

1.57
 108,54 11780,16 6,33

SUM 3393,96 1187327,44 248,24

Average 188,55 65962,64 13,79

The MAD is 188,55, the MSE is 65962,64 and the MAPE is 13,79% for the double
exponential smoothing α =0,1.

Table 4.28 Error Test of Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,5

Error Test α=0,5

|dt-dt'| (dt-dt')^2 PEt

34,00 1156,00 1,99

60,50 3660,25 3,40

181,00 32761,00 11,15

680,13 462570,02 69,40

350,13 122587,52 26,48

423,16 179061,21 27,00

42,38 1795,64 2,96

159,84 25547,53 9,93

34,43 1185,40 2,09

152,53 23265,19 9,90

190,86 36428,79 10,70

1.58
 111,00 12321,98 6,58

15,28 233,47 0,87

|dt-dt'| (dt-dt')^2 PEt

75,03 5629,63 4,00

8,79 77,25 0,46

827,55 684833,68 72,85

368,65 135903,18 23,63

306,54 93965,04 17,87

SUM 4021,78 1822982,77 301,26

AVERGARE 223,43 101276,82 16,74

The MAD is 223,43 the MSE is 101276,82 and the MAPE is 16,74% for the double
exponential smoothing α =0,5.

Table 4.29 Error Test of Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,9

Error Test α=0,9

|dt-dt'| (dt-dt')^2 PEt

9,20 84,64 0,54

37,62 1415,26 2,11

225,38 50797,95 13,89

1.59
 529,45 280320,48 54,03

881,36 776801,16 66,67

84,57 7151,61 5,40

|dt-dt'| (dt-dt')^2 PEt

369,90 136826,16 25,79

233,17 54370,25 14,49

85,67 7338,69 5,20

166,46 27710,59 10,81

319,56 102120,94 17,91

274,42 75307,77 16,26

115,92 13437,41 6,56

57,93 3355,68 3,09

69,57 4840,48 3,65

814,49 663400,47 71,70

1031,80 1064604,92 66,14

54,50 2969,78 3,18

SUM 5360,99 3272854,22 387,41

AVERAGE 297,83 181825,23 21,52

The MAD is 297,81, the MSE is 181825,23 and the MAPE is 21,52% for the double
exponential smoothing α =0,9.

1.60
For the error test, in double exponential smoothing, the smallest values of MAD,
MSE and MAPE are achieved by α =0,1.

4.2.3.3 Validation Test

This part contains the verification test, tracking signal test and the IIDN test for the
double exponential smoothing.

4.2.3.3.1Verification Test

Table 4.30 Verification Test of Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,1

dt dt' MRt UCL 2/3 UCL 1/3UCL LCL 2/3LCL 1/3 LCL

1620

1674

1708 1630,80 657,190 438,126 219,063 -657,190 -438,126 -219,063

1782 1646,78 58,02 657,190 438,126 219,063 -657,190 -438,126 -219,063

1623 1675,14 187,36 657,190 438,126 219,063 -657,190 -438,126 -219,063

980 1667,37 635,24 657,190 438,126 219,063 -657,190 -438,126 -219,063

1322 1532,04 477,33 657,190 438,126 219,063 -657,190 -438,126 -219,063

1567 1485,30 291,74 657,190 438,126 219,063 -657,190 -438,126 -219,063

1434 1494,81 142,51 657,190 438,126 219,063 -657,190 -438,126 -219,063

1609 1476,63 193,18 657,190 438,126 219,063 -657,190 -438,126 -219,063

1648 1496,48 19,15 657,190 438,126 219,063 -657,190 -438,126 -219,063

1540 1521,49 133,00 657,190 438,126 219,063 -657,190 -438,126 -219,063

1784 1521,41 244,08 657,190 438,126 219,063 -657,190 -438,126 -219,063

1.61
 dt dt' MRt UCL 2/3 UCL 1/3UCL LCL 2/3LCL 1/3 LCL

1688 1570,33 144,92 657,190 438,126 219,063 -657,190 -438,126 -219,063

1766 1592,89 55,44 657,190 438,126 219,063 -657,190 -438,126 -219,063

1876 1627,72 75,17 657,190 438,126 219,063 -657,190 -438,126 -219,063

1906 1679,31 21,59 657,190 438,126 219,063 -657,190 -438,126 -219,063

1136 1729,06 819,76 657,190 438,126 219,063 -657,190 -438,126 -219,063

1560 1617,14 535,93 657,190 438,126 219,063 -657,190 -438,126 -219,063

1715 1606,46 165,67 657,190 438,126 219,063 -657,190 -438,126 -219,063

MR 247,064

The table above shows the calculation of the double exponential smoothing
verification test of α = 0,1.

1.62
 MRt
UCL

LCL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 2/3LCL

CL

Figure 4.21 Verification Test Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,1

The figure above shows the double exponential smoothing α = 0,1 verification test in
line chart. It is seen that point 15 is above the UCL. This test shows that the result of
the double exponential smoothing α = 0,1 is not in control.

Table 4.31 Verification Test of Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,5

dt' MRt UCL 2/3 UCL 1/3UCL LCL 2/3LCL 1/3 LCL
dt
1620

1674

1708 1674,00 914,210 609,474 304,737 -914,210 -609,474 -304,737

1782 1721,50 26,50 914,210 609,474 304,737 -914,210 -609,474 -304,737

1.63
1623 1804,00 241,50 914,210 609,474 304,737 -914,210 -609,474 -304,737

980 1660,13 499,13 914,210 609,474 304,737 -914,210 -609,474 -304,737

1322 971,88 1030,25 914,210 609,474 304,737 -914,210 -609,474 -304,737

1567 1143,84 73,03 914,210 609,474 304,737 -914,210 -609,474 -304,737

1434 1476,38 465,53 914,210 609,474 304,737 -914,210 -609,474 -304,737

1609 1449,16 202,21 914,210 609,474 304,737 -914,210 -609,474 -304,737

1648 1613,57 125,41 914,210 609,474 304,737 -914,210 -609,474 -304,737

1540 1692,53 186,96 914,210 609,474 304,737 -914,210 -609,474 -304,737

1784 1593,14 343,39 914,210 609,474 304,737 -914,210 -609,474 -304,737

1688 1799,00 301,87 914,210 609,474 304,737 -914,210 -609,474 -304,737

1766 1750,72 126,28 914,210 609,474 304,737 -914,210 -609,474 -304,737

1876 1800,97 59,75 914,210 609,474 304,737 -914,210 -609,474 -304,737

1906 1914,79 83,82 914,210 609,474 304,737 -914,210 -609,474 -304,737

1136 1963,55 818,76 914,210 609,474 304,737 -914,210 -609,474 -304,737

dt' MRt UCL 2/3 UCL 1/3UCL LCL 2/3LCL 1/3 LCL
dt
1560 1191,35 1196,20 914,210 609,474 304,737 -914,210 -609,474 -304,737

1715 1408,46 62,11 914,210 609,474 304,737 -914,210 -609,474 -304,737

MR 343,688

The table above shows the calculation of the double exponential smoothing
verification test of α = 0,5.

1.64
 1000,00 MRt
UCL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 LCL

Figure 4.22 Verification Test Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,5

The figure above shows the double exponential smoothing α = 0,5 verification test in
line chart. It is seen that point 4 and 16 are above the UCL. This test shows that the
result of the double exponential smoothing α = 0,5 is not in control.

Table 4.32 Verification Test of Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,9

dt dt' MRt UCL 2/3 UCL 1/3UCL LCL 2/3LCL 1/3 LCL

1620

1674

1708 1717,20 1504,002 1002,668 501,334 -1504,002 -1002,668 -501,334

1782 1744,38 46,82 1504,002 1002,668 501,334 -1504,002 -1002,668 -501,334

1623 1848,38 263,00 1504,002 1002,668 501,334 -1504,002 -1002,668 -501,334

1.65
 dt dt' MR UCL 2/3 1/3UC LCL 2/3LC 1/3
t UCL L L LCL
980 1509, 304, 1504,0 1002,66 501,33 - - -
45 07 02 8 4 1504,00 1002,6 501,3
2 68 34
1322 440,6 141 1504,0 1002,66 501,33 - - -
4 0,82 02 8 4 1504,00 1002,6 501,3
2 68 34
1567 1482, 796, 1504,0 1002,66 501,33 - - -
43 80 02 8 4 1504,00 1002,6 501,3
2 68 34
1434 1803, 454, 1504,0 1002,66 501,33 - - -
90 47 02 8 4 1504,00 1002,6 501,3
2 68 34
1609 1375, 603, 1504,0 1002,66 501,33 - - -
83 07 02 8 4 1504,00 1002,6 501,3
2 68 34
1648 1733, 318, 1504,0 1002,66 501,33 - - -
67 84 02 8 4 1504,00 1002,6 501,3
2 68 34
1540 1706, 80,8 1504,0 1002,66 501,33 - - -
46 0 02 8 4 1504,00 1002,6 501,3
2 68 34
1784 1464, 486, 1504,0 1002,66 501,33 - - -
44 03 02 8 4 1504,00 1002,6 501,3
2 68 34
1688 1962, 593, 1504,0 1002,66 501,33 - - -
42 99 02 8 4 1504,00 1002,6 501,3
2 68 34
1766 1650, 390, 1504,0 1002,66 501,33 - - -
08 34 02 8 4 1504,00 1002,6 501,3
2 68 34
1876 1818, 57,9 1504,0 1002,66 501,33 - - -
07 9 02 8 4 1504,00 1002,6 501,3
2 68 34
1906 1975, 127, 1504,0 1002,66 501,33 - - -
57 50 02 8 4 1504,00 1002,6 501,3
2 68 34
1136 1950, 744, 1504,0 1002,66 501,33 - - -
49 92 02 8 4 1504,00 1002,6 501,3
2 68 34
1560 528,2 184 1504,0 1002,66 501,33 - - -
0 6,29 02 8 4 1504,00 1002,6 501,3
2 68 34
1715 1769, 108 1504,0 1002,66 501,33 - - -
50 6,29 02 8 4 1504,00 1002,6 501,3
2 68 34

1.66
 MR 565,
41

The table above shows the calculation of the double exponential smoothing
verification test of α = 0,9.

MRt
UCL

LCL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

2/3LCL

Figure 4.23 Verification Test Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,9

The figure above shows the double exponential smoothing α = 0,9 verification test in
line chart. It is seen that point 16 is above the UCL. This test shows that the result of
the double exponential smoothing α = 0,9 is not in control.

4.2.3.3.2 Tracking Signal Test

Table 4.33 Tracking Signal Test of Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,1

Tracking Signal Test α = 0,1

cum Tracking
Dt dt' dt-dt' RSFE |dt-dt'| |dt-dt'| MAD Signal UCL LCL

1.67
1620

1674

1708 1630,80 77,20 77,20 77,20 77,20 77,20 1,00 4 -4

1782 1646,78 135,22 212,42 135,22 212,42 106,21 2,00 4 -4

cum Tracking
Dt dt' dt-dt' RSFE |dt- |dt-dt'| MAD Signal UCL LCL
dt'|
1623 1675,14 -52,14 160,28 52,14 264,56 88,19 1,82 4 -4

980 1667,37 -687,37 -527,09 687,37 951,93 237,98 -2,21 4 -4

1322 1532,04 -210,04 -737,13 210,04 1161,97 232,39 -3,17 4 -4

1567 1485,30 81,70 -655,43 81,70 1243,67 207,28 -3,16 4 -4

1434 1494,81 -60,81 -716,24 60,81 1304,48 186,35 -3,84 4 -4

1609 1476,63 132,37 -583,88 132,37 1436,84 179,61 -3,25 4 -4

1648 1496,48 151,52 -432,36 151,52 1588,36 176,48 -2,45 4 -4

1540 1521,49 18,51 -413,85 18,51 1606,87 160,69 -2,58 4 -4

1784 1521,41 262,59 -151,26 262,59 1869,46 169,95 -0,89 4 -4

1688 1570,33 117,67 -33,59 117,67 1987,14 165,59 -0,20 4 -4

1766 1592,89 173,11 139,52 173,11 2160,25 166,17 0,84 4 -4

1876 1627,72 248,28 387,81 248,28 2408,53 172,04 2,25 4 -4

1906 1679,31 226,69 614,50 226,69 2635,22 175,68 3,50 4 -4

1136 1729,06 -593,06 21,44 593,06 3228,29 201,77 0,11 4 -4

1560 1617,14 -57,14 -35,70 57,14 3285,42 193,26 -0,18 4 -4

1.68
1715 1606,46 108,54 72,84 108,54 3393,96 188,55 0,39 4 -4

The table above shows the calculation of the double exponential smoothing tracking
signal test of α = 0,1.

UCL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Figure 4.24 Tracking Signal Test Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,1

The figure above shows the double exponential smoothing α = 0,1 verification test in
line chart. The chart shows a good result of the test where the tracking signals do not
go below the LCL or above the UCL.

Table 4.34 Tracking Signal Test of Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,5

cum Tracking
Dt dt' dt-dt' RSFE |dt-dt'| |dt-dt'| MAD Signal UCL LCL

1620

1674

1708 1674,00 34,00 34,00 34,00 34,00 34,00 1,00 4 -4

1.69
 cum Tracking
Dt dt' dt-dt' RSFE |dt-dt'| |dt-dt'| MAD Signal UCL LCL

1782 1721,50 60,50 94,50 60,50 94,50 47,25 2,00 4 -4

1623 1804,00 -181,00 -86,50 181,00 275,50 91,83 -0,94 4 -4

980 1660,13 -680,13 -766,63 680,13 955,63 238,91 -3,21 4 -4

1322 971,88 350,13 -416,50 350,13 1305,75 261,15 -1,59 4 -4

1567 1143,84 423,16 6,66 423,16 1728,91 288,15 0,02 4 -4

1434 1476,38 -42,38 -35,72 42,38 1771,28 253,04 -0,14 4 -4

1609 1449,16 159,84 124,12 159,84 1931,12 241,39 0,51 4 -4

1648 1613,57 34,43 158,55 34,43 1965,55 218,39 0,73 4 -4

1540 1692,53 -152,53 6,02 152,53 2118,08 211,81 0,03 4 -4

1784 1593,14 190,86 196,88 190,86 2308,94 209,90 0,94 4 -4

1688 1799,00 -111,00 85,88 111,00 2419,94 201,66 0,43 4 -4

1766 1750,72 15,28 101,16 15,28 2435,22 187,32 0,54 4 -4

1876 1800,97 75,03 176,19 75,03 2510,25 179,30 0,98 4 -4

1906 1914,79 -8,79 167,40 8,79 2519,04 167,94 1,00 4 -4

1136 1963,55 -827,55 -660,15 827,55 3346,59 209,16 -3,16 4 -4

1560 1191,35 368,65 -291,50 368,65 3715,24 218,54 -1,33 4 -4

1715 1408,46 306,54 15,04 306,54 4021,78 223,43 0,07 4 -4

The table above shows the calculation of the double exponential smoothing tracking
signal test of α = 0,5.

1.70
 UCL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Figure 4.25 Tracking Signal Test Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,5

The figure above shows the double exponential smoothing α = 0,5 verification test in
line chart. The chart shows a very good result of the test where the tracking signals do
not go below or above the LCL and the UCL.

Table 4.35 Tracking Signal Test of Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,9

cum |dt-
dt dt' dt-dt' RSFE |dt-dt'| dt'| MAD Trackin UCL LCL
g Signal
1620

1674

1708 1717,20 -9,20 -9,20 9,20 9,20 9,20 -1,00 4 -4

1782 1744,38 37,62 28,42 37,62 46,82 23,41 1,21 4 -4

1623 1848,38 -225,38 -196,96 225,38 272,20 90,73 -2,17 4 -4

980 1509,45 -529,45 -726,42 529,45 801,66 200,41 -3,62 4 -4

1.71
 cum |dt-
dt dt' dt-dt' RSFE |dt-dt'| dt'| MAD Trackin UCL LCL
g Signal
1322 440,64 881,36 154,95 881,36 1683,02 336,60 0,46 4 -4

1567 1482,43 84,57 239,51 84,57 1767,59 294,60 0,81 4 -4

1434 1803,90 -369,90 -130,39 369,90 2137,49 305,36 -0,43 4 -4

1609 1375,83 233,17 102,79 233,17 2370,66 296,33 0,35 4 -4

1648 1733,67 -85,67 17,12 85,67 2456,33 272,93 0,06 4 -4

1540 1706,46 -166,46 -149,34 166,46 2622,79 262,28 -0,57 4 -4

1784 1464,44 319,56 170,22 319,56 2942,36 267,49 0,64 4 -4

1688 1962,42 -274,42 -104,20 274,42 3216,78 268,06 -0,39 4 -4

1766 1650,08 115,92 11,72 115,92 3332,70 256,36 0,05 4 -4

1876 1818,07 57,93 69,65 57,93 3390,63 242,19 0,29 4 -4

1906 1975,57 -69,57 0,07 69,57 3460,20 230,68 0,00 4 -4

1136 1950,49 -814,49 -814,42 814,49 4274,69 267,17 -3,05 4 -4

1560 528,20 1031,80 217,37 1031,80 5306,49 312,15 0,70 4 -4

1715 1769,50 -54,50 162,88 54,50 5360,99 297,83 0,55 4 -4

The table above shows the calculation of the double exponential smoothing tracking
signal test of α = 0,9.

1.72
 UCL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Figure 4.26 Tracking Signal Test Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,9

The figure above shows the double exponential smoothing α = 0,9 verification test in
line chart. The chart shows a very good result of the test where the tracking signals do
not go below or above the LCL and the UCL.

4.2.3.3.3 IIDN Test

The IIDN test consists of normality test and autocorrelation test.

Normality Test

These hypotheses are used for all the data below.

H0 : residual is normally distributed.

H1 : residual is not normally distributed.

1.73
 Mean 1598

StDev 69,58

N 24

AD 0,971

P-Value 0,012

Figure 4.27 Normality Test Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,1

It is seen that the normality test of double exponential smoothing α = 0,1, the p-value
is less than 0,05 so the residual is normally distributed.

Mean 1618

StDev 238,6

N 24

AD 1,287

P-Value <0,005

1.74
 Figure 4.28 Normality Test Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,5

It is seen that the normality test of double exponential smoothing α = 0,5, the p-value
is less than 0,05 so the residual is normally distributed.
Mean 1769

StDev 522,4

N 24

AD 0,934

P-Value 0,015

Figure 4.29 Normality Test Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,9

It is seen that the normality test of double exponential smoothing α = 0,9, the p-value
is less than 0,05 so the residual is normally distributed.

1.75
Autocorrelation Test

Autocorrelation Function for C1

1,
0

0,
8

0,
6

0,
4

0,

La

Figure 4.30 Autocorrelation Test Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,1

Since the blue line touches the red line, it can be said that the residual are correlated
to each other and not independent or randomized.

Autocorrelation Function for C2

1,
0

0,
8

0,
6

0,
4

La

Figure 4.31 Autocorrelation Test Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,5

1.76
Since the blue line touches the red line, it can be said that the residual are correlated
to each other and not independent or randomized.

Autocorrelation Function for C3

1,
0

0,
8

0,
6

0,
4

La

Figure 4.32 Autocorrelation Test Double Exponential Smoothing α = 0,9

Since the blue line does not touch the red line, it can be said that the residuals are not
correlated to each other and independent or randomized.

4.2.4 Cyclic Method

Cyclic is one of regression analysis.

4.2.4.1 Forecast of six month demand

1.77
 Table 4.36 Cyclic forecast demand n=3

M demand sin(1 sin^2 cos(120 cos^2(1 sin(120t) dt.sin(120t) dt.cos(120t) DT'

20t) (120t) t) 20t) cos(120t)
1 1620.00 0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 -0.43 1402.96 -810.00 1654.26
2 1674.00 -0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 0.43 -1449.73 -837.00 1692.55
3 1708.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1708.00 1431.81
4 1782.00 0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 -0.43 1543.26 -891.00 1654.26
5 1623.00 -0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 0.43 -1405.56 -811.50 1692.55
6 980.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 980.00 1431.81
7 1322.00 0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 -0.43 1144.89 -661.00 1654.26
8 1567.00 -0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 0.43 -1357.06 -783.50 1692.55
9 1434.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1434.00 1431.81
10 1609.00 0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 -0.43 1393.43 -804.50 1654.26
11 1648.00 -0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 0.43 -1427.21 -824.00 1692.55
12 1540.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1540.00 1431.81
13 1784.00 0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 -0.43 1544.99 -892.00 1654.26
14 1688.00 -0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 0.43 -1461.85 -844.00 1692.55
15 1766.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1766.00 1431.81
16 1876.00 0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 -0.43 1624.66 -938.00 1654.26
17 1906.00 -0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 0.43 -1650.64 -953.00 1692.55
18 1136.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1136.00 1431.81
19 1560.00 0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 -0.43 1351.00 -780.00 1654.26
20 1715.00 -0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 0.43 -1485.23 -857.50 1692.55
21 0.00 1.00 1431.81
22 0.87 -0.50 1654.26
23 -0.87 -0.50 1692.55
24 0.00 1.00 1431.81
25 0.87 -0.50 1654.26
26 -0.87 -0.50 1692.55

1.78
TOTAL 31938.00 0.00 10.50 -1.00 9.50 0.00 -232.09 -3123.00
Table above shows the cycling forecasting demand of N=3.

Table 4.37 Value of a, b, and c

A 1592.873351
B -161.0659631
C -22.10428571

Table above shows the value of a, b, and c of N=3

Table 4.38 Cycling forecast demand N=6

M demand sin(60 sin^2(6 cos(60 cos^2( sin(60t)c dt.sin(60t) dt.cos(60t) DT'
t) 0t) t) 60t) os(60t)
1 1620.00 0.87 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.43 1402.96 810.00 1473.05
2 1674.00 0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 -0.43 1449.73 -837.00 1628.42
3 1708.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1708.00 1757.40
4 1782.00 -0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 0.43 -1543.26 -891.00 1731.00
5 1623.00 -0.87 0.75 0.50 0.25 -0.43 -1405.56 811.50 1575.63
6 980.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 980.00 1446.66
7 1322.00 0.87 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.43 1144.89 661.00 1473.05
8 1567.00 0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 -0.43 1357.06 -783.50 1628.42
9 1434.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1434.00 1757.40
10 1609.00 -0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 0.43 -1393.43 -804.50 1731.00
11 1648.00 -0.87 0.75 0.50 0.25 -0.43 -1427.21 824.00 1575.63
12 1540.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1540.00 1446.66
13 1784.00 0.87 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.43 1544.99 892.00 1473.05
14 1688.00 0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 -0.43 1461.85 -844.00 1628.42
15 1766.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1766.00 1757.40

1.79
 M demand sin(60 sin^2(6 cos(60 cos^2( sin(60t)c dt.sin(60t) dt.cos(60t) DT'
t) 0t) t) 60t) os(60t)
16 1876.00 -0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 0.43 -1624.66 -938.00 1731.00
17 1906.00 -0.87 0.75 0.50 0.25 -0.43 -1650.64 953.00 1575.63
18 1136.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1136.00 1446.66
19 1560.00 0.87 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.43 1351.00 780.00 1473.05
20 1715.00 0.87 0.75 -0.50 0.25 -0.43 1485.23 -857.50 1628.42
21 0.00 -1.00 1757.40
22 -0.87 -0.50 1731.00
23 -0.87 0.50 1575.63
24 0.00 1.00 1446.66
25 0.87 0.50 1473.05
TO 31938.00 1.73 10.50 0.00 9.50 0.00 2152.94 -1476.00
TA
L
Table above shows cycling forecast demand of N=6

Table 4.39 Value of a, b, and c

A 1602.02899
B -155.3684211
C -59.22446801

Table above shows the value of a, b, and c of N=6

Table 4.40 Cyclic error test N=3

dt-dt' (dt-dt')^2 Pet ABS PET ldt-dt'l

-34.2635 1173.985 -2.11503 2.115028 34.26346
-18.5492 344.073 -1.10808 1.108077 18.54921
276.1926 76282.36 16.17053 16.17053 276.1926
127.7365 16316.62 7.168156 7.168156 127.7365
-69.5492 4837.092 -4.28523 4.285225 69.54921

1.80
dt-dt' (dt-dt')^2 Pet ABS PET ldt-dt'l
-451.807 204129.9 -46.1028 46.10279 451.8074
-332.263 110399 -25.1334 25.13339 332.2635
-125.549 15762.6 -8.01207 8.012074 125.5492
2.192612 4.807548 0.152902 0.152902 2.192612
-45.2635 2048.781 -2.81314 2.813142 45.26346

-44.5492 1984.632 -2.70323 2.703228 44.54921

108.1926 11705.64 7.025494 7.025494 108.1926
129.7365 16831.57 7.272228 7.272228 129.7365
-4.54921 20.69527 -0.2695 0.269503 4.549206
334.1926 111684.7 18.9237 18.9237 334.1926
221.7365 49167.09 11.81965 11.81965 221.7365
213.4508 45561.24 11.19889 11.19889 213.4508
-295.807 87502.01 -26.0394 26.03938 295.8074
-94.2635 8885.6 -6.04253 6.042529 94.26346
22.45079 504.0382 1.309084 1.309084 22.45079
765146.5 205.665 2952.296

Table 4.41 Cyclic error test N=6

dt-dt' (dt-dt')^2 Pet ABS PET ldt-dt'l

146.9451 21592.87 9.070686 9.070686 146.9451
45.57669 2077.235 2.722622 2.722622 45.57669
-49.3974 2440.104 -2.89212 2.89212 49.39741
50.99691 2600.684 2.861779 2.861779 50.99691
47.36533 2243.474 2.918381 2.918381 47.36533
-466.661 217772.1 -47.6184 47.61843 466.6606
-151.055 22817.58 -11.4262 11.42624 151.0549
-61.4233 3772.823 -3.9198 3.919803 61.42331

1.81
dt-dt' (dt-dt')^2 Pet ABS PET ldt-dt'l
-323.397 104585.9 -22.5521 22.55212 323.3974
-122.003 14884.76 -7.58254 7.582542 122.0031
72.36533 5236.741 4.3911 4.3911 72.36533
93.33943 8712.249 6.061002 6.061002 93.33943
310.9451 96686.86 17.42966 17.42966 310.9451
59.57669 3549.382 3.529425 3.529425 59.57669
8.602589 74.00454 0.487123 0.487123 8.602589
144.9969 21024.1 7.729046 7.729046 144.9969
330.3653 109141.2 17.33291 17.33291 330.3653
-310.661 96509.99 -27.3469 27.34688 310.6606
86.94511 7559.453 5.573405 5.573405 86.94511
86.57669 7495.524 5.048204 5.048204 86.57669
750777.1 208.4935 2969.194

Table 4.42 Error test comparison

N MSE MAPE MAD

3 38257.32 10.28325 147.6148
6 37538.85 10.42467 148.4596

Table 4.43 Cyclic verification test

n=3
Mrt Ucl Lcl 2/3 ucl 1/3ucl 2/3 lcl 1/3 lcl

15.71425 4661.882 -4661.88 3107.922 1553.961 -3107.92 -1553.96

294.7418 4661.882 -4661.88 3107.922 1553.961 -3107.92 -1553.96
148.4561 4661.882 -4661.88 3107.922 1553.961 -3107.92 -1553.96
197.2857 4661.882 -4661.88 3107.922 1553.961 -3107.92 -1553.96

1.82
n=3
Mrt Ucl Lcl 2/3 ucl 1/3ucl 2/3 lcl 1/3 lcl
382.2582 4661.882 -4661.88 3107.922 1553.961 -3107.92 -1553.96
119.5439 4661.882 -4661.88 3107.922 1553.961 -3107.92 -1553.96
206.7143 4661.882 -4661.88 3107.922 1553.961 -3107.92 -1553.96
127.7418 4661.882 -4661.88 3107.922 1553.961 -3107.92 -1553.96
47.45607 4661.882 -4661.88 3107.922 1553.961 -3107.92 -1553.96
0.714254 4661.882 -4661.88 3107.922 1553.961 -3107.92 -1553.96
152.7418 4661.882 -4661.88 3107.922 1553.961 -3107.92 -1553.96
21.54393 4661.882 -4661.88 3107.922 1553.961 -3107.92 -1553.96
134.2857 4661.882 -4661.88 3107.922 1553.961 -3107.92 -1553.96
338.7418 4661.882 -4661.88 3107.922 1553.961 -3107.92 -1553.96
112.4561 4661.882 -4661.88 3107.922 1553.961 -3107.92 -1553.96
8.285746 4661.882 -4661.88 3107.922 1553.961 -3107.92 -1553.96
509.2582 4661.882 -4661.88 3107.922 1553.961 -3107.92 -1553.96
201.5439 4661.882 -4661.88 3107.922 1553.961 -3107.92 -1553.96
116.7143 4661.882 -4661.88 3107.922 1553.961 -3107.92 -1553.96

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20

lc 2/3 2/3 1/3

l ucl lcl lcl

Figure 4.33 Cyclic verification test N=3

1.83
 Table 4.44 Cyclic verification test N=6

n=6
mrt ucl Lcl 2/3 ucl 1/3 ucl 2/3 lcl 1/3 lcl

101.3684 529.0675 -529.067 352.7117 176.3558 -352.712 -176.356

94.9741 529.0675 -529.067 352.7117 176.3558 -352.712 -176.356
100.3943 529.0675 -529.067 352.7117 176.3558 -352.712 -176.356
3.631579 529.0675 -529.067 352.7117 176.3558 -352.712 -176.356
514.0259 529.0675 -529.067 352.7117 176.3558 -352.712 -176.356
315.6057 529.0675 -529.067 352.7117 176.3558 -352.712 -176.356
89.63158 529.0675 -529.067 352.7117 176.3558 -352.712 -176.356
261.9741 529.0675 -529.067 352.7117 176.3558 -352.712 -176.356
201.3943 529.0675 -529.067 352.7117 176.3558 -352.712 -176.356
194.3684 529.0675 -529.067 352.7117 176.3558 -352.712 -176.356
20.9741 529.0675 -529.067 352.7117 176.3558 -352.712 -176.356
217.6057 529.0675 -529.067 352.7117 176.3558 -352.712 -176.356
251.3684 529.0675 -529.067 352.7117 176.3558 -352.712 -176.356
50.9741 529.0675 -529.067 352.7117 176.3558 -352.712 -176.356
136.3943 529.0675 -529.067 352.7117 176.3558 -352.712 -176.356
185.3684 529.0675 -529.067 352.7117 176.3558 -352.712 -176.356
641.0259 529.0675 -529.067 352.7117 176.3558 -352.712 -176.356
397.6057 529.0675 -529.067 352.7117 176.3558 -352.712 -176.356
0.368421 529.0675 -529.067 352.7117 176.3558 -352.712 -176.356
198.8976

1.84
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Figure 4.34 Cyclic verification test N=6

1.85
 Table 4.45 Cyclic tracking signal test

n=3
rsfe cum ldt- tracking
period dt dt' dt-dt' cumulative ldt-dt'l dt'l Mad signal ucl cl Lcl
1 1620.00 1654.26 -34.26 -34.26 34.26346 34.26346 34.26346 -1.00 4 0 -4
2 1674.00 1692.55 -18.55 -18.55 18.54921 18.54921 9.274603 -2.00 4 0 -4
3 1708.00 1431.81 276.19 276.19 276.1926 276.1926 92.0642 3.00 4 0 -4
4 1782.00 1654.26 127.74 127.74 127.7365 127.7365 31.93414 4.00 4 0 -4
5 1623.00 1692.55 -69.55 -69.55 69.54921 69.54921 13.90984 -5.00 4 0 -4
6 980.00 1431.81 -451.81 -451.81 451.8074 451.8074 75.30123 -6.00 4 0 -4
7 1322.00 1654.26 -332.26 -332.26 332.2635 332.2635 47.46621 -7.00 4 0 -4
8 1567.00 1692.55 -125.55 -125.55 125.5492 125.5492 15.69365 -8.00 4 0 -4
9 1434.00 1431.81 2.19 2.19 2.192612 2.192612 0.243624 9.00 4 0 -4
10 1609.00 1654.26 -45.26 -45.26 45.26346 45.26346 4.526346 -10.00 4 0 -4
11 1648.00 1692.55 -44.55 -44.55 44.54921 44.54921 4.049928 -11.00 4 0 -4
12 1540.00 1431.81 108.19 108.19 108.1926 108.1926 9.016051 12.00 4 0 -4
13 1784.00 1654.26 129.74 129.74 129.7365 129.7365 9.979734 13.00 4 0 -4
14 1688.00 1692.55 -4.55 -4.55 4.549206 4.549206 0.324943 -14.00 4 0 -4

1.86
 n=3
rsfe cum ldt- tracking
period dt dt' dt-dt' cumulative ldt-dt'l dt'l Mad signal ucl cl Lcl
15 1766.00 1431.81 334.19 334.19 334.1926 334.1926 22.27951 15.00 4 0 -4
16 1876.00 1654.26 221.74 221.74 221.7365 221.7365 13.85853 16.00 4 0 -4
17 1906.00 1692.55 213.45 213.45 213.4508 213.4508 12.55593 17.00 4 0 -4
18 1136.00 1431.81 -295.81 -295.81 295.8074 295.8074 16.43374 -18.00 4 0 -4
19 1560.00 1654.26 -94.26 -94.26 94.26346 94.26346 4.961235 -19.00 4 0 -4
20 1715.00 1692.55 22.45 22.45 22.45079 22.45079 1.12254 20.00 4 0 -4

Table above shows the cyclic tracking signal test N=3.

Table 4.46 cyclic tracking signal test N=6

n=6
rsfe cum ldt- tracking
period dt dt' dt-dt' cumulative ldt-dt'l dt'l mad signal ucl cl Lcl
1 1620.00 1473.05 146.95 146.95 146.9451 146.9451 146.9451 1 4 0 -4
2 1674.00 1628.42 45.58 192.52 45.57669 192.5218 96.2609 2 4 0 -4

1.87
 rsfe cum ldt- tracking
period dt dt' dt-dt' cumulative ldt-dt'l dt'l mad signal ucl cl Lcl
3 1708.00 1757.40 -49.40 -3.82 49.39741 94.9741 31.65803 -0.12069 4 0 -4
4 1782.00 1731.00 51.00 1.60 50.99691 100.3943 25.09858 0.063728 4 0 -4
5 1623.00 1575.63 47.37 98.36 47.36533 98.36223 19.67245 5 4 0 -4
6 980.00 1446.66 -466.66 -419.30 466.6606 514.0259 85.67098 -4.89425 4 0 -4
7 1322.00 1473.05 -151.05 -617.72 151.0549 617.7155 88.24506 -7 4 0 -4
8 1567.00 1628.42 -61.42 -212.48 61.42331 212.4782 26.55977 -8 4 0 -4
9 1434.00 1757.40 -323.40 -384.82 323.3974 384.8207 42.75786 -9 4 0 -4
10 1609.00 1731.00 -122.00 -445.40 122.0031 445.4005 44.54005 -10 4 0 -4
11 1648.00 1575.63 72.37 -49.64 72.36533 194.3684 17.66986 -2.80918 4 0 -4
12 1540.00 1446.66 93.34 165.70 93.33943 165.7048 13.80873 12 4 0 -4
13 1784.00 1473.05 310.95 404.28 310.9451 404.2845 31.09881 13 4 0 -4
14 1688.00 1628.42 59.58 370.52 59.57669 370.5218 26.46584 14 4 0 -4
15 1766.00 1757.40 8.60 68.18 8.602589 68.17928 4.545285 15 4 0 -4
16 1876.00 1731.00 145.00 153.60 144.9969 153.5995 9.599968 16 4 0 -4
17 1906.00 1575.63 330.37 475.36 330.3653 475.3622 27.96248 17 4 0 -4
18 1136.00 1446.66 -310.66 19.70 310.6606 641.0259 35.61255 0.553309 4 0 -4
19 1560.00 1473.05 86.95 -223.72 86.94511 397.6057 20.92661 -10.6905 4 0 -4
20 1715.00 1628.42 86.58 173.52 86.57669 173.5218 8.67609 20 4 0 -4

1.88
Normality Test

Mean 1599

StDev 114.9

N 26

AD 3.900

P-Value
<0.005

Figure 4.35 cyclic normality test N=3

The p value in the figure above is less than 0.05, so it is normally distributed.

Mean 1598

StDev 118.1

N 26

AD 1.193

P-Value <0.005

Figure 4.36 cyclic normality test N=6

1.89
The p value in the figure above is less than 0.05, so it is normally distributed.

Autocorrelation Test

Autocorrelation Function for

C16

La

Figure 4.37 cyclic autocorrelation test N=3

Since the blue line touches the red line, it can be said that the residual are
correlated to each other and not independent or randomized.

Autocorrelation Function for C17

Figure 4.38 cyclic autocorrelation test N=6

1.90
Since the blue line touches the red line, it can be said that the residual are correlated
to each other and not independent or randomized.

4.2.5 Linear Cyclic Regression

2.4.5.1 Forecast of Six Month Demand (September 2018-February 2019)

1.91
 Table 4.47 Analysis Forecast of Six Month Demand by Using Linear Cyclic Regression n=3

Cos sin
Month t t^2 dt sin(120t) sin^2(120t) (120t) cos^2(12 (120t).cos(12 dt.sin(120t) dt.cos(12 t.sin(120 t.cos(120t t.dt
0t) 0t) 0t) t) )
Jan-17 1 1 162 0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 -0,433 1402,961 -810 0,866 -0,5 1620
0
Feb-17 2 4 167 -0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 0,433 -1449,727 -837 -1,732 -1 3348
4
Mar-17 3 9 170 0,000 0,000 1 1 0,000 0,000 1708 0,000 3 5124
8
Apr-17 4 16 178 0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 -0,433 1543,257 -891 3,464 -2 7128
2
Mei-17 5 25 162 -0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 0,433 -1405,559 -811,5 -4,330 -2,5 8115
3
Jun-17 6 36 980 0,000 0,000 1 1 0,000 0,000 980 0,000 6 5880
Jul-17 7 49 132 0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 -0,433 1144,886 -661 6,062 -3,5 9254
2
Agt-17 8 64 156 -0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 0,433 -1357,062 -783,5 -6,928 -4 12536
7
Sep-17 9 81 143 0,000 0,000 1 1 0,000 0,000 1434 0,000 9 12906
4
Okt-17 10 100 160 0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 -0,433 1393,435 -804,5 8,660 -5 16090
9
Nov-17 11 121 164 -0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 0,433 -1427,210 -824 -9,526 -5,5 18128
8
Des-17 12 144 154 0,000 0,000 1 1 0,000 0,000 1540 0,000 12 18480
0
Jan-18 13 169 178 0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 -0,433 1544,989 -892 11,258 -6,5 23192
4

1.92
 Cos sin
Month t t^2 dt sin(120t) sin^2(120t) (120t) cos^2(12 (120t).cos(12 dt.sin(120t) dt.cos(12 t.sin(120 t.cos(120t t.dt
0t) 0t) 0t) t) )
Feb-18 14 196 168 -0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 0,433 -1461,851 -844 -12,124 -7 23632
8
Mar-18 15 225 176 0,000 0,000 1 1 0,000 0,000 1766 0,000 15 26490
6
Apr-18 16 256 187 0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 -0,433 1624,664 -938 13,856 -8 30016
6
Mei-18 17 289 190 -0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 0,433 -1650,644 -953 -14,722 -8,5 32402
6
Jun-18 18 324 1136 0,000 0,000 1 1 0,000 0,000 1136 0,000 18 20448

Jul-18 19 361 1560 0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 -0,433 1351,000 -780 16,454 -9,5 29640

Agt-18 20 400 1715 -0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 0,433 -1485,234 -857,5 -17,321 -10 34300

-
SUM 210 2870 31938 0,000 10,500 1,000 9,500 0,000 -232,095 - -6,062 -10,500 338729
,00 ,000 ,000 3123,000
0

1.93
From the table above, we get:

31938 = 20 (a) + 210 (b) + (-1)(c) + 0(d)

338729 = 210 (a) + 2870 (b) + (-10,5)(c) + (-6,062)(d)

3123 = 1(a) + 10,5(b) + (-9,5)(c) + 0(d)

232,095 = 0(a) + 6,062(b) + 0(c) + (-10,5)(d)

From elimination and substitution, the result shows that

A = 1535,56

B = 4,907

C = -170,79

D = -19,271

Table 4.48 Forecast Analysis Continuation by Using Cyclic Linear Regression n=3

Month t dt'
Jan-17 1 1609,17
Feb-17 2 1647,46
Mar-17 3 1379,49
Apr-17 4 1623,89
Mei-17 5 1662,18
Jun-17 6 1394,21
Jul-17 7 1638,61
Agt-17 8 1676,9
Sep-17 9 1408,93
Okt-17 10 1653,34
Nov-17 11 1691,62

1.94
 Month t dt'
Des-17 12 1423,65
Jan-18 13 1668,06
Feb-18 14 1706,34
Mar-18 15 1438,38
Apr-18 16 1682,78
Mei-18 17 1721,06
Jun-18 18 1453,1
Jul-18 19 1697,5
Agt-18 20 1735,78
The table above shows the forecast for the past period.

Table 4.49 Forecast of Six Month Demand by Using Linear Cyclic n=3

Months T cos(120t) sin(120t) dt'

Sep-18 21 1 0,000 1467,82
Okt-18 22 -0,5 0,866 1712,22
Nov-18 23 -0,5 -0,866 1750,51
Des-18 24 1 0,000 1482,54
Jan-19 25 -0,5 0,866 1726,94
Feb-19 26 -0,5 -0,866 1765,23

The table above shows the forecast for the next six month period.

1.95
 Table 4.50 Analysis Forecast of Six Month Demand by Using Linear Cyclic Regression n=6

cos sin
Month t t^2 dt sin(60t) sin^2(60t) (60t) cos^2(60t) (60t).cos(60 dt.sin(60t dt.cos(60t) t.sin(60t) t.cos(60t) t.dt
t) )
Jan-17 1 1 1620 0,866 0,750 0,5 0,25 0,433 1402,961 810 0,866 0,5 1620

Feb-17 2 4 1674 0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 -0,433 1449,727 -837 1,732 -1 3348

Mar-17 3 9 1708 0,000 0,000 -1 1 0,000 0,000 -1708 0,000 -3 5124

Apr-17 4 16 1782 -0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 0,433 -1543,257 -891 -3,464 -2 7128

Mei-17 5 25 1623 -0,866 0,750 0,5 0,25 -0,433 -1405,559 811,5 -4,330 2,5 8115

Jun-17 6 36 980 0,000 0,000 1 1 0,000 0,000 980 0,000 6 5880

Jul-17 7 49 1322 0,866 0,750 0,5 0,25 0,433 1144,886 661 6,062 3,5 9254

Agt-17 8 64 1567 0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 -0,433 1357,062 -783,5 6,928 -4 12536

Sep-17 9 81 1434 0,000 0,000 -1 1 0,000 0,000 -1434 0,000 -9 12906

Okt-17 10 100 1609 -0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 0,433 -1393,435 -804,5 -8,660 -5 16090

Nov-17 11 121 1648 -0,866 0,750 0,5 0,25 -0,433 -1427,210 824 -9,526 5,5 18128

Des-17 12 144 1540 0,000 0,000 1 1 0,000 0,000 1540 0,000 12 18480

Jan-18 13 169 1784 0,866 0,750 0,5 0,25 0,433 1544,989 892 11,258 6,5 23192

1.96
 cos sin
Month t t^2 dt sin(60t) sin^2(60t) (60t) cos^2(60t) (60t).cos(60 dt.sin(60t dt.cos(60t) t.sin(60t) t.cos(60t) t.dt
t) )
Feb-18 14 196 1688 0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 -0,433 1461,851 -844 12,124 -7 23632

Mar-18 15 225 1766 0,000 0,000 -1 1 0,000 0,000 -1766 0,000 -15 26490

Apr-18 16 256 1876 -0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 0,433 -1624,664 -938 -13,856 -8 30016

Mei-18 17 289 1906 -0,866 0,750 0,5 0,25 -0,433 -1650,644 953 -14,722 8,5 32402

Jun-18 18 324 1136 0,000 0,000 1 1 0,000 0,000 1136 0,000 18 20448

Jul-18 19 361 1560 0,866 0,750 0,5 0,25 0,433 1351,000 780 16,454 9,5 29640

Agt-18 20 400 1715 0,866 0,750 -0,5 0,25 -0,433 1485,234 -857,5 17,321 -10 34300

SUM 210,0 2870,0 31938,00 1,732 10,500 0,000 9,500 0,000 2152,939 -1476,000 18,187 8,500 338729
00 00 0

1.97
From the table above we get the equation:

31938 = 20 (a) + 210 (b) + (0)(c) + 1,732(d)

338729 = 210 (a) + 2870 (b) + (8,5)(c) + (18,187)(d)

1476 = 0(a) + (-10,5)(b) + (-8,5)(c) + 0(d)

2152,939 = 1,732(a) + 18,187(b) + 0(c) + 10,5(d)

A = 1524,123

B = 7,419

C = -182,81

D = -59,217

Table 4.51 Forecast Analysis Continuation by Using Cyclic Linear Regression n=6

Month t dt'
Jan-17 1 1388,85
Feb-17 2 1579,08
Mar-17 3 1729,19
Apr-17 4 1696,49
Mei-17 5 1521,1
Jun-17 6 1385,83
Jul-17 7 1433,37
Agt-17 8 1623,6
Sep-17 9 1773,7
Okt-17 10 1741
Nov-17 11 1565,61
Des-17 12 1430,34
Jan-18 13 1477,88

1.98
 Month t dt'
Feb-18 14 1668,11
Mar-18 15 1818,22
Apr-18 16 1785,52
Mei-18 17 1610,12
Jun-18 18 1474,86
Jul-18 19 1522,4
Agt-18 20 1712,62

Table 4.52 Forecast of Six Month Demand by Using Linear Cyclic

n=6

Months t cos(60t) sin(60t) dt'

Sep-18 21 -1 0,000 1862,73
Okt-18 22 -0,5 0,866 1727,46
Nov-18 23 -0,5 -0,866 1837,45
Des-18 24 1 0,000 1519,37
Jan-19 25 -0,5 0,866 1749,72
Feb-19 26 -0,5 -0,866 1859,71

4.2.9.2. Error Test

Table 4.53 Error Test of Linear Cyclic Regression n=3

Error Test
|dt-dt'| (dt-dt')^2 PEt
10,83 117,23 0,67
26,54 704,47 1,59
328,51 107918,16 19,23
158,11 24997,56 8,87
39,18 1535,01 2,41

1.99
 |dt-dt'| (dt-dt')^2 PEt
414,21 171571,58 42,27
316,61 100244,95 23,95
109,90 12078,05 7,01
25,07 628,35 1,75
44,34 1965,67 2,76
43,62 1902,81 2,65
116,35 13536,39 7,55
115,94 13442,82 6,50
18,34 336,44 1,09
327,63 107338,14 18,55
193,22 37334,81 10,30
184,94 34201,63 9,70
317,10 100549,87 27,91
137,50 18905,93 8,81
20,78 431,98 1,21

2948,71 749741,84 204,79

147,44 37487,09 10,24

The MAD is 147,44, the MSE is 37487,09 and the MAPE is 10,24% for the linear
cyclic regression method n=3.

Table 4.54 Error Test of Linear Cyclic Regression n=6

Error Test
|dt-dt'| (dt-dt')^2 PEt
231,15 53428,67 14,27
94,92 9009,32 5,67
21,19 449,02 1,24
85,51 7312,40 4,80

1.100
 |dt-dt'| (dt-dt')^2 PEt
101,90 10384,34 6,28
405,83 164695,55 41,41
111,37 12402,74 8,42
56,60 3203,17 3,61
339,70 115398,81 23,69
132,00 17424,38 8,20
82,39 6788,04 5,00
109,66 12025,10 7,12
306,12 93708,49 17,16
19,89 395,59 1,18
52,22 2726,72 2,96
90,48 8187,46 4,82
295,88 87542,36 15,52
338,86 114822,71 29,83
37,60 1414,09 2,41
2,38 5,64 0,14

2915,64 35152,42 9,97

145,78 37964,15 10,72

The MAD is 145,78, the MSE is 37964,15 and the MAPE is 10,72% for the linear
cyclic regression method n=6.

The lowest MAPE and MSE are achieved by n=3 meanwhile the lowest MAD is
showed by n=6.

4.2.9.3. Validation Test

4.2.9.3.1 Verification Test

1.101
 Table 4.55 Verification Test of Linear Cyclic Regression Method n=3
Verification Test
dt dt' MRt UCL 2/3 UCL 1/3UCL LCL 2/3LCL 1/3 LCL
1620 1609,17
1674 1647,46 15,7146 463,393 308,928 154,464 -463,39 -308,93 -154,46
1708 1379,49 301,967 463,393 308,928 154,464 -463,39 -308,93 -154,46
1782 1623,89 170,403 463,393 308,928 154,464 -463,39 -308,93 -154,46
1623 1662,18 197,285 463,393 308,928 154,464 -463,39 -308,93 -154,46
980 1394,21 375,033 463,393 308,928 154,464 -463,39 -308,93 -154,46
1322 1638,61 97,5972 463,393 308,928 154,464 -463,39 -308,93 -154,46
1567 1676,90 206,715 463,393 308,928 154,464 -463,39 -308,93 -154,46
1434 1408,93 134,967 463,393 308,928 154,464 -463,39 -308,93 -154,46
1609 1653,34 69,4028 463,393 308,928 154,464 -463,39 -308,93 -154,46
1648 1691,62 0,71465 463,393 308,928 154,464 -463,39 -308,93 -154,46
1540 1423,65 159,967 463,393 308,928 154,464 -463,39 -308,93 -154,46
1784 1668,06 0,40282 463,393 308,928 154,464 -463,39 -308,93 -154,46
1688 1706,34 134,285 463,393 308,928 154,464 -463,39 -308,93 -154,46
1766 1438,38 345,967 463,393 308,928 154,464 -463,39 -308,93 -154,46
1876 1682,78 134,403 463,393 308,928 154,464 -463,39 -308,93 -154,46
1906 1721,06 8,28535 463,393 308,928 154,464 -463,39 -308,93 -154,46
1136 1453,10 502,033 463,393 308,928 154,464 -463,39 -308,93 -154,46
1560 1697,50 179,597 463,393 308,928 154,464 -463,39 -308,93 -154,46
1715 1735,78 116,715 463,393 308,928 154,464 -463,39 -308,93 -154,46
MR 174,208

The table above shows the calculation of the cyclic linear regression method n=3
verification test.

1.102
 400 MRt

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Figure 4.39 Verification Test Linear Cyclic Regression Method n=3

The figure above shows the linear cyclic regression method n=3 verification test in
line chart. It is seen that point 17 is above the UCL. This test shows that the result of
the linear regression method is not in control.

Table 4.56 Verification Test of Linear Cyclic Regression Method n=6

Verification Test
Dt dt' MRt UCL 2/3 UCL 1/3UCL LCL 2/3LCL 1/3 LCL
1620 1388,85
1674 1579,08 136,229 558,296 372,197 186,099 -558,3 -372,1971359 -186,1
1708 1729,19 116,107 558,296 372,197 186,099 -558,3 -372,1971359 -186,1
1782 1696,49 106,703 558,296 372,197 186,099 -558,3 -372,1971359 -186,1
1623 1521,10 16,391 558,296 372,197 186,099 -558,3 -372,1971359 -186,1
980 1385,83 507,731 558,296 372,197 186,099 -558,3 -372,1971359 -186,1
1322 1433,37 294,459 558,296 372,197 186,099 -558,3 -372,1971359 -186,1
1567 1623,60 54,771 558,296 372,197 186,099 -558,3 -372,1971359 -186,1
1434 1773,70 283,107 558,296 372,197 186,099 -558,3 -372,1971359 -186,1

1.103
 Dt dt' MRt UCL 2/3 UCL 1/3UCL LCL 2/3LCL 1/3 LCL
1609 1741,00 207,703 558,296 372,197 186,099 -558,3 -372,1971359 -186,1
1648 1565,61 214,391 558,296 372,197 186,099 -558,3 -372,1971359 -186,1
1540 1430,34 27,2694 558,296 372,197 186,099 -558,3 -372,1971359 -186,1
1784 1477,88 196,459 558,296 372,197 186,099 -558,3 -372,1971359 -186,1
1688 1668,11 286,229 558,296 372,197 186,099 -558,3 -372,1971359 -186,1
1766 1818,22 72,1074 558,296 372,197 186,099 -558,3 -372,1971359 -186,1
1876 1785,52 142,703 558,296 372,197 186,099 -558,3 -372,1971359 -186,1
1906 1610,12 205,391 558,296 372,197 186,099 -558,3 -372,1971359 -186,1
1136 1474,86 634,731 558,296 372,197 186,099 -558,3 -372,1971359 -186,1
1560 1522,40 376,459 558,296 372,197 186,099 -558,3 -372,1971359 -186,1
1715 1712,62 35,229 558,296 372,197 186,099 -558,3 -372,1971359 -186,1
209,886

The table above shows the calculation of the cyclic linear regression method n=6
verification test.

800

MRt
600
UCL

400

200 LCL

Figure 4.40 Verification Test Linear Cyclic Regression Method n=6

1.104
 The figure above shows the linear cyclic regression method n=6 verification test in
line chart. It is seen that point 17 is above the UCL. This test shows that the result of
the linear regression method is not in control.

4.2.5.3.2 Tracking Signal Test

Table 4.57 Tracking Signal Test of Linear Cyclic Regression Method n=3

cum Tracking
Dt dt' dt-dt' RSFE |dt-dt'| |dt-dt'| MAD Signal UCL LCL
1620 1609,17 10,83 10,83 10,83 37,369 37,37 0,29 4 -4
1674 1647,46 26,54 26,54 26,54 26,5418 13,27 2,00 4 -4
1708 1379,49 328,51 355,05 328,51 355,05 118,35 3,00 4 -4
1782 1623,89 158,11 513,16 158,11 513,16 128,29 4,00 4 -4
1623 1662,18 -39,18 473,98 39,18 552,34 110,47 4,29 4 -4
980 1394,21 -414,21 59,77 414,21 966,55 161,09 0,37 4 -4
1322 1638,61 -316,61 -256,85 316,61 1283,16 183,31 -1,40 4 -4
1567 1676,90 -109,90 -366,75 109,90 1393,06 174,13 -2,11 4 -4
1434 1408,93 25,07 -341,68 25,07 1418,13 157,57 -2,17 4 -4
1609 1653,34 -44,34 -386,02 44,34 1462,47 146,25 -2,64 4 -4
1648 1691,62 -43,62 -429,64 43,62 1506,09 136,92 -3,14 4 -4
1540 1423,65 116,35 -313,29 116,35 1622,43 135,20 -2,32 4 -4
1784 1668,06 115,94 -197,35 115,94 1738,38 133,72 -1,48 4 -4
1688 1706,34 -18,34 -215,69 18,34 1756,72 125,48 -1,72 4 -4
1766 1438,38 327,63 111,93 327,63 2084,34 138,96 0,81 4 -4
1876 1682,78 193,22 305,16 193,22 2277,57 142,35 2,14 4 -4
1906 1721,06 184,94 490,09 184,94 2462,50 144,85 3,38 4 -4
1136 1453,10 -317,10 173,00 317,10 2779,60 154,42 1,12 4 -4
1560 1697,50 -137,50 35,50 137,50 2917,10 153,53 0,23 4 -4
1715 1735,78 -20,78 14,71 20,78 2937,88 146,89 0,10 4 -4

1.105
 Figure 4.41 Tracking Signal Test of Linear Cyclic n=3 Regression Method

The figure above shows the linear cyclic regression method n=3 verification test in
line chart. The chart shows a bad result of the test where the tracking signals go above
the UCL in point 5.

Table 4.58 Tracking Signal Test of Linear Cyclic Regression Method n=6

cum
dt dt' dt-dt' RSFE |dt-dt'| |dt-dt'| MAD Tracking Signal UCL LCL
1620 1388,85 231,15 231,15 231,15 231,146 231,15 1,00 4 -4
1674 1579,08 94,92 94,92 94,92 326,064 163,03 0,58 4 -4
1708 1729,19 -21,19 304,87 21,19 347,25 115,75 2,63 4 -4
1782 1696,49 85,51 390,39 85,51 432,77 108,19 3,61 4 -4
1623 1521,10 101,90 492,29 101,90 534,67 106,93 4,60 4 -4
980 1385,83 -405,83 86,46 405,83 940,50 156,75 0,55 4 -4
1322 1433,37 -111,37 -24,90 111,37 1051,86 150,27 -0,17 4 -4
1567 1623,60 -56,60 -81,50 56,60 1108,46 138,56 -0,59 4 -4
1434 1773,70 -339,70 -421,21 339,70 1448,17 160,91 -2,62 4 -4

1.106
 cum
dt dt' dt-dt' RSFE |dt-dt'| |dt-dt'| MAD Tracking Signal UCL LCL
1609 1741,00 -132,00 -553,21 132,00 1580,17 158,02 -3,50 4 -4
1648 1565,61 82,39 -470,82 82,39 1662,56 151,14 -3,12 4 -4
1540 1430,34 109,66 -361,16 109,66 1772,22 147,68 -2,45 4 -4
1784 1477,88 306,12 -55,04 306,12 2078,33 159,87 -0,34 4 -4
1688 1668,11 19,89 -35,15 19,89 2098,22 149,87 -0,23 4 -4
1766 1818,22 -52,22 -87,37 52,22 2150,44 143,36 -0,61 4 -4
1876 1785,52 90,48 3,12 90,48 2240,93 140,06 0,02 4 -4
1906 1610,12 295,88 298,99 295,88 2536,80 149,22 2,00 4 -4
1136 1474,86 -338,86 -39,86 338,86 2875,66 159,76 -0,25 4 -4
1560 1522,40 37,60 -2,26 37,60 2913,26 153,33 -0,01 4 -4
1715 1712,62 2,38 0,12 2,38 2915,64 145,78 0,00 4 -4

Figure 4.42 Tracking Signal Test of Linear Cyclic n=6 Regression Method

The figure above shows the cyclic linear regression method n=6 verification test in
line chart. The chart shows a bad result of the test where the tracking signals go above
the UCL in point 5.

1.107
4.2.5.3.3 IIDN Test

The IIDN test consists of normality test and autocorrelation test.

Normality Test

These hypotheses are used for all the data below.

H0 : residual is normally distributed.

H1 : residual is not normally distributed.

Mean 1608

StDev 127,3

N 26

AD 1,611

P-Value <0,005

Figure 4.43 Normality Test Linear Cyclic Regression Method n=3

It is seen that the normality test of linear cyclic regression method n=3, the p- value is
less than 0,05 so the residual is normally distributed.

1.108
 Mean 1634

StDev 151,6

N 26

AD 0,453

P-Value 0,250

Figure 4.44 Normality Test Linear Cyclic Regression Method n=6

It is seen that the normality test of linear cyclic regression method n=6, the p- value is
more than 0,05 so the residual is not normally distributed.

1.109
Autocorrelation Test

Figure 4.45 Autocorrelation Test Linear Cyclic Regression Method n=3

Since the blue line touches the red line, it can be said that the residual are correlated
to each other and not independent or randomized.

1.110
 Figure 4.46 Autocorrelation Test Linear Cyclic Regression Method n=6

Since the blue line touches the red line, it can be said that the residual are correlated
to each other and not independent or randomized.

1.111
 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Conclusion

Based on the calculation showed in chapter IV, the best result to forecast the car toy
for the upcoming 6 months is the linear cyclic method with N=3. The reasons that our
group choose the the linear cyclic method with N=3 are because the method has the
lowest error test result in average and it has a quite good validation test result
compared to the other method.

5.2 Recommendation

For recommendation, it would be better if there is a big table of comparison for all the
result and its test to summarize the result. Another recommendation would be to
fulfill the IIDN test with standardized error.

1.112
 REFERENCES

Demo. (2018, March). The differences MAE, MAPE, MSE, and RMSE.

Forecasting. (n.d.). Retrieved from Investopedia:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/forecasting.asp

Hyndmand, R. J. (2009, November 8). Moving Average. pp. 1-4.

Lani, J. (2018). Autocorrelation. Retrieved from Statistics Solution.

Marifah, I. (2014, June). Analisis Time Series dan Forecasting.

Stephanie. (2018, June 14). Exponential Smoothing: Definition of Simple, Double and
Triple . Retrieved from Statistics How To:
http://www.statisticshowto.com/exponential-smoothing/

1.113
1.1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I .......................................................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 2
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Tools and Equipment(s) .................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Steps ................................................................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER II......................................................................................................................... 5
LITERATURE STUDY........................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Aggregate Planning ......................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Cost of Aggregate Planning ............................................................................................ 6
2.3 Aggregate Planning Strategies ........................................................................................ 6
2.4 Aggregate Planning Method ........................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER III ..................................................................................................................... 10
DATA COLLECTION ....................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER IV ..................................................................................................................... 15
DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 15
4.1 Zero Inventories ............................................................................................................ 15
4.3 Mixed Plan .................................................................................................................... 21
4.4 Cost Comparison........................................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER IV ..................................................................................................................... 25
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 25
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 26

2.1
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Aggregate planning is an operational activity critical to the organization as it
looks to balance long-term strategic planning with short term production success.
Aggregate planning helps achieve balance between operation goal, financial goal and
overall strategic objective of the organization. It serves as a platform to manage
capacity and demand planning. To make an aggregate planning there are several input
needed:

 Demand forecast for a certain period.

 Available means to manage capacity planning such as overtime, sub-contracting,
backorder, outsourcing, and etc.
 Existing operational status of workforce, inventory, production rate, and etc.

There are three types of aggregate planning strategies available for organization to
choose from. They are as follows.

 Level Strategy

Level strategy maintain a steady production rate and workforce level. In this
strategy, organization requires a robust forecast demand as to increase or
decrease production in anticipation of lower or higher customer demand.
Advantage of level strategy is steady workforce. Disadvantage of level
strategy is high inventory and increase back logs.

 Chase Strategy

2.2
 Chase strategy looks to dynamically match demand with production. Advantage
of chase strategy is lower inventory levels and back logs. Disadvantage is lower
productivity, quality and depressed work force.

 Hybrid Strategy

As the name suggests, hybrid strategy looks to balance between level strategy and
chase strategy.

1.2 Objectives
The objectives of this report are:

 To fulfill the demand by adjusting the production level.

 To maximize the usage of the human resources, equipment, and plant.
 To reduce the production cost.
 To stabilize the workforce levels.
 To maximize the stability of the production rate.

1.3 Tools and Equipment(s)

The tools and equipment that used for this report are:

 Microsoft Excel
 Papers
 Laptop
 Printer

1.4 Steps
The steps of this report are:

2.3
 Determine the best forecasting method that already calculated on the previous
report.
 Calculate the aggregate planning based on several methods.
 Calculate the MPS with the workforce level, inventory strategy, and
transportation method in aggregate level.
 Choose the method with the lowest cost.
 Analyze the method.

2.4
 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE STUDY

2.1 Aggregate Planning

According to R. Anthony Inman, aggregate planning is the process of

developing, analyzing, and maintaining a preliminary, approximate schedule of the
overall operations of an organization. The aggregate plan generally contains targeted
sales forecasts, production levels, and inventory levels. This schedule is intended to
satisfy the demand forecast at a minimum cost. Aggregate plans serve as a foundation
for future short-range type planning, such as production scheduling, sequencing, and
loading. The master production schedule (MPS) used in material requirements
planning (MRP) has been described as the aggregate plan "disaggregated."
In the other source, aggregate planning is an operational activity critical to the
organization as it looks to balance long-term strategic planning with short term
production success (Prachi Juneja). Aggregate Planning is also defined as an attempt
to match the supply and demand of a product or service by determining the exact
amount and timing of input, transformation, and output. Also made for production,
staffing, inventory, and backorders. Aggregate planning has several objectives, which
are minimize cost/ maximize profit, maximize customer service, minimize inventory
investment, minimize changes in production rate, minimize changes in workforce
level, and to maximize utilization of plants and equipment.

Aggregate Planning has several functions, which are first, ensure sales plans
and production plans are consistent with the company's strategic plan, second
performance planning process production planning tool, ensure production capability
is consistent with the production plan, monitoring actual production results of

2.5
production plans and making adjustments, arrange the finished product inventory to
reach the target and make adjustments, and the last is direct the preparation and
execution of master production schedules. Basically the goal of aggregate planning is
to seek an optimal solution in cost or profit in the planning period. For manufacturing
companies, the aggregate schedule aims at connecting the company's strategic
objectives with the production plan, but for the service company, aggregate
scheduling aims to link targets to the worker's schedule.

2.2 Cost of Aggregate Planning

There are 7 types of cost in aggregate planning. They are the regular time
cost, over time cost, hiring cost (an additional labor cost for advertising, selection and
training), lay off Cost (cost for reducing workforce by one person or firing),
subcontracted cost (cost when the demand beyond the capacity of a regular capacity),
holding cost (cost for keeping the finished good inventory, included interest, spaces,
taxes, insurance, and other cost), and the last is stock out cost (the expected losses
result from failure to meet the demand for the product). If the customer wait for the
delivery, it called backorders cost and if the customer go somewhere else, it called
lost sales.

2.3 Aggregate Planning Strategies

There 3 types of strategies for aggregate planning, they are capacity options,
demand option, and mixed option. For capacity option (Reactive), here are the several
option based on the capacity/ production. First change the inventory levels, classify
the amount of labor, classify level of production based in the overtime or free time,
subcontracting during the high demand, and use part time employees.

2.6
 For the demand options (Proactive), the companies can affect the demand by
doing some promotion, advertisement, discount, personal selling, or anything else to
attract customer. And also backordering that makes for the customer to agree to order
for the delivery of the order in case of a condition where the company cannot fulfill
the customer's request from the available inventory.

The last strategy is mixed options, there are two types in this strategy, level
and chase strategy. For level strategy, level strategy seeks to produce an aggregate
plan that maintains a steady production rate and/or a steady employment level. In
order to satisfy changes in customer demand, the firm must raise or lower inventory
levels in anticipation of increased or decreased levels of forecast demand. The firm
maintains a level workforce and a steady rate of output when demand is somewhat
low. This allows the firm to establish higher inventory levels than are currently
needed. As demand increases, the firm is able to continue a steady production steady
employment level, while allowing the inventory surplus to absorb the increased
demand. For the chase strategy, a chase strategy implies matching demand and
capacity period by period. This could result in a considerable amount of hiring, firing
or laying off of employees; insecure and unhappy employees; increased inventory
carrying costs; problems with labor unions; and erratic utilization of plant and
equipment. It also implies a great deal of flexibility on the firm's part. The major
advantage of a chase strategy is that it allows inventory to be held to the lowest level
possible, and for some firms this is a considerable savings. Most firms embracing the
just-in-time production concept utilize a chase strategy approach to aggregate
planning.

The other aggregate planning strategies are use inventories to absorb changes
in demand, accommodate changes by varying workforce size, use part times,
overtime, or idle time to absorb changes, use subcontractors and maintain a stable
workforce, and change price or other factors to influence demand.

2.7
2.4 Aggregate Planning Method

These are several methods of aggregate planning.

2.4.1 Zero Inventory

Zero Inventory is a process set-up in a business where the firm

maintains a very low amount of inventory or no inventory at all with an aim to
reduce the possession and storage costs. This also facilitates the business to
enjoy more liquidity which will help in the expansion. It acts as one of the
goals of the just-in-time inventory management system and in fact both the
terms are used inter-changeably. A system in which a company keeps no or
very little inventory in storage, simply ordering exactly what it needs to sell
and receiving it in a timely manner. Zero inventory is the goal of just-in-time
inventory management and the two terms are sometimes used to mean the
same thing. By doing zero inventory methods, it can reduced costs that are
wasted in storing the goods and can make use of the same for other business
activities. It can help the company to the focus to business expansion or
extension rather than wasting time in inventory forecasting and scheduling.

Zero Inventory has its own set of potential risks. In an unexpected

production plan, the firm might be unable to get immediate stock which
upsets the whole supply chain management. The prices quoted by the
suppliers in short-term are generally high and this might add to extra costs to
the company. This system is also beneficial to huge companies where they
have a regular set of vendors whom they deal with but small businesses might
not profit from this as their vendors might change and their production plan is
not interpreted and is quite unexpected.

2.4.2 Constant Workforce with No Backorders

2.8
 Constant workforce is part of level strategy that maintains a level workforce
and a steady rate of output when demand is somewhat low. This allows the firm to
establish higher inventory levels than are currently needed. As demand increases, the
firm is able to continue a steady production rate/steady employment level, while
allowing the inventory surplus to absorb the increased demand. This method
maintains a constant level of output and still meet demand. This is desirable from an
employee relations standpoint. Negative results of thiswould include the cost of
excess inventory, subcontracting or overtime costs, which typically are the cost of
expediting orders and the loss of customer goodwill.

2.4.3 Mixed Plan

Other than constant and chase methods, there is a mixed plans or usually
called hybrid aggregate planning. It can be represented by combination of lines on the
plot. For lines represented constant workforce, and any lines combination not going
below the cumulative demand curve is feasible aggregate plan. The objective will be
to reduce the Total Cost of the first option, which was the lowest, using the hiring and
layoff options rationally.

2.9
 CHAPTER III

DATA COLLECTION

The forecast demands data from the Module 1 : Forecasting are needed.
From the previous report, the best method are the linear cyclic method.

The graph below display the probability plot of linear cyclic method with N=3. The
p-value is less than 0.005 so the residual is normally distributed.

Probability Plot of Linear Cyclic

Normal
99
Mean 1608
95 StDev 127.3
90 N 26
AD 1.611
80
P-Value <0,005
70
Percent

60
50
40
30
20

10
5

1
1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900
C6

Figure 3.1 Probability Plot of Linear Cyclic

The graph below display the autocorrelation function for the residual cyclic method.
Since the blue line touches the red line, it can be said that the residual are correlated
to each other and not independent or randomized.

2.10
 Autocorrelation Function for Linear Cyclic N=3
(with 5% significance limits for the autocorrelations)

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
Autocorrelation

0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Lag

Figure 3.2 Autocorrelation Function of Linear Cyclic

Based the calculated result from Module 1, the best method are choose as the
selected method. The linear cyclic method is the best method compared to other
method that already calculated previously.

2.11
 Table 3.1. Forecast Demand of Product X (September 2018 – February 2019)

Months t cos(120t) sin(120t) dt'

Sep-18 21 1 0,000 1467,82
Okt-18 22 -0,5 0,866 1712,22
Nov-18 23 -0,5 -0,866 1750,51
Des-18 24 1 0,000 1482,54
Jan-19 25 -0,5 0,866 1726,94
Feb-19 26 -0,5 -0,866 1765,23

Table 3.2. Number of Workers from Monday to Saturday

Shift/Day Shift 1 Total

Monday 20 20
Workers Workers
Tuesday 20 20
Workers Workers
Wednesday 20 20
Workers Workers
Thursday 20 20
Workers Workers
Friday 20 20
Workers Workers
Saturday 10 20
Workers Workers

There is one shift in a single working day. There are 20 workers in a shift. The
amount of available workers are 20 workers per day.

The table below display the number of working days from September 2018 until
February 2019. The data are taken from the Indonesia’s calendar.

2.12
Table 3.3. Number of Working Days from September 2018 until February 2019

Months
Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Jan-19 Feb-19
Days / Month 25 27 26 24 25 24
Sum of Days 25 52 78 102 127 151

2.13
 Table 3.4. Name of Holiday from September 2018 until February 2019

Date Holiday Name

December, 25,26th 2018 Christmas Day
January, 1,2nd 2019 New Year Day

The data related to the aggregate planning are displayed in the table below.

Table 3.5. Aggregate Data

Working Hours 7 hours/day

Cycle Time 141 minutes
Regular Time Cost IDR 140.000 /worker/day
Over Time Cost IDR 40.000 /worker/day
Subcontract Cost IDR 50.000 /worker/day
Inventory Cost IDR 20.000 /unit/month
Hiring Cost IDR 4.000.000 /worker
Layoff Cost IDR 6.000.000 /worker
Beginning Inventory 50 units
Ending Inventory 150 units

2.14
 CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS

From the data in the third chapter, the analysis of the data is conducted the
aggregate planning. This chapter is divided into zero inventory planning, no
backorder constant workforce plan, mixed plan where each plan has its own
assumption and the last is the cost comparison.

4.1 Zero Inventories

Here are the assumptions used in the zero inventory aggregate planning:

 Worker used is got by the demand required divided by the unit/worker/month

then it is rounded down. The rest of the product which cannot be finished by
the hired worker will be produced by the overtime worker. This method is
used to create zero inventory level.
 Unit/worker/month is got by the working hour in a day times days times 60
minutes/hour divided by cycle time then it is rounded down.
 There are no limits for the amount of hired worker.
 Overtime maximum is 56 hours per month.
 Only when overtime capacity is overloaded, the subcontract worker will be
used.
 There are no limits for the amount of subcontract worker.

The table below shows that the first demand required is less than the demand by 50. It
is caused by the beginning inventory of 50. The table below also shows the last
demand required to be bigger than the demand. It is caused by the target of the ending
inventory of 150.

2.15
 Months Cost /
Total (worker or
Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Jan-19 Feb-19 unit or day)
1 Days 25 27 26 24 25 24 151
2 Units/worker/month 74 80 77 71 74 71 447,00
3 Demand 1467 1712 1750 1482 1726 1765 9902
4 Demand Required 1417 1712 1750 1482 1726 1915 10002
6 Worker Needed 19 21 22 20 23 26 131
7 Workers Available 20 19 21 22 20 23 125
8 Workers Hired 0 2 1 0 3 3 9
Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp
Hiring Cost
9 - 8.000.000 4.000.000 - 12.000.000 12.000.000 36.000.000 4.000.000
10 Workers Laid Off 1 0 0 2 0 0 3
Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp
Laid Off Cost
11 6.000.000 - - 12.000.000 - - 18.000.000 6.000.000
12 Workers Used 19 21 22 20 23 26 131

Labor Cost Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp
13 66.500.000 79.380.000 80.080.000 67.200.000 80.500.000 87.360.000 461.020.000 140.000
14 Overtime Hour 26 55 55 55 55 55 301
Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp
Overtime Cost
15 1.040.000 2.200.000 2.200.000 2.200.000 2.200.000 2.200.000 12.040.000 40.000
16 Subcontract Hour 0 22 78 92 3 109 304

2.16
 Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp
Subcontract Cost
17 - 1.100.000 3.900.000 4.600.000 150.000 5.450.000 15.200.000 50.000
18 Units Produced 1417,00 1712,77 1750,60 1482,55 1726,68 1915,79 10005,38
19 Round Down 1417 1712 1750 1482 1726 1915 10005
20 Inventory 0 0 0 0 0 150 150
Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp
Holding Cost
21 - - - - - 3.000.000 3.000.000 20.000
Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp
Total Cost
22 73.540.000 90.680.000 90.180.000 86.000.000 94.850.000 110.010.000 545.260.000

Unit Produced

Periode Demand Regular Time Over Time Subcontract Inventory Total Production
Sep-18 1467 1406 11 0 0 1417
Oct-18 1712 1680 23 9 0 1712
Nov-18 1750 1694 23 33 0 1750
Dec-18 1482 1420 23 39 0 1482
Jan-19 1726 1702 23 1 0 1726
Feb-19 1765 1846 23 46 150 1915

2.17
4.2 Constant Workforce

Here are the assumptions used constant workforce no backoder aggregate planning:

 Worker used is got by the demand required divided by the unit/worker/month

then it is rounded down. The rest of the product which cannot be finished by
the hired worker will be produced by the overtime worker. This method is
used to create zero inventory level.
 Unit/worker/month is got by the working hour in a day times days times 60
minutes/hour divided by cycle time then it is rounded down.
 There are no limits for the amount of hired worker.
 Overtime maximum is 56 hours per month.
 Only when overtime capacity is overloaded, the subcontract worker will be
used.
 There are no limits for the amount of subcontract worker.

The table below shows that the first demand required is less than the demand by 50. It
is caused by the beginning inventory of 50. The table below also shows the last
demand required to be bigger than the demand. It is caused by the target of the ending
inventory of 150.

2.18
 Months Cost /
(worker
Total
or unit or
Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Jan-19 Feb-19 day)
1 Days 25 27 26 24 25 24 151
Units/worker/mon
2 th 74 80 77 71 74 71 447.00
3 Demand 1467 1712 1750 1482 1726 1765 9902
4 Demand Required 1417 1427 1337 1048 1141 1354 7724
6 Worker Needed 23 23 23 23 23 23 138
Workers
7 Available 20 23 23 23 23 23 135
8 Workers Hired 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
IDR
Hiring Cost 12,000,00 IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR
9 0 - - - - -
12,000,000 4,000,000
10 Workers Laid Off 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR
Laid Off Cost
11 - - - - - - 0 6,000,000
12 Workers Used 23 23 23 23 23 23 138
IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR
Labor Cost 80,500,00 86,940,00 83,720,00 77,280,00 80,500,00 77,280,00 486,220,00 IDR
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140,000
14 Overtime Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp IDR IDR
Overtime Cost
15 - - - - - - - 40,000

2.19
16 Subcontract Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp IDR IDR
Subcontract Cost
17 - - - - - - 50,000
18 Units Produced 1702.00 1840.00 1771.00 1633.00 1702.00 1633.00 10281.00
19 Round Down 1702 1840 1771 1633 1702 1633 10281
Cummulative
20 Units Produced 1702 3542 5313 6946 8648 10281 36432
Cummulative
21 Inventory 285 413 434 585 561 279 2557
IDR IDR
Holding Cost IDR IDR IDR 11,700,00 11,220,00 IDR IDR IDR
22 5,700,000 8,260,000 8,680,000 0 0 5,580,000 51,140,000 20,000
IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR
Total Cost 98,200,00 95,200,00 92,400,00 88,980,00 91,720,00 82,860,00 549,360,00
23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unit Produced
Periode Demand Regular Time Over Time Subcontract Inventory Total Production
Sep-18 1467 1702 0 0 285 1702
Oct-18 1712 1840 0 0 413 1840
Nov-18 1750 1771 0 0 434 1771
Dec-18 1482 1633 0 0 585 1633
Jan-19 1726 1702 0 0 561 1702
Feb-19 1765 1633 0 0 429 1633

2.20
4.3 Mixed Plan
Here are the assumptions used in the mixed plan aggregate planning:

 Unit/worker/month is got by the working hour in a day times days times 60

minutes/hour divided by cycle time then it is rounded down.
 There are no limits for the amount of hired worker.
 Overtime maximum is 56 hours per month.
 Only when overtime capacity is overloaded, the subcontract worker will be
used.
 There are no limits for the amount of subcontract worker.

The table below shows that the first demand required is less than the demand
by 50. It is caused by the beginning inventory of 50. The table below also
shows the last demand required to be bigger than the demand. It is caused by
the target of the ending inventory of 150.

2.21
 Months Cost / (worker or
Total
Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Jan-19 Feb-19 unit or day)
Days 25 27 26 24 25 24 151
Units/worker/month 74 80 77 71 74 71 447,00
Demand 1467 1712 1750 1482 1726 1765 9902
Demand Required 1417 1501 1491 1279 1372 1585 8645
Worker Needed 22 22 22 23 23 24 136
Workers Available 20 22 22 22 23 23 132
Workers Hired 2 0 0 1 0 1 4
IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR
Hiring Cost IDR 4.000.000
8.000.000 - - 4.000.000 - 4.000.000 16.000.000
Workers Laid Off 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Laid Off Cost IDR 6.000.000
Workers Used 22 22 22 23 23 24 136
IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR
Labor Cost IDR 140.000
77.000.000 83.160.000 80.080.000 77.280.000 80.500.000 80.640.000 478.660.000
Overtime Hour 0 0 0 0 0 55 55
Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp IDR
Overtime Cost IDR 40.000
- - - - - 2.200.000 2.200.000
Subcontract Hour 18 18
Rp Rp Rp Rp Rp
Subcontract Cost IDR 900.000 IDR 50.000
- - - - 900.000
Units Produced 1628,00 1760,00 1694,00 1633,00 1702,00 1735,06 10152,06
Round Down 1628 1760 1694 1633 1702 1735 10152
Inventory 211 259 203 354 330 150 1507
IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR
Holding Cost IDR 20.000
4.220.000 5.180.000 4.060.000 7.080.000 6.600.000 3.000.000 30.140.000
Total Cost IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR

2.22
 89.220.000 88.340.000 84.140.000 88.360.000 87.100.000 90.740.000 527.900.000

Unit Produced
Periode Demand Regular Time Over Time Subcontract Inventory Total Production
Sep-18 1467 1628 0 0 211 1628
Oct-18 1712 1760 0 0 259 1760
Nov-18 1750 1694 0 0 203 1694
Dec-18 1482 1633 0 0 354 1633
Jan-19 1726 1702 0 0 330 1702
Feb-19 1765 1704 23 13 269 1740

2.23
4.4 Cost Comparison

From the previous report, the best forecast method is linear cyclic method. The result
of the linear cyclic method is used to make master production schedule, there are
three methods calculated, such as Zero Inventories, Constant Workforce, and Mixed
Plan. After calculated using each method, the result are displayed in the table below.

Table 4.22 Cost Comparison

Method Total Cost

Zero Inventories Rp 545.260.000
Constant Workforce Rp 549.360.000
Mixed Plan Rp 527.900.000

2.24
 CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSION

Aggregate planning is an operational activity critical to the organization as it looks to

balance long-term strategic planning with short term production success. Aggregate
planning helps achieve balance between operation goal, financial goal and overall
strategic objective of the organization. It serves as a platform to manage capacity and
demand planning.

From the result of the calculation in this report, Mixed Strategy is the best method in
this case. The Mixed Strategy have the lowest total cost, Rp 527.900.000. By that,
the Mixed Strategy is the most efficient and effective method.

2.25
 REFERENCES

Zero Inventory. (2012). Retrieved from Farlex Financial Dictionary: <a

href="https://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Zero+Inventory">Zero
Inventory</a>

Definition of zero inventory. (2017). Retrieved from Open Source ERP: http://www.open-
source-erp-site.com/zero-inventory.html

Bhole, B. (2017, April 10). Aggregate Planning Strategies and Methods. Retrieved from
https://id.scribd.com/presentation/344719085/Aggregate-Planning-Strategies-and-
Methods

Inman, R. A. (n.d.). AGGREGATE PLANNING. Retrieved from References for Business:

https://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/A-Bud/Aggregate-
Planning.html

Juneja, P. (n.d.). What is Aggregate Planning ? - Importance and its Strategies. Retrieved
from Management Study Guide:
https://www.managementstudyguide.com/aggregate-planning.htm

2.26
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I .................................................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Tools and Equipment ................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Steps .......................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER II................................................................................................................... 4
LITERATURE STUDY.................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Definition of Capacity............................................................................................... 4
2.2 Type of Capacity ....................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Definition of Capacity Planning ............................................................................... 4
2.4 Measure of Capacity ................................................................................................. 5
2.5 Resource Planning .................................................................................................... 5
2.6 Capacity Bills ............................................................................................................ 6
2.7 Procedure of Capacity Bills ...................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER III ................................................................................................................. 8
DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER IV ............................................................................................................... 12
DATA ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 12
4.1 Routing Data ........................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Bill Of Capacity ...................................................................................................... 13
4.3 Total Required Capacity ......................................................................................... 14
4.4 Available Capacity .................................................................................................. 17
4.5 Comparison of Required Capacity and Available Capacity ................................... 21
4.6 Solution of Comparison of Required Capacity and Available Capacity ........... 35
CHAPTER V ................................................................................................................ 44
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 44

3.1
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background

The production system design planning use several data such as input
required, the process (input become output), and the output. After selected the
forecast demand for a certain period, the company have to make the capacity
planning. Capacity is defined as the ability to achieve, store or produce. In
general, terms capacity is referred as maximum production capacity, which can be
attained within a normal working schedule. Capacity planning is essential to be
determining optimum utilization of resource and plays an important role decision-
making process, for example, extension of existing operations, modification to
product lines, starting new products, etc.

Strategic capacity planning is an approach for determining the overall capacity

level of capital intensive resources, including facilities, equipment, and overall
labor force size. Capacity planning based on the timeline is classified into three
main categories long range, medium range and short range. Long term capacity of
an organization is dependent on various other capacities. It has implications on
competitive performance in terms of cost, delivery speed, dependability and
flexibility. The medium term strategic capacity planning has a time period
between 2 to 3 years use by a company. The short term strategic planning has a
week time period or continuously updated.

The goal of capacity planning is to minimize this discrepancy. Demand for an

organization's capacity varies based on changes in production output, such as
increasing or decreasing the production quantity of an existing product, or
producing new products. Better utilization of existing capacity can be
accomplished through improvements in overall equipment effectiveness (OEE).
Capacity can be increased through introducing new techniques, equipment and

3.2
materials, increasing the number of workers or machines, increasing the number
of shifts, or acquiring additional production facilities.

This report contains all the steps based on the data’s problem. The analyzed
data will be conclude and compared to the available capacity with the required
capacity to check the capability of fulfilling the demand.

1.2 Objectives
The objectives are:

 Calculate the required production capacity of product Car Toy

 Calculate the available capacity

 Compare between the required capacity and the available capacity and
provide the solution

1.3 Tools and Equipment

The tools and equipment are:

 Microsoft Excel

 Microsoft Word

1.4 Steps
The steps are:

 Calculate the production routing data for product Car Toy

 Calculate the resources needed in each workstation

 Calculate the total required capacity

 Calculate the total available capacity

 Compare between the required capacity and the available capacity

 Provide the solution to balance the available capacity and the required
capacity.

3.3
 CHAPTER II
LITERATURE STUDY

2.1 Definition of Capacity

According Investopedia, capacity is the maximum level of output that a
company can sustain to make a product or provide a service. Planning for capacity
requires management to accept limitations on the production process. Capacity
ties into the fact that all production operates within a relevant range. No piece of
machinery or equipment can operate above the relevant range for very long.
Capacity is usually assumed to mean the maximum rate at which a transformation
system produces or processes inputs.

2.2 Type of Capacity

In operation management, there are 3 types of capacity:

 Potential Capacity: It is for the long term and indicates the available capacity at
hand which can be utilized to influence the planning of senior management.
 Immediate Capacity: It is the maximum available capacity which can be utilized
in the short term.
 Effective capacity: It is the part of the total available capacity which can actually
be put into use.

2.3 Definition of Capacity Planning

Capacity planning is the process used to determine how much capacity is
needed (and when) in order to manufacture greater product or begin production of
a new product. A number of factors can affect capacity number of workers, ability
of workers, number of machines, waste, scrap, defects, errors, productivity,
suppliers, government regulations, and preventive maintenance. Capacity
planning is relevant in both the long term and the short term. Capacity planning is
the process of determining the production capacity needed by an organization to
meet changing demands for its products. In the context of capacity planning,
design capacity is the maximum amount of work that an organization is capable of

3.4
completing in a given period. Effective capacity is the maximum amount of work
that an organization is capable of completing in a given period due to constraints
such as quality problems, delays, material handling, etc.

2.4 Measure of Capacity

Here is the formula for standard hour:

(2-1)

Standard hour us number of hours a skilled worker would take in completing a

given job under normal conditions. Standard hours are computed by using time
and motion studies, and are used as a measurement in standard costing.

Output in Standard Hour Will Depend on:

 Available work hours.

 The fraction of available hours actually worked (utilization level).
 The efficiency of the operator (efficiency level).

(2-2)

(2-3)

2.5 Resource Planning

Resource planning is a process of allocating tasks to human and non-
human resources in a way that would maximize the efficiency of the resources.
Resource planning can also be a process of allocating tasks to human and non-
human resources in order to get an overview of resource availability and capacity.
It can be both of those things and it can be something in between. Resource
planning should be done several times per week. The rule that all changes should
be apparent in the plans as they happen and not ad hoc still holds. Resource

3.5
planning means constant resource allocation and task prioritization. The people
that the plans are made for should be able to see the plans whenever they want and
sync them with their calendar.

2.6 Capacity Bills

In capacity bills is consists of MPS, BOM, and data routing.

2.6.1 Master Production Schedule

The master schedule outlines the anticipated production activities of the

plant. Developed using both internal forecasts and external orders, it states the
quantity of each product that will be manufactured and the time frame in which
they will be needed. The master schedule separates the planning horizon into time,
which are usually calendar weeks. The schedule must cover a time frame long
enough to produce the final product. This total production time is equal to the sum
of the lead times of all the related fabrication and assembly operations. It is
important to note that master schedules are often generated according to demand
and without regard to capacity. An MRP system cannot tell in advance if a
schedule is not feasible, so managers may have to run several possibilities through
the system before they find one that works.

2.6.2 Bill of Material

The bill of materials is a listing of all the raw materials, component parts,
subassemblies, and assemblies required to produce one unit of a specific finished
product. Each different product made by a given manufacturer will have its own
separate bill of materials. The bill of materials is arranged in a hierarchy, so that
managers can see what materials are needed to complete each level of production.
MRP uses the bill of materials to determine the quantity of each component that is
needed to produce a certain number of finished products. From this quantity, the
system subtracts the quantity of that item already in inventory to determine order
requirements.

3.6
2.7 Procedure of Capacity Bills
The steps for procedure of capacity bills are:

 Calculate the standard run hours (SRH)

 Calculate the bill of resource (BOR) or bill of capacity.
 Calculate the total required capacity.
 Compare the available capacity with required capacity.

3.7
 CHAPTER III

DATA COLLECTION

In this capacity planning, the master production schedule used is from the report
of the aggregate planning.

Table 3.1 Master Production Schedule

Reguler Ending
Period Demand RT OT SC Total
Capacity Inventory

1 1467 0 1628 0 0 211 1628

2 1712 0 1760 0 0 259 1760

3 1750 0 1694 0 0 203 1694

4 1482 0 1633 0 0 354 1633

5 1726 0 1702 0 0 330 1702

6 1765 0 1704 23 8 150 1735

The assumption of the working days is attached below as well.

Table 3.2 Assumption of working days

The data of the master production schedule in the previous report is break down
into weeks.

3.8
 Table 3.3 Production Schedule in Weeks

Production Date Wee Working Items Produced

Month k Days
SEPTEMB September 1-8 1 7 456
ER September 9-15 2 6 391
September 16-22 3 6 391
September 23-29 4 6 390
OCTOBER September 30- October 6 5 6 391
October 7-13 6 5 326
October 14-20 7 6 391
October 21-27 8 6 391
November October 28- November 3 9 4+2=6 261+130= 391
November 4-10 10 6 391
November 11-17 11 6 391
November 18-24 12 6 391
November 25- December 1 13 6 391
December December 2-8 14 6 408
December 9-15 15 6 408
December 16-22 16 6 408
December 23-29 17 5 341
January December 30- January 5 18 1+3=4 68 + 204 = 272
January 6-12 19 6 408
January 13-19 20 6 408
January 20-26 21 5 341
February January 27- February 2 22 5+1=6 341 + 72 = 413
February 3-9 23 6 434
February 10-16 24 6 434
February 17-23 25 6 434
February 24-28 26 5 361

3.9
The red number shows the numbers that belong to the last month while the purple
number shows the number that belong to the later month.

Figure 3.1 Product Structure of Car Toy

The figure above shows the product structure of the car toy which will be used
later in the data analysis.

Table 3.4 Run Time and Setup Data

Setup Process
OP Work Time Time
Part No Center Operation (Hour) (Hour) EPQ

Final
1 4010 Assembly 0 0.18 10

2 4020 Painting 0.01 0.16 1

Final
Car 3 4030 Inspection 0 0.01 1

Wheels 1 3030 Assembly 0 0.02 20

Shaft 1 3012 Grinding 0.04 0.03 1

Body 1 3030 Assembly 0 0.012 10

Tire 1 3014 Milling (M/C) 0.02 0.04 20

3.10
 Setup Process
OP Work Time Time
Part No Center Operation (Hour) (Hour) EPQ

Molding
2 3013 (M/C) 0.05 0.07

Molding
Velg 1 3013 (M/C) 0.03 0.1 20

1 3030 Assembly 0 0.15

Upper
Body 2 3016 Cutting 0.07 0.04 20

Molding
1 3013 (M/C) 0.04 0.25
Lower
Body 2 3016 Cutting 0.04 0.014 20

Molding
1 3013 (M/C) 0.04 0.02

Windows 2 3016 Cutting 0.02 0.004 20

Molding
1 3013 (M/C) 0.04 0.15
Rear
Mirror 2 3016 Cutting 0.02 0.01 20

3.11
 CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 Routing Data

The function of routing data is to calculate SRH for producing a car. The
formula of SRH is

Below is the routing data of product car

Table 4.1 Routing Data

Work Setup Process SRH Quantity Req

Center Time Time SRH
Part Operation (Hour) (Hour) EPQ
4010 Final 0.18 1 0.18
Assembly 0 0.18 10
4020 Painting 0.01 0.16 1 0.17 1 0.17
4030 Final 0.01 1 0.01
Car Inspection 0 0.01 1
Wheels 3030 Assembly 0 0.02 20 0.02 4 0.08
Shaft 3012 Grinding 0.04 0.03 1 0.07 2 0.14
Body 3030 Assembly 0 0.012 10 0.012 1 0.012
3014 Milling 0.041 1 0.041
(M/C) 0.02 0.04
3013 Molding 0.0725 1 0.0725
Tire (M/C) 0.05 0.07 20

3.12
 Work Setup Process SRH Quantity Req
Center Time Time SRH
Part Operation (Hour) (Hour) EPQ
3013 Molding 0.1015 1 0.1015
Velg (M/C) 0.03 0.1 20
Upper 3030 Assembly 0 0.15 0.15 1 0.15
Body 3016 Cutting 0.07 0.04 20 0.0435 1 0.0435
3013 Molding 0.252 1 0.252
Lower (M/C) 0.04 0.25
Body 3016 Cutting 0.04 0.014 20 0.016 1 0.016
3013 Molding 0.022 4 0.088
(M/C) 0.04 0.02
Windows 3016 Cutting 0.02 0.004 20 0.005 4 0.02
3013 Molding 0.152 2 0.304
Rear (M/C) 0.04 0.15
Mirror 3016 Cutting 0.02 0.01 20 0.011 2 0.022

4.2 Bill Of Capacity

After making routing data, bill of capacity of each work station is

Table 4.2 Bill of Capacity

Work Center SRH Required for Product X

4010 0.18
4020 0.17
4030 0.01
3030 0.242
3012 0.14
3014 0.041
3013 0.818
3016 0.1015

3.13
4.3 Total Required Capacity
After calculating bill of capacity, we can find the total required capacity.
The formula is

Table 4.3 Total Required Capacity

3.14
 Work Center

Week 4010 4020 4030 3030 3012 3014 3013 3016

Week 1 82,08 77,52 4,56 110,352 63,84 18,696 373,008 46,284

Week 2 70,38 66,47 3,91 94,622 54,74 16,031 319,838 39,6865

Week 3 70,38 66,47 3,91 94,622 54,74 16,031 319,838 39,6865

Week 4 70,2 66,3 3,9 94,38 54,6 15,99 319,02 39,585

Week 5 70,38 66,47 3,91 94,622 54,74 16,031 319,838 39,6865

Week 6 58,68 55,42 3,26 78,892 45,64 13,366 266,668 33,089

Week 7 70,38 66,47 3,91 94,622 54,74 16,031 319,838 39,6865

Week 8 70,38 66,47 3,91 94,622 54,74 16,031 319,838 39,6865

Week 9 70,38 66,47 3,91 94,622 54,74 16,031 319,838 39,6865

Week 10 70,38 66,47 3,91 94,622 54,74 16,031 319,838 39,6865

Week 11 70,38 66,47 3,91 94,622 54,74 16,031 319,838 39,6865

Week 12 70,38 66,47 3,91 94,622 54,74 16,031 319,838 39,6865

Week 13 70,38 66,47 3,91 94,622 54,74 16,031 319,838 39,6865

Week 14 73,44 69,36 4,08 98,736 57,12 16,728 333,744 41,412

Week 15 73,44 69,36 4,08 98,736 57,12 16,728 333,744 41,412

3.15
 Work Center

Week 16 4010 4020 4030 3030 3012 3014 3013 3016

Week 17 61,38 57,97 3,41 82,522 47,74 13,981 278,938 34,6115

Week 18 48,96 46,24 2,72 65,824 38,08 11,152 222,496 27,608

Week 19 73,44 69,36 4,08 98,736 57,12 16,728 333,744 41,412

Week 20 73,44 69,36 4,08 98,736 57,12 16,728 333,744 41,412

Week 21 61,38 57,97 3,41 82,522 47,74 13,981 278,938 34,6115

Week 22 74,34 70,21 4,13 99,946 57,82 16,933 337,834 41,9195

Week 23 78,12 73,78 4,34 105,028 60,76 17,794 355,012 44,051

Week 24 78,12 73,78 4,34 105,028 60,76 17,794 355,012 44,051

Week 25 78,12 73,78 4,34 105,028 60,76 17,794 355,012 44,051

Week 26 64,98 61,37 3,61 87,362 50,54 14,801 295,298 36,6415

Total 1827,36 1725,84 101,52 2456,784 1421,28 416,232 8304,336 1030,428

Proportion 0,105727 0,099853 0,005874 0,142144 0,082232 0,024082 0,48047 0,059618

3.16
 To spread the number of workers to the work station, calculate the proportion as
shown in the table above.

4.4 Available Capacity

The method used in this report to analyze the available total hours is based
by the total employees working times the proportion of each workstation then it is
rounded up/down to match the total employees in each week. The total hours
which are available are the sum of each workstation. The total hours are the total
employees (employees added with subcontract) times the days times working
hour/day (8) added by overtime time employee.

( )

Table 4.4 Available Total Hours

Month Date Week Days Empl Overtime Subcon Total

oyees (Hour) tract Hour
September September 1-8 1 7 22 1232
September 9-15 2 6 22 1056
September 16-22 3 6 22 1056
September 23-29 4 6 22 1056
October September 30 - October 6 5 6 22 1056
October 7-13 6 5 22 880
October 14-20 7 6 22 1056
October 21-27 8 6 22 1056
November October 28- November 3 9 6 22 1056
November 4-10 10 6 22 1056
November 11-17 11 6 22 1056
November 18-24 12 6 22 1056
November 25- December 13 6 22 1056
1
December December 2-8 14 6 23 1104

3.17
Month Date Week Days Empl Overtime Subcon Total
oyees (Hour) tract Hour
December 9-15 15 6 23 1104
December 16-22 16 6 23 1104
December 23-29 17 5 23 920
January December 30- January 5 18 4 23 736
January 6-12 19 6 23 1104
January 13-19 20 6 23 1104
January 20-26 21 5 23 920
February January 27- February 2 22 5 24 11 18 1681
February 3-9 23 6 24 11 18 2027
February 10-16 24 6 24 11 18 2027
February 17-23 25 6 24 11 18 2027
February 24-28 26 5 24 11 18 1681

The next step is to determine the number of worker in each station

according to the ratio which is shown before. The number below is got by
multiplying the total employee with the ratio then the numbers are rounded
up/down to match the total employee number when all numbers in one row are
added together.

Table 4.5 Worker/Workstation Each Week

Worker / Workstation(Proportion)

Total 4010 4020 4030 3030 3012 3014 3013 3016

Week Employees (0.1057) (0.0999) (0.0059) (0.1421) (0.0822) (0.0241) (0.4805) (0.0596)
1 22 2 2 1 3 1 1 11 1
2 22 2 2 1 3 1 1 11 1
3 22 2 2 1 3 1 1 11 1

3.18
 Worker / Workstation(Proportion)

Total 4010 4020 4030 3030 3012 3014 3013 3016

Week Employees (0.1057) (0.0999) (0.0059) (0.1421) (0.0822) (0.0241) (0.4805) (0.0596)
4 22 2 2 1 3 1 1 11 1
5 22 2 2 1 3 1 1 11 1
6 22 2 2 1 3 1 1 11 1
7 22 2 2 1 3 1 1 11 1
8 22 2 2 1 3 1 1 11 1
9 22 2 2 1 3 1 1 11 1
10 22 2 2 1 3 1 1 11 1
11 22 2 2 1 3 1 1 11 1
12 22 2 2 1 3 1 1 11 1
13 22 2 2 1 3 1 1 11 1
14 23 2 2 1 3 2 1 11 1
15 23 2 2 1 3 2 1 11 1
16 23 2 2 1 3 2 1 11 1
17 23 2 2 1 3 2 1 11 1
18 23 2 2 1 3 2 1 11 1
19 23 2 2 1 3 2 1 11 1
20 23 2 2 1 3 2 1 11 1
21 23 2 2 1 3 2 1 11 1
22 42 4 4 1 6 3 1 20 3
23 42 4 4 1 6 3 1 20 3
24 42 4 4 1 6 3 1 20 3
25 42 4 4 1 6 3 1 20 3
26 42 4 4 1 6 3 1 20 3

After determining the number of worker in each station, the next step is to
calculate the number of hour available in each workstation for each week. The
calculation can be done by

3.19
 The assumption of joining the overtime hour and subcontract worker to be
converted to regular hour is made since overtime and subcontract appeared only in
the last month and the number is not significantly big.

Table 4.6 Hour Available/Workstation Each Week

Hour Available / Workstation (Proportion)

Week Days 4010 4020 4030 3030 3012 3014 3013 3016
(0.1057) (0.0999) (0.0059) (0.1421) (0.0822) (0.0241) (0.4805) (0.0596)
1 7 112 112 56 168 56 56 616 56
2 6 96 96 48 144 48 48 528 48
3 6 96 96 48 144 48 48 528 48
4 6 96 96 48 144 48 48 528 48
5 6 96 96 48 144 48 48 528 48
6 5 80 80 40 120 40 40 440 40
7 6 96 96 48 144 48 48 528 48
8 6 96 96 48 144 48 48 528 48
9 6 96 96 48 144 48 48 528 48
10 6 96 96 48 144 48 48 528 48
11 6 96 96 48 144 48 48 528 48
12 6 96 96 48 144 48 48 528 48
13 6 96 96 48 144 48 48 528 48
14 6 96 96 48 144 96 48 528 48
15 6 96 96 48 144 96 48 528 48

3.20
 Hour Available / Workstation (Proportion)

Week Days 4010 4020 4030 3030 3012 3014 3013 3016
(0.1057) (0.0999) (0.0059) (0.1421) (0.0822) (0.0241) (0.4805) (0.0596)
16 6 96 96 48 144 96 48 528 48
17 5 80 80 40 120 80 40 440 40
18 4 64 64 32 96 64 32 352 32
19 6 96 96 48 144 96 48 528 48
20 6 96 96 48 144 96 48 528 48
21 5 80 80 40 120 80 40 440 40
22 6 203 203 59 299 155 59 971 155
23 6 203 203 59 299 155 59 971 155
24 6 203 203 59 299 155 59 971 155
25 6 203 203 59 299 155 59 971 155
26 5 171 171 51 251 131 51 811 131
Total 2935 2935 1263 4375 2079 1263 15431 1727

4.5 Comparison of Required Capacity and Available Capacity

In this part, the required capacity is compared to the available capacity in each
station.

4.5.1 Total Required Capacity vs Available Capacity

The table below shows the utilization of each workstation during the
duration of 6 months.

3.21
Table 4.7 Total Required Capacity vs Total Available Capacity in Each Workstation

Required Available Utilization Capacity

Capacity Capacity
Workstation 4010 1827,36 2935 62.26% Under
Workstation 4020 1725,84 2935 58.8% Under
Workstation 4030 101,52 1263 8.04% Under
Workstation 3030 2456,784 4375 56.15% Under
Workstation 3012 1421,28 2079 68.36% Under
Workstation 3014 416,232 1263 32.96% Under
Workstation 3013 8304,336 15431 53.81% Under
Workstation 3016 1030,428 1727 59.67% Under

The table shows that all of the workstation required work hours is under the
available work hours. For an easier explanation, here is attached the bar chart. For
better explanation why this situation happened, the analysis is done further in each
workstation.

Figure 4.1 Bar Chart of Required Capacity vs Available Capacity

3.22
 4.5.2 Workstation 4010

This table below shows the comparison between required capacity and the
available capacity from week 1 to week 26.

3.23
 Table 4.8 Total Required Capacity vs Total Available Capacity in WS 4010

Required Available
Week Capacity Capacity Utilization Capacity
1 82.08 112 73.29% under
2 70.38 96 73.31% under
3 70.38 96 73.31% under
4 70.20 96 73.13% under
5 70.38 96 73.31% under
6 58.68 80 73.35% under
7 70.38 96 73.31% under
8 70.38 96 73.31% under
9 70.38 96 73.31% under
10 70.38 96 73.31% under
11 70.38 96 73.31% under
12 70.38 96 73.31% under
13 70.38 96 73.31% under
14 73.44 96 76.50% under
15 73.44 96 76.50% under
16 73.44 96 76.50% under
17 61.38 80 76.73% under
18 48.96 64 76.50% under
19 73.44 96 76.50% under
20 73.44 96 76.50% under
21 61.38 80 76.73% under
22 74.34 203 36.62% under
23 78.12 203 38.48% under
24 78.12 203 38.48% under
25 78.12 203 38.48% under
26 64.98 171 38.00% under

The table shows that from week 1 to week 26 the required work hours are
under the available work hours. For an easier explanation, here is attached the bar
chart.

3.24
 250.00

200.00

150.00

100.00

50.00

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Figure 4.2 Bar Chart of Required Capacity VS Available Capacity in WS 4010

4.5.3 Workstation 4020

This table below shows the comparison between required capacity and the
available capacity from week 1 to week 26.

Table 4.9 Total Required Capacity vs Total Available Capacity in WS 4020

Available
Week Required Capacity Capacity Utilization Capacity
1 77.52 112 69.21% Under
2 66.47 96 69.24% Under
3 66.47 96 69.24% Under
4 66.30 96 69.06% Under
5 66.47 96 69.24% Under
6 55.42 80 69.28% Under
7 66.47 96 69.24% Under
8 66.47 96 69.24% Under
9 66.47 96 69.24% Under
10 66.47 96 69.24% Under
11 66.47 96 69.24% Under
12 66.47 96 69.24% Under
13 66.47 96 69.24% Under
14 69.36 96 72.25% Under

3.25
 Available
Week Required Capacity Capacity Utilization Capacity
15 69.36 96 72.25% Under
16 69.36 96 72.25% Under
17 57.97 80 72.46% Under
18 46.24 64 72.25% Under
19 69.36 96 72.25% Under
20 69.36 96 72.25% Under
21 57.97 80 72.46% Under
22 70.21 203 34.59% Under
23 73.78 203 36.34% Under
24 73.78 203 36.34% Under
25 73.78 203 36.34% Under
26 61.37 171 35.89% Under

The table shows that from week 1 to week 26 the required work hours are
under the available work hours. For an easier explanation, here is attached the bar
chart.

250.00

200.00

150.00

100.00

50.00

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Figure 4.3 Bar Chart of Required Capacity VS Available Capacity in WS 4020

4.5.4 Workstation 4030

This table below shows the comparison between required capacity and the
available capacity from week 1 to week 26.

3.26
 Table 4.10 Total Required Capacity vs Total Available Capacity in WS 4030

Required Available
Week Capacity Capacity Utilization Capacity
1 4.56 56 8.14% Under
2 3.91 48 8.15% Under
3 3.91 48 8.15% Under
4 3.90 48 8.13% Under
5 3.91 48 8.15% Under
6 3.26 40 8.15% Under
7 3.91 48 8.15% Under
8 3.91 48 8.15% Under
9 3.91 48 8.15% Under
10 3.91 48 8.15% Under
11 3.91 48 8.15% Under
12 3.91 48 8.15% Under
13 3.91 48 8.15% Under
14 4.08 48 8.50% Under
15 4.08 48 8.50% Under
16 4.08 48 8.50% Under
17 3.41 40 8.53% Under
18 2.72 32 8.50% Under
19 4.08 48 8.50% Under
20 4.08 48 8.50% Under
21 3.41 40 8.53% Under
22 4.13 59 7.00% Under
23 4.34 59 7.36% Under
24 4.34 59 7.36% Under
25 4.34 59 7.36% Under
26 3.61 51 7.08% Under

The table shows that from week 1 to week 26 the required work hours are
under the available work hours. For an easier explanation, here is attached the bar
chart.

3.27
 70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Figure 4.4 Bar Chart of Required Capacity VS Available Capacity in WS 4030

4.5.5 Workstation 3030

This table below shows the comparison between required capacity and the
available capacity from week 1 to week 26.

Table 4.11 Total Required Capacity vs Total Available Capacity in WS 3030

Required Available
Week Capacity Capacity Utilization Capacity
1 110.35 168 65.69% Under
2 94.62 144 65.71% Under
3 94.62 144 65.71% Under
4 94.38 144 65.54% Under
5 94.62 144 65.71% Under
6 78.89 120 65.74% Under
7 94.62 144 65.71% Under
8 94.62 144 65.71% Under
9 94.62 144 65.71% Under
10 94.62 144 65.71% Under
11 94.62 144 65.71% Under
12 94.62 144 65.71% Under
13 94.62 144 65.71% Under
14 98.74 144 68.57% Under
15 98.74 144 68.57% Under
16 98.74 144 68.57% Under
17 82.52 120 68.77% Under
18 65.82 96 68.57% Under
19 98.74 144 68.57% Under

3.28
 Required Available
Week Capacity Capacity Utilization Capacity
20 98.74 144 68.57% Under
21 82.52 120 68.77% Under
22 99.95 299 33.43% Under
23 105.03 299 35.13% Under
24 105.03 299 35.13% Under
25 105.03 299 35.13% Under
26 87.36 251 34.81% Under

The table shows that from week 1 to week 26 the required work hours are
under the available work hours. For an easier explanation, here is attached the bar
chart.

350.00

300.00

250.00

200.00

150.00

100.00

50.00

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Figure 4.5 Bar Chart of Required Capacity VS Available Capacity in WS 3030

4.5.6 Workstation 3012

This table below shows the comparison between required capacity and the
available capacity from week 1 to week 26.

3.29
 Table 4.12 Total Required Capacity vs Total Available Capacity in WS 3012

Available
Week Required Capacity Capacity Utilization Capacity
1 63.84 56 114.00% above
2 54.74 48 114.04% above
3 54.74 48 114.04% above
4 54.60 48 113.75% above
5 54.74 48 114.04% above
6 45.64 40 114.10% above
7 54.74 48 114.04% above
8 54.74 48 114.04% above
9 54.74 48 114.04% above
10 54.74 48 114.04% above
11 54.74 48 114.04% above
12 54.74 48 114.04% above
13 54.74 48 114.04% above
14 57.12 96 59.50% under
15 57.12 96 59.50% under
16 57.12 96 59.50% under
17 47.74 80 59.68% under
18 38.08 64 59.50% under
19 57.12 96 59.50% under
20 57.12 96 59.50% under
21 47.74 80 59.68% under
22 57.82 155 37.30% under
23 60.76 155 39.20% under
24 60.76 155 39.20% under
25 60.76 155 39.20% under
26 50.54 131 38.58% under

The table shows that from week 1 to week 26 the required work hours are
under the available work hours. For an easier explanation, here is attached the bar
chart.

3.30
 180.00
160.00
140.00
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Figure 4.6 Bar Chart of Required Capacity VS Available Capacity in WS 3012

4.5.7 Workstation 3014

This table below shows the comparison between required capacity and the
available capacity from week 1 to week 26.

Table 4.13 Total Required Capacity vs Total Available Capacity in WS 3014

Available
Week Required Capacity Capacity Utilization Capacity
1 18.70 56 33.39% under
2 16.03 48 33.40% under
3 16.03 48 33.40% Under
4 15.99 48 33.31% Under
5 16.03 48 33.40% Under
6 13.37 40 33.42% Under
7 16.03 48 33.40% Under
8 16.03 48 33.40% Under
9 16.03 48 33.40% Under
10 16.03 48 33.40% Under
11 16.03 48 33.40% Under
12 16.03 48 33.40% Under
13 16.03 48 33.40% Under
14 16.73 48 34.85% Under
15 16.73 48 34.85% Under
16 16.73 48 34.85% Under
17 13.98 40 34.95% Under

3.31
 Available
Week Required Capacity Capacity Utilization Capacity
18 11.15 32 34.85% Under
19 16.73 48 34.85% Under
20 16.73 48 34.85% Under
21 13.98 40 34.95% Under
22 16.93 59 28.70% Under
23 17.79 59 30.16% Under
24 17.79 59 30.16% Under
25 17.79 59 30.16% Under
26 14.80 51 29.02% Under

The table shows that from week 1 to week 26 the required work hours are
under the available work hours. For an easier explanation, here is attached the bar
chart.

70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Figure 4.7 Bar Chart of Required Capacity VS Available Capacity in WS 3014

4.5.8 Workstation 3013

This table below shows the comparison between required capacity and the
available capacity from week 1 to week 26.

Table 4.14 Total Required Capacity vs Total Available Capacity in WS 3013

Required
Week Capacity Available Capacity Utilization Capacity
1 373.01 616 60.55% Under

3.32
 Required
Week Capacity Available Capacity Utilization Capacity
2 319.84 528 60.58% Under
3 319.84 528 60.58% under
4 319.02 528 60.42% under
5 319.84 528 60.58% under
6 266.67 440 60.61% under
7 319.84 528 60.58% under
8 319.84 528 60.58% under
9 319.84 528 60.58% under
10 319.84 528 60.58% under
11 319.84 528 60.58% under
12 319.84 528 60.58% under
13 319.84 528 60.58% under
14 333.74 528 63.21% under
15 333.74 528 63.21% under
16 333.74 528 63.21% under
17 278.94 440 63.40% under
18 222.50 352 63.21% under
19 333.74 528 63.21% under
20 333.74 528 63.21% under
21 278.94 440 63.40% under
22 337.83 971 34.79% under
23 355.01 971 36.56% under
24 355.01 971 36.56% under
25 355.01 971 36.56% under
26 295.30 811 36.41% under

The table shows that from week 1 to week 26 the required work hours are
under the available work hours. For an easier explanation, here is attached the bar
chart.

3.33
 1,200.00
1,000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Figure 4.8 Bar Chart of Required Capacity VS Available Capacity in WS 3013

4.5.9 Workstation 3016

This table below shows the comparison between required capacity and the
available capacity from week 1 to week 26.

Table 4.15 Total Required Capacity vs Total Available Capacity in WS 3016

Required Available
Week Capacity Capacity Utilization Capacity
1 46.28 56 82.65% under
2 39.69 48 82.68% under
3 39.69 48 82.68% under
4 39.59 48 82.47% under
5 39.69 48 82.68% under
6 33.09 40 82.72% under
7 39.69 48 82.68% under
8 39.69 48 82.68% under
9 39.69 48 82.68% under
10 39.69 48 82.68% under
11 39.69 48 82.68% under
12 39.69 48 82.68% under
13 39.69 48 82.68% under
14 41.41 48 86.28% under
15 41.41 48 86.28% under
16 41.41 48 86.28% under
17 34.61 40 86.53% Under
18 27.61 32 86.28% Under
19 41.41 48 86.28% Under
20 41.41 48 86.28% Under

3.34
 Required Available
Week Capacity Capacity Utilization Capacity
21 34.61 40 86.53% under
22 41.92 155 27.04% Under
23 44.05 155 28.42% Under
24 44.05 155 28.42% Under
25 44.05 155 28.42% Under
26 36.64 131 27.97% Under

The table shows that from week 1 to week 26 the required work hours are
under the available work hours. For an easier explanation, here is attached the bar
chart.

200.00

150.00

100.00

50.00

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Figure 4.9 Bar Chart of Required Capacity VS Available Capacity in WS 3016

4.6 Solution of Comparison of Required Capacity and Available Capacity

Table 4.15 Total Required Capacity VS Total Available Capacity in WS 3016

Week WORKSTATION
4010 4020 4030 3030 3012 3014 3013 3016
1 73.29% 69.21% 8.14% 65.69% 114.00% 33.39% 60.55% 82.65%
2 73.31% 69.24% 8.15% 65.71% 114.04% 33.40% 60.58% 82.68%
3 73.31% 69.24% 8.15% 65.71% 114.04% 33.40% 60.58% 82.68%
4 73.13% 69.06% 8.13% 65.54% 113.75% 33.31% 60.42% 82.47%
5 73.31% 69.24% 8.15% 65.71% 114.04% 33.40% 60.58% 82.68%
6 73.35% 69.28% 8.15% 65.74% 114.10% 33.42% 60.61% 82.72%
7 73.31% 69.24% 8.15% 65.71% 114.04% 33.40% 60.58% 82.68%

3.35
Week WORKSTATION
4010 4020 4030 3030 3012 3014 3013 3016
8 73.31% 69.24% 8.15% 65.71% 114.04% 33.40% 60.58% 82.68%
9 73.31% 69.24% 8.15% 65.71% 114.04% 33.40% 60.58% 82.68%
10 73.31% 69.24% 8.15% 65.71% 114.04% 33.40% 60.58% 82.68%
11 73.31% 69.24% 8.15% 65.71% 114.04% 33.40% 60.58% 82.68%
12 73.31% 69.24% 8.15% 65.71% 114.04% 33.40% 60.58% 82.68%
13 73.31% 69.24% 8.15% 65.71% 114.04% 33.40% 60.58% 82.68%
14 76.50% 72.25% 8.50% 68.57% 59.50% 34.85% 63.21% 86.28%
15 76.50% 72.25% 8.50% 68.57% 59.50% 34.85% 63.21% 86.28%
16 76.50% 72.25% 8.50% 68.57% 59.50% 34.85% 63.21% 86.28%
17 76.73% 72.46% 8.53% 68.77% 59.68% 34.95% 63.40% 86.53%
18 76.50% 72.25% 8.50% 68.57% 59.50% 34.85% 63.21% 86.28%
19 76.50% 72.25% 8.50% 68.57% 59.50% 34.85% 63.21% 86.28%
20 76.50% 72.25% 8.50% 68.57% 59.50% 34.85% 63.21% 86.28%
21 76.73% 72.46% 8.53% 68.77% 59.68% 34.95% 63.40% 86.53%
22 36.62% 34.59% 7.00% 33.43% 37.30% 28.70% 34.79% 27.04%
23 38.48% 36.34% 7.36% 35.13% 39.20% 30.16% 36.56% 28.42%
24 38.48% 36.34% 7.36% 35.13% 39.20% 30.16% 36.56% 28.42%
25 38.48% 36.34% 7.36% 35.13% 39.20% 30.16% 36.56% 28.42%
26 38.00% 35.89% 7.08% 34.81% 38.58% 29.02% 36.41% 27.97%

The capacity of workstation 4030 is not maximally used since the

percentage of the usage are in range of 7% to 8.53%. The capacity of workstation
3012 are not sufficient since the capacity used more than 100% from week 1 until
week 13. The workstation 3014 utilization are under 40%, that means workstation
3014 are not maximally utilized from week 1 to week 26. In week 22 to 26 all of
the workstations are not maximally utilized.

4.6.1 Joining Workstation 4030 and Workstation 3014

The table below shows workstation 4030 and 3014. The reason why these
workstations are joined is because the result from table 4.15 shows that both
workstations have low utilization. The new table shows new required capacity and
available capacity based on the assumption that only one worker that handle the
joined workstation.

3.36
 Table 4.16 Workstation 4030+3014

Available
Week Required Capacity Capacity Utilization Capacity
1 23.256 56 41.53% Under
2 19.941 48 41.54% Under
3 19.941 48 41.54% Under
4 19.89 48 41.44% Under
5 19.941 48 41.54% Under
6 16.626 40 41.57% Under
7 19.941 48 41.54% Under
8 19.941 48 41.54% Under
9 19.941 48 41.54% Under
10 19.941 48 41.54% Under
11 19.941 48 41.54% Under
12 19.941 48 41.54% Under
13 19.941 48 41.54% Under
14 20.808 48 43.35% Under
15 20.808 48 43.35% Under
16 20.808 48 43.35% Under
17 17.391 40 43.48% Under
18 13.872 32 43.35% Under
19 20.808 48 43.35% Under
20 20.808 48 43.35% Under
21 17.391 40 43.48% Under
22 21.063 48 43.88% Under
23 22.134 48 46.11% Under
24 22.134 48 46.11% Under
25 22.134 48 46.11% Under
26 18.411 40 46.03% Under

Based on the table, even though there is only one worker assigned to both
workstations the utilization still far below 100%. The utilization will be improved
later in the next session.

3.37
4.6.2 First Revised of Workstation 3012

Based on table 4.15, in workstation 3012 from week 1 to week 13 the

utilization is above 100% which means the available capacity did not fulfill the
requirement. This table below is the first revised of workstation 3012 with the
assumption from week 1 to 13 this research decrease to 6 hours then increase to
10 hours in week 14 to 26.

Table 4.17 Revised for Workstation 3012

Required Available
Week Utilization Capacity
Capacity Capacity
1 53.84 56 96.14% Under
2 44.74 48 93.21% Under
3 44.74 48 93.21% Under
4 44.60 48 92.92% Under
5 44.74 48 93.21% Under
6 35.64 40 89.10% Under
7 44.74 48 93.21% Under
8 44.74 48 93.21% Under
9 44.74 48 93.21% Under
10 44.74 48 93.21% Under
11 44.74 48 93.21% Under
12 44.74 48 93.21% Under
13 44.74 48 93.21% Under
14 67.12 96 69.92% Under
15 67.12 96 69.92% Under
16 67.12 96 69.92% Under
17 57.74 80 72.18% Under
18 48.08 64 75.13% Under
19 67.12 96 69.92% Under
20 67.12 96 69.92% Under
21 57.74 80 72.18% Under
22 67.82 155 43.75% Under
23 70.76 155 45.65% Under
24 70.76 155 45.65% Under
25 70.76 155 45.65% Under
26 60.54 131 46.21% Under

3.38
The utilization above shows that the data are all under the capacity but many still
are 70% and it will be revised in the later session of this chapter.

4.6.3 Second Revised of Workstation 3012

Based on table 4.17, in workstation 3012 from week 14 to week 26 the utilization
is under 75% which means the available capacity did not fully utilized. This table
below is the second revised of workstation 3012. The number of worker from
week21 to week 26 are reduced from 3 workers become 2 workers.

Table 4.18 Revised for Workstation 3012

Week Required Capacity Available Capacity Utilization Capacity

1 53.84 56 96.14% Under
2 44.74 48 93.21% Under
3 44.74 48 93.21% Under
4 44.6 48 92.92% Under
5 44.74 48 93.21% Under
6 35.64 40 89.10% Under
7 44.74 48 93.21% Under
8 44.74 48 93.21% Under
9 44.74 48 93.21% Under
10 44.74 48 93.21% Under
11 44.74 48 93.21% Under
12 44.74 48 93.21% Under
13 44.74 48 93.21% Under
14 67.12 96 69.92% Under
15 67.12 96 69.92% Under
16 67.12 96 69.92% Under
17 57.74 80 72.18% Under
18 48.08 64 75.13% Under
19 67.12 96 69.92% Under
20 67.12 96 69.92% Under
21 57.74 80 72.18% Under
22 67.82 80 84.78% Under
23 70.76 96 73.71% Under
24 70.76 96 73.71% Under
25 70.76 96 73.71% Under
26 60.54 80 75.68% Under

3.39
 4.6.4 Revised of Workstation 3013

Based on table 4.15, in workstation 3013 from week 1 to week 26 the utilization is
under 75% which means the available capacity did not fully utilized. This table
below is the revised of workstation 3013. The number of worker from week 1 to
week 26 are reduced from 11 workers become 8 workers. In the week 22, the
numbers of workers are different among the other weeks, 9 workers.

Table 4.19 Revised for Workstation 3013

Week Required Capacity Available Capacity Utilization Capacity

1 373.01 448 83.26% under
2 319.84 384 83.29% under
3 319.84 384 83.29% under
4 319.02 384 83.08% under
5 319.84 384 83.29% under
6 266.67 320 83.33% under
7 319.84 384 83.29% under
8 319.84 384 83.29% under
9 319.84 384 83.29% under
10 319.84 384 83.29% under
11 319.84 384 83.29% under
12 319.84 384 83.29% under
13 319.84 384 83.29% under
14 333.74 384 86.91% under
15 333.74 384 86.91% under
16 333.74 384 86.91% under
17 278.94 320 87.17% under
18 222.50 256 86.91% under
19 333.74 384 86.91% under
20 333.74 384 86.91% under
21 278.94 320 87.17% under
22 337.83 360 93.84% under
23 355.01 384 92.45% under
24 355.01 384 92.45% under
25 355.01 384 92.45% under
26 295.30 320 92.28% under

3.40
4.6.4 Revised of Workstation 3016

Based on table 4.15, in workstation 3016 from week 22 to week 26 the utilization
is under 75% which means the available capacity did not fully utilized. This table
below is the revised of workstation 3016. The number of worker of week 22 are
reduced become 2 workers. From week 23 to week 26 the number of worker
reduced into 1 worker.

Table 4.20 Revised for Workstation 3013

Required Available
Week Utilization Capacity
Capacity Capacity
1 46.28 56 82.65% under
2 39.69 48 82.68% under
3 39.69 48 82.68% under
4 39.59 48 82.47% under
5 39.69 48 82.68% under
6 33.09 40 82.72% under
7 39.69 48 82.68% under
8 39.69 48 82.68% under
9 39.69 48 82.68% under
10 39.69 48 82.68% under
11 39.69 48 82.68% under
12 39.69 48 82.68% under
13 39.69 48 82.68% under
14 41.41 48 86.28% under
15 41.41 48 86.28% under
16 41.41 48 86.28% under
17 34.61 40 86.53% under
18 27.61 32 86.28% under
19 41.41 48 86.28% under
20 41.41 48 86.28% under
21 34.61 40 86.53% under
22 41.92 80 52.40% under
23 44.05 48 91.77% under
24 44.05 48 91.77% under
25 44.05 48 91.77% under
26 36.64 40 91.60% under

3.41
4.6.5 Revised of Workstation 4010

Based on table 4.15, in workstation 4010 from week 22 to week 26 the utilization
is under 75% which means the available capacity did not fully utilized. This table
below is the revised of workstation 4010. The number of worker of week 22 to
week 26 are reduced from 4 workers become 2 workers.

Table 4.21 Revised for Workstation 4010

Required Available
Week Capacity Capacity Utilization Capacity
1 82.08 112 73.29% under
2 70.38 96 73.31% under
3 70.38 96 73.31% under
4 70.20 96 73.13% under
5 70.38 96 73.31% under
6 58.68 80 73.35% under
7 70.38 96 73.31% under
8 70.38 96 73.31% under
9 70.38 96 73.31% under
10 70.38 96 73.31% under
11 70.38 96 73.31% under
12 70.38 96 73.31% under
13 70.38 96 73.31% under
14 73.44 96 76.50% under
15 73.44 96 76.50% under
16 73.44 96 76.50% under
17 61.38 80 76.73% under
18 48.96 64 76.50% under
19 73.44 96 76.50% under
20 73.44 96 76.50% under
21 61.38 80 76.73% under
22 74.34 80 92.93% under
23 78.12 96 81.38% under
24 78.12 96 81.38% under
25 78.12 96 81.38% under
26 64.98 80 81.23% under

3.42
4.6.6 Revised of Workstation 4020

Based on table 4.15, in workstation 4020 from week 22 to week 26 the

utilization is far below 75% which means the available capacity did not fully
utilized. This table below is the revised of workstation 4020. The number of
worker of week 22 to week 26 are reduced from 4 workers become 2 workers.

Table 4.21 Revised for Workstation 4020

Required Available
Week Capacity Capacity Utilization Capacity
1 77.52 112 69.21% under
2 66.47 96 69.24% under
3 66.47 96 69.24% under
4 66.30 96 69.06% under
5 66.47 96 69.24% under
6 55.42 80 69.28% under
7 66.47 96 69.24% under
8 66.47 96 69.24% under
9 66.47 96 69.24% under
10 66.47 96 69.24% under
11 66.47 96 69.24% under
12 66.47 96 69.24% under
13 66.47 96 69.24% under
14 69.36 96 72.25% under
15 69.36 96 72.25% under
16 69.36 96 72.25% under
17 57.97 80 72.46% under
18 46.24 64 72.25% under
19 69.36 96 72.25% under
20 69.36 96 72.25% under
21 57.97 80 72.46% under
22 70.21 80 87.76% under
23 73.78 96 76.85% under
24 73.78 96 76.85% under
25 73.78 96 76.85% under
26 61.37 80 76.71% under

3.43
 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

Capacity planning is the process of determining the

production capacity needed by an organization to meet changing demands for
its products. The master production schedule (MPS), product structure, and the
routing data are inputs required for the capacity planning.

The routing data of product X are required to calculate the bill of resources
for product X. There are several workstations such as 4010, 4020, 4030, 3030,
3012, 3014, 3013 and 3016. The total required capacity for each weeks
/workstation are calculated. The calculated total required capacity is less
compared to the total available capacity.

The methods to revise the utilization are by reducing (in the overcapacity
area) and increasing the working hour (in the under capacity area). Another
method is by reducing the employees to create a more efficient utilization but
when the employee equals to one. In case of 4010 and 4020 when the reduced
worker is done, the utilization is over capacity, so no change is done. The
workstation 4030 and 3014 is joined together with one worker.

Table 5.1 Summarizing Results

WorkStation Amount of Worker Amount of Hours

4010 2 8
4020 2 8
4030+3014 1 8
3030 1-2 8
3012 1-2 6-10
3013 8-9 8
3016 1-2 8

3.44
 REFERENCES

Capacity. (n.d.). Retrieved from Investopedia:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capacity.asp

Inman, A. (n.d.). Capacity Planning. Retrieved from References for Business:

https://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Bun-Comp/Capacity-
Planning.html#ixzz5XkNHzWcD

PAHKER, A.-K. (2018, May 28). Resource Planning Tools and Types of Resource Planning.
Retrieved from GANTTIC: https://www.ganttic.com/blog/resource-planning-
tools

Standard Hour. (n.d.). Retrieved from Business Dictionary:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/standard-hours.html

3.45
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I .......................................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 3
1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Tools and Equipment(s) .................................................................................................. 4
1.4 Steps ................................................................................................................................ 4
CHAPTER II......................................................................................................................... 5
LITERATURE STUDY........................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Definition of Material Requirements Planning (MRP) ................................................... 5
2.2 Inputs of MRP ................................................................................................................. 6
2.3 Outputs of MRP .............................................................................................................. 8
2.4 MRP Calculation Process................................................................................................ 9
2.5 Lot Sizing Technique .................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER III ..................................................................................................................... 13
DATA COLLECTION ....................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Master Production Planning .......................................................................................... 13
3.2 Product Structure .......................................................................................................... 14
3.3 Inventory Status Records .............................................................................................. 15
CHAPTER IV ..................................................................................................................... 16
DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 16
4.1 Lot for Lot (LFL) .......................................................................................................... 16
4.2 Least Unit Cost (LUC) .................................................................................................. 24
4.3 Least Total Cost (LTC) ................................................................................................. 47
4.4 Silver Meal .................................................................................................................... 70
4.5 Wagner Whitin (WW)................................................................................................... 95

4.1
4.6 Cost Comparison......................................................................................................... 111
CHAPTER V .................................................................................................................... 112
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 112
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 113

4.2
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
Material requirements planning (MRP) is a production planning, scheduling,
and inventory control system used to manage manufacturing processes. MRP is one
of the most widely used systems for harnessing computer power to automate the
manufacturing process. MRP uses information from the bill of materials (a list of all
the materials, subassemblies and other components needed to make a product, along
with their quantities), inventory data and the master production schedule to calculate
the required materials and when they will be needed during the manufacturing
process. It consists of three primary steps: taking inventory of the materials and
components on hand, identifying which additional ones are needed and then
scheduling their production or purchase.

Using information culled from the bill of materials, master schedule, and
inventory records file, an MRP system determines the net requirements for raw
materials, component parts, and subassemblies for each period on the planning
horizon. MRP processing first determines gross material requirements, then subtracts
out the inventory on hand and adds back in the safety stock in order to compute the
net requirements.

The main outputs from MRP include three primary reports and three
secondary reports. The primary reports consist of: planned order schedules, which
outline the quantity and timing of future material orders; order releases, which
authorize orders to be made; and changes to planned orders, which might include
cancellations or revisions of the quantity or time frame. The secondary reports
generated by MRP include: performance control reports, which are used to track

4.3
problems like missed delivery dates and stock outs in order to evaluate system
performance; planning reports, which can be used in forecasting future inventory
requirements; and exception reports, which call managers' attention to major
problems like late orders or excessive scrap rates.

This Material Requirement Planning (MRP) is calculated based on lot-sizing

technique. The result will displayed on the purchase and production plan.

1.2 Objectives
The objectives of this report are:

1. To conduct the netting process for the next three months (12-13 weeks).
2. To determine the best lot sizing technique.
3. To conduct the planning of the materials for the next six months.

1.3 Tools and Equipment(s)

The tools and equipment that used for this assignment are:

1. Microsoft excel.
2. Laptop
3. Paper

1.4 Steps
These are several steps to analyze the data:

1. Do the netting process for the next three months.

2. Calculate the lot sizing using LFL, LUC, LTC, Silver Meal and Wagner-
Within.
3. Conduct the material planning for the next six months.
4. Compare and analyze the result of the lot sizing techniques.
5. Choose the best result.
6. Conclude the result.

4.4
 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE STUDY

2.1 Definition of Material Requirements Planning (MRP)

Material requirements planning (MRP) is a system for calculating the

materials and components needed to manufacture a product. It consists of three
primary steps: taking inventory of the materials and components on hand, identifying
which additional ones are needed and then scheduling their production or purchase.
MRP was first discovered by Joseph Orlicky of J.I Case Company in about 1960.

MRP is one of the most widely used systems for harnessing computer power
to automate the manufacturing process. It's important to note, however, that MRP and
lean production are not the same and are considered by some practitioners to be
antithetical, though some say MRP can help with lean production. MRP is considered
a "push" system, inventory needs are determined in advance, and goods produced to
meet the forecasted need, while lean is a "pull" system in which nothing is made or
purchased without evidence of actual, not forecasted demand.

MRP uses information from the bill of materials (a list of all the materials,
subassemblies and other components needed to make a product, along with their
quantities), inventory data and the master production schedule to calculate the
required materials and when they will be needed during the manufacturing process.

MRP is useful in both discrete manufacturing, in which the final products are
distinct items that can be counted, such as bolts, subassemblies or automobiles, and
process manufacturing, which results in bulk products, such as chemicals, soft drinks

4.5
and detergent, that can't be separately counted or broken down into their constituent
parts.

MRP itself has three objectives, which are first ensure materials are available
for production and products are available for delivery to customers, maintain the
lowest possible material and product levels in store and plan manufacturing activities,
delivery schedules and purchasing activities.

The data that must be considered in an MRP scheme include are the final
product being created. This is sometimes called independent demand, or Level "0" on
BOM, how much is required at a time, when the quantities are required to meet
demand, shelf life of stored materials, inventory status records, bills of materials, an
planning data (this includes all the restraints and directions to produce such items as:
routing, labor and machine standards, quality and testing standards, pull/work cell
and push commands, lot sizing techniques.)

Before calculating the MRP, here are three inputs that MRP system needed.
The inputs are master production schedule (MPS), bill of material (BOM), and
inventory status record. Then, after all of the inputs is available. MRP can be process
according to production requirement. The output of the MRP calculation is the
determination of the number of each required item along with the date of need. The
outputs are MRP primary (orders) report, MRP Action Report, and MRP Pegging
Report.

2.2 Inputs of MRP

2.2.1 Bill of Material (BOM)

The bill of materials is a listing of all the raw materials, component parts,
subassemblies, and assemblies required to produce one unit of a specific finished
product. Each different product made by a given manufacturer will have its own

4.6
separate bill of materials. The bill of materials is arranged in a hierarchy, so that
managers can see what materials are needed to complete each level of production.
MRP uses the bill of materials to determine the quantity of each component that is
needed to produce a certain number of finished products. From this quantity, the
system subtracts the quantity of that item already in inventory to determine order
requirements.

Figure 2.1 Structure Product 1

2.2.2 Master Production Schedule (MPS)

The master schedule outlines the anticipated production activities of the plant.
Developed using both internal forecasts and external orders, it states the quantity of
each product that will be manufactured and the time frame in which they will be
needed. The master schedule separates the planning horizon into time "buckets,"
which are usually calendar weeks. The schedule must cover a time frame long enough
to produce the final product. This total production time is equal to the sum of the lead
times of all the related fabrication and assembly operations. It is important to note
that master schedules are often generated according to demand and without regard to
capacity. An MRP system cannot tell in advance if a schedule is not feasible, so

4.7
managers may have to run several possibilities through the system before they find
one that works.

2.2.3 Inventory Status Record

The inventory records file provides an accounting of how much inventory is

already on hand or on order, and thus should be subtracted from the material
requirements. The inventory records file is used to track information on the status of
each item by time period. This includes gross requirements, scheduled receipts, and
the expected amount on hand. It includes other details for each item as well, like
available inventory (inventory on hand), scheduled receipts (inventory on order / the
total of all expected receipts for which purchase or production order exist.), safety
stock, lead time, safety lead time, and lot sizing.

2.3 Outputs of MRP

2.3.1 MRP Primary Report

This report is contains planned orders (indicating the amount and timing of
future orders.), order releases (authorizing the execution of planned orders.), and
changes (revising planned orders, including changes of due dates ororder quantities
and cancellations of orders.)

2.3.2 MRP Secondary Report

In this report contains performance control reports (evaluating the system

operation by measuring deviations from plans, including missed deliveries and stock
outs, and by providing information that can be used to assess cost performance.),
planning reports (including purchase commitments and other data that can be used to
assess future material requirements.), and exception reports (calling attention to major

4.8
discrepancies such as late or overdue orders, excessive scrap rates, reporting errors,
and requirements for nonexistent parts.)

2.3.2 MRP Pegging Report

This report is a record showing the relationship between demand and supply.
Pegging reports are generated by Material Requirements Planning Systems. This
report is used to develop the manufacturing strategies, to order components based
upon the requirement proposed by the S&OP Team.

2.4 MRP Calculation Process

Here is the layout of MRP:

Figure 2.2 Layout of MRP

 Gross Requirements
The demand amount of each item is called requirements, including the one
demanded as parts to generate the upper-level item, and the one demanded as
service parts. The unified requirements each period is called Gross
Requirements.
 Schedule Receipts
Schedule Receipt is the Schedule of arrival of goods ordered in period t.

4.9
  On-Hand Inventory
On hand inventory is the beginning inventory in the warehouse.
 Net Requirements
The requirements for an item based on its gross requirements (from forecasts,
customer orders or upper level demand), minus stock already on-hand and
scheduled receipts. If the total is below the specified safety stock, a planned
order is generated based on the lot size. The generation of a new planned
order for a given net requirement is normally done only after calculating the
effect of rescheduling all incoming receipts to the dates required.
 Planned Order Receipt
Planned order receipt is total item that received or produced by the company
in the end of the period.
 Planned Order Release
Planned order release is total item that plan to be order to fulfill the next
period’s requirement.
 Lot Size
Lot Size is the order quantity of the item that tells the MRP how much
quantity is ordered, and what lot sizing is used.

2.5 Lot Sizing Technique

Lot size decision is how much item quantity that is made or purchased. Lot
size decision also impacts on the inventory levels, setup and ordering cost, capacity
requirements, and availability. Here are some lot sizing techniques:

1. Lot For Lot (LFL)

Lot for lot is a technique of lot sizing by order the exact amount of the net
requirement each period. Also called discrete order quantity. No extra on hand
inventory.

4.10
 Figure 2.3 Example of LFL
2. Single Lot
Single Lot is order quantity is equal to the total requirement and only one
order is to be placed.
3. Economic Order Quantity (EOQ)
Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) is a type of fixed order quantity that
determines the amount of an item to be purchased or made at one time. The
goal of this technique is to minimize the combined cost of order and carrying
inventory. The formula is: √ . D for annual demand, Cp is
for cost of order preparation or setup cost, and Ch is inventory carrying cost
per unit per year.
4. Least Unit Cost (LUC)
LUC is a dynamic lot sizing technique that adds ordering cost and inventory
carrying cost for each trial lot size, divides by the number of units in the lot
size, then picking the lot size with the lowest unit cost.
5. Least Total Cost (LTC)
LTC is the dynamic lot sizing technique that calculates the order quantity by
comparing the carrying cost and the ordering cost for various lot size, and
select the lot where these costs are most nearly equal.
6. Minimum Cost Period (MCP)

4.11
 MCP is order quantity is selected in such a way the cost period must be
minimum.
7. Part-Period Algorithm (PPA)
PPA is use the ratio of ordering and carrying costs to derive a part-period
number and use the number as a criterion for cumulating requirements.
8. Period Order Quantity (POQ)
POQ is divides the Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) into the annual demand
and order that many times per year. POQ = EOQ/ Avg. period usage.
9. Part Period Balancing (PPB)
PBB is the variation of LTC with look ahead or back. First, compute the
economic part period (EPP). EPP = (Ordering cost)/(carrying
cost/unit/period), then add the requirements period by period until generate
part periods approximate the EPP.

4.12
 CHAPTER III

DATA COLLECTION

After analyzing the capacity planning, we do the material requirements

planning (MRP) for he production planning. MRP is a technique that used to plan
production of subassemblies, components, and raw materials to support MPS. The
result that we want to find is purchase and production plan. There are several input
for MRP

3.1 Master Production Planning

The result on the Master Production Planning based on previous calculation is

Table 3.1 Production Schedule in Weeks

Production Date Week Working Items Produced

Month Days
SEPTEMB September 1-8 1 7 456
ER September 9-15 2 6 391
September 16-22 3 6 391
September 23-29 4 6 390
OCTOBER September 30- October 6 5 6 391
October 7-13 6 5 326
October 14-20 7 6 391
October 21-27 8 6 391
November October 28- November 3 9 4+2=6 261+130= 391
November 4-10 10 6 391
November 11-17 11 6 391
November 18-24 12 6 391

4.13
 November 25- December 1 13 6 391
December December 2-8 14 6 408
December 9-15 15 6 408
December 16-22 16 6 408
December 23-29 17 5 341
January December 30- January 5 18 1+3=4 68 + 204 = 272
January 6-12 19 6 408
January 13-19 20 6 408
January 20-26 21 5 341
February January 27- February 2 22 5+1=6 341 + 72 = 413
February 3-9 23 6 434
February 10-16 24 6 434
February 17-23 25 6 434
February 24-28 26 5 361

3.2 Product Structure

Below are the product structure for car toy

Figure 3.1 Product Structure of Car Toy

4.14
The figure above shows the product structure of car toy.

Table 3.2. Bill of Materials (BOM)

Part/Item Quantity
Car 1
Wheels 4
Shaft 2
Body 1
Tire 4
Velg 4
Upper Body 1
Lower Body 1
Windows 4
Rear Mirror 2

From the product structure and BOM, it is showed that in producing one car
toy, needs 4 wheels, 2 shafts, a body, 4 tires and velg, an upper and lower body, 4
windows, and 2 rear windows.

3.3 Inventory Status Records

The inventory status records are showed as below.

Table 3.3 Inventory Status Records

Inventory Information Amount

Lead Time 1 week
Safety Stock 50
Ordering Cost Rp. 2,000,000/order
Holding Cost Rp. 2,000/unit/week

4.15
 CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS

There are several method to analysis the data that stated in chapter 3, we use
several technique and calculate the total cost of each method and then compare all the
method and find the least cost of all the method.

4.1 Lot for Lot (LFL)

Lot for lot is a method to determine the lot size to fulfill the plan
appropriately. Lot for lot is conducted in each item. We assume the lead time, safety
stock, ordering cost, and holding cost as stated in table 3.3.

Table 4.1 Total Cost of LFL Method

Part Cost
Car Rp 756,000.00
Wheels Rp 108,000.00
Shaft Rp 108,000.00
Body Rp 108,000.00
Tire Rp 54,000.00
Velg Rp 54,000.00
Upper Body Rp 54,000.00
Lower Body Rp 54,000.00
Windows Rp 9,000.00
Rear Mirror Rp 9,000.00
Total Rp 1,314,000.00

Table above shows the total cost for all parts in LFL Method. For the detail
calculation of each part and the POR stated in the table below.

4.16
 Table 4.2 MPS LFL for Car

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
Gross Requirement 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 406 341 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 600.00
Plan Order Released 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ordering Cost Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 IDR 504,000.00

Table 4.3 Total Cost for LFL

Holding Cost Rp 252,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 504,000.00
Total Cost Rp 756,000.00

Table 4.4 MPS LFL for Wheels

Week 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
Gross Requirement 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 1774 1514 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 600.00
Plan Order Released 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ordering Cost Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 IDR 72,000.00

4.17
 Table 4.5 LFL Total Cost for Wheels

Holding Cost Rp 36,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 72,000.00
Total Cost Rp 108,000.00

Table 4.6 MPS LFL for Shaft

Week 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
Gross Requirement 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 862 732 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 600.00
Plan Order Released 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Ordering Cost Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 IDR 72,000.00

Table 4.7 LFL Total Cost for Shaft

Holding Cost Rp 36,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 72,000.00
Total Cost Rp 108,000.00

4.18
 Table 4.8 MPS LFL for Body

Week 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
Gross Requirement 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 406 341 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 600.00
Plan Order Released 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ordering Cost Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 IDR 72,000.00

Table 4.9 LFL Total Cost for Body

Holding Cost Rp 36,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 72,000.00
Total Cost Rp 108,000.00

Table 4.10 MPS LFL for Tire

Week -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
Gross Requirement 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 1774 1514 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 600.00
Plan Order Released 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ordering Cost Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 IDR 72,000.00

4.19
 Table 4.11 LFL Total Cost for Tire

Holding Cost Rp 36,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 72,000.00
Total Cost Rp 108,000.00

Table 4.12 MPS LFL for Velg

Week -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
Gross Requirement 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 1774 1514 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 600.00
Plan Order Released 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ordering Cost Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 IDR 72,000.00

Table 4.13 LFL Total Cost for Velg

Holding Cost Rp 36,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 72,000.00
Total Cost Rp 108,000.00

4.20
 Table 4.14 MPS LFL for Upper Body

Week -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
Gross Requirement 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 406 341 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 600.00
Plan Order Released 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ordering Cost Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 IDR 36,000.00

Table 4.15 LFL Total Cost for Upper Body

Holding Cost Rp 18,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 36,000.00
Total Cost Rp 54,000.00

Table 4.16 MPS LFL for Lower Body

Week -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
Gross Requirement 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 406 341 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 600.00
Plan Order Released 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ordering Cost Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 IDR 36,000.00

4.21
 Table 4.17 LFL Total Cost for Lower Body

Holding Cost Rp 18,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 36,000.00
Total Cost Rp 54,000.00

Table 4.18 MPS LFL for Windows

Week -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Gross Requirement 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 1774 1514 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 600.00
Plan Order Released 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ordering Cost Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 IDR 6,000.00

Table 4.19 LFL Total Cost for Windows

Holding Cost Rp 3,000.00

Ordering Cost IDR 6,000.00
Total Cost Rp 9,000.00

4.22
 Table 4.20 MPS LFL for Rear Mirror

Week -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Gross Requirement 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 862 732 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 600.00
Plan Order Released 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Ordering Cost Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 IDR 6,000.00

Table 4.21 LFL Total Cost for Rear Mirror

Holding Cost Rp 3,000.00

Ordering Cost IDR 6,000.00
Total Cost Rp 9,000.00

4.23
4.2 Least Unit Cost (LUC)

Least Unit Cost or LUC is dynamic lot sizing technique that adds ordering cost and
inventory carrying cost for each trial lot size, divides by the number of units in the lot size, then
picking the lot size with the lowest unit cost.

Here, to calculate total cost of product car there are several items which are wheels, body,
and shaft. In wheels itself there are tire and velg. In body part there are upper and lower. Upper
item is including windows and rear mirror. The total cost by using LUC method is Rp
135.660.000.

Table 4.22 LUC Total Cost

Part Cost
Car Rp 756,000.00
Wheels Rp 108,000.00
Shaft Rp 108,000.00
Body Rp 108,000.00
Tire Rp 54,000.00
Velg Rp 54,000.00
Upper Body Rp 54,000.00
Lower Body Rp 54,000.00
Windows Rp 9,000.00
Rear Mirror Rp 9,000.00
Total Rp 1,314,000.00

For detail calculation of each part and POR, are showed on the next page.

4.24
 Car

Table 4.23 LUC Method for Car

Period Requirement Trial Periods Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit
1 456 1 456 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 4,385.96
2 391 1,2 847 Rp 2,782,000 Rp 3,284.53
3 391 1,2,3 1238 Rp 4,346,000 Rp 3,510.50

3 391 3 391 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 5,115.09

4 390 3,4 781 Rp 2,780,000 Rp 3,559.54
5 391 3,4,5 1172 Rp 4,344,000 Rp 3,706.48

5 391 5 391 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 5,115.09

6 326 5,6 717 Rp 2,652,000 Rp 3,698.74
7 391 5,6,7 1108 Rp 4,216,000 Rp 3,805.05

7 391 7 391 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 5,115.09

8 391 7,8 782 Rp 2,782,000 Rp 3,557.54
9 391 7,8,9 1173 Rp 4,346,000 Rp 3,705.03

9 391 9 391 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 5,115.09

10 391 9,10 782 Rp 2,782,000 Rp 3,557.54
11 391 9,10,11 1173 Rp 4,346,000 Rp 3,705.03

4.25
Period Requirement Trial Periods Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit

11 391 11 391 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 5,115.09

12 391 11,12 782 Rp 2,782,000 Rp 3,557.54

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers a periods. The data of each lot in period, will be used for making the
planned order released.

Table 4.24 MPS LUC for Car

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Gross Requirements 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391

Beginning Inventory 50 441 50 440 50 376 50 441 50 441 50 441

Net requirement 406 341 341 341 341 341

Lot sizing 847 781 717 782 782 782

Ending inventory 441 50 440 50 376 50 441 50 441 50 441 50

Planned Order Released 847 0 781 0 717 0 782 0 782 0 782 0

4.26
 Table 4.25 LUC Total Cost for Car

Ordering Cost 6 Rp12.000.000

Holding Cost 2880 Rp 5.760.000

Total Cost Rp 17.760.000

 Wheel

Table 4.26 LUC Method for Wheel

Period Requirement Trial Periods Trial Lot Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit
Size
1 3388 1 3388 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 590.32
2 0 1,2 3388 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 590.32
3 3124 1,2,3 6512 Rp 14,496,000 Rp 2,226.04

3 3124 3 3124 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 640.20

4 0 3,4 3124 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 640.20
5 2868 3,4,5 5992 Rp 13,472,000 Rp 2,248.33

5 2868 5 2868 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 697.35

6 0 5,6 2868 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 697.35

4.27
 Period Requirement Trial Periods Trial Lot Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit
Size
7 3128 5,6,7 5996 Rp 14,512,000 Rp 2,420.28

7 3128 7 3128 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 639.39

8 0 7,8 3128 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 639.39
9 3128 7,8,9 6256 Rp 14,512,000 Rp 2,319.69

9 3128 9 3128 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 639.39

10 0 9,10 3128 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 639.39
11 3128 9,10,11 6256 Rp 14,512,000 Rp 2,319.69

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is getting
higher. The data of each lot in period, will be used for making the planned order released.

Table 4.27 MPS LUC for Wheel

Week 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gross Requirements 3388 0 3124 0 2868 0 3128 0 3128 0 3128
Beginning 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Inventory
net requirement 3338 3074 2818 3078 3078 3078

4.28
lot sizing 3388 3124 2868 3128 3128 3128
ending inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
planned Order 3388 3124 2868 3078 3128 3128
Released

Table 4.28 LUC Total Cost for Wheel

Ordering Cost 6 Rp12,000,000

Holding cost 550 Rp1,100,000
Total Cost Rp13,100,000

 Shaft

Table 4.29 LUC Method for Shaft

Period net requirement Trial Periods Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit
1 1694 1 1694 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 1,180.64
2 0 1,2 1694 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 1,180.64
3 1562 1,2,3 3256 Rp 8,248,000 Rp 2,533.17

3 1562 3 1562 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 1,280.41

4 0 3,4 1562 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 1,280.41
5 1434 3,4,5 2996 Rp 7,736,000 Rp 2,582.11

4.29
 Period net requirement Trial Periods Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit

5 1434 5 1434 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 1,394.70

6 0 5,6 1434 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 1,394.70
7 1564 5,6,7 2998 Rp 8,256,000 Rp 2,753.84

7 1564 7 1564 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 1,278.77

8 0 7,8 1564 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 1,278.77
9 1564 7,8,9 3128 Rp 8,256,000 Rp 2,639.39

9 1564 9 1564 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 1,278.77

10 0 9,10 1564 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 1,278.77
11 1564 9,10,11 3128 Rp 8,256,000 Rp 2,639.39

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is getting
higher. The data of each lot in periods, will be used for making the planned order released.

Table 4.30 MPS LUC for Shaft

Week 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gross Requirements 1694 0 1562 0 1434 0 1564 0 1564 0 1564
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

4.30
 net requirement 1644 1512 1384 1514 1514 1514
lot sizing 1694 1562 1434 1564 1564 1564
ending inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
planned Order 1694 1562 1434 1564 1564 1564
Released

Table 4.31 LUC Total Cost for Shaft

Ordering Cost 6 Rp12,000,000

Holding cost 550 Rp1,100,000
Total Cost Rp13,100,000

 Body

Table 4.32 LUC Method for Body

period net requirement Trial Periods Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit
1 847 1 847 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,361.28
2 0 1,2 847 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,361.28
3 781 1,2,3 1628 Rp 5,124,000 Rp 3,147.42

3 781 3 781 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,560.82

4 0 3,4 781 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,560.82

4.31
 period net requirement Trial Periods Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit
5 717 3,4,5 1498 Rp 4,868,000 Rp 3,249.67

5 717 5 717 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,789.40

6 0 5,6 717 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,789.40
7 782 5,6,7 1499 Rp 5,128,000 Rp 3,420.95

7 782 7 782 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,557.54

8 0 7,8 782 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,557.54
9 782 7,8,9 1564 Rp 5,128,000 Rp 3,278.77

9 782 9 782 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,557.54

10 0 9,10 782 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,557.54
11 782 9,10,11 1564 Rp 5,128,000 Rp 3,278.77

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is getting
higher. The data of each lot in periods, will be used for making the planned order released.

Table 4.33 MPS LUC for Body

Week 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

4.32
Gross Requirements 847 0 781 0 717 0 782 0 782 0 782
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
net requirement 797 731 667 732 732 732
lot sizing 847 781 717 782 782 782
ending inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
planned Order 847 781 717 782 782 782
Released

Table 4.34 LUC Total Cost for Body

Ordering Cost 6 Rp12,000,000

Holding cost 550 Rp1,100,000
Total Cost Rp13,100,000

 Tire

Table 4.35 LUC Method for Tire

net Trial Trial Lot

period Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit
requirement Periods Size
Rp Rp
0 3388 0 3388
2,000,000 590.32
1 0 0,1 3388 Rp Rp

4.33
 net Trial Trial Lot
period Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit
requirement Periods Size
2,000,000 590.32
Rp Rp
2 3124 0,1,2 6512
14,496,000 2,226.04

Rp Rp
2 3124 2 3124
2,000,000 640.20
Rp Rp
3 0 2,3 3124
2,000,000 640.20
Rp Rp
4 2868 2,3,4 5992
13,472,000 2,248.33

Rp Rp
4 2868 4 2868
2,000,000 697.35
Rp Rp
5 0 4,5 2868
2,000,000 697.35
Rp Rp
6 3078 4,5,6 5946
14,312,000 2,407.00

Rp Rp
6 3078 6 3078
2,000,000 649.77
7 0 6,7 3078 Rp Rp

4.34
 net Trial Trial Lot
period Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit
requirement Periods Size
2,000,000 649.77
Rp Rp
8 3128 6,7,8 6206
14,512,000 2,338.38

Rp Rp
8 3128 8 3128
2,000,000 639.39
Rp Rp
9 0 8,9 3128
2,000,000 639.39
Rp Rp
10 3128 9,10 6256
14,512,000 2,319.69

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is getting
higher. The data of each lot in periods, will be used for making the planned order released

Table 4.36 MPS LUC for Tire

Week -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Gross Requirements 3388 0 3124 0 2868 0 3128 0 3128 0 3128
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
net requirement 3338 3074 2818 3078 3078 3078
lot sizing 3388 3124 2868 3128 3128 3128

4.35
 Ending inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
planned Order 3388 3124 2868 3128 3128 3128
Released

Table 4.37 LUC Total Cost for Tire

Ordering Cost 6 Rp12,000,000

Holding cost 550 Rp1,100,000
Total Cost Rp13,100,000

 Velg

Table 4.38 LUC Method for Velg

Period net requirement Trial Periods Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit
0 3388 0 3388 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 590.32
1 0 0,1 3388 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 590.32
2 3124 0,1,2 6512 Rp 14,496,000 Rp 2,226.04

2 3124 2 3124 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 640.20

3 0 2,3 3124 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 640.20
4 2868 2,3,4 5992 Rp 13,472,000 Rp 2,248.33

4.36
 Period net requirement Trial Periods Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit
4 2868 4 2868 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 697.35
5 0 4,5 2868 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 697.35
6 3078 4,5,6 5946 Rp 14,312,000 Rp 2,407.00

6 3078 6 3078 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 649.77

7 0 6,7 3078 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 649.77
8 3128 6,7,8 6206 Rp 14,512,000 Rp 2,338.38

8 3128 8 3128 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 639.39

9 0 8,9 3128 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 639.39
10 3128 9,10 6256 Rp 14,512,000 Rp 2,319.69

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is getting
higher. The data of each lot in periods, will be used for making the planned order released.

Table 4.39 MPS LUC for Velg

Week -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Gross Requirements 3388 0 3124 0 2868 0 3128 0 3128 0 3128
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
net requirement 3338 3074 2818 3078 3078 3078

4.37
 lot sizing 3388 3124 2868 3128 3128 3128
ending inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
planned Order Released 3388 3124 2868 3128 3128 3128

Table 4.40 LUC Total Cost for Velg

Ordering Cost 6 Rp12,000,000

Holding cost 550 Rp1,100,000
Total Cost Rp13,100,000

 Upper Body

Table 4.41 LUC Method for Upper Body

period net requirement Trial Periods Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit
0 847 0 847 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,361.28
1 0 0,1 847 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,361.28
2 781 0,1,2 1628 Rp 5,124,000 Rp 3,147.42

2 781 2 781 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,560.82

3 0 2,3 781 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,560.82
4 782 2,3,4 1563 Rp 5,128,000 Rp 3,280.87

4.38
 period net requirement Trial Periods Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit

4 782 4 782 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,557.54

5 0 4,5 782 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,557.54
6 782 4,5,6 1564 Rp 5,128,000 Rp 3,278.77

6 782 6 782 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,557.54

7 0 6,7 782 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,557.54
8 782 6,7,8 1564 Rp 5,128,000 Rp 3,278.77

8 782 8 782 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,557.54

9 0 8,9 782 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,557.54
10 782 9,10 1564 Rp 5,128,000 Rp 3,278.77

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is getting
higher. The data of each lot in periods, will be used for making the planned order released.

Table 4.42 MPS LUC for Upper Body

Week -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Gross Requirements 847 781 717 782 782 782

4.39
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
net requirement 797 731 667 732 732 732
lot sizing 847 0 781 0 717 0 782 0 782 0 782
ending inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
planned Order Released 847 781 717 782 782 782

Table 4.43 LUC Total Cost for Upper Body

Ordering Cost 6 Rp12,000,000

Holding cost 550 Rp1,100,000
Total Cost Rp13,100,000

 Lower Body
Table 4.44 LUC Method for Lower Body

period net requirement Trial Periods Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit
0 847 0 847 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,361.28
1 0 0,1 847 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,361.28
2 781 0,1,2 1628 Rp 5,124,000 Rp 3,147.42

2 781 2 781 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,560.82

3 0 2,3 781 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,560.82

4.40
 period net requirement Trial Periods Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit
4 782 2,3,4 1563 Rp 5,128,000 Rp 3,280.87

4 782 4 782 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,557.54

5 0 4,5 782 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,557.54
6 782 4,5,6 1564 Rp 5,128,000 Rp 3,278.77

6 782 6 782 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,557.54

7 0 6,7 782 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,557.54
8 782 6,7,8 1564 Rp 5,128,000 Rp 3,278.77

8 782 8 782 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,557.54

9 0 8,9 782 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,557.54
10 782 8,9,10 1564 Rp 5,128,000 Rp 3,278.77

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is getting
higher. The data of each lot in periods, will be used for making the planned order released.

4.41
 Table 4.45 MPS LUC for Lower Body

Week -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Gross Requirements 847 781 717 782 782 782
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
net requirement 797 731 667 732 732 732
lot sizing 847 0 781 0 717 0 782 0 782 0 782
ending inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
planned Order Released 847 781 717 782 782 782

Table 4.46 LUC Total Cost for Lower Body

Ordering Cost 6 Rp12,000,000

Holding cost 550 Rp1,100,000
Total Cost Rp13,100,000

 Windows
Table 4.47 LUC Method for Windows

Period net requirement Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit
-1 3388 3388 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 590.32
0 0 3388 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 590.32
1 3124 6512 Rp 14,496,000 Rp 2,226.04

4.42
 Period net requirement Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit

1 3124 3124 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 640.20

2 0 3124 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 640.20
3 2868 5992 Rp 13,472,000 Rp 2,248.33

3 2868 2868 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 697.35

4 0 2868 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 697.35
5 3128 5996 Rp 14,512,000 Rp 2,420.28

5 3128 3128 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 639.39

6 0 3128 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 639.39
7 3128 6256 Rp 14,512,000 Rp 2,319.69

7 3128 3128 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 639.39

8 0 3128 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 639.39
9 3128 6256 Rp 14,512,000 Rp 2,319.69

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is getting
higher. The data of each lot in periods, will be used for making the planned order released.

Table 4.48 MPS LUC for Windows

4.43
 Week -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Gross Requirements 3388 3124 2868 3128 3128 3128
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
net requirement 3074 2818 3078 3078 3078
lot sizing 3388 0 3124 0 2868 0 3128 0 3128 0 3128
ending inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
planned Order Released 3388 3124 2868 3128 3128 3128

Table 4.49 Total Cost

Ordering Cost 6 Rp12,000,000

Holding cost 550 Rp1,100,000
Total Cost Rp13,100,000

 Rear Mirror

Table 4.50 LUC Method for Rear Mirror

period net requirement Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit
-1 1694 1694 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 1,180.64
0 0 1694 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 1,180.64
1 1562 3256 Rp 8,248,000 Rp 2,533.17

4.44
 period net requirement Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per Unit
1 1562 1562 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 1,280.41
2 0 1562 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 1,280.41
3 1434 2996 Rp 7,736,000 Rp 2,582.11

3 1434 1434 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 1,394.70

4 0 1434 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 1,394.70
5 1564 2998 Rp 8,256,000 Rp 2,753.84

5 1564 1564 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 1,278.77

6 0 1564 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 1,278.77
7 1564 3128 Rp 8,256,000 Rp 2,639.39

7 1564 1564 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 1,278.77

8 0 1564 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 1,278.77
9 1564 3128 Rp 8,256,000 Rp 2,639.39

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is getting
higher. The data of each lot in periods, will be used for making the planned order released.

4.45
 Table 4.51 MPS LUC for Rear Mirror

Week -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Gross Requirements 1694 1562 1434 1564 1564 1564
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
net requirement 1512 1384 1514 1514 1514
lot sizing 1694 0 1562 0 1434 0 1564 0 1564 0 1564
ending inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
planned Order Released 1694 1562 1434 1564 1564 1564

Table 4.52 LUC Total Cost for Rear Mirror

Ordering Cost 6 Rp12,000,000

Holding cost 550 Rp1,100,000
Total Cost Rp13,100,000

4.46
4.3 Least Total Cost (LTC)
LTC is the dynamic lot sizing technique that calculates the order quantity by
comparing the carrying cost and the ordering cost for various lot size, and select the
lot where these costs are most nearly equal.
Here, to calculate total cost of product car there are several items which are
wheels, body, and shaft. In wheels itself there are tire and velg. In body part there are
upper and lower. Upper item is including windows and rear mirror. The total cost by
using LTC method is Rp 1.314.000,00.

Table 4.53 Table Total Cost for Least Total Cost

Part Cost
Car Rp 756,000.00
Wheels Rp 108,000.00
Shaft Rp 108,000.00
Body Rp 108,000.00
Tire Rp 54,000.00
Velg Rp 54,000.00
Upper Body Rp 54,000.00
Lower Body Rp 54,000.00
Windows Rp 9,000.00
Rear Mirror Rp 9,000.00
Total Rp 1,314,000.00

For detail calculation of each part and POR, are showed on the next page.

4.47
 Car

Table 4.54 LTC Method for Car

Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Periods Carried Holding Cost Cum Holding Cost Decision

1 456 1 456 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

2 391 1,2 847 1 Rp 782.000,00 Rp 782.000,00 Yes

3 391 1,2,3 1238 2 Rp 1.564.000,00 Rp 2.346.000,00 Stop

3 391 3 391 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

4 390 3,4 781 1 Rp 780.000,00 Rp 780.000,00 Yes

5 391 3,4,5 1172 2 Rp 1.564.000,00 Rp 2.344.000,00 Stop

5 391 5 391 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

6 326 5,6 717 1 Rp 652.000,00 Rp 652.000,00 Yes

7 391 5,6,7 1108 2 Rp 1.564.000,00 Rp 2.216.000,00 Stop

7 391 7 391 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

4.48
 Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Periods Carried Holding Cost Cum Holding Cost Decision

8 391 7,8 782 1 Rp 782.000,00 Rp 782.000,00 Yes

9 391 7,8,9 1173 2 Rp 1.564.000,00 Rp 2.346.000,00 Stop

9 391 9 391 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

10 391 9,10 782 1 Rp 782.000,00 Rp 782.000,00 Yes

11 391 9,10,11 1173 2 Rp 1.564.000,00 Rp 2.346.000,00 Stop

11 391 11 391 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

12 391 11,12 782 1 Rp 782.000,00 Rp 782.000,00 Yes

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is getting
higher. The data of each lot in period, will be used for making the planned order released.

Table 4.55 MPS LTC for Car

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
Gross Requirement 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 441 50 440 50 376 50 441 50 441 50 441

4.49
 Net Requirement 406 0 781 0 341 0 341 0 341 0 341 0
Lot Sizing 847 781 717 782 782 782
Ending Inventory 441 50 440 50 376 50 441 50 441 50 441 50 2880,00
Plan Order Released 847 0 781 0 717 0 782 0 782 0 782 0

Table 4.56 LTC Total Cost for Car

Ordering Cost 6 Rp12.000.000

Holding Cost 2880 Rp 5.760.000

Total Cost Rp 17.760.000

 Wheel

Table 4.57 LTC Method for Wheel

Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Periods Carried Holding Cost Cum Holding Cost Decision
1 3438 1 3438 0 Rp - Rp - Yes
2 0 1,2 3438 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
3 3124 1,2,3 6562 2 Rp 12.496.000,00 Rp 12.496.000,00 Stop

3 3124 3 3124 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

4 0 3,4 3124 1 Rp - Rp - Yes

4.50
 Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Periods Carried Holding Cost Cum Holding Cost Decision
5 2868 3,4,5 5992 2 Rp 11.472.000,00 Rp 11.472.000,00 Stop

5 2868 5 2868 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

6 0 5,6 2868 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
7 3128 5,6,7 5996 2 Rp 12.512.000,00 Rp 12.512.000,00 Stop

7 3128 7 3128 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

8 0 7,8 3128 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
9 3128 7,8,9 6256 2 Rp 12.512.000,00 Rp 12.512.000,00 Stop

9 3128 9 3128 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

10 0 9,10 3128 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
11 3128 9,10,11 6256 2 Rp 12.512.000,00 Rp 12.512.000,00 Stop

11 3128 11 3128 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is getting
higher. The data of each lot in period, will be used for making the planned order released.

4.51
 Table 4.58 MPS LTC for Wheel

Week 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gross Requirements 3388 0 3124 0 2868 0 3128 0 3128 0 3128
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
net requirement 3338 3074 2818 3078 3078 3078
lot sizing 3388 3124 2868 3128 3128 3128
ending inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
planned Order Released 3388 3124 2868 3078 3128 3128

Table 4.59 LTC Total Cost for Wheel

Ordering Cost 6 Rp12,000,000

Holding cost 550 Rp1,100,000
Total Cost Rp13,100,000

4.52
 Shaft

Table 4.60 LTC Method for Shaft

Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Periods Carried Holding Cost Cum Holding Cost Decision
1 1744 1 1744 0 Rp - Rp - Yes
2 0 1,2 1744 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
3 1562 1,2,3 3306 2 Rp 6.248.000,00 Rp 6.248.000,00 Stop

3 1562 3 1562 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

4 0 3,4 1562 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
5 1434 3,4,5 2996 2 Rp 5.736.000,00 Rp 5.736.000,00 Stop

5 1434 5 1434 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

6 0 5,6 1434 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
7 1564 5,6,7 2998 2 Rp 6.256.000,00 Rp 6.256.000,00 Stop

7 1564 7 1564 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

8 0 7,8 1564 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
9 1564 7,8,9 3128 2 Rp 6.256.000,00 Rp 6.256.000,00 Stop

9 1564 9 1564 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

10 0 9,10 1564 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
11 1564 9,10,11 3128 2 Rp 6.256.000,00 Rp 6.256.000,00 Stop

4.53
 Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Periods Carried Holding Cost Cum Holding Cost Decision

11 1564 11 1564 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is getting
higher. The data of each lot in periods, will be used for making the planned order released.

Table 4.61 MPS LTC for Shaft

Week 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gross Requirements 1694 0 1562 0 1434 0 1564 0 1564 0 1564
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
net requirement 1644 1512 1384 1514 1514 1514
lot sizing 1694 1562 1434 1564 1564 1564
ending inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
planned Order Released 1694 1562 1434 1564 1564 1564

Table 4.62 LTC Total Cost for Shaft

Ordering Cost 6 Rp12,000,000

Holding cost 550 Rp1,100,000
Total Cost Rp13,100,000

4.54
 Body

Table 4.63 LTC Method for Body

Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Periods Carried Holding Cost Cum Holding Cost Decision
1 897 1 897 0 Rp - Rp - Yes
2 0 1,2 897 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
3 781 1,2,3 1678 2 Rp 3.124.000,00 Rp 3.124.000,00 Stop

3 781 3 781 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

4 0 3,4 781 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
5 717 3,4,5 1498 2 Rp 2.868.000,00 Rp 2.868.000,00 Stop

5 717 5 717 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

6 0 5,6 717 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
7 782 5,6,7 1499 2 Rp 3.128.000,00 Rp 3.128.000,00 Stop

7 782 7 782 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

8 0 7,8 782 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
9 782 7,8,9 1564 2 Rp 3.128.000,00 Rp 3.128.000,00 Stop

9 782 9 782 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

10 0 9,10 782 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
11 782 9,10,11 1564 2 Rp 3.128.000,00 Rp 3.128.000,00 Stop

4.55
 Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Periods Carried Holding Cost Cum Holding Cost Decision

11 782 11 782 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is getting
higher. The data of each lot in periods, will be used for making the planned order released.

Table 4.64 MPS LTC for Body

Week 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gross Requirements 847 0 781 0 717 0 782 0 782 0 782
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
net requirement 797 731 667 732 732 732
lot sizing 847 781 717 782 782 782
ending inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
planned Order 847 781 717 782 782 782
Released

4.56
 Table 4.65 LTC Total Cost for Body

Ordering Cost 6 Rp12,000,000

Holding cost 550 Rp1,100,000
Total Cost Rp13,100,000

 Tire

Table 4.66 LTC Method for Tire

Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Periods Carried Holding Cost Cum Holding Cost Decision
0 3438 0 3438 0 Rp - Rp - Yes
1 0 0,1 3438 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
2 3124 0,1,2 6562 2 Rp 12.496.000,00 Rp 12.496.000,00 Stop

2 3124 2 3124 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

3 0 2,3 3124 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
4 2868 2,3,4 5992 2 Rp 11.472.000,00 Rp 11.472.000,00 Stop

4 2868 4 2868 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

5 0 4,5 2868 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
6 3128 4,5,6 5996 2 Rp 12.512.000,00 Rp 12.512.000,00 Stop

6 3128 6 3128 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

4.57
 Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Periods Carried Holding Cost Cum Holding Cost Decision
7 0 6,7 3128 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
8 3128 6,7,8 6256 2 Rp 12.512.000,00 Rp 12.512.000,00 Stop

8 3128 8 3128 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

9 0 8,9 3128 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
10 3128 8,9,10 6256 2 Rp 12.512.000,00 Rp 12.512.000,00 Stop

10 3128 10 3128 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is getting
higher. The data of each lot in periods, will be used for making the planned order released

Table 4.67 MPS LTC for Tire

Week -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Gross Requirements 3388 0 3124 0 2868 0 3128 0 3128 0 3128
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
net requirement 3338 3074 2818 3078 3078 3078
lot sizing 3388 3124 2868 3128 3128 3128
Ending inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
planned Order Released 3388 3124 2868 3128 3128 3128

4.58
 Table 4.68 LTC Total Cost for Tire

Ordering Cost 6 Rp12,000,000

Holding cost 550 Rp1,100,000
Total Cost Rp13,100,000

 Velg

Table 4.69 LTC Method for Velg

Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Periods Carried Holding Cost Cum Holding Cost Decision
0 3438 0 3438 0 Rp - Rp - Yes
1 0 0,1 3438 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
2 3124 0,1,2 6562 2 Rp 12.496.000,00 Rp 12.496.000,00 Stop

2 3124 2 3124 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

3 0 2,3 3124 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
4 2868 2,3,4 5992 2 Rp 11.472.000,00 Rp 11.472.000,00 Stop

4 2868 4 2868 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

5 0 4,5 2868 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
6 3128 4,5,6 5996 2 Rp 12.512.000,00 Rp 12.512.000,00 Stop

4.59
 Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Periods Carried Holding Cost Cum Holding Cost Decision

6 3128 6 3128 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

7 0 6,7 3128 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
8 3128 6,7,8 6256 2 Rp 12.512.000,00 Rp 12.512.000,00 Stop

8 3128 8 3128 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

9 0 8,9 3128 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
10 3128 8,9,10 6256 2 Rp 12.512.000,00 Rp 12.512.000,00 Stop

10 3128 10 3128 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is getting
higher. The data of each lot in periods, will be used for making the planned order released.

Table 4.70 MPS LTC for Velg

Week -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Gross Requirements 3388 0 3124 0 2868 0 3128 0 3128 0 3128
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
net requirement 3338 3074 2818 3078 3078 3078

4.60
 lot sizing 3388 3124 2868 3128 3128 3128
ending inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
planned Order Released 3388 3124 2868 3128 3128 3128

Table 4.71 LTC Total Cost for Velg

Ordering Cost 6 Rp12,000,000

Holding cost 550 Rp1,100,000
Total Cost Rp13,100,000

 Upper Body

Table 4.72 LTC Method for Upper Body

Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Periods Carried Holding Cost Cum Holding Cost Decision
0 947 0 947 0 Rp - Rp - Yes
1 0 0,1 947 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
2 781 0,1,2 1728 2 Rp 3.124.000,00 Rp 3.124.000,00 Stop

2 781 2 781 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

3 0 2,3 781 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
4 717 2,3,4 1498 2 Rp 2.868.000,00 Rp 2.868.000,00 Stop

4.61
 Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Periods Carried Holding Cost Cum Holding Cost Decision
4 717 4 717 0 Rp - Rp - Yes
5 0 4,5 717 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
6 782 4,5,6 1499 2 Rp 3.128.000,00 Rp 3.128.000,00 Stop

6 782 6 782 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

7 0 6,7 782 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
8 782 6,7,8 1564 2 Rp 3.128.000,00 Rp 3.128.000,00 Stop

8 782 8 782 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

9 0 8,9 782 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
10 782 8,9,10 1564 2 Rp 3.128.000,00 Rp 3.128.000,00 Stop

10 782 10 782 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is getting
higher. The data of each lot in periods, will be used for making the planned order released.

Table 4.73 MPS LTC for Upper Body

Week -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Gross Requirements 847 781 717 782 782 782

4.62
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
net requirement 797 731 667 732 732 732
lot sizing 847 0 781 0 717 0 782 0 782 0 782
ending inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
planned Order Released 847 781 717 782 782 782

Table 4.74 LTC Total Cost for Upper Body

Ordering Cost 6 Rp12,000,000

Holding cost 550 Rp1,100,000
Total Cost Rp13,100,000

 Lower Body
Table 4.75 LTC Method for Lower Body

Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Periods Carried Holding Cost Cum Holding Cost Decision
0 947 0 947 0 Rp - Rp - Yes
1 0 0,1 947 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
2 781 0,1,2 1728 2 Rp 3.124.000,00 Rp 3.124.000,00 Stop

2 781 2 781 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

3 0 2,3 781 1 Rp - Rp - Yes

4.63
 Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Periods Carried Holding Cost Cum Holding Cost Decision
4 717 2,3,4 1498 2 Rp 2.868.000,00 Rp 2.868.000,00 Stop

4 717 4 717 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

5 0 4,5 717 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
6 782 4,5,6 1499 2 Rp 3.128.000,00 Rp 3.128.000,00 Stop

6 782 6 782 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

7 0 6,7 782 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
8 782 6,7,8 1564 2 Rp 3.128.000,00 Rp 3.128.000,00 Stop

8 782 8 782 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

9 0 8,9 782 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
10 782 8,9,10 1564 2 Rp 3.128.000,00 Rp 3.128.000,00 Stop

10 782 10 782 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is getting
higher. The data of each lot in periods, will be used for making the planned order released.

4.64
 Table 4.76 MPS LTC for Lower Body

Week -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Gross Requirements 847 781 717 782 782 782
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
net requirement 797 731 667 732 732 732
lot sizing 847 0 781 0 717 0 782 0 782 0 782
ending inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
planned Order Released 847 781 717 782 782 782

Table 4.77 LTC Total Cost For Lower Body

Ordering Cost 6 Rp12,000,000

Holding cost 550 Rp1,100,000
Total Cost Rp13,100,000

 Windows
Table 4.78 LTC Method for Windows

Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Periods Carried Holding Cost Cum Holding Cost Decision
-1 3838 -1 3838 0 Rp - Rp - Yes
0 0 -1,0 3838 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
1 3124 -1,0,1 6962 2 Rp 12.496.000,00 Rp 12.496.000,00 Stop

4.65
 Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Periods Carried Holding Cost Cum Holding Cost Decision

1 3124 1 3124 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

2 0 1,2 3124 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
3 2868 1,2,3 5992 2 Rp 11.472.000,00 Rp 11.472.000,00 Stop

3 2868 3 2868 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

4 0 3,4 2868 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
5 3128 3,4,5 5996 2 Rp 12.512.000,00 Rp 12.512.000,00 Stop

5 3128 5 3128 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

6 0 5,6 3128 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
7 3128 5,6,7 6256 2 Rp 12.512.000,00 Rp 12.512.000,00 Stop

7 3128 7 3128 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

8 0 7,8 3128 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
9 3128 7,8,9 6256 2 Rp 12.512.000,00 Rp 12.512.000,00 Stop

9 3128 9 3128 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is getting
higher. The data of each lot in periods, will be used for making the planned order released.

4.66
 Table 4.79 MPS LTC for Windows

Week -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Gross Requirements 3388 3124 2868 3128 3128 3128
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
net requirement 3074 2818 3078 3078 3078
lot sizing 3388 0 3124 0 2868 0 3128 0 3128 0 3128
ending inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
planned Order Released 3388 3124 2868 3128 3128 3128

Table 4.80 LTC Total Cost for Windows

Ordering Cost 6 Rp12,000,000

Holding cost 550 Rp1,100,000
Total Cost Rp13,100,000

 Rear Mirror

Table 4.81 LTC Method for Rear Mirror

Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Periods Carried Holding Cost Cum Holding Cost Decision
-1 1944 -1 1944 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

4.67
Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Periods Carried Holding Cost Cum Holding Cost Decision
0 0 -1,0 1944 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
1 1562 -1,0,1 3506 2 Rp 6.248.000,00 Rp 6.248.000,00 Stop

1 1562 1 1562 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

2 0 1,2 1562 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
3 1434 1,2,3 2996 2 Rp 5.736.000,00 Rp 5.736.000,00 Stop

3 1434 3 1434 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

4 0 3,4 1434 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
5 1564 3,4,5 2998 2 Rp 6.256.000,00 Rp 6.256.000,00 Stop

5 1564 5 1564 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

6 0 5,6 1564 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
7 1564 5,6,7 3128 2 Rp 6.256.000,00 Rp 6.256.000,00 Stop

7 1564 7 1564 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

8 0 7,8 1564 1 Rp - Rp - Yes
9 1564 7,8,9 3128 2 Rp 6.256.000,00 Rp 6.256.000,00 Stop

9 1564 9 1564 0 Rp - Rp - Yes

4.68
 From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is getting
higher. The data of each lot in periods, will be used for making the planned order released.

Table 4.82 MPS LTC for Rear Mirror

Week -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Gross Requirements 1694 1562 1434 1564 1564 1564
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
net requirement 1512 1384 1514 1514 1514
lot sizing 1694 0 1562 0 1434 0 1564 0 1564 0 1564
ending inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
planned Order Released 1694 1562 1434 1564 1564 1564

Table 4.83 LTC Total Cost for Rear Mirror

Ordering Cost 6 Rp12,000,000

Holding cost 550 Rp1,100,000
Total Cost Rp13,100,000

4.69
4.4 Silver Meal
Here, to calculate total cost of product car there are several items which are
wheels, body, and shaft. In wheels itself there are tire and velg. In body part there are
upper and lower. Upper item is including windows and rear mirror. The total cost by
using Silver Meal method is Rp 1.314.000,00.

Table 4.84 Table Total Cost for Silver Meal

Part Cost
Car Rp 756,000.00
Wheels Rp 108,000.00
Shaft Rp 108,000.00
Body Rp 108,000.00
Tire Rp 54,000.00
Velg Rp 54,000.00
Upper Body Rp 54,000.00
Lower Body Rp 54,000.00
Windows Rp 9,000.00
Rear Mirror Rp 9,000.00
Total Rp 1,314,000.00

For detail calculation of each part and POR, are showed on the next page.

4.70
 Car

Table 4.85 Silver Meal Method for Car

Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision
1 456 1 456 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Yes
2 391 1,2 847 Rp 206,220.00 Rp 103,110.00 Stop

2 391 2 391 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Yes

3 391 2.3 782 Rp 206,220.00 Rp 103,110.00 Stop

3 391 3 391 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Yes

4 390 3,4 781 Rp 205,800.00 Rp 102,900.00 Stop

4 390 4 390 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Yes

5 391 4.5 781 Rp 206,220.00 Rp 103,110.00 Stop

5 391 5 391 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Yes

6 326 5,6 717 Rp 178,920.00 Rp 89,460.00 Stop

6 326 6 326 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Yes

7 391 6.7 717 Rp 206,220.00 Rp 103,110.00 Stop

7 391 7 391 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Yes

8 391 7,8 782 Rp 206,220.00 Rp 103,110.00 Stop

8 391 8 391 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Yes

4.71
 Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision
9 391 8.9 782 Rp 206,220.00 Rp 103,110.00 Stop

9 391 9 391 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Yes

10 391 9,10 782 Rp 206,220.00 Rp 103,110.00 Stop

10 391 10 391 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Yes

11 391 10.11 782 Rp 206,220.00 Rp 103,110.00 Stop

11 391 11 391 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Yes

12 391 11,12 782 Rp 206,220.00 Rp 103,110.00 Stop

12 391 12 391 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Yes

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is
getting higher. The data of each lot in period, will be used for making the planned order released.

Table 4.86 MPS Silver Meal for Car

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
Gross Requirement 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 406 341 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 600.00
Plan Order Released 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ordering Cost Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 IDR 504,000.00

4.72
 Table 4.87 Silver Meal Total Cost for Car

Holding Cost Rp 252,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 504,000.00
Total Cost Rp 756,000.00

 Wheel

Table 4.88 Silver Meal Method for Wheel

Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision
1 1824 1 1824 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes
2 1564 1,2 3388 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

2 1564 2 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

3 1564 2.3 3128 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

3 1564 3 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

4 1560 3,4 3124 Rp 99,600.00 Rp 49,800.00 Stop

4 1560 4 1560 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

5 1564 4.5 3124 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

5 1564 5 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

6 1304 5,6 2868 Rp 84,240.00 Rp 42,120.00 Stop

4.73
 Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision
6 1304 6 1304 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes
7 1564 6.7 2868 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

7 1564 7 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

8 1564 7,8 3128 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

8 1564 8 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

9 1564 8.9 3128 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

9 1564 9 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

10 1564 9,10 3128 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

10 1564 10 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

11 1564 10.11 3128 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

11 1564 11 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

12 1564 11,12 3128 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

12 1564 12 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers a periods. The data of each lot in period, will be used for
making the planned order released.

4.74
 Table 4.89 MPS Silver Meal for Wheel

Table 4.90 Silver Meal Total Cost for Wheel

Holding Cost Rp 36,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 72,000.00
Total Cost Rp 108,000.00

 Shaft

Table 4.91 Silver Meal Method for Shaft

Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision
1 912 1 912 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes
2 782 1,2 1694 Rp 52,920.00 Rp 26,460.00 Stop

2 782 2 782 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

3 782 2.3 1564 Rp 52,920.00 Rp 26,460.00 Stop

4.75
Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision

3 782 3 782 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

4 780 3,4 1562 Rp 52,800.00 Rp 26,400.00 Stop

4 780 4 780 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

5 782 4.5 1562 Rp 52,920.00 Rp 26,460.00 Stop

5 782 5 782 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

6 652 5,6 1434 Rp 45,120.00 Rp 22,560.00 Stop

6 652 6 652 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

7 782 6.7 1434 Rp 52,920.00 Rp 26,460.00 Stop

7 782 7 782 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

8 782 7,8 1564 Rp 52,920.00 Rp 26,460.00 Stop

8 782 8 782 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

9 782 8.9 1564 Rp 52,920.00 Rp 26,460.00 Stop

9 782 9 782 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

10 782 9,10 1564 Rp 52,920.00 Rp 26,460.00 Stop

10 782 10 782 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

11 782 10.11 1564 Rp 52,920.00 Rp 26,460.00 Stop

11 782 11 782 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

4.76
 Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision
12 782 11,12 1564 Rp 52,920.00 Rp 26,460.00 Stop

12 782 12 782 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers a periods. The data of each lot in period, will be used for
making the planned order released.

Table 4.91 MPS Silver Meal for Shaft

Week 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
Gross Requirement 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 862 732 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 600.00
Plan Order Released 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Ordering Cost Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 IDR 72,000.00

Table 4.92 Silver Meal Total Cost for Shaft

Holding Cost Rp 36,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 72,000.00
Total Cost Rp 108,000.00

4.77
 Body

Table 4.93 Silver Meal Method for Body

Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision
1 456 1 456 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes
2 391 1,2 847 Rp 29,460.00 Rp 14,730.00 Stop

2 391 2 391 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

3 391 2.3 782 Rp 29,460.00 Rp 14,730.00 Stop

3 391 3 391 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

4 390 3,4 781 Rp 29,400.00 Rp 14,700.00 Stop

4 390 4 390 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

5 391 4.5 781 Rp 29,460.00 Rp 14,730.00 Stop

5 391 5 391 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

6 326 5,6 717 Rp 25,560.00 Rp 12,780.00 Stop

6 326 6 326 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

7 391 6.7 717 Rp 29,460.00 Rp 14,730.00 Stop

7 391 7 391 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

8 391 7,8 782 Rp 29,460.00 Rp 14,730.00 Stop

8 391 8 391 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

4.78
 Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision
9 391 8.9 782 Rp 29,460.00 Rp 14,730.00 Stop

9 391 9 391 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

10 391 9,10 782 Rp 29,460.00 Rp 14,730.00 Stop

10 391 10 391 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

11 391 10.11 782 Rp 29,460.00 Rp 14,730.00 Stop

11 391 11 391 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

12 391 11,12 782 Rp 29,460.00 Rp 14,730.00 Stop

12 391 12 391 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers a periods. The data of each lot in period, will be used for
making the planned order released.

Table 4.94 MPS Silver Meal for Body

4.79
 Table 4.95 Silver Meal Total Cost for Body

Holding Cost Rp 36,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 72,000.00
Total Cost Rp 108,000.00

 Tire

Table 4.96 Silver Meal Method for Tire

Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision
0 1824 0 1824 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes
1 1564 0.1 3388 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 99,840.00 Stop

1 1564 1 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

2 1564 1.2 3128 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

2 1564 2 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

3 1560 2.3 3124 Rp 99,600.00 Rp 49,800.00 Stop

3 1560 3 1560 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

4 1564 3.4 3124 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

4.80
 4 1564 4 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes
5 1304 4.5 2868 Rp 84,240.00 Rp 42,120.00 Stop

5 1304 5 1304 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

6 1564 5.6 2868 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

6 1564 6 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

7 1564 6.7 3128 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

7 1564 7 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

8 1564 7.8 3128 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

8 1564 8 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

9 1564 8.9 3128 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

9 1564 9 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

10 1564 9, 10 3128 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

10 1564 10 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

11 1564 10.11 3128 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

11 1564 11 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers a periods. The data of each lot in period, will be used for
making the planned order released.

4.81
 Table 4.97 MPS Silver Meal for Tire

Table 4.98 Silver Meal Total Cost for Tire

Holding Cost Rp 36,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 72,000.00
Total Cost Rp 108,000.00

 Velg

Table 4.99 Silver Meal Method for Velg

Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision
0 1824 0 1824 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes
1 1564 0.1 3388 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 99,840.00 Stop

4.82
Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision
1 1564 1 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes
2 1564 1.2 3128 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

2 1564 2 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

3 1560 2.3 3124 Rp 99,600.00 Rp 49,800.00 Stop

3 1560 3 1560 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

4 1564 3.4 3124 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

4 1564 4 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

5 1304 4.5 2868 Rp 84,240.00 Rp 42,120.00 Stop

5 1304 5 1304 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

6 1564 5.6 2868 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

6 1564 6 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

7 1564 6.7 3128 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

7 1564 7 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

8 1564 7.8 3128 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

8 1564 8 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

9 1564 8.9 3128 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

9 1564 9 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

10 1564 9, 10 3128 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

4.83
 Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision

10 1564 10 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

11 1564 10.11 3128 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 49,920.00 Stop

11 1564 11 1564 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Yes

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers a periods. The data of each lot in period, will be used for
making the planned order released.

Table 4.100 MPS Silver Meal for Velg

Table 4.101 Silver Meal Total Cost for Velg

Holding Cost Rp 36,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 72,000.00
Total Cost Rp 108,000.00

4.84
 Upper Body

Table 4.102 Silver Meal Method for Upper Body

Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision
0 456 0 456 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes
1 391 0.1 847 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 14,730.00 Stop

1 391 1 391 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

2 391 1.2 782 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 7,365.00 Stop

2 391 2 391 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

3 390 2.3 781 Rp 14,700.00 Rp 7,350.00 Stop

3 390 3 390 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

4 391 3.4 781 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 7,365.00 Stop

4 391 4 391 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

5 326 4.5 717 Rp 12,780.00 Rp 6,390.00 Stop

5 326 5 326 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

6 391 5.6 717 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 7,365.00 Stop

6 391 6 391 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

7 391 6.7 782 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 7,365.00 Stop

4.85
 Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision

7 391 7 391 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

8 391 7.8 782 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 7,365.00 Stop

8 391 8 391 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

9 391 8.9 782 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 7,365.00 Stop

9 391 9 391 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

10 391 9, 10 782 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 7,365.00 Stop

10 391 10 391 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

11 391 10.11 782 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 7,365.00 Stop

11 391 11 391 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers a periods. The data of each lot in period, will be used for
making the planned order released.

Table 4.103 MPS Silver Meal for Upper Body

4.86
 Table 4.104 Silver Meal Total Cost for Upper Body

Holding Cost Rp 18,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 36,000.00

Total Cost Rp 54,000.00

 Lower Body

Table 4.105 Silver Meal Method for Lower Body

Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision
0 456 0 456 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes
1 391 0.1 847 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 14,730.00 Stop

1 391 1 391 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

2 391 1.2 782 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 7,365.00 Stop

4.87
Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision

2 391 2 391 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

3 390 2.3 781 Rp 14,700.00 Rp 7,350.00 Stop

3 390 3 390 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

4 391 3.4 781 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 7,365.00 Stop

4 391 4 391 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

5 326 4.5 717 Rp 12,780.00 Rp 6,390.00 Stop

5 326 5 326 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

6 391 5.6 717 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 7,365.00 Stop

6 391 6 391 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

7 391 6.7 782 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 7,365.00 Stop

7 391 7 391 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

8 391 7.8 782 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 7,365.00 Stop

8 391 8 391 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

9 391 8.9 782 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 7,365.00 Stop

9 391 9 391 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

10 391 9, 10 782 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 7,365.00 Stop

10 391 10 391 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

4.88
 Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision
11 391 10.11 782 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 7,365.00 Stop

11 391 11 391 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Yes

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers a periods. The data of each lot in period, will be used for
making the planned order released.

Table 4.106 MPS Silver Meal for Lower Body

Table 4.107 Silver Meal Total Cost For Lower Body

Holding Cost Rp 18,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 36,000.00

Total Cost Rp 54,000.00

4.89
 Windows
Table 4.108 Silver Meal Method for Windows

Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision
-1 1824 -1 1824 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes
0 1564 -1,0 3388 Rp 8,320.00 Rp 4,160.00 Stop

0 1564 0 1564 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

1 1564 0.1 3128 Rp 8,320.00 Rp 4,160.00 Stop

1 1564 1 1564 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

2 1560 1.2 3124 Rp 8,300.00 Rp 4,150.00 Stop

2 1560 2 1560 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

3 1564 2.3 3124 Rp 8,320.00 Rp 4,160.00 Stop

3 1564 3 1564 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

4 1304 3.4 2868 Rp 7,020.00 Rp 3,510.00 Stop

4 1304 4 1304 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

5 1564 4.5 2868 Rp 8,320.00 Rp 4,160.00 Stop

5 1564 5 1564 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

6 1564 5.6 3128 Rp 8,320.00 Rp 4,160.00 Stop

4.90
 Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision
6 1564 6 1564 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes
7 1564 6.7 3128 Rp 8,320.00 Rp 4,160.00 Stop

7 1564 7 1564 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

8 1564 7.8 3128 Rp 8,320.00 Rp 4,160.00 Stop

8 1564 8 1564 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

9 1564 8.9 3128 Rp 8,320.00 Rp 4,160.00 Stop

9 1564 9 1564 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

10 1564 9, 10 3128 Rp 8,320.00 Rp 4,160.00 Stop

10 1564 10 1564 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers a periods. The data of each lot in period, will be used for
making the planned order released.

Table 4.109 MPS Silver Meal for Windows

4.91
 Table 4.110 Silver Meal Total Cost for Windows

Holding Cost Rp 3,000.00

Ordering Cost IDR 6,000.00
Total Cost Rp 9,000.00

 Rear Mirror

Table 4.111 Silver Meal Method for Rear Mirror

Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision
-1 912 -1 912 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes
0 782 -1,0 1694 Rp 4,410.00 Rp 2,205.00 Stop

0 782 0 782 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

1 782 0.1 1564 Rp 4,410.00 Rp 2,205.00 Stop

1 782 1 782 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

2 780 1.2 1562 Rp 4,400.00 Rp 2,200.00 Stop

2 780 2 780 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

3 782 2.3 1562 Rp 4,410.00 Rp 2,205.00 Stop

3 782 3 782 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

4 652 3.4 1434 Rp 3,760.00 Rp 1,880.00 Stop

4.92
 Week Demand Trial Period Trial Lot Size Cumulative Cost Cost per period Decision

4 652 4 652 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

5 782 4.5 1434 Rp 4,410.00 Rp 2,205.00 Stop

5 782 5 782 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

6 782 5.6 1564 Rp 4,410.00 Rp 2,205.00 Stop

6 782 6 782 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

7 782 6.7 1564 Rp 4,410.00 Rp 2,205.00 Stop

7 782 7 782 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

8 782 7.8 1564 Rp 4,410.00 Rp 2,205.00 Stop

8 782 8 782 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

9 782 8.9 1564 Rp 4,410.00 Rp 2,205.00 Stop

9 782 9 782 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

10 782 9, 10 1564 Rp 4,410.00 Rp 2,205.00 Stop

10 782 10 782 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Yes

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers a periods. The data of each lot in period, will be used for
making the planned order released.

Table 4.112 MPS Silver Meal for Rear Mirror

Week -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Gross Requirement 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50
4.9350 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 862 732 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 600.00
Plan Order Released 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Ordering Cost Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 IDR 6,000.00
Table 4.113 Silver Meal Total Cost for Rear Mirror

Holding Cost Rp 3,000.00

Ordering Cost IDR 6,000.00
Total Cost Rp 9,000.00

4.94
4.5 Wagner Whitin (WW)
The dynamic lot-size model in inventory theory, is a generalization of the
economic order quantity model that takes into account that demand for the product
varies over time. The model was introduced by Harvey M. Wagner and Thomson M.
Whitin in 1958.

Here, to calculate total cost of product car there are several items which are
wheels, body, and shaft. In wheels itself there are tire and velg. In body part there are
upper and lower. Upper item is including windows and rear mirror. The total cost by
using WW method is IDR 135,660,000.00.

Table 4.114 Table Total Cost for Wagner Within Method

Part Cost
Car Rp 756,000.00
Wheels Rp 108,000.00
Shaft Rp 108,000.00
Body Rp 108,000.00
Tire Rp 54,000.00
Velg Rp 54,000.00
Upper Body Rp 54,000.00
Lower Body Rp 54,000.00
Windows Rp 9,000.00
Rear Mirror Rp 9,000.00
Total Rp 1,314,000.00

For detail calculation of each part and POR, are showed on the next page.

4.95
 Car

Table 4.115 WW Method for Car

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Demand 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Demand + Safety stock 506 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 206,220.00 Rp 534,660.00 Rp 1,026,060.00 Rp 1,682,940.00 Rp 2,367,540.00 Rp 3,352,860.00 Rp 4,502,400.00 Rp 5,816,160.00 Rp 7,294,140.00 Rp 8,936,340.00 Rp 10,742,760.00
2 Rp 84,000.00 Rp 248,220.00 Rp 575,820.00 Rp 1,068,480.00 Rp 1,616,160.00 Rp 2,437,260.00 Rp 3,422,580.00 Rp 4,572,120.00 Rp 5,885,880.00 Rp 7,363,860.00 Rp 9,006,060.00
3 Rp 126,000.00 Rp 289,800.00 Rp 618,240.00 Rp 1,029,000.00 Rp 1,685,880.00 Rp 2,506,980.00 Rp 3,492,300.00 Rp 4,641,840.00 Rp 5,955,600.00 Rp 7,433,580.00
4 Rp 168,000.00 Rp 332,220.00 Rp 606,060.00 Rp 1,098,720.00 Rp 1,755,600.00 Rp 2,576,700.00 Rp 3,562,020.00 Rp 4,711,560.00 Rp 6,025,320.00
5 Rp 210,000.00 Rp 346,920.00 Rp 675,360.00 Rp 1,168,020.00 Rp 1,824,900.00 Rp 2,646,000.00 Rp 3,631,320.00 Rp 4,780,860.00
6 Rp 252,000.00 Rp 416,220.00 Rp 744,660.00 Rp 1,237,320.00 Rp 1,894,200.00 Rp 2,715,300.00 Rp 3,700,620.00
7 Rp 294,000.00 Rp 458,220.00 Rp 786,660.00 Rp 1,279,320.00 Rp 1,936,200.00 Rp 2,757,300.00
8 Rp 336,000.00 Rp 500,220.00 Rp 828,660.00 Rp 1,321,320.00 Rp 1,978,200.00
9 Rp 336,000.00 Rp 500,220.00 Rp 828,660.00 Rp 1,321,320.00
10 Rp 378,000.00 Rp 542,220.00 Rp 870,660.00
11 Rp 420,000.00 Rp 584,220.00
12 Rp 462,000.00

From the calculation above, it showed that each lot covers two periods, because after the second period, the cost is
getting higher. The data of each lot in period, will be used for making the planned order released.

Table 4.116 MPS WW for Car

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
Gross Requirement 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 406 341 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 600.00
Plan Order Released 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ordering Cost Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 42,000.00 IDR 504,000.00

4.96
 Table 4.117 WW Total Cost for Car

Holding Cost Rp 252,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 504,000.00
Total Cost Rp 756,000.00

 Wheel

Table 4.118 WW Method for Wheel

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Demand 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Demand + Safety stock 1874 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 99,840.00 Rp 287,520.00 Rp 568,320.00 Rp 943,680.00 Rp 1,334,880.00 Rp 1,897,920.00 Rp 2,554,800.00 Rp 3,305,520.00 Rp 4,150,080.00 Rp 5,088,480.00 Rp 6,120,720.00
2 Rp 12,000.00 Rp 105,840.00 Rp 293,040.00 Rp 574,560.00 Rp 887,520.00 Rp 1,356,720.00 Rp 1,919,760.00 Rp 2,576,640.00 Rp 3,327,360.00 Rp 4,171,920.00 Rp 5,110,320.00
3 Rp 18,000.00 Rp 111,600.00 Rp 299,280.00 Rp 534,000.00 Rp 909,360.00 Rp 1,378,560.00 Rp 1,941,600.00 Rp 2,598,480.00 Rp 3,349,200.00 Rp 4,193,760.00
4 Rp 24,000.00 Rp 117,840.00 Rp 274,320.00 Rp 555,840.00 Rp 931,200.00 Rp 1,400,400.00 Rp 1,963,440.00 Rp 2,620,320.00 Rp 3,371,040.00
5 Rp 30,000.00 Rp 108,240.00 Rp 295,920.00 Rp 577,440.00 Rp 952,800.00 Rp 1,422,000.00 Rp 1,985,040.00 Rp 2,641,920.00
6 Rp 36,000.00 Rp 129,840.00 Rp 317,520.00 Rp 599,040.00 Rp 974,400.00 Rp 1,443,600.00 Rp 2,006,640.00
7 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 135,840.00 Rp 323,520.00 Rp 605,040.00 Rp 980,400.00 Rp 1,449,600.00
8 Rp 48,000.00 Rp 141,840.00 Rp 329,520.00 Rp 611,040.00 Rp 986,400.00
9 Rp 48,000.00 Rp 141,840.00 Rp 329,520.00 Rp 611,040.00
10 Rp 54,000.00 Rp 147,840.00 Rp 335,520.00
11 Rp 60,000.00 Rp 153,840.00
12 Rp 66,000.00

From the calculation above, it showed that there are order in every period, because after the lowest price is to order
every period. The data of each lot in period, will be used for making the planned order released.

4.97
 Table 4.119 WW Method for Wheel

Week 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Gross Requirement 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 1774 1514 1514 1510 1514 1254 1514 1514 1514 1514 1514 1514
Lot Sizing 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Plan Order Released 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ordering Cost IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00

Table 4.120 WW Total Cost for Wheel

Holding Cost Rp 36,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 72,000.00

Total Cost Rp 108,000.00

4.98
  Shaft

Table 4.120 WW Method for Shaft

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Demand 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Demand + Safety stock 962 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 52,920.00 Rp 146,760.00 Rp 287,160.00 Rp 474,840.00 Rp 670,440.00 Rp 951,960.00 Rp 1,280,400.00 Rp 1,655,760.00 Rp 2,078,040.00 Rp 2,547,240.00 Rp 3,063,360.00
2 Rp 12,000.00 Rp 58,920.00 Rp 152,520.00 Rp 293,280.00 Rp 449,760.00 Rp 684,360.00 Rp 965,880.00 Rp 1,294,320.00 Rp 1,669,680.00 Rp 2,091,960.00 Rp 2,561,160.00
3 Rp 18,000.00 Rp 64,800.00 Rp 158,640.00 Rp 276,000.00 Rp 463,680.00 Rp 698,280.00 Rp 979,800.00 Rp 1,308,240.00 Rp 1,683,600.00 Rp 2,105,880.00
4 Rp 24,000.00 Rp 70,920.00 Rp 149,160.00 Rp 289,920.00 Rp 477,600.00 Rp 712,200.00 Rp 993,720.00 Rp 1,322,160.00 Rp 1,697,520.00
5 Rp 30,000.00 Rp 69,120.00 Rp 162,960.00 Rp 303,720.00 Rp 491,400.00 Rp 726,000.00 Rp 1,007,520.00 Rp 1,335,960.00
6 Rp 36,000.00 Rp 82,920.00 Rp 176,760.00 Rp 317,520.00 Rp 505,200.00 Rp 739,800.00 Rp 1,021,320.00
7 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 88,920.00 Rp 182,760.00 Rp 323,520.00 Rp 511,200.00 Rp 745,800.00
8 Rp 48,000.00 Rp 94,920.00 Rp 188,760.00 Rp 329,520.00 Rp 517,200.00
9 Rp 48,000.00 Rp 94,920.00 Rp 188,760.00 Rp 329,520.00
10 Rp 54,000.00 Rp 100,920.00 Rp 194,760.00
11 Rp 60,000.00 Rp 106,920.00
12 Rp 66,000.00

From the calculation above, it showed that there are order in every period, because after the lowest price is to order
every period. The data of each lot in period, will be used for making the planned order released.

Table 4.121 MPS WW for Shaft

4.99
 Table 4.122 WW Total Cost for Shaft

Holding Cost Rp 36,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 72,000.00
Total Cost Rp 108,000.00

 Body

Table 4.123 WW Method for Body

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Demand 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Demand + Safety stock 506 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 29,460.00 Rp 76,380.00 Rp 146,580.00 Rp 240,420.00 Rp 338,220.00 Rp 478,980.00 Rp 643,200.00 Rp 830,880.00 Rp 1,042,020.00 Rp 1,276,620.00 Rp 1,534,680.00
2 Rp 12,000.00 Rp 35,460.00 Rp 82,260.00 Rp 152,640.00 Rp 230,880.00 Rp 348,180.00 Rp 488,940.00 Rp 653,160.00 Rp 840,840.00 Rp 1,051,980.00 Rp 1,286,580.00
3 Rp 18,000.00 Rp 41,400.00 Rp 88,320.00 Rp 147,000.00 Rp 240,840.00 Rp 358,140.00 Rp 498,900.00 Rp 663,120.00 Rp 850,800.00 Rp 1,061,940.00
4 Rp 24,000.00 Rp 47,460.00 Rp 86,580.00 Rp 156,960.00 Rp 250,800.00 Rp 368,100.00 Rp 508,860.00 Rp 673,080.00 Rp 860,760.00
5 Rp 30,000.00 Rp 49,560.00 Rp 96,480.00 Rp 166,860.00 Rp 260,700.00 Rp 378,000.00 Rp 518,760.00 Rp 682,980.00
6 Rp 36,000.00 Rp 59,460.00 Rp 106,380.00 Rp 176,760.00 Rp 270,600.00 Rp 387,900.00 Rp 528,660.00
7 Rp 42,000.00 Rp 65,460.00 Rp 112,380.00 Rp 182,760.00 Rp 276,600.00 Rp 393,900.00
8 Rp 48,000.00 Rp 71,460.00 Rp 118,380.00 Rp 188,760.00 Rp 282,600.00
9 Rp 48,000.00 Rp 71,460.00 Rp 118,380.00 Rp 188,760.00
10 Rp 54,000.00 Rp 77,460.00 Rp 124,380.00
11 Rp 60,000.00 Rp 83,460.00
12 Rp 66,000.00

From the calculation above, it showed that there are order in every period, because after the lowest price is to order
every period. The data of each lot in period, will be used for making the planned order released.

4.100
 Table 4.124 MPS WW for Body

Table 4.125 WW Total Cost for Body

Holding Cost Rp 36,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 72,000.00
Total Cost Rp 108,000.00

4.101
  Tire

Table 4.126 WW Method for Tire

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Demand 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Demand + Safety stock 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Rp 12,000.00 Rp 199,680.00 Rp 575,040.00 Rp 1,136,640.00 Rp 1,887,360.00 Rp 2,669,760.00 Rp 3,795,840.00 Rp 5,109,600.00 Rp 6,611,040.00 Rp 8,300,160.00 Rp 10,176,960.00 Rp 12,241,440.00
2 Rp 24,000.00 Rp 211,680.00 Rp 586,080.00 Rp 1,149,120.00 Rp 1,775,040.00 Rp 2,713,440.00 Rp 3,839,520.00 Rp 5,153,280.00 Rp 6,654,720.00 Rp 8,343,840.00 Rp 10,220,640.00
3 Rp 36,000.00 Rp 223,200.00 Rp 598,560.00 Rp 1,068,000.00 Rp 1,818,720.00 Rp 2,757,120.00 Rp 3,883,200.00 Rp 5,196,960.00 Rp 6,698,400.00 Rp 8,387,520.00
4 Rp 48,000.00 Rp 235,680.00 Rp 548,640.00 Rp 1,111,680.00 Rp 1,862,400.00 Rp 2,800,800.00 Rp 3,926,880.00 Rp 5,240,640.00 Rp 6,742,080.00
5 Rp 60,000.00 Rp 216,480.00 Rp 591,840.00 Rp 1,154,880.00 Rp 1,905,600.00 Rp 2,844,000.00 Rp 3,970,080.00 Rp 5,283,840.00
6 Rp 72,000.00 Rp 259,680.00 Rp 635,040.00 Rp 1,198,080.00 Rp 1,948,800.00 Rp 2,887,200.00 Rp 4,013,280.00
7 Rp 84,000.00 Rp 271,680.00 Rp 647,040.00 Rp 1,210,080.00 Rp 1,960,800.00 Rp 2,899,200.00
8 Rp 96,000.00 Rp 283,680.00 Rp 659,040.00 Rp 1,222,080.00 Rp 1,972,800.00
9 Rp 96,000.00 Rp 283,680.00 Rp 659,040.00 Rp 1,222,080.00
10 Rp 108,000.00 Rp 295,680.00 Rp 671,040.00
11 Rp 120,000.00 Rp 307,680.00
12 Rp 132,000.00

From the calculation above, it showed that there are order in every period, because after the lowest price is to order
every period. The data of each lot in period, will be used for making the planned order released.

Table 4.127 MPS WW for Tir

Week -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
Gross Requirement 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 1774 1514 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 600.00
Plan Order Released 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ordering Cost Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 IDR 72,000.00

4.102
 Table 4.128 WW Total Cost for Tire

Holding Cost Rp 36,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 72,000.00
Total Cost Rp 108,000.00

 Velg

Table 4.129 WW Method for Velg

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Demand 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Demand + Safety stock 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Rp 12,000.00 Rp 199,680.00 Rp 575,040.00 Rp 1,136,640.00 Rp 1,887,360.00 Rp 2,669,760.00 Rp 3,795,840.00 Rp 5,109,600.00 Rp 6,611,040.00 Rp 8,300,160.00 Rp 10,176,960.00 Rp 12,241,440.00
2 Rp 24,000.00 Rp 211,680.00 Rp 586,080.00 Rp 1,149,120.00 Rp 1,775,040.00 Rp 2,713,440.00 Rp 3,839,520.00 Rp 5,153,280.00 Rp 6,654,720.00 Rp 8,343,840.00 Rp 10,220,640.00
3 Rp 36,000.00 Rp 223,200.00 Rp 598,560.00 Rp 1,068,000.00 Rp 1,818,720.00 Rp 2,757,120.00 Rp 3,883,200.00 Rp 5,196,960.00 Rp 6,698,400.00 Rp 8,387,520.00
4 Rp 48,000.00 Rp 235,680.00 Rp 548,640.00 Rp 1,111,680.00 Rp 1,862,400.00 Rp 2,800,800.00 Rp 3,926,880.00 Rp 5,240,640.00 Rp 6,742,080.00
5 Rp 60,000.00 Rp 216,480.00 Rp 591,840.00 Rp 1,154,880.00 Rp 1,905,600.00 Rp 2,844,000.00 Rp 3,970,080.00 Rp 5,283,840.00
6 Rp 72,000.00 Rp 259,680.00 Rp 635,040.00 Rp 1,198,080.00 Rp 1,948,800.00 Rp 2,887,200.00 Rp 4,013,280.00
7 Rp 84,000.00 Rp 271,680.00 Rp 647,040.00 Rp 1,210,080.00 Rp 1,960,800.00 Rp 2,899,200.00
8 Rp 96,000.00 Rp 283,680.00 Rp 659,040.00 Rp 1,222,080.00 Rp 1,972,800.00
9 Rp 96,000.00 Rp 283,680.00 Rp 659,040.00 Rp 1,222,080.00
10 Rp 108,000.00 Rp 295,680.00 Rp 671,040.00
11 Rp 120,000.00 Rp 307,680.00
12 Rp 132,000.00

From the calculation above, it showed that there are order in every period, because after the lowest price is to order
every period. The data of each lot in period, will be used for making the planned order released.

4.103
 Table 4.130 MPS WW for Velg

Week -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
Gross Requirement 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 1774 1514 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 600.00
Plan Order Released 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ordering Cost Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 6,000.00 IDR 72,000.00

Table 4.131 WW Total Cost for Velg

Holding Cost Rp 36,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 72,000.00
Total Cost Rp 108,000.00

 Upper Body

4.104
 Table 4.132 WW Method for Upper Body

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Demand 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Demand + Safety stock 506 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 38,190.00 Rp 73,290.00 Rp 120,210.00 Rp 169,110.00 Rp 239,490.00 Rp 321,600.00 Rp 415,440.00 Rp 521,010.00 Rp 638,310.00 Rp 767,340.00
2 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 17,730.00 Rp 41,130.00 Rp 76,320.00 Rp 115,440.00 Rp 174,090.00 Rp 244,470.00 Rp 326,580.00 Rp 420,420.00 Rp 525,990.00 Rp 643,290.00
3 Rp 9,000.00 Rp 20,700.00 Rp 44,160.00 Rp 73,500.00 Rp 120,420.00 Rp 179,070.00 Rp 249,450.00 Rp 331,560.00 Rp 425,400.00 Rp 530,970.00
4 Rp 12,000.00 Rp 23,730.00 Rp 43,290.00 Rp 78,480.00 Rp 125,400.00 Rp 184,050.00 Rp 254,430.00 Rp 336,540.00 Rp 430,380.00
5 Rp 15,000.00 Rp 24,780.00 Rp 48,240.00 Rp 83,430.00 Rp 130,350.00 Rp 189,000.00 Rp 259,380.00 Rp 341,490.00
6 Rp 18,000.00 Rp 29,730.00 Rp 53,190.00 Rp 88,380.00 Rp 135,300.00 Rp 193,950.00 Rp 264,330.00
7 Rp 21,000.00 Rp 32,730.00 Rp 56,190.00 Rp 91,380.00 Rp 138,300.00 Rp 196,950.00
8 Rp 24,000.00 Rp 35,730.00 Rp 59,190.00 Rp 94,380.00 Rp 141,300.00
9 Rp 24,000.00 Rp 35,730.00 Rp 59,190.00 Rp 94,380.00
10 Rp 27,000.00 Rp 38,730.00 Rp 62,190.00
11 Rp 30,000.00 Rp 41,730.00
12 Rp 33,000.00

From the calculation above, it showed that there are order in every period, because after the lowest price is to order
every period. The data of each lot in period, will be used for making the planned order released.

Table 4.133 MPS WW for Upper Body

Week -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
Gross Requirement 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 406 341 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 600.00
Plan Order Released 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ordering Cost Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 3,000.00 IDR 36,000.00

4.105
 Table 4.134 WW Total Cost for Upper Body

Holding Cost Rp 18,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 36,000.00
Total Cost Rp 54,000.00

 Lower Body

Table 4.135 WW Method for Lower Body

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Demand 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Demand + Safety stock 506 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 38,190.00 Rp 73,290.00 Rp 120,210.00 Rp 169,110.00 Rp 239,490.00 Rp 321,600.00 Rp 415,440.00 Rp 521,010.00 Rp 638,310.00 Rp 767,340.00
2 Rp 6,000.00 Rp 17,730.00 Rp 41,130.00 Rp 76,320.00 Rp 115,440.00 Rp 174,090.00 Rp 244,470.00 Rp 326,580.00 Rp 420,420.00 Rp 525,990.00 Rp 643,290.00
3 Rp 9,000.00 Rp 20,700.00 Rp 44,160.00 Rp 73,500.00 Rp 120,420.00 Rp 179,070.00 Rp 249,450.00 Rp 331,560.00 Rp 425,400.00 Rp 530,970.00
4 Rp 12,000.00 Rp 23,730.00 Rp 43,290.00 Rp 78,480.00 Rp 125,400.00 Rp 184,050.00 Rp 254,430.00 Rp 336,540.00 Rp 430,380.00
5 Rp 15,000.00 Rp 24,780.00 Rp 48,240.00 Rp 83,430.00 Rp 130,350.00 Rp 189,000.00 Rp 259,380.00 Rp 341,490.00
6 Rp 18,000.00 Rp 29,730.00 Rp 53,190.00 Rp 88,380.00 Rp 135,300.00 Rp 193,950.00 Rp 264,330.00
7 Rp 21,000.00 Rp 32,730.00 Rp 56,190.00 Rp 91,380.00 Rp 138,300.00 Rp 196,950.00
8 Rp 24,000.00 Rp 35,730.00 Rp 59,190.00 Rp 94,380.00 Rp 141,300.00
9 Rp 24,000.00 Rp 35,730.00 Rp 59,190.00 Rp 94,380.00
10 Rp 27,000.00 Rp 38,730.00 Rp 62,190.00
11 Rp 30,000.00 Rp 41,730.00
12 Rp 33,000.00

From the calculation above, it showed that there are order in every period, because after the lowest price is to order
every period. The data of each lot in period, will be used for making the planned order released.

4.106
 Table 4.136 MPS WW for Lower Body

Table 4.137 WW Total Cost For Lower Body

Holding Cost Rp 18,000.00

Ordering Cost Rp 36,000.00
Total Cost Rp 54,000.00

 Windows

4.107
 Table 4.138 WW Method for Windows

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Demand 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Demand + Safety stock 1874 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Rp 500.00 Rp 8,320.00 Rp 23,960.00 Rp 47,360.00 Rp 78,640.00 Rp 111,240.00 Rp 158,160.00 Rp 212,900.00 Rp 275,460.00 Rp 345,840.00 Rp 424,040.00 Rp 510,060.00
2 Rp 1,000.00 Rp 8,820.00 Rp 24,420.00 Rp 47,880.00 Rp 73,960.00 Rp 113,060.00 Rp 159,980.00 Rp 214,720.00 Rp 277,280.00 Rp 347,660.00 Rp 425,860.00
3 Rp 1,500.00 Rp 9,300.00 Rp 24,940.00 Rp 44,500.00 Rp 75,780.00 Rp 114,880.00 Rp 161,800.00 Rp 216,540.00 Rp 279,100.00 Rp 349,480.00
4 Rp 2,000.00 Rp 9,820.00 Rp 22,860.00 Rp 46,320.00 Rp 77,600.00 Rp 116,700.00 Rp 163,620.00 Rp 218,360.00 Rp 280,920.00
5 Rp 2,500.00 Rp 9,020.00 Rp 24,660.00 Rp 48,120.00 Rp 79,400.00 Rp 118,500.00 Rp 165,420.00 Rp 220,160.00
6 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 10,820.00 Rp 26,460.00 Rp 49,920.00 Rp 81,200.00 Rp 120,300.00 Rp 167,220.00
7 Rp 3,500.00 Rp 11,320.00 Rp 26,960.00 Rp 50,420.00 Rp 81,700.00 Rp 120,800.00
8 Rp 4,000.00 Rp 11,820.00 Rp 27,460.00 Rp 50,920.00 Rp 82,200.00
9 Rp 4,000.00 Rp 11,820.00 Rp 27,460.00 Rp 50,920.00
10 Rp 4,500.00 Rp 12,320.00 Rp 27,960.00
11 Rp 5,000.00 Rp 12,820.00

From the calculation above, it showed that there are order in every period, because after the lowest price is to order
every period. The data of each lot in period, will be used for making the planned order released.

Table 4.139 MPS WW for Windows

Week -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Gross Requirement 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 1774 1514 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 600.00
Plan Order Released 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ordering Cost Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 IDR 6,000.00

4.108
 Table 4.140 WW Total Cost for Windows

Holding Cost Rp 3,000.00

Ordering Cost IDR 6,000.00
Total Cost Rp 9,000.00

 Rear Mirror

Table 4.141 WW Method for Rear Mirror

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Demand 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Demand + Safety stock 962 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Rp 500.00 Rp 4,410.00 Rp 12,230.00 Rp 23,930.00 Rp 39,570.00 Rp 55,870.00 Rp 79,330.00 Rp 106,700.00 Rp 137,980.00 Rp 173,170.00 Rp 212,270.00 Rp 255,280.00
2 Rp 1,000.00 Rp 4,910.00 Rp 12,710.00 Rp 24,440.00 Rp 37,480.00 Rp 57,030.00 Rp 80,490.00 Rp 107,860.00 Rp 139,140.00 Rp 174,330.00 Rp 213,430.00
3 Rp 1,500.00 Rp 5,400.00 Rp 13,220.00 Rp 23,000.00 Rp 38,640.00 Rp 58,190.00 Rp 81,650.00 Rp 109,020.00 Rp 140,300.00 Rp 175,490.00
4 Rp 2,000.00 Rp 5,910.00 Rp 12,430.00 Rp 24,160.00 Rp 39,800.00 Rp 59,350.00 Rp 82,810.00 Rp 110,180.00 Rp 141,460.00
5 Rp 2,500.00 Rp 5,760.00 Rp 13,580.00 Rp 25,310.00 Rp 40,950.00 Rp 60,500.00 Rp 83,960.00 Rp 111,330.00
6 Rp 3,000.00 Rp 6,910.00 Rp 14,730.00 Rp 26,460.00 Rp 42,100.00 Rp 61,650.00 Rp 85,110.00
7 Rp 3,500.00 Rp 7,410.00 Rp 15,230.00 Rp 26,960.00 Rp 42,600.00 Rp 62,150.00
8 Rp 4,000.00 Rp 7,910.00 Rp 15,730.00 Rp 27,460.00 Rp 43,100.00
9 Rp 4,000.00 Rp 7,910.00 Rp 15,730.00 Rp 27,460.00
10 Rp 4,500.00 Rp 8,410.00 Rp 16,230.00
11 Rp 5,000.00 Rp 8,910.00
12 Rp 5,500.00

From the calculation above, it showed that there are order in every period, because after the lowest price is to order
every period. The data of each lot in period, will be used for making the planned order released.

4.109
 Table 4.142 MPS WW for Rear Mirror

Week -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Gross Requirement 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 862 732 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 600.00
Plan Order Released 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Ordering Cost Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 Rp 500.00 IDR 6,000.00

Table 4.143 WW Total Cost for Rear Mirror

Holding Cost Rp 3,000.00

Ordering Cost IDR 6,000.00
Total Cost Rp 9,000.00

4.110
4.6 Cost Comparison
From all the lot sizing mentioned in the subchapter 4.1-4.5, it is needed to choose the
best method from the total cost comparison

Table 4.144 Cost Comparison

Lot Sizing Method Total Cost

Lot-for-lot Rp 1,314,000.00
Least Unit Cost Rp 1,314,000.00
Least Total Cost Rp 1,314,000.00
Silver Meal Rp 1,314,000.00
Wagner Within Rp 1,314,000.00

It is seen that the last four methods have the same exact amount for the total cost. To
continue this report, author assume that it would be better to use the Wagner Within
since the total cost is among the four lowest total cost and this method take into
account the changing demand over period of times.

4.111
 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION
Material requirements planning (MRP) is a system for calculating the materials and
components needed to manufacture a product. It consists of three primary steps:
taking inventory of the materials and components on hand, identifying which
additional ones are needed and then scheduling their production or purchase.

In this report, there are 5 methods of lot sizing technique which are Lot for Lot, Least
Unit Cost, Least Total Cost, Silver Meal and Wagner Within. Those methods are tried
for the next three months first and from that the author try to consider which one is
the best method from the total cost of each method.

To sum up, the best lot sizing method is Wagner Within and the total cost for the next
3 months is Rp 1,314,000.00.

4.112
 REFERENCES

Asopiana, A. R. (2013, January 19). Material Requirement Planning.

Hiroyuki, H. (n.d.). Gross Requirements. Retrieved from Asprova:

asdahttps://www.asprova.jp/mrp/glossary/en/cat248/post-713.html

Rouse, M. (2018, June). material requirements planning (MRP). Retrieved from

TechTarget: https://searcherp.techtarget.com/definition/materialrequirements-

asdaplanning-MRP

Subramaniam, A. (2009, August 15). Lot SizingTechniques. Retrieved from Slide

asdaShare.

Team, M. M. (2016, april 16). MRP Terminology and Lot Sizing Techniques.

asdaRetrieved from ME Mechanical.

4.113
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I .............................................................................................................. 3
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Background .................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................ 4
1.3 Tools and Equipment........................................................................................... 4
1.4 Steps .................................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER II ............................................................................................................. 6
LITERATURE STUDY ............................................................................................ 6
2.1 Rough Cut Capacity Planning (RCCP) ............................................................... 6
2.2 Capacity Requirements Planning ........................................................................ 7
2.3 CRP Input ............................................................................................................ 8
2.4 CRP Output ......................................................................................................... 9
2.5 CRP Process ........................................................................................................ 9
2.6 Balancing Capacity and Load ............................................................................ 10
2.7 Advantages and Weaknesses of CRP ................................................................ 11
2.8 CRP Analysis ............................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER III .......................................................................................................... 12
DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................................ 12
3.1 Product Structure ............................................................................................... 12
3.2 Product Structure ............................................................................................... 12
3.3 Routing File ....................................................................................................... 13
3.4 MPS ................................................................................................................... 14
3.5 Planned Order Released (POR) ......................................................................... 15
CHAPTER IV .......................................................................................................... 19
DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 19

5.1
 4.1 Routing Data ...................................................................................................... 19
4.2 Bill Of Capacity................................................................................................. 20
4.3 Total Required Capacity .................................................................................... 21
4.4 Capacity Required Planning (CRP) ................................................................... 22
CHAPTER V ........................................................................................................... 61
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 61
REFFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 62

5.2
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
Capacity requirements planning is a method used to determine the available
production capacity of a company. Capacity requirement planning first assesses the
schedule of production that has been planned by the company. Then it analyzes the
company's actual production capacity and weighs the two against each other to see if
the schedule can be completed with the current capacity.

The manufacturing order planned through the material planning (MRP or parts
explosion) is usually submitted to the administration division or the person in charge
of administration that comprehensively control the manufacturing division, and the
validity of its capacity and load is first determined. The manufacturing order is
created for each item using B/M based on the production schedule through the
material planning, and thus at this point the concept of process is not existing yet. But
items are actually produced through a number of processes. Capacity Requirements
Planning refers to the planning where the load for each process is grasped according
to the manufacturing order, the adjustments are made, and then the work of each
process is planned.

RCCP verifies that you have sufficient capacity available to meet the capacity
requirements for your master schedules. RCCP is a long-term plan capacity planning
tool that marketing and production use to balance required and available capacity, and
to negotiate changes to the master schedule and/or available capacity. You can
change your master schedules by changing master schedule dates and increasing or
decreasing master schedule quantities. You can change your available capacity by
adding or removing shifts, using overtime or subcontracted labor, and adding or
removing machines. RCCP is a gross capacity planning technique that does not

5.3
consider scheduled receipts or on-hand inventory quantities when calculating capacity
requirements. Your rough cut capacity plans are therefore a statement of the capacity
required to meet your gross production requirements. Use RCCP to validate your
master schedules against key and critical resources before you use the planning
process to generate detailed MRP plans. This ensures that you use a realistic,
achievable master schedule to drive the planning process.

You can perform rough cut capacity planning at two levels:

 Use routing-based RCCP if you want to plan rough cut capacity by resource.
Required and available capacity are stated in hours per week per resource.
 Use rate-based RCCP if you want to plan your rough cut capacity by
production line. Required and available capacity are stated by production rate
per week per line.

1.2 Objectives
The objectives are:

1. To calculate the total setup time and run time based on POR
2. To calculate the total capacity required.
3. To determine the capacity fulfilled or not.

1.3 Tools and Equipment

The tools and equipment are:

1. Microsoft Excel.
2. Microsoft Word.

1.4 Steps
The steps are:

5.4
1. Calculate the time needed for each part in every workstation.
2. Calculate the RCCP of each workstation.
3. Calculate the required capacity based on Planned Order Released (POR).
4. Show the total capacity required.
5. Compare the required capacity and the available capacity.
6. Analyze the result.

5.5
 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE STUDY

2.1 Rough Cut Capacity Planning (RCCP)

RCCP is a long-term plan capacity planning tool that marketing and
production use to balance required and available capacity, and to negotiate changes to
the master schedule and/or available capacity. You can change your master schedules
by changing master schedule dates and increasing or decreasing master schedule
quantities. You can change your available capacity by adding or removing shifts,
using overtime or subcontracted labor, and adding or removing machines.

RCCP is a gross capacity planning technique that does not consider scheduled
receipts or on-hand inventory quantities when calculating capacity requirements.
Your rough cut capacity plans are therefore a statement of the capacity required to
meet your gross production requirements. Also rough cut capacity planning defined
as the process of converting the master production schedule into requirements for key
resources, often including labor, machinery, warehouse space, supplier’s capabilities
etc. Comparison to available or demonstrated capacity is usually done for each key r
(Rough cut resource planning, Process of converting production plan or MPS into
capacity needs for key resources (manpower, machinery, money etc.))

By using this plan, the production plan and its capacity are reviewed, and the
results are taken over to MRP (in case of make-to-stock production), or the final
assembling planning (in case of make-to-order production). The load status list by
bottleneck process is usually created through Rough-cut Capacity Planning.

There are 3 approaches in rough cut capacity planning, which are:

 Capacity planning using overall factors (CPOF)

5.6
 It is the least detailed approach. Capacity requirements is quickly computed
but is insensitive to shifts is product mix.

 Bill of Labor
It involves multiplying two matrices, the bill of labor and MPS. This approach
picks up shifts to product mix.
 Resource Profile
It is exactly the same with bill of labor, except that it takes lead time offsite
into account.

2.2 Capacity Requirements Planning

Capacity requirements planning is an accounting method used to determine

the available production capacity of a company. Capacity requirement planning first
assesses the schedule of production that has been planned by the company. Then it
analyzes the company's actual production capacity and weighs the two against each
other to see if the schedule can be completed with the current capacity. Capacity
Requirements Planning CRP is the manufacturing order planned through the material
planning (MRP or parts explosion) is usually submitted to the administration division
or the person in charge of administration that comprehensively control the
manufacturing division, and the validity of its capacity and load is first determined.
The manufacturing order is created for each item using B/M based on the production
schedule through the material planning, and thus at this point the concept of process
is not exist yet. But items are actually produced through a number of processes.
Capacity Requirements Planning refers to the planning where the load for each
process is grasped according to the manufacturing order, the adjustments are made,
and then the work of each process is planned.

The main objective of the CRP is to show a comparison between the burden
assigned to work centers through existing work orders and the capacity of each work

5.7
center for a certain period of time. There several data required to perform CRP
calculations; the parent data of each component, MPS for each component, routing
each component, work Center Master File. Based on CRP, the next process is to
calculate the MRP and then recapitulated into order implementation plan (Planned
Order Release).

2.3 CRP Input

 Schedule of planned factory orders releases
Is one of the outputs of the MRP.CRP has two main sources of data
load, namely: (1) Scheduled receipts that contain due date order data, order
quantity, operations completed, operations remaining, and (2) planned order
releases that contain planned order release date data, planned order receipts
date, planned order quantity. Other sources such as: product rework, quality
recalls, engineering prototypes, excess scrap, etc., must be translated into one
of the two types of orders used by the CRP.
 Work order status
This status information is provided for all existing open orders with
operations that still need to be completed, the work center involved and
estimated time.
 Data routing
Provide the planned route for the factory through the production
process with an estimated operating time. Every part, assembly, and product
made has a unique routing, consisting of one or more operations. The
information needed for CRP is: operations number, operation, planned work
center, possible alternate work center, standard set-up time, standard run time
per unit, tooling needed at each work center, and others. Routing provides
guidance on the CRP process as appropriate as BOM provides guidance on
the MRP process.
 Data work center

5.8
 This data is related to each production work center, including
resources, utilization and efficiency standards, and capacity. Work center data
elements are: identification and description, number of machines or work
stations, number of workdays per period, number of scheduled shifts per work
day, number of working hours per shift, utilization & efficiency factors.

2.4 CRP Output

• Work center load report (Work center load report)
This report shows the relationship between capacity and burden. If this
report shows an imbalance between capacity and load, the overall CRP
process may need to be repeated. Work center load profiles are often
displayed in the form of bar graphs which are very useful to see the
relationship between projected load and available capacity, while identifying
whether there is excess or lack of capacity. CRP usually produces a Work
center load profile for each work center identified in the factory. Comparison
between load and capacity can also be displayed in column format.

• Repair of Schedule of planned factory orders releases

The improvement of this schedule illustrates that the output of the

MRP is adjusted to specific release dates for factory orders based on
calculation of capacity limitations. Improvement of planned factory order
releases is an indirect output of the CRP process because they are the result of
human judgment based on the analysis of the work center load reports. One
possible adjustment option, in addition to capacity changes, is to change
planned start dates made through the MRP plan. This has an effect on shifting
the load between periods of time to achieve better balance.

2.5 CRP Process

• Calculating the capacity of the work center (work center)

5.9
 The capacity of the work center is determined based on machine and
human resources, operating hours, efficiency, and utilization factors. The
work center capacity is usually manually determined.
• Determine load
The load calculation for each work center in each time period is done
using backward scheduling, using infinite loading, doubling the load for each
item through the quantity of items scheduled for a period of time.
• Balancing capacity and load
If there is an imbalance between capacity and load, one of the
capacities or loads must be adjusted again to obtain a balanced schedule. If
routine adjustments are not sufficient, rescheduling of the MRP or MPS
output needs to be done.

2.6 Balancing Capacity and Load

CRP allows us to balance load to capacity. The following are five basic
actions that we might take if there is a difference (imbalance) between the existing
capacity and the required load:

• Increasing capacity
• Reducing capacity
• Increase load
• Reducing load
• Redistribute loads

5.10
2.7 Advantages and Weaknesses of CRP
2.7.1 Advantages of CRP
• Provides time-phased visibility from capacity and load imbalances
• Confirm that sufficient facilities exist on a cumulative basis along the
planning horizon
• Consider specific lot sizes and routings
• Using lead time estimates that are more appropriate than MRP
• Eliminate the erratic lead times by providing data to smooth the load along the
work center.
2.7.2 Weaknesses of CRP
• Can only be applied especially in the job shop manufacturing environment
• Requires a lot of calculations, so you have to use a computer
• Usually only uses the backward scheduling schedule technique so it doesn't
show where the slack times might be used for better balance.
• Requires a lot of input data

2.8 CRP Analysis

Here are the formulas that needed for Capacity Requirements Planning analysis:

(2-1)

After done the calculation, there are several things needed for CRP analysis. First is
obtain information about planned order release from MRP, then the information about
standard run time per unit and standard setup time per lot size. Next, calculate the
capacity of each work center, then last is making the CRP report.

5.11
 CHAPTER III

DATA COLLECTION

This report contain an analysis related to the capacity that required by the MRP. The
detailed information related to the CRP attached below.

3.1 Product Structure

Below are the product structure for car toy. The car toy have several parts, wheels,
shaft, body, tire, velg, upper body, lower body, windows, and rear mirror.

Figure 3.1 Product Structure of Car Toy

The figure above shows the product structure of car toy.

3.2 Product Structure

From the product structure and BOM, it is showed that in producing one car toy,
needs 4 wheels, 2 shafts, a body, 4 tires and velg, an upper and lower body, 4
windows, and 2 rear windows.

5.12
 Table 3.2. Bill of Materials (BOM)
Part/Item Quantity
Car 1
Wheels 4
Shaft 2
Body 1
Tire 4
Velg 4
Upper Body 1
Lower Body 1
Windows 4
Rear Mirror 2

3.3 Routing File

Below are shown the routing data files of each part.

Table 3.3 Routing Data

Work Setup Process SRH Quantity Req

Center Time Time SRH
Part Operation (Hour) (Hour) EPQ
4010 Final 0.18 1 0.18
Assembly 0 0.18 10
4020 Painting 0.01 0.16 1 0.17 1 0.17
4030 Final 0.01 1 0.01
Car Inspection 0 0.01 1
Wheels 3030 Assembly 0 0.02 20 0.02 4 0.08
Shaft 3012 Grinding 0.04 0.03 1 0.07 2 0.14
Body 3030 Assembly 0 0.012 10 0.012 1 0.012

5.13
 Work Setup Process SRH Quantity Req
Center Time Time SRH
Part Operation (Hour) (Hour) EPQ
3014 Milling 0.041 1 0.041
(M/C) 0.02 0.04
3013 Molding 0.0725 1 0.0725
Tire (M/C) 0.05 0.07 20
3013 Molding 0.1015 1 0.1015
Velg (M/C) 0.03 0.1 20
Upper 3030 Assembly 0 0.15 0.15 1 0.15
Body 3016 Cutting 0.07 0.04 20 0.0435 1 0.0435
3013 Molding 0.252 1 0.252
Lower (M/C) 0.04 0.25
Body 3016 Cutting 0.04 0.014 20 0.016 1 0.016
3013 Molding 0.022 4 0.088
(M/C) 0.04 0.02
Windows 3016 Cutting 0.02 0.004 20 0.005 4 0.02
3013 Molding 0.152 2 0.304
Rear (M/C) 0.04 0.15
Mirror 3016 Cutting 0.02 0.01 20 0.011 2 0.022

3.4 MPS
The MPS are shown below.

Table 3.4 MPS

Unit Produced
Regular Over Invent Total
Periode Demand Time Time Subcontract ory Production
Sep-18 1467 1628 0 0 211 1628
Oct-18 1712 1760 0 0 259 1760

5.14
 Unit Produced
Regular Over Invent Total
Periode Demand Time Time Subcontract ory Production
Nov-18 1750 1694 0 0 203 1694
Dec-18 1482 1633 0 0 354 1633
Jan-19 1726 1702 0 0 330 1702
Feb-19 1765 1704 23 13 269 1740

3.5 Planned Order Released (POR)

The best result from the MRP calculation is Wagner Whitin’s Method. The result are
shown below.

5.15
 Table 3.4. Summary of Car POR (Wagner Whitin’s Algorithm)

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Gross Requirement 506 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 456 341 341 340 341 276 341 341 341 341 341 341
Lot Sizing 506 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Plan Order Released 506 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ordering Cost IDR 42,000.00 IDR 42,000.00 IDR 42,000.00 IDR 42,000.00 IDR 42,000.00 IDR 42,000.00 IDR 42,000.00 IDR 42,000.00 IDR 42,000.00 IDR 42,000.00 IDR 42,000.00 IDR 42,000.00

Table 3.5. Summary of Wheels POR (Wagner Whitin’s Algorithm)

Week 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Gross Requirement 1874 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 1874 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Lot Sizing 1874 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Plan Order Released 1874 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ordering Cost IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00

Table 3.6. Summary of Shaft POR (Wagner Whitin’s Algorithm)

Week 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Gross Requirement 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Lot Sizing 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Plan Order Released 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782 782
Ordering Cost IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00

Table 3.7. Summary of Body POR (Wagner Whitin’s Algorithm)

5.16
 Week 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Gross Requirement 506 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 456 341 341 340 341 276 341 341 341 341 341 341
Lot Sizing 506 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Plan Order Released 506 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ordering Cost IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00 IDR 6,000.00

Table 3.8. Summary of Tire POR (Wagner Whitin’s Algorithm)

Week -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gross Requirement 1874 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Lot Sizing 1874 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Plan Order Released 1874 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ordering Cost IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00

Table 3.9. Summary of Velg POR (Wagner Whitin’s Algorithm)

Week -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gross Requirement 1874 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Lot Sizing 1874 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Plan Order Released 1874 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
Ordering Cost IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00 IDR 12,000.00

Table 3.10. Summary of Upper Body POR (Wagner Whitin’s Algorithm)

Week -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gross Requirement 506 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 506 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Plan Order Released 506 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ordering Cost IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00

5.17
 Table 3.11. Summary of Lower Body POR (Wagner Whitin’s Algorithm)

Week -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gross Requirement 506 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 456 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Lot Sizing 506 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Plan Order Released 506 391 391 390 391 326 391 391 391 391 391 391 391
Ordering Cost IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00 IDR 3,000.00

Table 3.12. Summary of Windows POR (Wagner Whitin’s Algorithm)

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1874 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564

50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
1824 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
1874 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
1874 1564 1564 1560 1564 1304 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564 1564
IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00

Table 3.13. Summary of Rear Mirror POR (Wagner Whitin’s Algorithm)

Week -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Gross Requirement 962 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Scheduled Receipt
Beginning Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net Requirement 912 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Lot Sizing 962 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782
Ending Inventory 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Plan Order Released 962 782 782 780 782 652 782 782 782 782 782 782 782
Ordering Cost IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00 IDR 500.00

5.18
 CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 Routing Data

Routing Data is created to calculate the standard run hours for the product. Below
are shown the routing data for Car

Table 4.1 Routing Data

Work Setup Process SRH Quantity Req

Center Time Time SRH
Part Operation (Hour) (Hour) EPQ
4010 Final 0.18 1 0.18
Assembly 0 0.18 10
4020 Painting 0.01 0.16 1 0.17 1 0.17
4030 Final 0.01 1 0.01
Car Inspection 0 0.01 1
Wheels 3030 Assembly 0 0.02 20 0.02 4 0.08
Shaft 3012 Grinding 0.04 0.03 1 0.07 2 0.14
Body 3030 Assembly 0 0.012 10 0.012 1 0.012
3014 Milling 0.041 1 0.041
(M/C) 0.02 0.04
3013 Molding 0.0725 1 0.0725
Tire (M/C) 0.05 0.07 20
3013 Molding 0.1015 1 0.1015
Velg (M/C) 0.03 0.1 20
Upper 3030 Assembly 0 0.15 0.15 1 0.15
Body 3016 Cutting 0.07 0.04 20 0.0435 1 0.0435

5.19
 Work Setup Process SRH Quantity Req
Center Time Time SRH
Part Operation (Hour) (Hour) EPQ
3013 Molding 0.252 1 0.252
Lower (M/C) 0.04 0.25
Body 3016 Cutting 0.04 0.014 20 0.016 1 0.016
3013 Molding 0.022 4 0.088
(M/C) 0.04 0.02
Windows 3016 Cutting 0.02 0.004 20 0.005 4 0.02
3013 Molding 0.152 2 0.304
Rear (M/C) 0.04 0.15
Mirror 3016 Cutting 0.02 0.01 20 0.011 2 0.022

4.2 Bill Of Capacity

After making routing data, bill of capacity of each work station is

Table 4.2 Bill of Capacity

Work Center SRH Required for Product X

4010 0.18
4020 0.17
4030 0.01
3030 0.242
3012 0.14
3014 0.041
3013 0.818
3016 0.1015

5.20
4.3 Total Required Capacity
After calculating the bill of capacity, we can calculate the total required capacity.

Table 4.3 Total Required Capacity in Hour

Work Center
Week 4010 4020 4030 3030 3012 3014 3013 3016
1 82.08 77.52 4.56 110.352 63.84 18.696 373.008 46.284
2 70.38 66.47 3.91 94.622 54.74 16.031 319.838 39.6865
3 70.38 66.47 3.91 94.622 54.74 16.031 319.838 39.6865
4 70.2 66.3 3.9 94.38 54.6 15.99 319.02 39.585
5 70.38 66.47 3.91 94.622 54.74 16.031 319.838 39.6865
6 58.68 55.42 3.26 78.892 45.64 13.366 266.668 33.089
7 70.38 66.47 3.91 94.622 54.74 16.031 319.838 39.6865
8 70.38 66.47 3.91 94.622 54.74 16.031 319.838 39.6865
9 70.38 66.47 3.91 94.622 54.74 16.031 319.838 39.6865
10 70.38 66.47 3.91 94.622 54.74 16.031 319.838 39.6865
11 70.38 66.47 3.91 94.622 54.74 16.031 319.838 39.6865
12 70.38 66.47 3.91 94.622 54.74 16.031 319.838 39.6865
13 70.38 66.47 3.91 94.622 54.74 16.031 319.838 39.6865
14 73.44 69.36 4.08 98.736 57.12 16.728 333.744 41.412
15 73.44 69.36 4.08 98.736 57.12 16.728 333.744 41.412
16 73.44 69.36 4.08 98.736 57.12 16.728 333.744 41.412
17 61.38 57.97 3.41 82.522 47.74 13.981 278.938 34.6115
18 48.96 46.24 2.72 65.824 38.08 11.152 222.496 27.608
19 73.44 69.36 4.08 98.736 57.12 16.728 333.744 41.412
20 73.44 69.36 4.08 98.736 57.12 16.728 333.744 41.412
21 61.38 57.97 3.41 82.522 47.74 13.981 278.938 34.6115
22 74.34 70.21 4.13 99.946 57.82 16.933 337.834 41.9195
23 78.12 73.78 4.34 105.028 60.76 17.794 355.012 44.051
24 78.12 73.78 4.34 105.028 60.76 17.794 355.012 44.051
25 78.12 73.78 4.34 105.028 60.76 17.794 355.012 44.051
26 64.98 61.37 3.61 87.362 50.54 14.801 295.298 36.6415

5.21
4.4 Capacity Required Planning (CRP)
This step is to check whether there is insufficient capacity for the production

4.4.1 POR Calculation

There are 2 kind of calculation which is run time and setup time. It is assumed that the lead time is zero.

Table 4.4 Setup Time Calculation in Hour

Week
part -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

401 car 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 wheels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
shaft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
tire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
velg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
upper
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lower
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
windows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.22
 rear
mirror 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.9
car 0 0 0 4.56 3.91 3.91 3.9 3.91 3.26 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.91 1
wheels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

402 shaft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
tire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
velg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
upper
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lower
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
windows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rear
mirror 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.9
Total 0 0 0 4.56 3.91 3.91 3.9 3.91 3.26 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.91 1
403 car 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.23
 0 wheels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
shaft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
tire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
velg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
upper
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lower
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
windows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rear
mirror 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

303 car 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 wheels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
shaft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
tire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
velg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
upper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.24
 body
lower
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
windows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rear
mirror 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
car 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
wheels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

301 36.4 31.2 26.0 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2

2 shaft 0 0 8 31.28 31.28 31.2 8 8 8 8 8 8 31.28 8 0

body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
tire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
velg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
upper
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lower
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
windows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.25
 mirror
36.4 31.2 26.0 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2
Total 0 0 8 31.28 31.28 31.2 8 8 8 8 8 8 31.28 8 0
car 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
wheels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
shaft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

301 body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 36.4 31.2 31.2 26.0 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2

tire 0 8 8 31.28 31.2 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 31.28 0 0
velg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
upper
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lower
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
windows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rear
mirror 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36.4 31.2 31.2 26.0 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2
Total 0 8 8 31.28 31.2 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 31.28 0 0
301 car 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.26
 3 wheels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
shaft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
tire 0 91.2 78.2 78.2 78 78.2 65.2 78.2 78.2 78.2 78.2 78.2 78.2 0 0
54.7 46.9 46.9 39.1 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9
velg 0 2 2 46.92 46.8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 46.92 0 0
upper
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lower 18.2 15.6 15.6 13.0 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6
body 0 4 4 15.64 15.6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 15.64 0 0
62.5 62.5 52.1 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5
windows 72.96 6 6 62.4 62.56 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0
rear 31.2 31.2 26.0 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2
mirror 36.48 8 8 31.2 31.28 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 0 0
109.4 234. 234.3 234.2 211. 234. 234. 234. 234. 234. 140.7
Total 4 258 6 6 4 219 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0

301 car 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 wheels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
shaft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.27
tire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
velg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
upper 31.9 27.3 27.3 22.8 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3
body 0 2 7 27.37 27.3 7 2 7 7 7 7 7 27.37 0 0
lower 18.2 15.6 15.6 13.0 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6
body 0 4 4 15.64 15.6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 15.64 0 0
31.2 31.2 26.0 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2
windows 36.48 8 8 31.2 31.28 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 0 0
rear 15.6 15.6 13.0 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6
mirror 18.24 4 4 15.6 15.64 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 0 0
97.0 89.9 82.1 82.7 89.9 89.9 89.9 89.9 89.9
Total 54.72 8 3 89.81 89.82 3 8 3 3 3 3 3 43.01 0 0

5.28
After calculating setup time, now we can calculate the run time. It is assumed that the lead time is zero.

Table 4.5 Run Time Calculation in Hour

week
part -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
82.0 70.3 70.3 70.3 58.6 70.3 70.3 70.3 70.3 70.3 70.3
car 0 0 0 8 8 8 70.2 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
wheels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
shaft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
tire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
velg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
upper
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lower
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
windows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
401 rear
0 mirror 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 82.0 70.3 70.3 70.2 70.3 58.6 70.3 70.3 70.3 70.3 70.3 70.3

5.29
 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
72.9 62.5 62.5 62.5 52.1 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5
car 0 0 0 6 6 6 62.4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
wheels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
shaft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
tire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
velg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
upper
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lower
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
windows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
402 rear
0 mirror 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
72.9 62.5 62.5 62.5 52.1 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5
Total 0 0 0 6 6 6 62.4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
car 0 0 0 4.56 3.91 3.91 3.9 3.91 3.26 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.91
403 wheels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 shaft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.30
 body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
tire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
velg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
upper
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lower
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
windows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rear
mirror 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 4.56 3.91 3.91 3.9 3.91 3.26 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.91
car 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31.2 31.2 31.2 26.0 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2
wheels 0 0 36.48 8 8 31.2 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0
shaft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.69 4.69 4.69 3.91 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69
body 0 0 5.472 2 2 4.68 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0
tire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
303 velg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 upper 0 68.4 58.65 58.6 58.5 58.6 48.9 58.6 58.6 58.6 58.6 58.6 58.6 0 0

5.31
 body 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
lower
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
windows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rear
mirror 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100.6 94.6 94.4 94.5 84.8 88.6 94.6 94.6 94.6 94.6 94.6 35.9
Total 0 68.4 02 22 72 3 72 42 22 22 22 22 22 72 0
Car 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wheels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23.4 23.4 23.4 19.5 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4
Shaft 0 0 27.36 6 6 23.4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0
Body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Velg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
upper
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lower
301 body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 Window 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.32
 s
rear
mirror 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23.4 23.4 23.4 19.5 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4
Total 0 0 27.36 6 6 23.4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0
Car 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wheels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shaft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
72.9 62.5 62.5 52.1 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5
Tire 0 6 62.56 6 62.4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0
Velg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
upper
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lower
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Window
s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
301 rear
4 mirror 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.33
 72.9 62.5 62.5 52.1 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5
Total 0 6 62.56 6 62.4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0
Car 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wheels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shaft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
127. 109.4 109. 109. 109. 91.2 109. 109. 109. 109. 109. 109.
Tire 0 68 8 48 2 48 8 48 48 48 48 48 48 0 0
182. 156. 156. 130. 156. 156. 156. 156. 156. 156.
Velg 0 4 156.4 4 156 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 0
upper
body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lower 97.7 97.7 97.7 97.7 97.7 97.7 97.7 97.7
body 114 5 97.75 97.5 5 81.5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0
Window 36.4 31.2 31.2 26.0 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2
s 8 8 31.28 31.2 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 0 0
301 rear 136. 117. 117. 117. 117. 117. 117. 117. 117.
3 mirror 8 3 117.3 117 3 97.8 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0
287. 556. 512.2 511. 511. 471. 468. 512. 512. 512. 512. 512. 265.
Total 28 41 1 58 53 26 01 21 21 21 21 21 88 0 0

5.34
 Car 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wheels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shaft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Velg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
upper 18.2 15.6 15.6 13.0 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6
body 0 4 15.64 4 15.6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 0
lower 6.38 5.47 5.47 4.56 5.47 5.47 5.47 5.47 5.47 5.47
body 0 4 5.474 4 5.46 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 0
Window 7.29 6.25 6.25 5.21 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25
s 6 6 6.256 6.24 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0
301 rear
6 mirror 9.12 7.82 7.82 7.8 7.82 6.52 7.82 7.82 7.82 7.82 7.82 7.82 0 0 0
16.4 35.1 35.1 32.8 31.6 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 21.1
Total 16 38.7 35.19 54 36 5 8 9 9 9 9 9 14 0 0
Then the run time and the setup time is sum to get the total time.

5.35
 Table 4.6 Total Required Capacity in Hour

Workstati Week
on -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
70,3 70,3 58,6 70,3 70,3 70,3 70,3 70,3 70,3
4010 0 0 0 82,08 70,38 8 70,2 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
66,4 66,4 55,4 66,4 66,4 66,4 66,4 66,4 66,4
4020 0 0 0 77,52 66,47 7 66,3 7 2 7 7 7 7 7 7
4030 0 0 0 4,56 3,91 3,91 3,9 3,91 3,26 3,91 3,91 3,91 3,91 3,91 3,91
100,6 94,62 94,47 94,5 84,8 88,6 94,6 94,6 94,6 94,6 94,6 35,9
3030 0 68,4 02 2 2 3 72 42 22 22 22 22 22 72 0
54,7 45,6 54,7 54,7 54,7 54,7 54,7 54,7
3012 0 0 63,84 54,74 54,74 54,6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0
109, 93,8 78,2 93,8 93,8 93,8 93,8 93,8 93,8
3014 0 44 93,84 93,84 93,6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 0
396, 814, 746,8 745,9 745,7 690, 679, 746, 746, 746, 746, 746, 406,
3013 72 41 1 4 7 26 21 81 81 81 81 81 64 0 0
71,1 135, 125,1 124,9 124,9 114, 114, 125, 125, 125, 125, 125, 64,1
3016 36 78 2 64 56 98 46 12 12 12 12 12 24 0 0

5.36
4.4.2 Comparing Required and Available Capacity

 Workstation 4030
The result of this workstation is shown below and all periods are covered.

Table 4.7 Comparison of Required Capacity and Available Capacity in Workstation 4030

Working Required Available

Week Employees Gap Cumulative Gap Status
Days Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour)
1 7 1 4,56 56 51,44 51,44 Covered
2 6 1 3,91 48 44,09 95,53 Covered
3 6 1 3,91 48 44,09 139,62 Covered
4 6 1 3,9 48 44,1 183,72 Covered
5 6 1 3,91 48 44,09 227,81 Covered
6 5 1 3,26 40 36,74 264,55 Covered
7 6 1 3,91 48 44,09 308,64 Covered
8 6 1 3,91 48 44,09 352,73 Covered
9 6 1 3,91 48 44,09 396,82 Covered
10 6 1 3,91 48 44,09 440,91 Covered
11 6 1 3,91 48 44,09 485 Covered

5.37
 Working Required Available
Week Employees Gap Cumulative Gap Status
Days Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour)
12 6 1 3,91 48 44,09 529,09 Covered

The graph to see the gap will be shown below.

60

50

40

Required Capacity
30
Available Capacity
20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 4.1 Histogram of Workstation 4030

It is seen that there is such a big gap between the required and the available capacity in each week. To cover
it, all the job will be done in the first week and for the following week, since the job for 12 weeks is done,
this workstation will be not operating.

5.38
 Table 4.8 Comparison between Required Capacity and Available Capacity in Workstation 4030 After Revised

Working Required Available

Week Employees Gap Status
Days Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour)
1 7 1 46.91 56 9.09 Covered

 Workstation 3014
Table 4.9 Comparison of Required Capacity and Available Capacity in Workstation 3014

Working Required Available

Week Employees Gap Cumulative Gap Status
Days Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour)
-1 6 1 109,44 48 -61,44 -61,44 Not Covered
0 6 1 93,84 48 -45,84 -107,28 Not Covered
1 7 1 93,84 56 -37,84 -145,12 Not Covered
2 6 1 93,6 48 -45,6 -190,72 Not Covered
3 6 1 93,84 48 -45,84 -236,56 Not Covered
4 6 1 78,24 48 -30,24 -266,8 Not Covered
5 6 1 93,84 48 -45,84 -312,64 Not Covered
6 5 1 93,84 40 -53,84 -366,48 Not Covered
7 6 1 93,84 48 -45,84 -412,32 Not Covered
8 6 1 93,84 48 -45,84 -458,16 Not Covered

5.39
 Working Required Available
Week Employees Gap Cumulative Gap Status
Days Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour)
9 6 1 93,84 48 -45,84 -504 Not Covered
10 6 1 93,84 48 -45,84 -549,84 Not Covered

To see the gap between the required capacity and the available capacity, a histogram is shown below.

120

100

80
Required Capacity
(Hour)
60
Available Capacity
40 (Hour)

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 4.2 Histogram of Workstation 3014

Table 4.9 Comparison of Required Capacity and Available Capacity in Workstation 3014 with Subcontract

5.40
 Working Sub Required Available
Week Employees Gap Cumulative Gap Status
Days Contract Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour)
-1 6 1 2 109,44 144 34,56 34,56 Covered
0 6 1 1 93,84 96 2,16 36,72 Covered
1 7 1 1 93,84 112 18,16 54,88 Covered
2 6 1 1 93,6 96 2,4 57,28 Covered
3 6 1 1 93,84 96 2,16 59,44 Covered
4 6 1 1 78,24 96 17,76 77,2 Covered
5 6 1 1 93,84 96 2,16 79,36 Covered
6 5 1 2 93,84 120 26,16 105,52 Covered
7 6 1 1 93,84 96 2,16 107,68 Covered
8 6 1 1 93,84 96 2,16 109,84 Covered
9 6 1 1 93,84 96 2,16 112 Covered
10 6 1 1 93,84 96 2,16 114,16 Covered

To see the gap easily, below is presented a histogram and it is seen that the gap is not so big so there is no
more revise for this workstation.

5.41
 160

140

120

100

80 Required Capacity
Available Capacity
60

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 4.3 Histogram of Revised Workstation 3014

Since the workstation is not able to fulfill the required capacity the solution would be to add subcontract
workers to the workstation where each subcontract worker’s working duration is the same with employees.
The result would be presented in the table below and it is seen that all the periods are covered.

5.42
  Workstation 3012
Table 4.10 Comparison of Required Capacity and Available Capacity in Workstation 3012

Working Required Available

Week Employees Gap Cumulative Gap Status
Days Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour)
0 6 1 63,84 48 -15,84 -15,84 Not Covered
1 7 1 54,74 56 1,26 -14,58 Not Covered
2 6 1 54,74 48 -6,74 -21,32 Not Covered
3 6 1 54,6 48 -6,6 -27,92 Not Covered
4 6 1 54,74 48 -6,74 -34,66 Not Covered
5 6 1 45,64 48 2,36 -32,3 Not Covered
6 5 1 54,74 40 -14,74 -47,04 Not Covered
7 6 1 54,74 48 -6,74 -53,78 Not Covered
8 6 1 54,74 48 -6,74 -60,52 Not Covered
9 6 1 54,74 48 -6,74 -67,26 Not Covered
10 6 1 54,74 48 -6,74 -74 Not Covered
11 6 1 54,74 48 -6,74 -80,74 Not Covered

To see the gap between the required capacity and the available capacity, a histogram is shown below.

5.43
 70

60

50

40 Required Capacity
(Hour)
30 Available Capacity
(Hour)
20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Figure 4.4 Histogram of Workstation 3012

Since the workstation is not able to fulfill the required capacity the solution would be to add subcontract
workers to the workstation where each subcontract worker’s working duration is the same with employees.
The result would be presented in the table below and it is seen that all the periods are covered.

Table 4.11 Comparison of Required Capacity and Available Capacity in Workstation 3012 with Subcontracts

Working Added Required Available

Week Employees Gap Cumulative Gap Status
Days Subcontracts Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour)
0 6 1 1 63,84 96 32,16 32,16 Covered
1 7 1 0 54,74 56 1,26 33,42 Covered

5.44
 Working Added Required Available
Week Employees Gap Cumulative Gap Status
Days Subcontracts Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour)
2 6 1 1 54,74 96 41,26 74,68 Covered
3 6 1 1 54,6 96 41,4 116,08 Covered
4 6 1 1 54,74 96 41,26 157,34 Covered
5 6 1 1 45,64 96 50,36 207,7 Covered
6 5 1 1 54,74 80 25,26 232,96 Covered
7 6 1 1 54,74 96 41,26 274,22 Covered
8 6 1 1 54,74 96 41,26 315,48 Covered
9 6 1 1 54,74 96 41,26 356,74 Covered
10 6 1 1 54,74 96 41,26 398 Covered
11 6 1 1 54,74 96 41,26 439,26 Covered

To see the gap easily, below is attached the histogram of the revised workstation and it is seen that the gap
is not so big that no more revise is needed.

5.45
 120

100

80

60 Required Capacity (Hour)

Available Capacity (Hour)
40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Figure 4.5 Histogram of Revised Workstation 3012

 Workstation 3013
Table 4.12 Comparison of Required Capacity and Available Capacity in Workstation 3013

Working Required Available Cumulative

Week Employees Gap Status
Days Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour) Gap
-2 6 8 396,72 384 -12,72 -12,72 Not Covered
-1 6 8 814,41 384 -430,41 -443,13 Not Covered
0 6 8 746,81 384 -362,81 -805,94 Not Covered

5.46
 Working Required Available Cumulative
Week Employees Gap Status
Days Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour) Gap
1 7 8 745,94 448 -297,94 -1103,88 Not Covered
2 6 8 745,77 384 -361,77 -1465,65 Not Covered
3 6 8 690,26 384 -306,26 -1771,91 Not Covered
4 6 8 679,21 384 -295,21 -2067,12 Not Covered
5 6 8 746,81 384 -362,81 -2429,93 Not Covered
6 5 8 746,81 320 -426,81 -2856,74 Not Covered
7 6 8 746,81 384 -362,81 -3219,55 Not Covered
8 6 8 746,81 384 -362,81 -3582,36 Not Covered
9 6 8 746,81 384 -362,81 -3945,17 Not Covered
10 6 8 406,64 384 -22,64 -3967,81 Not Covered

To see the gap easier, here is presented a histogram below.

5.47
 900

800

700

600

500
Required Capacity (Hour)
400
Available Capacity (Hour)
300

200

100

0
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 4.6 Histogram of Workstation 3013

Since the workstation is not able to fulfill the required capacity the solution would be to add subcontract
workers to the workstation where each subcontract worker’s working duration is the same with employees.
The result would be presented in the table below and it is seen that all the periods are covered.

5.48
 Table 4.13 Comparison of Required Capacity and Available Capacity in Workstation 3013 with Subcontracts

Working Added Required Available

Week Employees Gap Cumulative Gap Status
Days Subcontracts Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour)
-2 6 8 1 396,72 432 35,28 35,28 Covered
-1 6 8 9 814,41 816 1,59 36,87 Covered
0 6 8 8 746,81 768 21,19 58,06 Covered
1 7 8 6 745,94 784 38,06 96,12 Covered
2 6 8 8 745,77 768 22,23 118,35 Covered
3 6 8 7 690,26 720 29,74 148,09 Covered
4 6 8 7 679,21 720 40,79 188,88 Covered
5 6 8 8 746,81 768 21,19 210,07 Covered
6 5 8 11 746,81 760 13,19 223,26 Covered
7 6 8 8 746,81 768 21,19 244,45 Covered
8 6 8 8 746,81 768 21,19 265,64 Covered
9 6 8 8 746,81 768 21,19 286,83 Covered
10 6 8 1 406,64 432 25,36 312,19 Covered

To see the gap easily, below is attached the histogram of the revised workstation and it is seen that the gap
is not so big that no more revise is needed.

5.49
 900

800

700

600

500
Required Capacity (Hour)
400
Available Capacity (Hour)
300

200

100

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Figure 4.7 Revised Workstation 3013

 Workstation 3016
Table 4.14 Comparison of Required Capacity and Available Capacity in Workstation 3016

Working Required Available

Week Employees Gap Cumulative Gap Status
Days Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour)
-2 6 1 71,136 48 -23,136 -23,136 Not Covered
-1 6 1 135,78 48 -87,78 -110,916 Not Covered

5.50
 Working Required Available
Week Employees Gap Cumulative Gap Status
Days Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour)
0 6 1 125,12 48 -77,12 -188,036 Not Covered
1 7 1 124,964 56 -68,964 -257 Not Covered
2 6 1 124,956 48 -76,956 -333,956 Not Covered
3 6 1 114,98 48 -66,98 -400,936 Not Covered
4 6 1 114,46 48 -66,46 -467,396 Not Covered
5 6 1 125,12 48 -77,12 -544,516 Not Covered
6 5 1 125,12 40 -85,12 -629,636 Not Covered
7 6 1 125,12 48 -77,12 -706,756 Not Covered
8 6 1 125,12 48 -77,12 -783,876 Not Covered
9 6 1 125,12 48 -77,12 -860,996 Not Covered
10 6 1 64,124 48 -16,124 -877,12 Not Covered

To see the gap easier, here is attached a histogram.

5.51
 160

140

120

100

80 Required Capacity (Hour)

Available Capacity (Hour)
60

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Figure 4.8 Histogram of Workstation 3016

Since the workstation is not able to fulfill the required capacity the solution would be to add subcontract
workers to the workstation where each subcontract worker’s working duration is the same with employees.
The result would be presented in the table below and it is seen that all the periods are covered.

5.52
 Table 4.15 Comparison of Required Capacity and Available Capacity in Workstation 3016 with Subcontracts

Working Added Required Available

Week Employees Gap Cumulative Gap Status
Days Subcontracts Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour)
-2 6 1 1 71,136 96 24,864 24,864 Covered
-1 6 1 2 135,78 144 8,22 33,084 Covered
0 6 1 2 125,12 144 18,88 51,964 Covered
1 7 1 2 124,964 168 43,036 95 Covered
2 6 1 2 124,956 144 19,044 114,044 Covered
3 6 1 2 114,98 144 29,02 143,064 Covered
4 6 1 2 114,46 144 29,54 172,604 Covered
5 6 1 2 125,12 144 18,88 191,484 Covered
6 5 1 2 125,12 120 -5,12 186,364 Covered
7 6 1 2 125,12 144 18,88 205,244 Covered
8 6 1 2 125,12 144 18,88 224,124 Covered
9 6 1 2 125,12 144 18,88 243,004 Covered
10 6 1 1 64,124 96 31,876 274,88 Covered

To see the gap easier, here is attached a histogram of the revised workstation.

5.53
 180

160

140

120

100
Required Capacity (Hour)
80
Available Capacity (Hour)
60

40

20

0
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 4.9 Histogram of Revised Workstation 3016

 Workstation 4010
Table 4.16 Comparison of Required Capacity and Available Capacity in Workstation 4010

Working Required Available

Week Employees Gap Cumulative Gap Status
Days Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour)
1 7 2 82,08 112 29,92 29,92 Covered
2 6 2 70,38 96 25,62 55,54 Covered

5.54
 Working Required Available
Week Employees Gap Cumulative Gap Status
Days Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour)
3 6 2 70,38 96 25,62 81,16 Covered
4 6 2 70,2 96 25,8 106,96 Covered
5 6 2 70,38 96 25,62 132,58 Covered
6 5 2 58,68 80 21,32 153,9 Covered
7 6 2 70,38 96 25,62 179,52 Covered
8 6 2 70,38 96 25,62 205,14 Covered
9 6 2 70,38 96 25,62 230,76 Covered
10 6 2 70,38 96 25,62 256,38 Covered
11 6 2 70,38 96 25,62 282 Covered
12 6 2 70,38 96 25,62 307,62 Covered

The table above shows that the current condition of the workstation is enough to fulfill the required
capacity. To see the gap easier, below is attached a histogram and it is seen that the gap is not so big so there
are no revises made to this workstation.

5.55
 120

100

80

60 Required Capacity (Hour)

Available Capacity (Hour)
40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 4.10 Histogram of Workstation 4010

 Workstation 4020
Table 4.17 Comparison of Required Capacity and Available Capacity in Workstation 4020

Working Required Available

Week Employees Gap Cumulative Gap Status
Days Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour)
1 7 2 77,52 112 34,48 34,48 Covered
2 6 2 66,47 96 29,53 64,01 Covered
3 6 2 66,47 96 29,53 93,54 Covered

5.56
 Working Required Available
Week Employees Gap Cumulative Gap Status
Days Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour)
4 6 2 66,3 96 29,7 123,24 Covered
5 6 2 66,47 96 29,53 152,77 Covered
6 5 2 55,42 80 24,58 177,35 Covered
7 6 2 66,47 96 29,53 206,88 Covered
8 6 2 66,47 96 29,53 236,41 Covered
9 6 2 66,47 96 29,53 265,94 Covered
10 6 2 66,47 96 29,53 295,47 Covered
11 6 2 66,47 96 29,53 325 Covered
12 6 2 66,47 96 29,53 354,53 Covered

The table above shows that the current condition of the workstation is enough to fulfill the required
capacity. To see the gap easier, below is attached a histogram and it is seen that the gap is not so big so there
are no revises made to this workstation.

5.57
 120

100

80

60 Required Capacity
Available Capacity
40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 4.11 Histogram of Workstation 4020

 Workstation 3030
Table 4.18 Comparison of Required Capacity and Available Capacity in Workstation 3030

Working Required Available

Week Employees Gap Cumulative Gap Status
Days Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour)
-1 7 5 68,4 168 99,6 99,6 Covered
0 6 5 100,602 144 43,398 142,998 Covered

5.58
 Working Required Available
Week Employees Gap Cumulative Gap Status
Days Capacity (Hour) Capacity (Hour)
1 6 5 94,622 144 49,378 192,376 Covered
2 6 5 94,472 144 49,528 241,904 Covered
3 6 5 94,53 144 49,47 291,374 Covered
4 5 5 84,872 120 35,128 326,502 Covered
5 6 5 88,642 144 55,358 381,86 Covered
6 6 5 94,622 144 49,378 431,238 Covered
7 6 5 94,622 144 49,378 480,616 Covered
8 6 5 94,622 144 49,378 529,994 Covered
9 6 5 94,622 144 49,378 579,372 Covered
10 6 5 94,622 144 49,378 628,75 Covered
11 6 5 35,972 144 108,028 736,778 Covered

The table above shows that the current condition of the workstation is enough to fulfill the required
capacity. To see the gap easier, below is attached a histogram and it is seen that the gap is not so big so
there are no revises made to this workstation.

5.59
180

160

140

120

100
Required Capacity (Hour)
80
Available Capacity (Hour)
60

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Figure 4.11 Histogram of Workstation 3030

5.60
 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

Capacity requirement planning is a way to know whether the capacity of the

current condition is enough to fulfill the required capacity of each workstation. There
are some workstations in the current condition which does not meet the required
capacity where the solution is to add subcontract workers. The rest of the
workstations are already fulfilling their required capacity. For clearer information, the
information regarding added subcontracts worker are mentioned in the table below.

Table 5.1 Added Subcontracts in each Workstation in Each Week

Added Subcontract in Each Week
Workstations
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
4030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3014 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 0
3012 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
3013 1 9 8 6 8 7 7 8 11 8 8 8 1 0 0
3016 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 0
4010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.61
 REFFERENCES
Capacity Requirement Planning. (n.d.). Retrieved from Investopedia:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capacity-requirements-planning.asp

Hiroyuki, H. (n.d.). Capacity Requirements Planning CRP. Retrieved from Asprova:

https://www.asprova.jp/mrp/glossary/en/cat252/post-857.html

Kuli, T. (2011, 12 3). Capacity Requirement Planning. Retrieved from

https://2satu0satu.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/capacity-requirement-planning-
crp/

Pegada, R. (2016, November 18). CRP, Rough Cut Capacity Planning. Retrieved from
SlideShare: https://www.slideshare.net/RajuPegada/capacity-requirement-
planning-rough-cut-capacity-planning

5.62