Simulation l SUPPLEMENT B l 95

Supplement

B Simulation

PROBLEMS

1. Comet Dry Cleaners

a. NGNC = Number of garments needing cleaning
MNGD = Maximum number of garments that could be dry cleaned

Queue at Actual Queue at

New Start Garments End
Day RN Garments of Day NGNC RN MNGD Cleaned of Day
1 49 70 0 70 77 80 70 0
2 27 60 0 60 53 70 60 0
3 65 80 0 80 08 60 60 20
4 83 80 20 100 12 60 60 40
5 04 50 40 90 82 80 80 10
6 58 70 10 80 44 70 70 10
7 53 70 10 80 83 80 80 0
8 57 70 0 70 72 80 70 0
9 32 60 0 60 53 70 60 0
10 60 70 0 70 79 80 70 0
11 79 80 0 80 30 70 70 10
12 41 70 10 80 48 70 70 10
13 97 90 10 100 86 80 80 20
14 30 60 20 80 25 60 60 20
15 80 80 20 100 73 80 80 20
Total 160
The average daily number of garments held overnight is 160/15 = 10.67 garments.
b. The expansion reduces the number of garments held overnight from 20 to 10.67
(calculated as 160/15), saving $233.25 [$25(9.33)] per day. The saving exceeds the
$200 expansion cost, making expansion a good idea.

2. Precision Manufacturing Company. The following Table A simulates the arrival of 10

batches over a 60-minute horizon. With a different choice of random numbers, the results
will vary. Random numbers from the first row of the random number table in Appendix 2
were used, 2-digits at a time, with the probability distribution to simulate the number of
units in each batch. Random numbers from the second and third rows were similarly used
to establish setup times and processing times, respectively. Resulting assignments for setup
and processing times for each machine are also shown.
96 l PART 2 l Managing Processes
Table B determines the work requirements of each machine, based on the job arrivals
and times selected in Table A. The totals are very similar, with NC machine 1 being slightly
more productive. The totals of 2,646 seconds and 2,680 seconds are considerably less than
the capacity of 3,600 seconds for the 60-minute horizon. Capacity is more than sufficient
for either machine.

Table A Job arrivals, setup times, and processing times

Setup Times Processing Times
(min) (sec)
Number Machine Machine Machine Machine
Batch RN of Units RN 1 2 RN 1 2
1 71 14 21 2 3 50 7 5
2 50 8 94 5 5 63 8 5
3 96 18 93 5 5 95 9 7
4 83 18 09 1 2 49 7 5
5 10 6 20 2 3 68 8 5
6 48 8 23 2 3 11 6 3
7 21 6 28 2 3 40 7 4
8 39 8 78 4 4 93 9 7
9 99 18 95 5 5 61 8 5
10 28 6 14 2 2 48 7 5

Table B Work Requirements

Machine 1 Requirements (sec) Machine 2 Requirements (sec)
Batch Setup Processing Total Setup Processing Total
1 120 98 218 180 70 250
2 300 64 364 300 40 340
3 300 162 462 300 126 426
4 60 126 186 120 90 210
5 120 48 168 180 30 210
6 120 48 168 180 24 204
7 120 42 162 180 24 204
8 240 72 312 240 56 296
9 300 144 444 300 90 390
10 120 42 162 120 30 150
Totals 2646 2680

The small sample size of just 10 batches may cause us some estimation errors. Another
approach is to work with the expected values of the five probability distributions. They
can be computed as:
 Simulation l SUPPLEMENT B l 97

Number of jobs = 10.3 units every 6 minutes

Machine 1 setup = 3.0 minutes/batch
Machine 2 setup = 3.4 minutes/batch
Machine 1 processing = 7.15 seconds/job
Machine 2 processing = 4.70 seconds/job
Using these expected values to estimate the work requirements for each machine for a 60-
minute horizon, we get

Machine 1: 10[3.0 min(60 sec/min) + 10.3 units(7.15 sec/job)] = 2,536 seconds

Machine 2: 10[3.4 min(60 sec/min) + 10.3 units(4.70 sec/job)] = 2,524 seconds

These numbers suggest that a much longer simulation would show that machine 2 is
the slightly better choice. Its shorter processing times more than compensate for the
longer setup times, given the sizes of batches that arrive. Smaller batches favor machine 1.

3. Because either machine has plenty of capacity, and continuing to assume equal operation
and maintenance costs, we should purchase the lower price machine. In other words, the
decision should not favor the machine with higher capacity. Capacity in excess of that
needed has no value. Greater capacity merely results in more idle time.

4. Omega University
a. Preliminary estimates or utilization and proportion of unanswered calls:
arrival rate: 90 calls per hour ´ 60% forwarded to office = 54 calls/hour
answering service rate: 60 minutes/hour/1 minute/call = 60 calls per hour
estimated utilization = 54/60 = 90%
Of 90 calls, we would expect 36 (or 40% ´ 90) to be answered by the professors. 54
would be forwarded, and because the clerk has some idle time, we might expect the
lion’s share of those calls to be answered as well. Surely only a few calls would go
unanswered.
b. Simulation. See table showing the simulation.
The first three random numbers in the first row of the table are from the first two
digits in the second column of Appendix 2, moving from top to bottom. The simulation
shows that during the 60 minutes, 82 calls were placed. Of those, 68 were answered.
Even though this simulation is for an hour when fewer than the expected average of 90
calls were received, 14 calls or 14/82 = 17% went unanswered by anyone.
c. Professors answered 34 calls (41%) and 48 (59%) were forwarded to the department
office. Of the 48 forwarded calls, only 34 calls (or 71%) were answered by the clerk.
The clerk was idle 26 of 60 minutes. Utilization was only 34/60 = 57%, not the
estimated 90%.
The simulation shows that even though the clerk has lots of idle time, calls were being
missed because they do not arrive at a steady pace.
98 l PART 2 l Managing Processes

Table for Problem 4b: Simulation of Voice Mail System

No. of 1st Call 2nd Call 3rd Call 4th Call No. of Ö
Calls Forward? Forward? Forward Forward? Calls Not Asst
Time RN Made RN (Yes/No) RN (Yes/No) RN ? RN (Yes/No) Answered Idle
(Yes/No)
10:00 68 2 30 Yes 54 Yes 1
10:01 76 2 36 Yes 32 Yes 1
10:02 68 2 04 Yes 07 Yes 1
10:03 98 4 08 Yes 21 Yes 28 Yes 79 No 2
10:04 25 1 77 No 0 Ö
10:05 51 1 23 Yes 0
10:06 67 2 22 Yes 27 Yes 1
10:07 80 2 87 No 06 Yes 0
10:08 03 0 0 Ö
10:09 03 0 0 Ö
10:10 33 1 78 No 0 Ö
10:11 32 1 40 Yes 0
10:12 56 2 92 No 61 No 0 Ö
10:13 39 1 05 Yes 0
10:14 93 3 43 Yes 54 Yes 30 Yes 2
10:15 33 1 26 Yes 0
10:16 33 1 83 No 0 Ö
10:17 62 2 60 No 25 Yes 0
10:18 12 0 0 Ö
10:19 30 1 96 No 0 Ö
10:20 83 3 48 Yes 23 Yes 11 Yes 2
10:21 09 0 0 Ö
10:22 92 3 66 No 21 Yes 76 No 0
10:23 31 1 19 Yes 0
10:24 51 1 75 No 0 Ö
10:25 15 0 0 Ö
10:26 27 1 52 Yes 0
10:27 58 2 94 No 45 Yes 0
10:28 74 2 72 No 19 Yes 0
10:29 20 0 0 Ö
10:30 64 2 71 No 39 Yes 0
10:31 04 0 0 Ö
10:32 75 2 01 Yes 05 Yes 1
10:33 45 1 58 Yes 0
10:34 15 0 0 Ö
10:35 66 2 94 No 60 No 0 Ö
10:36 61 2 72 No 99 No 0 Ö
10:37 32 1 90 No 0 Ö
10:38 73 2 14 Yes 25 Yes 1
10:39 52 1 20 Yes 0
10:40 86 3 89 No 97 No 63 No 0 Ö
10:41 65 2 99 No 89 No 0 Ö
10:42 36 1 54 Yes 0
10:43 19 0 0 Ö
10:44 07 0 0 Ö
10:45 56 2 04 Yes 52 Yes 1
10:46 01 0 0 Ö
10:47 14 0 0 Ö
10:48 55 1 49 Yes 0
10:49 23 1 62 No 0 Ö
10:50 59 2 61 No 21 Yes 0
10:51 49 1 64 No 0 Ö

10:52 36 1 45 Yes 0
 Simulation l SUPPLEMENT B l 99
10:53 26 1 20 Yes 0
10:54 26 1 46 Yes 0
10:55 41 1 78 No 0 Ö
10:56 79 2 73 No 45 Yes 0
10:57 87 3 47 Yes 77 No 89 No 0
10:58 99 4 78 No 08 Yes 21 Yes 61 No 1
10:59 24 1 15 Yes 0

5. Voice mailboxes. The office assistant is currently spending 57% of his time answering the
telephone. See table showing the simulation. Assuming that time saved could be
productively used elsewhere,
Labor savings = $3,000/month ´ 57% ´ 60% = $1026/month.
Voice mail cost = $25/month ´ 32 telephones = $800/month.
Yes, order voice-mail system.

6. E-Z Mart
a. Random Number Sales
00–09 60
10–23 61
24–57 62
58–79 63
80–91 64
92–99 65

b. Trial R.N. Demand Shortage Excess

1 97 65 3 —
2 02 60 — 2
3 80 64 2 —
4 66 63 1 —
5 99 65 3 —
6 56 62 0 0
7 54 62 0 0
8 28 62 0 0
9 64 63 1 —
10 47 62 0 0
Total 10 2

c. Average shortage = 10/10 = 1 jug

Average excess = 2/10 = 0.2 jugs
100 l PART 2 l Managing Processes

7. Brakes-Only Service Shop

a. # of Brake Jobs Relative Frequency Random Numbers
10 0.1 00–09
11 0.3 10–39
12 0.3 40–69
13 0.2 70–89
14 0.1 90–99

b. RN 28 83 73 7 4 63 37 38 50 92
Demand 11 13 13 10 10 12 11 11 12 14

c. On 3 days, overtime will be necessary.

On 5 days, mechanics will be underutilized.
d. 3/10 = 30% of the days.

8. A machine center
a. Two random numbers could be used for each client—one for demand and one for
processing time. Once this has been done for all four clients, it is possible to compute
the value of R for the year just simulated. The result is one observation for
constructing a frequency chart or probability distribution.
b. For the first year simulated:
RN Event
88 A’s demand is 4200 units (in 70–99 range)
24 A’s processing time is 10 hours/unit (in 0–34 range)
33 B’s demand is 800 units (in 30–79 range)
29 B’s processing time is 90 hours/unit (in 25–74 range)
52 C’s demand is 3000 units (in 10–59 range)
84 C’s processing time is 15 hours/unit (in 25–84 range)
37 D’s demand is 600 units (in 0–39 range)
92 D’s processing time is 80 hours/unit (in 95–99 range)

Then for the first year:

R = 4200(10) + 800(90) + 3000(15) + 600(80) = 207,000 hours.
 Simulation l SUPPLEMENT B l 101

9. BestBuy sales activity. The spreadsheet is printed below, showing the averages sales at
4.75 cars per week and the average weekly revenue at $95,000. The frequency table in the
lower left corner shows a close correspondence with the original frequency distribution
with some small differences. For example, the simulation resulted in sales of 5 cars per
week 29 percent of the time, rather than 30 percent.
102 l PART 2 l Managing Processes

10. BestCar with price variability. Now there are two uncontrollable variables: weekly demand
and sales price. The spreadsheet shown below results in an average of 2.73 cars sold per
week (compare with the 2.88 car average in Figure B.2 when only 50 weeks were
simulated). The average revenue is $57,516 per week.