Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available
Availableonline
Procedia atatwww.sciencedirect.com
Manufacturing
online 00 (2018) 000–000
www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect 
Procedia Manufacturing 17 (2018) 811–818
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
28th International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing
28th International ConferenceJune
(FAIM2018), on Flexible Automation
11-14, 2018, and OH,
Columbus, Intelligent
USA Manufacturing
(FAIM2018), June 11-14, 2018, Columbus, OH, USA
Using PFEP For Simulation Modeling of Production Systems
Using PFEP
Manufacturing For Simulation
Engineering Modeling
Society International of 2017,
Conference Production Systems
MESIC 2017, 28-30 June
2017, Pawel
Vigo (Pontevedra),
Pawlewski* Spain
Pawel Pawlewski*
*Faculty of Engineering Management, Poznan University of Technology, Poznan, Poland
Costing models for capacity optimization in Industry 4.0: Trade-off
*Faculty of Engineering Management, Poznan University of Technology, Poznan, Poland

Abstract between used capacity and operational efficiency

Abstract
Paper focuses on simulation modeling
A. Santana of production
a systems. Author
, P. Afonso a,*
, A.describes
Zaninhow b to use PFEP (Plan
, R. Wernkeb for Every Part) to automate
building of simulation
Paper focuses modelsmodeling
on simulation of production systems.systems.
of production First section
Author of describes
paper concentrates
how to useonPFEP
the analysis
(Plan forofEvery
standard approaches
Part) to
to automate
modeling
building ofproduction
simulationsystems
models proposed in
a simulation
of production systems.
University programs offered
First section
of Minho, 4800-058 on the
of paper market.
concentrates
Guimarães, PortugalInonnext
the section
analysistheof idea of lean
standard thinkingto–
approaches
continuous flow is presented.
modeling production systems The basis of
proposed in this thinkingprograms
simulation
b
Unochapecó, is89809-000
formedoffered
byChapecó,
PlanonFor
theEvery
SC, BrazilPart.
market. In The
nextmain contribution
section the idea ofoflean paper is to–
this thinking
explain
continuoushowflow
to use the PFEP The
is presented. for simulation
basis of this modeling.
thinking The example
is formed of forming
by Plan simulation
For Every Part. Themodel
mainbased on PFEP
contribution of is presented
this paper is as
to
last section
explain howoftothe
usepaper. Data for
the PFEP from automotive
simulation industryThe
modeling. wereexample
used to ofbuild this sample
forming model.
simulation model based on PFEP is presented as
last section of the paper. Data from automotive industry were used to build this sample model.
Abstract
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
©© 2018
This2018 The
is an Authors.
open
The accessPublished
Authors. by
article under
Published Elsevier B.V.
the CC BY-NC-ND
by Elsevier B.V. license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an
Under open
the access of
concept article under the4.0",
"Industry CC BY-NC-ND
production license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
processes
Peer-review
This under
is an open responsibility
access article underof the scientific
CC BY-NC-ND committee of the
license 28thwill be pushed
Flexible Automation to and
be increasingly interconnected,
Intelligent Manufacturing
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing
information
(FAIM2018)
Peer-review based on
Conference.
under
(FAIM2018) Conference.
a real
responsibility time
of basis
the and,
scientific necessarily,
committee of much
the 28thmore efficient.
Flexible In
Automation this context,
and capacity
Intelligent optimization
Manufacturing
goes beyondConference.
(FAIM2018) the traditional aim of capacity maximization, contributing also for organization’s profitability and value.
Keywords:lean
Indeed, Simulation modeling; Lean;
management and Production System
continuous improvement approaches suggest capacity optimization instead of
Keywords: Simulation
maximization. Themodeling;
study ofLean; Production
capacity System
optimization and costing models is an important research topic that deserves
contributions from both the practical and theoretical perspectives. This paper presents and discusses a mathematical
1. Introduction
model for capacity management based on different costing models (ABC and TDABC). A generic model has been
1. Introduction
developed and it was used to analyze idle capacity and to design strategies towards the maximization of organization’s
OneThe
value. of the common
trade-off phenomena
capacity occurring vs
maximization in all types of production
operational efficiency isis the flow of materials.
highlighted and it is The
shownflowthat
of materials
capacity
and One of
productsthe common
in phenomena
enterprises in each occurring
type of
optimization might hide operational inefficiency. in
industryall types
has its of
ownproduction is
specificity. the
Theflow
paperof materials.
focuses The flow
primarily on of materials
phenomena
and
© products
occurring
2017 in enterprises
TheinAuthors.
the machine inby
each
building
Published type of
industry
Elsevier B.V.industry
(assembly),has its
butown specificity.
the issues The paper
addressed focuses
also apply primarily
to other typeson
ofphenomena
enterprises
occurring
which in the
discrete machine building
production industry
processes with (assembly),
similar but the issues
characteristics addressed
occur. This also
appliesapply
to to other types
manufacturing of
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conferencein
in enterprises
enterprises
in
thewhich
2017. discrete production
electrotechnical, processes
electronic, with
furniture, similar industries,
footwear characteristics
etc. occur. This applies to manufacturing enterprises in
theThe
electrotechnical,
paper focuseselectronic, furniture,
on simulation footwear
modeling industries,
of material etc.
flow. The flow of materials and products in the enterprise
Theplace
takes
Keywords:paper
Costas focuses
part of
Models; on simulation
theTDABC;
ABC; production modeling
process.
Capacity of material
This
Management; flow flow. Operational
should
Idle Capacity; The flow Efficiency
therefore of
be materials
deliberatelyandplanned,
productscontrolled
in the enterprise
and, if
takes place adjusted,
necessary, as part ofitthe production
means process.beThis
that should flow should
controlled. Many therefore
methodsbeand deliberately
computerplanned,
supportcontrolled
tools haveand,
beenif
necessary,
developed. adjusted,
Simulationit modeling
means that should one
is currently be controlled.
of the most Manymodernmethods
tools usedandincomputer support
these activities. tools have
Concepts suchbeen
as a
1. Introduction
developed. Simulation modeling is currently one of the most modern tools used in these activities. Concepts such as a
2351-9789
The cost© 2018 Thecapacity
of idle Authors. Published by Elsevier information
is a fundamental B.V. for companies and their management of extreme importance
This is an open
2351-9789 access
© 2018 Thearticle under
Authors. the CC BY-NC-ND
Published license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
by Elsevier B.V.
in modern
Peer-review
production
under
systems.
responsibility
In general,
of the scientific
it is defined
committee of the
as unused capacity or production potential and can be measured
28th Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing (FAIM2018)
This is an open access article under CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
in
Conference. under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th Flexible Automationetc.
several
Peer-review ways: tons of production, available hours of manufacturing, and The management
Intelligent of (FAIM2018)
Manufacturing the idle capacity
* Paulo Afonso.
Conference. Tel.: +351 253 510 761; fax: +351 253 604 741
E-mail address: psafonso@dps.uminho.pt

2351-9789
2351-9789©©2017
2018The
TheAuthors.
Authors. Published by Elsevier
Published B.V. B.V.
by Elsevier
Peer-review underaccess
This is an open responsibility
article of the scientific
under committee oflicense
the CC BY-NC-ND the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing
(FAIM2018) Conference.
10.1016/j.promfg.2018.10.132
812 Pawel Pawlewski / Procedia Manufacturing 17 (2018) 811–818
2 Pawlewski / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000

digital factory, 4.o industry are based on a virtual simulation model that provides the opportunity to check the
developed concept at the design stage.
Simulation is a tool to create a model of the system on the computer to allow for experimentation without negatively
impacting the real system. On the market are offered many simulation programs based on DES (Discrete Event
Simulation). This kind of simulation can help to analyze systems with high variability or internal system interactions
that can be difficult to model with spreadsheet tools.
The main goal of the article is to present the concept of using the PFEP (Plan For Every Part) idea in automating
the construction of simulation models of production systems.
The main contribution of this paper is to define the need of using the PFEP for simulation modeling of production
systems and to demonstrate the linkage of storage locations in the supermarket, in workplaces (within the production
line /cell) and in the buffer in front of the finished goods warehouse into one PFEP-based addressing system.
The paper consists of six sections. The first section provides an introduction. Standards approaches described in
literature and offered by simulation software producers are discussed in Section 2. The third section defines the idea
of lean thinking based on PFEP. The example of forming simulation model based on PFEP is presented in Section 4.
Conclusions and plans for further work are provided in Section 6.

2. Literature background – standard approaches

Simulation methods have been used for several decades. They are used to describe, research and design economic
and social systems. Currently, they are one of the key technologies within the framework of the 4.0 industry concept
[1]. This concept was created in Germany and defines a new organization of factories (called intelligent factories),
allowing for better customer service through enormous flexibility and resource optimization. The key industry 4.0
principles are:

 the factory becomes digital and flexible, which means continuous and immediate communication between
various workstations and tools, integrated into production lines and supply chains;
 the use of simulation tools and data processing to collect and analyze data from assembly lines that are used for
modeling and testing; this is a great value for employees who want to better understand industrial conditions and
processes;
 factories become economical in using energy and resources through the use of communication networks to
exchange information in a continuous and immediate way to coordinate needs and availability.

Simulation on the one side is modeling, i.e. mapping of the real system, understanding of system behavior, virtual
(and visual) assessment of possible consequences of actions, and on the other side, is - experimenting and testing ideas
and alternatives before making decisions on actions and resource involvement [2]. Simulation is a collection of
methods and techniques to which we include discrete simulation, continuous simulations (including systems
dynamics), Monte Carlo method (including static simulations in a spreadsheet), managerial games, qualitative
simulation, agent simulation and others. It is assumed [3] that at the macro-strategic level where the application areas
are market and competition, social systems, ecosystems, product or project management, human resources, health
systems are primarily applied simulation modeling methods based on system dynamics and in part agent modeling.
The medium level (tactical) is applications related to power grids, financial management, supply chains, health care,
business processes is primarily the domain of agent modeling. However, at the operational level - micro where we
take into account individual objects, exact dimensions, speeds, distances and times - discrete event modeling methods
(process approach) and agent modeling are applied. This applies to applications in the areas of production, services,
battlefields, pedestrian traffic, warehouse logistics, computer hardware or physical systems.
The essence of system dynamics is thinking in terms of feedback. This approach was developed in the 1950s by
Forrester [4]. They are included in continuous simulation, for applications with a high level of abstraction - strategic.
There is software available on the market that supports system dynamics modeling, eg Vensim (www.vensim.com),
PowerSim (www.powersim.com).
From the point of view of the research area described in this article, methods based on discrete events and agent
modeling are of interest because they are used at the tactical level and above all at the operational level. Generally, it
 Pawel Pawlewski / Procedia Manufacturing 17 (2018) 811–818 813
Pawlewski / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000 3

can be concluded that the discrete-based approach is a process approach and agent-based modeling can be compared
to the task-driven approach [5].
Simulation tools based on discrete events use a process-based approach in which the flow of parts between
processes or process steps results in resource demand. Part of going to the next step of the process requests the resource
and if it receives it, this step is carried out, but if it does not receive it, it waits until the resource is available. Then
queues are formed. Although this methodology is good for some applications, it does not allow modeling of situations
in which resources have to perform tasks that are not related to the flow. In such situations, the task-based approach
ensures that workplaces can be implemented in a realistic way, for example the operator / transporter (mobile resource)
is to perform a set of inspections of unused equipment if it is not involved in a different way in the process work. The
task-based approach allows you to create activities for the operator / transporter (mobile resources) that are completely
independent of the processing activities and allow him to engage in a set of tasks that may require moving, picking up
tools and remaining "busy" for some time . In addition, using a task-based approach, resources can include their own
"intelligence" to decide what tasks to perform and when. However, it should be borne in mind that some authors
consider that the task approach cannot be identified with agent modeling [6].
The software based on agent modeling available on the market (eg Swarm, NetLogo, Repast, ASCAPE) is primarily
software focused on modeling social behavior - interactions between objects. Their application in the modeling of
production systems is not important.
Available simulation software on the market dedicated to simulation modeling of production and assembly systems
(eg FlexSim, Arena, Tecnomatix, Anylogic, Witness, etc.) is based on discrete events but also provides the ability to
control tasks. However, their main task is to model the so-called "Flow process" - focusing on what is flowing through
the process. A typical, simplest process model is a model consisting of a source (generator) of flow elements, a buffer
(in which a queue of flow elements may be created), a processor (performing the operation) and runoff, it means the
place where the process ends - figures 1 and 2.

Fig. 1. The simplest process model - view in the AnyLogic 8 University program 8.2.3 - own study.

Fig. 2. The simplest process model - view in the FlexSim 2018 program - own study

Traditionally, a process approach is used to model the production flow, creating a model according to the "top-
down" rule from top to bottom, bringing the simulation model to life at every step. Of course, simulation models are
built to answer the question asked by the engineer to solve a specific problem. In many cases, this approach is
appropriate and sufficient. In the literature on the subject, recommendations can be found to start the simulation project
from building a map of the value stream [8]. In such cases a process approach is used in which the part flow through
the production system is presented [2]. This approach is also described in the literature on simulation modeling. This
approach is also recommended by simulation software producers, eg Simio, Anylogic, Arena, Tecnomatix, FlexSim.
814 Pawel Pawlewski / Procedia Manufacturing 17 (2018) 811–818
4 Pawlewski / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000

However, you can take a deeper look, because it can be assumed that this approach is approximated due to the "top-
down" rule, ie modeling at a high level of abstraction and going down - taking into account more details depending on
the needs. This is in accordance with the classic method of Artur Hall [7].
However, when building a simulation model, we build it with elements. These elements (also called objects) reflect
or approximate the real system. These elements are abstract objects (eg graphic icons) or objects to which certain
behaviors are assigned. Graphic icons are elements of graphical modeling languages, eg VSM (Value Stream Mapping)
[8], IDEF0 [9] or OFD (Object Flow Diagram) [10]. In turn objects that are assigned certain behaviors form the basis
for building models in simulation programs - eg source, buffer, processor, operator, etc. These elements are used in
modeling at different levels of abstraction depending on the needs [2] [3].

3. Lean thinking based on PFEP

Lean thinking is a business methodology based on works of James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones [11,12] of
Toyota Production System. This methodology aims to provide a new way to think about how to organize human
activities to deliver more benefits to society and value to individuals while liminating waste. In this thinking the process
is organized by focusing on the concepts of: Value, Value streams, Flow, Pull, Perfection –

 Value - Specifying a value for the customer,

 Value Stream - Identifying the value stream and all activities in the value stream,
 Flow – - Ensuring in the "weight loss" operations in the previous step so-called continuous flow,
 Pull - Suction system,
 Perfection - The continuous improvement (kaizen) of all processes in the organization.

The goal is to organize and maintain a management system for parts, components, subassemblies and other
materials that are delivered to the enterprise from suppliers. The challenge is to find the answer to the question how to
design (redesign) such a logistic system, which slimmed down with as much waste as possible, will ensure the most
effective flow of materials inside the factory. The word flow has a special meaning here - it can be compared to the
bloodstream of a living organism. The internal logistics system, with its delivery routes, is like the cardiovascular
system of the organism. We have here arteries (supply routes) supplying nutrients (purchased parts) and veins - taking
away contaminants (empty containers by parts), so as to keep the cells of the body (production nests) healthy and
provided with what they need and when they need it. The arteries and veins of this system (supply routes) are also
used to transfer signals from cells (production sockets) to the nervous system (production control department) with
the level of nutrient demand (materials and purchased parts).
Lean proposes a methodology for designing the internal logistics system of the factory and the method of its
management [13, 14]. This methodology is based primarily on the concept of PFEP - Plan for every part.
PFEP is database created to gather and maintain information about all parts, components, supplies, WIP inventories,
raw materials, finished goods and any other form material used in your processes.
The definitions and requirements of a PFEP vary depending on specific needs and industry, but in general a PFEP
fosters the accurate and controlled management of commercial information. PFEP is an essential lean tool, and when
combined with quality, delivery, true cost sourcing, value stream mapping and supplier development initiatives, can
transform average supply chain operations into world class just-in-time lean enterprises. PFEP enables organizations
to plan more effectively for prototype build completion dates, part true costs, and production launch risks. Then once
the product is launched, the PFEP is used to proactively maintain high-functioning supply chain operations by
managing and optimizing inventory costs, inbound logistics costs and part supply change costs. The typical structure
of PFEP can find in [14]. This structure contains such elements as: Maximum amount of material used in a day through
the entire plant, Process/areas where the material is used, Address (location) where the material is stored, Frequency
that the material is ordered from the supplier, Data of suppliers, Packaging type of the container, Weights of container
and part, Dimensions, Number of parts required for 1 finished product, Travel time required from the supplier to the
facility etc.
 Pawel Pawlewski / Procedia Manufacturing 17 (2018) 811–818 815
Pawlewski / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000 5

4. Using the PFEP for simulation modeling

The manufacturing system in the automotive industry has been analyzed and modeled. The process is performed
on several welding stations, where welding operations are carried out successively and then the assembly and
packaging operation of the product is carried out. It is a pipeline production. An attempt was made to model the flow
of parts. Parts flow in containers. The conclusion that appeared was that you should focus on the flow of containers.
The flow area was defined from the so-called supermarket where there are already prepared containers with parts for
the buffer with containers of finished products, which is located in front of the finished goods warehouse. The
warehouse flows were not analyzed and modeled before the supermarket and after the container buffer with ready
products.
The containers "flowed" from the supermarket to the fields of workstations, where the welding operation was
carried out, then the assembly (in containers or on the logistic trolley) "floated" to the next workstation, up to the
buffer in front of the finished product warehouse. Assembly operations have been modeled taking into account the
operation time (described with the appropriate statistical distribution), disruptions (failures) and planned breaks. The
focus was on the flow. Containers themselves do not flow through the system - there is always a mechanism that
causes this flow. Containers as found in the supermarket are static - they have no initiative to flow (this is not in line
with the process approach). As a result, the focus was on how the flow is implemented and provoked. The mechanism
that realizes the flow is well known to all - in the case of non-automatic flow, operators who use various means of
transport such as pallets, logistic trucks, forklifts, logistic trains and in the case of automatic flow are robots,
conveyors, agv trucks. Generally, in the subject literature this is considered separately as internal transport. Production
flow management is the management of mechanisms that realize this flow.
An approach to simulation modeling based on three levels of the analysis of the production system was developed:

 Level 1 - the level of intralogistics of the workstation,

 Level 2 - the level of intralogistics of the line/cell,
 Level 3 - the level of intralogistics of the production system (factory).

Under the concept of intralogistics, it was assumed to understand processes related to the flow of materials requiring
coordination in time and space. On level 1 inside the workstation it is the flow of parts - from the container in the
storage location to the machine or work table, and further the flow of the assembly from the machine, the table to the
container (transport truck). At level 2, it is the flow of containers (including logistic trolleys) between the stations
forming the production line/cell. However, at level 3, this is the flow between the supermarket and the production
lines/cells and further to the buffers in front of the finished product warehouse. At this level, containers with parts /
products can flow in groups, for example as part of a logistic train (tugger with a few trolleys with containers).
Each workstation includes an area on which a container with parts is deposited. This area is identified and addressed
by given coordinates in space X, Y, Z and rotations relative to individual axes: RotX, RotY, RotZ. This area is called
storage location. Both the supermarket and the buffer in front of the finished product warehouse also contain such
locations.
The developed approach is based on the linkage of storage locations in the supermarket, on workplaces (within the
production line /cell) and in the buffer in front of the finished goods warehouse into one PFEP-based addressing
system. Each storage location has a part identifier assigned, which points to a row in the PFEP table where the
information about the container is saved. The PFEP ensures consistency of the entire system. In PFEP, there is also a
link to the container database so that you can identify container data such as shape, size, etc. Figure 3 presents the
linkage between storage locations and PFEP.
816 Pawel Pawlewski / Procedia Manufacturing 17 (2018) 811–818
6 Pawlewski / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000

Fig. 3. The linkage between storage locations and PFEP table – own study

During the simulation project for the client from the automotive industry, a successful attempt to build a simulation
model in the described way was made. The main flow was identified based on the BOM (Bill of Materials), an array
of the PFEP (Plan for Every Part), layout and operational diagrams – routes which were built for each operator, robot
etc. Routes have been described in a special language for which an interpreter has been prepared in a simulation
program. The whole has been implemented in the FlexSim simulation program environment treating it as so-called
SOS - Simulation Operating System. The FlexSim program was chosen because of the possibility of working directly
in 3D and the openness of the system, i.e. the possibility of adapting mechanisms for own needs and interference in
this system. Table 1 shows the structure of PFEP used in the simulation model - not all fields from PFEP from table
1 were used. The pattern presented in the first table applies to the whole supply chain - the model concerns only the
production of the product. We added TimeTote, TimeToSub and TimeFromSub columns which define times necessary
to Load/Unload part from the contatiner and to install the part in welding machine and to pick the assembly from
welding machine.

Table 1. The structure of PFEP used in simulation model – own study.

Name Description
Part Part Id
Part Name Part name
ID Container ID (points the shape and other data in database of containers)
Length Length of container
Width Width of container
Height Height of container
Capacity Number of parts in container
Use Point Storage Location in workstation
Warehouse Storage Location in Supermarket
Weight Weight of one part
TimeTote Time of loading/unloading of one part from/to container
TimeToSub Time of installing part in welding table
TimeFromSub Time of loading part from welding table

The construction of a database describing the relationships between the objects of the modeled production line is
insufficient to build a simulation model. It turned out that a mechanism is needed to automatically generate containers
of the right size and with the right set of parts. This mechanism is triggered when the simulation experiment starts. At
the zero point in the storage location, e.g. in a supermarket, a container is generated. This mechanism has been
 Pawel Pawlewski / Procedia Manufacturing 17 (2018) 811–818 817
Pawlewski / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000 7

developed and built into the simulation program. Figure 4 shows the appearance of the work station before and after
running the simulation

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. The view of the simulation model (a) before Run (b) after triggering mechanism to generate containers – own study

5. Conclusions and further works

The article presents the practical application of PFEP in simulation modeling of manufacturing systems. The
simulation model built on the basis of this approach, or rather the method of its construction, prompts the author to
continue this work. The reaction of people from the industry, which is presented in the way of thinking described in
the article, is promising.
Directions for further work are:

 completing the work on the language describing the activities carried out by the operators (flow mechanisms),
especially since the previously developed instructions of this language are understandable and accepted by
production and logistics engineers,
 preparation of the environment for simulation modeling (using available simulation software as the equivalent of
the operating system),
 development of the model components at the workstation level,
 formal description of the whole - using the formal apparatus offered by the authors of works from the area of
multimodal cyclic processes models,
 preparation of technologies for collecting and preparing data in the enterprise for simulation modeling.

The main purpose of this work is to prepare a technology that answers the question how to prepare data in an
enterprise to build a simulation model quickly and without having deep knowledge about simulation modeling in a
given tool offered on the market. The purpose of using this technology is to solve problems in the area of production
and assembly regarding: design and modification of the layout of the production plant / production space, design and
redesign (improvement) of intralogistics (Milk Run), work balancing and Yamazumi analyzes.
It should be noted that in any simulation program, you can build such a mounting system - using a process and task
approach. However, each time it is done from the beginning - there is no automation. The level of detail offered by
simulation programs, e.g. FlexSim, Anylogic, etc. is too deep. The function language available at this level includes
several hundred functions. To implement the model presented in the article, a language was defined consisting of 57
instructions, which proved to be sufficient.

Acknowledgements

The work was carried out as part of the POIR.01.01.01-00-0485/17 project, „Development of a new type of logistic
trolley and methods of collision-free and deadlock-free implementation of intralogistics processes”, financed by
NCBiR.
818 Pawel Pawlewski / Procedia Manufacturing 17 (2018) 811–818
8 Pawlewski / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000

References

[1] K. Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Crown Business, (2017)

[2] M. Beaverstock, A. Greenwood, E. Lavery, W. Nordgren, Applied Simulation. Modeling and Analysis using Flexsim, Flexsim Software
Products, Inc., Canyon Park Technology Center, Orem, USA, (2011)
[3] A. Borshchev, The Big Book of Simulation Modeling, Anylogic North America, (2013)
[4] J. Forrester, Industrial Dynamics. Pegasus Communications, 1961
[5] P.O. Siebers, C.M. Macal, J. Garnett, D. Buxton, M. Pidd, Discrete-Event Simulation is Dead, Long Live Agent-Based Simulation!. Journal of
Simulation, 4(3) (2010) 204-210
[6] Ch. W. Weimer, J.O. Miller, R.R. Hill, Introduction to Agent Based Modeling, Proceedings of the 2016 Winter Simulation Conference T. M.
K. Roeder, P. I. Frazier, R. Szechtman, E. Zhou, T. Huschka, and S. E. Chick, eds. (2016)
[7] A.D. Hall, A Methodology for Systems Engineering, Princeton N.J. (1962)
[8] M. Rother, J. Shook, Learning to see. Value-Stream Mapping to Create Value and Eliminate Muda, The lean Enterprise Institute, Inc. (2003)
[9] K. Santarek, Organisational problems and issues of CIM systems design. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 76 (1998) 219-226
[10] A. Greenwood, P. Pawlewski, G. Bocewicz, A Conceptual Design Tool to Facilitate Simulation Model Development: Object Flow Diagram.
Proceedings of the 2013 Winter Simulation Conference, R. Pasupathy, S.-H. Kim, A. Tolk, R. Hill, and M. E. Kuhl eds. (2013)
[11] J.P. Womack, D. T. Jones, Lean Thinking (1996)
[12] J.P. Womack, D. T. Jones, D. Roos, The Machine That Changed The World (1990)
[13] R. Harris, Ch. Harris, E. Wilson, Making Materials Flow. A lean material-handling guide for operations, production control, and engineering
professionals, The lean Enterprise Institute inc. (2003)
[14] T. Conrad, R. Rooks, Turbo Flow: Using Plan for Every Part (PFEP) to Turbo Charge Your Supply Chain, Productivity Press (2010)