Computers in Industry 105 (2019) 260–272

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Industry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compind

The design space of production planning and control for industry 4.0
Julia C. Bendula,* ,1, Henning Blunckb,2
a
Chair for the Management of Digitalization and Automation - Industry 4.0; School of Business and Economics, RWTH Aachen University, 52062 Aachen,
Germany
b
Workgroup Production & Logistics Networks, School of Mathematics and Logistics, Jacobs University, 28759 Bremen, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: In industrial production, distributed control is perceived to be a promising approach for dealing with
Received 28 October 2017 challenges arising from the increasing dynamical and structural complexity in that field. Currently, future
Received in revised form 18 June 2018 production systems are envisioned to be digitalized and networked systems bearing names such as
Accepted 31 October 2018
“Industry 4.0”, “Manufacturing 2.0”, “Internet of Things”, and many others. These visions share the idea of
Available online xxx
assigning tasks of production control to “intelligent” objects, such as machines, parts, and products, in
order to attain higher flexibility, higher adaptability, and therefore a higher logistics performance.
Keywords:
However, limited information and restricted computation capacity may have negative effects: The
Production system design
Factory planning
production system behavior depends on the decisions made by intelligent objects with individual and
Industry 4.0 selfish systems of objectives. This can deteriorate both the stability and the quality of achieved
Production planning and control production planning and control solutions. This trade-off situation has led researchers to the belief that a
Autonomous control combination of centralized and distributed—as well as of local and global—decision making in control
Framework might be the key to an improved and stable logistics performance. However, little is known about the
Reference architecture mechanics of these combined, semi-heterarchical control structures. Based on a profound literature
review, we compare the approaches and insights from the different research domains in order to classify
design decisions that can be made already in the planning phase of a new production system. We take a
first step towards the validation of our classification by mapping four paradigms of distributed control
into it. Our research can help the designers of future production systems to understand how to avoid the
emergence of “myopic” behavior, and it may serve as a basis for creating new control approaches by
exploring the design space.
© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction - the need for new design paradigms for
industry 4.0
In industrial production, autonomous control is perceived to be
a promising approach for achieving robustness against the
increasing dynamical and structural complexity of production
networks [1]. More and more data are being generated by so-called
cyber physical systems (CPS), which integrate computation with
physical objects. The increasing digitalization of production
systems—namely, the application of advanced data processing,
data storage, and data analytics, as well as cloud technologies—is
perceived to be the key to higher levels of automation, to more
efficient processes, and to better planning and control of
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bendul@scm.rwth-aachen.de (J.C. Bendul),
h.blunck@jacobs-university.de (H. Blunck).
1
www.scm.rwth-aachen.de.
2
http://pln-workgroup.user.jacobs-university.de.
production systems to achieve higher flexibility and robustness.
Productivity gains of up to 30% are expected to balance out the
disadvantages of high wages and energy costs of industrialized
countries [2]. Terms such as “Internet of Things”, “Smart Factory”
and “Manufacturing 2.0” embody the vision of such highly efficient
production systems, where intelligent objects, such as machines,
parts, and vehicles, cannot only measure and assess their own
situation, but also communicate and make decisions based on local
and global information (for an overview of initiatives in Europe
alone, c.f. [3]).
The desired and reported positive effects of increased flexibility,
robustness, reduced complexity, and modularity are the positive
consequence of distributing the control functions and the decision-
making authority to multiple parallel decision-making entities,
leading to an emergent (rather than enforced) behavior of the
system [4]. However, distributed decision-making based on local
information and limited computational capacity also has negative
effects, since the decision-making objects cannot integrate future
developments and other system parts into their decision-making
process. As a result, the system behavior is harder to predict, and

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.10.010
0166-3615/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 J.C. Bendul, H. Blunck / Computers in Industry 105 (2019) 260–272
logistics performance may deteriorate. To limit this type of myopic
(short-sighted) behavioral traits, it is not only economically
desirable, but also essential to ensure the industrial adaptation
of production systems with distributed control [5–7].
It has repeatedly been hypothesized that also in production
systems, a balance of centralized and autonomous control yields
the best systemic performance. Moreover, it has been stated that
the performance gain from a combination of centralized and
decentralized decision strategies increases with higher levels of
decision task complexity [1,8–11]. However, new design paradigms
are required to ensure benefit from production systems with
intelligent objects and from a distributed control approach, for two
main reasons: (1) The existence of intelligent objects and
distributed control is changing the role of system design itself,
from a situation where a designer is able to precisely predetermine
clearly future material flows and utilization levels c.f. [12,13], to a
situation where a designer only decides on the existence of
intelligent objects (such as machines, conveyors, etc.), as well as on
the rules and individual systems of objectives of these objects, and
therefore acts rather like a conductor “orchestrating” a factory to
ensure that the emergent system performance is competitive and
stable 2. The existence of intelligent objects and distributed control
is creating new trade-off situations for production system design.
The designer has to decide on a certain degree and form of
combination between centralized and distributed control across
various design decisions. In doing so, the designer accepts a certain
degree of myopic decision-making in exchange for positive,
emergent system characteristics, such as higher adaptability,
quicker response, etc.
Several design reference architectures exist for distributed
production control systems which include forms of myopia control
(see, for example, [7]). However, these are largely experience- and
intuition-driven [14,15]. A better understanding of the drivers of
and countermeasures against myopic system behavior is necessary
to better navigate the trade-off between desirable and undesirable
traits of distributed production control in smart factories. We aim
to contribute to closing this research gap at the interface of the
research in the fields of production system design, production
planning and control (PPC), and distributed control systems by
proposing a research framework, seizing the design space for
production systems with distributed control architectures. Based
on a profound literature review, including works on selfish agents,
game theory, and statistical physics, we present a three-fold
framework with nine dimensions which clearly indicates the
parameter space that designers can work in when designing
production systems with distributed control architecture.
We map four popular distributed PPC approaches—two from
the stream of PULL production and of agent-based manufacturing
control, respectively—into the classification framework, position-
ing each approach along all design dimensions. We observe both
intra-group similarities and inter-group differences in order to
classify and compare distributed PPC approaches. We find that
such mapping can show individual “fingerprints” of control
approaches in terms of the “management” of myopic behavior.
The remainder of the article is structured as follows: In
Section 2, we present the state-of-the-art by outlining recent
developments in the digitalization of production systems and the
resulting growing interest in distributed control architectures, and
we summarize the main findings on the different control
architectures in production systems. In Section 3, we introduce
the concept of myopia as the guiding theoretical foundation for the
development of the classification framework of design decisions
with impact on the emergence of myopic behavior. In Section 4, we
derive the design dimensions and characteristics of the classifica-
tion framework. In Section 5, we use the framework to compare
four distributed control approaches, thus taking a first step
261
towards the validation of the framework. In Section 6, we discuss
the main findings, limitations, and resulting future research
directions
2. Control paradigms for complex production systems
2.1. Digitalization of production systems – a chance to implement
distributed control architectures
In production research and practice, the term digitalization is
used to summarize a multitude of technological advancements.
According to [16]), digitalization is perceived among practitioners
to be a combination of (1) the increased amount of data, and
computational power and connectivity—including big data, open
data, and cloud technologies. Digitalization also gathers (2)
developments from the field of analytics and artificial intelligence,
such as the digitalization and automation of knowledge work by
advanced analytics. Moreover, digitalization stands for the (3)
digital-physical exchange of information, for example in the form
of additive manufacturing technologies, robotics, and improved
energy storage and transfer efficiency as well as (4) for improved
human-machine-interaction, in the form of touch pads, new GUIs,
and virtual and augmented reality.
It is the combination of new technologies enabling a
digitalization of production (technology push) and the changing
requirements in production control, following the above dis-
cussed increase in complexity (application pull), that has led to
the development of new paradigms of production (cf. [17,18]):
Concepts such as Autonomous Control of Logistics Objects (see, for
instance, [1]), Internet-of-Things (cf. [19] and [20] for reviews),
Smart Factory [21], and Networked Production [22] embody visions
of prospect organizations and of the production planning and
control of manufacturing companies of the future. Due to the
digitalization of production, the vision of distributedly controlled—
and therefore efficient—production companies and manufactur-
ing systems, where logistics objects such as machines, parts, and
vehicles can not only measure and assess their own situation, but
can communicate with each other and make decisions based on
local and global information, seems to be within reach for the first
time. However, despite the growing interest in these distributed
systems and in the expected efficiency effects, no clear guidelines
for the design and the control of such distributed architectures
have been provided so far [14,15,23,24]. Although all these
concepts have linked distributed control and decentralized
decision-making to efficiency and logistics performance gains,
the underlying cause-and-effect relationships remain unclear. So
far, neither practice nor research has provided guidance regarding
the extent to which logistics objects should be autonomous. It is
not clear as to what technologies and what capabilities logistics
objects should have, and how these objects should be connected
with which other objects exchanging what type of information by
means of which systems. In terms of control hierarchy, it has to be
clarified as to which logistics objects should take what decisions
autonomously and based on what criteria and target systems.
Finally, the role and the working principles of management in
such a distributed system have to be determined in order to
positively influence corporate success and manufacturing perfor-
mance.
2.2. Control paradigms for complex production systems
The increasing structural and dynamic complexity of produc-
tion companies and manufacturing systems is affecting the
planning and control effort as well as the logistics performance
of manufacturing systems. Recent research literature provides only
limited insight into the situation-specific design of planning and
262 J.C. Bendul, H. Blunck / Computers in Industry 105 (2019) 260–272
control systems in order to deal with the increasing complexity of
manufacturing systems.
Control Theory identifies three main forms of dealing with
complexity [25], but rarely provides guidelines regarding when to
apply what approach in industrial practice (1) Decentralization
(distribute information), (2) Decomposition (split up decision
problem into smaller pieces), and (3) Model Simplification. Classical
approaches to both production planning [26] as well as organiza-
tion structure [27] have preferred a functional decomposition,
leading to a hierarchy of decision-making levels, coordinated
through bureaucratic structures, where higher-level decisions bind
lower-level decision makers [28,29]. Such hierarchical organiza-
tion structures are perceived to be best suited for stable, top-down,
bureaucratic systems [30,31,6,32]. Changing a company’s structure
towards a more decentralized, non-hierarchical one, on the other
hand, has been identified as an important contributor towards
higher levels of innovation and adaptiveness in highly dynamic
environments [33,34,31,35].
The most recent wave of efforts to distribute control authority
in response to increasing complexity and the ready availability of
computation and sensing capabilities can be traced back to the
mid-1980s [36,37], when the mentioned researchers started to
discuss a complete decentralization of control authority to
distributed decision-making entities, who were initially even
barred from communication with each other [38].
In production research today, it is widely acknowledged that a
combination of centralized and distributed control will give better
results as compared to both strictly hierarchical and completely
distributed approaches [38,6,11]. [39]: 545f) described this in his
review of production network coordination as follows: “[ . . . ]
connection and co-ordination modes should be defined balancing two
contrasting needs: (a) giving each node enough leeway and autonomy
to maintain the flexibility of the network and the individual strengths
of each node and (b) strict enough to render the activities of each node
coherent with the goals of the system.” [40]: p. 681) indicated the
need for interaction and alignment of agents in a distributed
system: “The dilemma facing these networks extends to the balance
between having independent agents and controlling processes to meet
performance, which requires a strong interaction between the agents.”
This understanding has been transferred to production systems
by several authors e.g. [1,8,41,9,10,42]. In 2007, Philipp et al.
hypothesized that the optimal balance of centralized and
decentralized control regarding the logistics performance in a
manufacturing system is a function of system complexity and the
degree of distributed control (Fig. 1). However, this relationship
could not yet be shown empirically, nor could the mechanistic
understanding of the underlying cause-effect relationship be yet
Fig. 1. Optimal control architecture as a function of system complexity [119].
established. Therefore, an application of this knowledge in
business practice is currently not possible.
An additional dimension was added by Trentesaux [6], who
defined the optimal control architecture with respect to the
optimization time horizon. The author states that a fully
distributed control architecture is recommended for short-term
optimization, whereas a centralized control architecture is
recommended for long-term optimization. He concludes that for
the combined achievement of short- and long-term optimality, a
combination of hierarchical and heterarchical architectures is
necessary (Fig. 2).
3. Theoretical background - the concept of myopia and myopia
control in distributed production systems
Roughly 30 years after the idea of agent-based, heterarchical
production control architectures was first floated (e.g. [36]), the
industrial adoption of distributed control architectures is still lagging
behind [14,43]. This gap has been attributed - among other factors, -
to the presence of myopic behavior [44] in distributed control
systems and the resulting negative features, such as lack of
performance, unpredictability, etc. [5,6,43]. Other factors include,
for instance, possible security problems and failing frequency caused
by the increase in components, the advantages of central diagnostics,
commissioning and maintenance, the lack of standards, high
necessary investments, and a continuing prevalence of reductionist
thinking and training among production system designers and
planners [38,45,43]; McFarlane & Bussmann 2003; [5]
3.1. Triggers and effects of myopia in distributed production systems
The term “myopia” has been used in management theory to
describe a 30-year long debate over the (alleged) undervaluation of
long-term growth perspectives by managers—in particular in Anglo-
American countries—in favor of short-term gains (c.f. [46,47], p. 950)
hence defines myopia as “a characteristic of a decision that overvalues
short-term rewards and undervalues long term consequences”.
Pressure from capital markets is the most commonly assumed
reason for such behavior [48]. A similar notion is also used in supply
chain management theory, e.g. in the discussion of inventory
models. Here, myopic decision policies maximize the target
function only for the next period, while ignoring the development
of planning periods further ahead [49,50].
Myopia was first used in the context of distributed PPC by
Trentesaux [6] and said to be related to the “uncertainty of knowledge
about the future states of both the control system and the controlled
system, uncertainty that increases rapidly over time” (ibid., p. 975).
 J.C. Bendul, H. Blunck / Computers in Industry 105 (2019) 260–272
Fig. 2. Optimal control architecture as a function of optimization time horizon [6].
Zambrano Rey et al. [44] state that myopic behavior appears when
decision-makers overemphasize current-term results at the ex-
pense of long-term performance. Accordingly, the authors define
myopic behavior in distributed production control systems as the
inability of a decision-making entity to project the consequences of
its own decisions towards the future (temporal myopia) and
towards the system as a whole (social myopia).
Myopic behavior in production systems may have several
reasons, including
 planning problem decomposition [51,52],
 selfish actors [53],
 decision making based on local information only (c.f.
[5,6,28,54,55], and
 bounded rationality (capacity-constraints on decision making)
[44].
Myopic behavior can manifest itself in various forms of
undesired system properties from increased overall cost [53], to
system nervousness [56], to examples of chaotic [5,55] and even
paradox system behavior (such as decreased performance under
increased capacity, cf. [57,58]). The evolution of distributed
systems in production control [38] as well as the more general
discussion of multi-agent systems [59] has hence fairly early seen
the abandonment of strictly and entirely decentralized systems
and has explored various approaches for controlling myopic
behavior instead.
Both temporal and spatial dimensions of “near” have been used
in the discussion of myopia in distributed PPC: the term “spatial
myopia” is explicitly used e.g. by Trentesaux [6], to refer to
situations, where “local” decision criteria (the performance of one
intelligent product) guide local decision-making, instead of more
global ones (overall schedule performance). Since both the
information considered and the decision making approach taken
by individual decision-making entities is subject to a manufactur-
ing system designer’s discretion, myopic decision-making can be
connected to decisions of the manufacturing system designer and/
or planner. This assumption is shared by [44], p. 802), who note
that the “degree of myopic behavior present in heterarchical control
architectures depends on their structural and operational design”.
3.2. Myopia as the theoretical basis for seizing the design space of
production systems in the age of industry 4.0
As shown in the previous section, the design of production
systems with intelligent objects, the prevalence of myopic
263
decision-making and the emergence of desirable and undesirable
system behavior and performance characteristics are closely
related. Conceptually speaking, system designers can create
systems between the two architectural poles of hierarchical PPC
(low levels of myopia) and strictly distributed PPC (high levels of
myopia). To better understand and exploit the underlying cause-
and-effect relationships leading to the overarching hypotheses
that systems with combination of centralized and decentralized
control architecture (see Section 2.2) will yield the highest logistics
performance, it is necessary to be able to characterize and explore a
design space between the two architectural poles.
To implement any control system at or between these two
architectural poles, planners have to make several sub-decisions:
these range from questions of the form of coordination between
decision-making entities, to control network structure, the
information horizon of decision making entities, etc. In order to
integrate these various design dimensions within one conceptual
model, we use the concept of myopia as our theoretical foundation.
The concept of myopia has been used before to conceptualize
the negative traits of (strictly) distributed PPC and systems in
general (see Section 2.2; Zambrano Rey [9] and Zambrano Rey et al.
[44]). A similar framework has been presented by Matni et al. [60]
for the decision-making dimensions of software-defined networks.
There, the authors use (the absence of) myopia to characterize fully
centralized and fully distributed myopic algorithms, which then
serve as the corner stones for defining a more continuous, hybrid
design space for software-defined networks.
Moreover, the concept of myopia implies a reference to the
properties of distributed decision-making, rather than to the
presence of computerized agents in the first place. In this, it is
acknowledged that also hierarchical PPC is a distributed decision-
making system that can be thought of and implemented as a multi-
agent system. Therefore, we can model both hierarchical and
heterarchical systems within one framework.
4. Results - myopia control during system design and
production planning and control
This research aims to provide an initial framework and
guidance for those researchers and practitioners aiming to design
new production systems which exploit the advantages of
distributed control architectures. The initial structure of the
framework goes back to the three hierarchical phases of the
initialization of new production systems determining (1) the
(production system) design, (2) the character of (production)
planning and scheduling, and (3) the character of (production)
264 J.C. Bendul, H. Blunck / Computers in Industry 105 (2019) 260–272

Fig. 3. Classification framework of design decisions. (Towards arrow tip, it is more likely to reduce myopic behavior; towards arrow base, it is more likely to increase myopic
behavior). Note that the triangular shapes are not meant to indicate an – assumed – linear relationship between the design decision and the degree of myopic behavior as the
form of this relationship is yet to be established.

control. Therefor the framework has a sequential character, and
preceding decisions influence the following decisions. The result of
the considerations in this section – the proposed classification
framework – is shown in Fig. 3.
4.1. Decision-stages of production system design and production
planning and control
The term “production planning & control” (PPC) summarizes all
repetitive tasks of the management of the value creation processes
of a company, although the exact definitions and delineations of
terms vary between authors and research streams, as [61] point
out (see, for instance, [62–64]. PPC tasks span multiple time
horizons, from machine level setup and staffing decisions (with the
shortest time horizon) to factory and production network design
(with the longest time horizon) [63,65]. The different time scales
form a control hierarchy and decisions at previous steps influence
subsequent ones. Long-term PPC decisions of a strategic character
often concern production system design decisions, such as
number, location, and equipment of production facilities in order
to meet requirements regarding product mix and volume [65]. For
Gudehus and Kotzab [61], one key characteristic of production
planning and scheduling is that it often deals with the inaccurate
information of future (anticipated) demands. In the medium time-
range, production planning is typically concerned with translating
actual or forecasted customer demand into production orders and
 J.C. Bendul, H. Blunck / Computers in Industry 105 (2019) 260–272
determining release dates for them [63]. In contract, production
control is typically concerned with short-term steering of released
orders ([61] [63],).
4.2. A classification of myopia-control measures for distributed
manufacturing control
4.2.1. Requirements and emergent system behavior as input and
output variables of the classification framework
The combination of system plant and system controller
constitutes the engineered and controlled system. This combina-
tion is set up and maintained to fulfill the formal cause of
production systems—namely, to transform inflowing information
and material into a specific, emergent system behavior, material-
ized in the form of finished products at a certain level of logistics
performance—and to meet the requirements concerning the
system in the form of customer demand for a certain production
portfolio [63] (Table 1). These form the input and output variables
of the classification framework presented in Fig. 3.
4.2.1.1. Design phase - plant and controller. Following the
argumentation line of Mönch [66], we interpret production
systems as so-called goal-seeking systems. Therefore, we
distinguish between the design of the physical system (plant)
and the control system (controller). These types of systems can
naturally be represented as “control loops”, where any system can
be decomposed into a controller and a controlled system (here, the
plant) [67,6]. Controller and controlled system communicate
through the exchange of information, with sensor information
flowing from the controlled system to the controller and actuator
signals flowing in reverse. Baker [67] specifies this concept for the
realm of production systems where the system to be controlled is
the manufacturing plant (consisting of physical entities such as
resources and products), and the manufacturing system controller
is the PPC system.
4.2.1.2. Plant design. The design of the system plant – the physical
structure of the manufacturing system – has arguably played a
subdued role in the academic discussion on production planning
and control, as the research was largely focused on developing
good control architectures given some physical layout (e.g. a job
shop, flow-shop, etc.). In this contribution, we explicitly consider
both design decisions together for two reasons: (1) First, the design
of the physical material flow in the production system can be
decisive for the direction of potential impact on the logistics
performance (positive or negative) of distributed manufacturing
control. (2) Second, the physical system design frames the decision
options the PPC system has. A control system for a flexible job shop
has a considerably larger option space as compared to that of a
strictly linear flow production, where planning decisions are
mostly reduced to the sequence of products. By discussing physical
and control system design together, we acknowledge and reflect
that the need to control myopic decision making is affected by the
option space provided by the physical system design.
Within the plant design phase, there are two decisions with
impact on the emergence of myopic behavior: (1) operational
flexibility and (2) structural complexity.
Table 1
Input and output variables of the classification framework.
Variables Short definition
requirements (anticipated/past) customer demand (fluctuations) for a specific
product portfolio
emergent system production output (quantities, fluctuations quality, logistics
behavior performance)
265
[68] describe the development of distributed manufacturing
control systems as a quest to exploit flexibility potentials of a
system. The authors state that a distributed production system
should be designed in such a way as to keep decision alternatives
open (for example, the choice of the next process step, machine,
final customer order, etc.) for the stage of production control,
when real-time information can be integrated into the decision-
making process. Therefore, to create this type of decision
alternatives, operational flexibility—namely, the ability to
produce the same product mix/volume in different ways—is
required [69]. Operational flexibility can be measured, for
example, by the number of alternative material flow paths which
result from the number and types of production processes,
machines, routing, etc. However, flexibility itself—namely, the
presence of decision alternatives in a production system—can
cause myopic behavior, since the decision-making entities do not
project consequences of their decisions onto others and therefore
act selfishly (this form of social myopia is well-studied under the
title of “selfish routing games” and “price of anarchy”; see, for
instance, [70,71].
Structural complexity describes the degree to which alterna-
tive production paths interfere with each other cf. [72,73]. When
planners increase the structural complexity of a production
system, the number of “second-order” effects caused by local
decision-making rises. Thus, it is more likely that decisions
neglecting future consequences will negatively influence the
system performance (so-called temporal myopia). For example,
Scholz-Reiter et al. [74] show that the more a production system
structure is characterized by parallel and/or repetitive (and
therefore less complex) elements, the more likely the emergence
of a positive impact of distributed decision making is. Jones et al.
[75] state that the amount of information necessary to make good
decisions in production is directly proportional to the complexity
of a production system.
4.2.1.3. Controller design. In the production system design phase,
the network topology formed by decision-making entities
connected by information flows in the production system
controller is central for the emergence of myopic behavior.
“Intelligent” machines, parts, products, etc. are represented as
decision-making entities. In particular, the network topology
determines how these entities can access information on
potentially distal parts of the system.
Following the argumentation line of Van der Vecht et al. [4],
Zambrano et al. [44] show that the implementation of a
structurally hierarchical agent network topology is a feasible
approach for improving coordination and reducing myopia in a
production system. Similarly, Helbing et al. [76] show theoretically
that hierarchical networks have the fastest information transmis-
sion across networks, and Kearns et al. [77] experimentally show
that in communication networks, the existence of agents with high
connectivity can enhance system performance.
While we consider strictly hierarchical and heterarchical
system architectures as the extreme ends of our scale, the variety
in the middle may include concepts such as autonomous clusters
[72], heterarchies with shortcuts, cross-links in hierarchies, other
forms of agent topologies [78,79].
Measures (selection)
number of products, product architecture (number of parts, construction
principle, etc.),
productivity, lead time, due date reliability, inventory levels
266 J.C. Bendul, H. Blunck / Computers in Industry 105 (2019) 260–272
Table 2
Decision dimensions and scales on the design level.
Dimension Short definition
operational flexibility The ability to produce the same product mix/volume in different ways in one
production system
structural complexity The degree to which alternative production paths interfere with each other.
network topology architecture of the network formed by intelligent decision-making entities
linked by information or material flows
Table 2 gives an overview of the decision dimensions on the
design level. The decision dimensions form the upper part of the
classification framework presented in Fig. 3.
4.2.1.4. Scheduling. Scheduling is one of the most relevant
decision-making tasks taking place before the release of the
production schedule [80]. Schneeweiß [28] points out that the
strong information asymmetry between scheduling and schedule
execution (e.g., caused by missing and/or outdated information
during scheduling, such as machine failures, actual processing
times, etc.) requires that schedule deviations are either reacted to
or anticipated during scheduling [81].
A purely distributed approach would arguably apply a purely
reactive scheduling approach (postponing all sequencing and
allocation decisions to the time of their execution).
Partial schedules have been presented as one solution approach
for controlling myopic behavior: partial schedules pre-
determine the solution to a subset of scheduling decisions. In
scheduling theory, several authors have shown that pre-selecting
operations may eliminate the so-called “Graham Anomalies” (see
[57]) as the loss of production system performance (see for
instance [82]; Artigues, et al. [83]). Using partial schedules to
control myopic behavior in distributed manufacturing control
systems was first discussed in (Bongaerts, et al 2000). However,
it is not clear how the pre-selective policies described above can
be applied to flexible manufacturing systems. First work has
been presented by Blunck & Bendul [84], who show that a partial
schedule generated by randomly deleting information from a
flexible job-shop schedule does in fact deteriorate system
performance.
Also in the research stream of selfish routing games, partial
schedules have been discussed. It was shown that prescribing the
route choice for a subset of traffic (for instance, solving the
assignment problem), may reduce the emergence of myopic
behavior [85–87], though not for arbitrary networks [88]. The
results of static scheduling do not have to be (unlike so far
assumed) used for explicit coordination (i.e. making the agent at
runtime adhere to a previously made decision). It can also be
applied in order to merely direct computational efforts during
runtime toward promising regions of the solution space, by
favoring investigation of solutions close to the static scheduling
solution (cf [24].).
Table 3 gives an overview of the decision dimension on the
planning and scheduling level forming the medium part of the
classification framework presented in Fig. 3.
This design dimension stands out in the context of the
framework proposed here, in that there exist methods to quantify
the degree to which a schedule constraints the set of possible PPC
decisions that were permissible in a given system design. The
reviewer is pointed to [89], Appendix A.1) for a review of measures
Table 3
Decision dimensions and scales on the planning and scheduling level.
Dimension Short definition
Schedule flexibility The degree to which the scheduling is already completed before production
Scale (high to low)
many to no path alternatives
high to low complexity
completely heterarchical to completely hierarchical
to assess the “restrictiveness” of a schedule. Three similar
measures that aim to express the degree of schedule flexibility
as the ratio of possible production sequences with and without
some offline schedule are discussed by Artigues et al. [90,91], and
Blunck & Bendul [84].
4.2.1.5. Production control. In the production control phase, three
main decisions influence the emergence of myopic behavior,
namely the temporal information horizon, the approach to
nervousness alleviation, and the competition approach.
Temporal information horizon stands for the amount of time
for which information on the expected future evolution of the
system or on the past system behavior is available to the decision-
making unit. In its most simple (and myopically inclined) form,
decentralized control architectures will make decisions solely on
information about the current state of some subset of system
elements. A prominent example for this type of control are
dispatching rules, such as the queue length estimator (QLE) (cf.
[92]). Making information about future system states available
may reduce the emergence of temporal myopia (for instance, in the
form of requirements forecasting in MRP II systems). Approaches
that use past information to predict future behavior include
biology-inspired approaches, such as stigmergy-based approaches,
which resemble communication processes of insects, such as ants
cf. [93–95], and bees cf [96]. Where decision-making entities are
able to abstract between a planning and an execution level, both
online planning and offline planning can be performed by either
drawing information from the current system state and passing it
on to a central simulation entity (cf. [97]) or by computing decision
alternatives locally (inducing an increased amount of inter-agent
communication, cf [98,99].). The range of planning approaches for
evaluating available information ranges from simulation to
optimization models (e.g. [100]).
In such continuous (re-)evaluation of decision alternatives, the
level of system nervousness describes the extent to which decision-
making entities tend to immediately follow up the change in the
observed system state with a change in their own decision making
[56]. Setting a higher level of nervousness alleviation may avoid
the emergence of chaotic system behavior arising from entities
who respond to every change in the observed system state by
changing their own decisions. In this context, the discouraging (or
blocking) of repeated decision changes of agents is an established
strategy to calm a system [56,101] and to improve system
convergence [102,103].
The competition approach determines how decision-making
entities make decisions with regard to their peers. In agent-theory
in particular, a range of possible behaviors for agents is discussed,
ranging from a competitive / antagonistic character on the one
extreme to an altruistic approach on the other extreme (e.g.
[104,105]). The reader is referred to Blunck & Bendul [106] for
Scale (high to low)
Fully flexible to fully scheduled
 J.C. Bendul, H. Blunck / Computers in Industry 105 (2019) 260–272
Table 4
Decision dimensions and scales on the control level.
Dimension Short definition
temporal information the amount of time over which (expected) system behavior
horizon is known
nervousness alleviation the extent to which decision-making entities follow
changes
in the observed system state
competition approach approach decision-making entities follow to make
decisions
further references. Table 4 gives an overview of the decision
dimensions on the control level. The decision dimensions form the
lower part of the classification framework presented in Fig. 3.
5. Mapping archetypes of control architectures into the
framework
This section validates the above-developed classification and at
the same time highlights one possible way in which application of
the classification model may help researchers and practitioners in
the domain of manufacturing system design. We have selected four
control approaches, two so-called PULL approaches and two
approaches that are based in the field of holonic manufacturing
systems (HMS), with elements of distributed control in order to
map them into the developed framework. PULL production
systems have, as part of lean manufacturing systems, arguably
been the most widely applied form of distributed production
control to date. The two examples of HMS were chosen due to their
wide application and good coverage of the requirements posed on
agent-based manufacturing control systems [7]. Since the goal of
our research is to derive a framework for the comparison and
evaluation of control approaches, we have decided for already
well-established, mature control approaches to point out the
general potential of our approach. Moreover, we have decided to
choose two related approaches coming from two different research
streams in order to show that the framework derived is also
capable of indicating intra- and intergroup similarities and
differences.
Through the mapping, we can both compare the control
approaches regarding the design towards myopia emergence and
take a first step towards the validation of the derived framework. In
this, the framework can serve as the basis for the development of
new control architectures.
5.1. Kanban systems
In terms of physical plant design, kanban systems are
characterized by low levels of flexibility and complexity [4].
They can be applied to material flow layouts of clear scope
(typically two workstations) for systems with stable demand and
a very limited number of product variants. The resulting control
network topology of a kanban system is of a heterarchical
character, mainly based on historical data, and the information
exchange between decision makers on the same hierarchy levels
is very limited [107]. Moreover, kanban systems also have little
reliance on scheduling, as they aim for a stable, leveled
production environment [108].
In kanban systems, information is exchanged solely via kanban
cards. The recent demand and the information horizon of such
systems are very short [109]. Such systems possess few nervous
alleviation measures, since they assume stable production
environments. Finally, the participants of the production systems
should be characterized as competitive, because they do not
consider the benefit of other players or workstations.
267
Scale (high to low)
information on current state to covering past and/or containing plan for
future
none to strong
competitive / antagonistic to cooperative to altruistic
5.2. ConWIP control
Compared to kanban systems, so-called constant work in
progress (ConWIP) control can be applied in more diverse material
flow layouts and can be implemented in environments with less
stable demand and with wider product portfolios [109,110].
However, the main application field is still the material supply
of production lines.
Despite the similarity in physical layout, ConWIP has a
hierarchical network topology, because the pull principle is only
applied to the first and last workstations of the system, whereas
information exchange is organized centrally [63,108]. The central
order-release list pre-determines the allocation of orders as well as
most sequencing decisions. Thus, ConWIP is characterized by a
rather low level of schedule flexibility. In a ConWIP controlled
system, the general system topology is based on historical data,
whereas order release is based on forecast data [63]). As in kanban
systems, no system nervousness alleviation methods are necessary
for ConWIP control, because system entities take no autonomous
reactions towards environmental changes. The decision-making
entities in a ConWIP control system generally ignore other decision
makers' target functions and are thus of a competitive character.
5.3. PROSA reference architecture
Production systems with the so-called product-resource-order-
staff-architecture (PROSA) ([42,98,111],) are flexible systems
without strong restrictions on physical layout. The PROSA
approach is based on the main idea that in every production
system, three main problems have to be dealt with: resource
utilization, technology aspects to achieve the quality demanded,
and logistics performance regarding delivery time and due dates.
Based on this understanding, PROSA makes use of three holon
types - resource holons (similar to the intelligent agents for
entities, such as machines, conveyors, pallets, parts etc.), product
holons (including the necessary process and product knowledge,
such as product life cycle, bill of materials, work plan etc.) and
order holons (with control of the production order). The order
holon is responsible for the accomplishment of all necessary
logistics and production processes and decisions regarding
planning, scheduling, and resource allocation. The different holon
types exchange information on the production system and the
actual product-, resource- and order-related states in order to
control the system [6,24,15,98,111].
The mentioned authors generally present PROSA as a control
approach which is suitable for job shop environments. Job shop
systems are characterized not only by their high flexibility in terms
of physical layouts, but—typically for job shop systems—by a high
number of product variants that can be created through the high
number of alternative production paths in the network. At the
same time, this type of system can be labeled as rather complex,
since production orders may interfere with each other.
PROSA architectures are characterized by a mix of heterarchical
and hierarchical information structures due to the coexistence of
268 J.C. Bendul, H. Blunck / Computers in Industry 105 (2019) 260–272
so-called holarchies and independent holons [24,42]. Verstraete &
Valckenaers, [111] present a method to include a predefined
production plan into the PROSA holons’ consideration. Although
PROSA systems are capable of following plans in general, we
consider them to be only slightly bound by partial scheduling.
Verstraete et al. [24] show that in a PROSA-controlled system,
information about the immediate future can be made available. In
terms of nervousness alleviation, Verstraete et al. [98] propose a
solution of oppressing decision changes. Holon agents can be
characterized as selfish and competitive when fulfilling their
targets without considering the benefits of other agents.
5.4. ADACOR reference architecture
The ADAptive holonic COntrol aRchitecture for distributed
manufacturing systems (ADACOR) reference architecture was
proposed in [112]. It was created for volatile production systems
with frequent changes and disturbances. The focus is on flexible
manufacturing systems in the form of job shops with high numbers
of variants and high numbers of path alternatives through the
system, and therefore with high complexity. ADACOR aims to be as
decentralized as possible and as centralized as necessary. In other
words, a centralized approach is chosen for optimization purposes,
and a decentralized approach is chosen when unexpected events
and modifications are likely [112]. Four holon types are defined,
namely product, task, operational, and supervisor holons [112].
In this aspect, ADACOR control systems are more hierarchical
than PROSA systems. ADACOR aims to establish stable advisory
hierarchies and only switches from this stationary to a more
decentralized reactive control architecture as disturbances occur,
while PROSA can be understood as a fluid approach to adapting to
new environments [24,42,113]. In addition, ADACOR systems do
not emphasize peer-to-peer communication between operation
holons on the same hierarchy level. Similarly to PROSA systems, a
production schedule is not necessary for an ADACOR system to
function, as the plans are generated within the system by
supervisor holons. As no method of integrating master production
plans is mentioned for the ADACOR systems, we assume the
reference model to make no restrictions on schedule flexibility.
According to [113], the temporal information horizon of
ADACOR agents covers at least the short-term future, so that the
agents may predict the duration and impact of disturbances.
ADACOR systems aim to shorten the time of transient periods
when it comes to reacting to system changes. Therefore,
nervousness alleviation is lower than it is in PROSA systems,
which proscribe changes without significant benefits [113,24].
ADACOR agents can be understood as selfish competitors, since the
benefits of other agents remain unconsidered when making their
decisions.
6. Discussion, limitations & future research
6.1. Model validation
The mapping of the four control approaches into the
classification framework is a first step towards the latter’s
validation. We can show that (1) all four different distributed
control approaches show differentiable patterns (“fingerprints”)
when mapped to the classification framework and (2) related
control architectures (here: the two PULL and the two HMS
approaches) show higher intra-group similarity than compared to
members of the other group. In this, we may argue that the
classification framework provides sufficient accuracy in the
intended application context and may hence be considered
validated [114]. A more elaborate mapping of further reference
models and their derivatives should further highlight parts of the
design space that have been subject to less academic interest and
may hence deserve future attention, such as increased efforts to
study the impact of more altruistic agent behavior (c.f. e.g. [115]).
6.2. Similarities and differences of the four control approaches
The mapping of the four control approaches onto the
classification framework brings to light similarities and differences
between the four control approaches.
Comparing the two PULL approaches already indicates how
aiming at more complex production environments requires
increased investment in other forms of myopia control (here:
hierarchical system structure and an extended temporal informa-
tion horizon). We may understand the transition from PULL
principles towards agent-based production control architectures
as a continuation of this effort to bring distributed control to
increasingly complex production environments: Comparing PULL
principles with HMS reference architectures, we see a clear shift
towards aiming at more complex production systems, demanding
the implementation of more sophisticated myopia control
approaches within scheduling and control. In this context, it is
worthwhile noting that the visions of future production systems
(such as “Industry 4.0”, “Manufacturing 2.0”, and “Internet of
Things”), typically refer to low volume, high variability types
of manufacturing environments. However, so far, distributed
production control has only been applied successfully in
industrial practice in the form of kanban and ConWIP control
in production systems with little to no flexibility and low levels of
complexity.
The two PULL approaches and the two HMS- or agent-based
manufacturing control approaches span opposite ends of the
design space in terms of flexibility and complexity. Thus, we can
argue that agent-based control approaches may be understood as
an attempt to transfer the benefits from distributed control—that
have proven themselves so far in simple layouts and mass
production environments—to job shops with small production
quantities.
The two PULL approaches, kanban and ConWIP, differ mainly in
terms of their scheduling flexibility. However, the mapping shows
that both PULL approaches Kanban and ConWIP control the
negative consequences of myopic behavior. This has its foundation
in the explicitly modelled agents with decision-making authority
and is therefore not traceable in the “control” dimensions of the
classification framework.
Here, the classification framework reflects the development in
research: ConWIP control can serve as an example for the case that
(re-)introducing concepts of hierarchical control may be necessary
to benefit from distributed control in more complex production
settings.
The comparison of the two HMS approaches shows that the
development from the PROSA approach to the (more recent)
ADACOR approach has brought the focus onto nervousness
alleviation strategies.
Across the four frameworks considered here, none places an
emphasis on changing the competition approach of the agents.
Promising results of initial experiments in the domain of HMS (e.g.
[44]) are yet to proliferate into widely used frameworks.
6.3. Limitations and future research directions
There are four main limitations to the classification framework
presented: (1) So far, the model neglects interrelationships
between the design dimensions. The design dimensions for
distributed systems are not independent, but may require,
support, or impair each other (already noted by [116]). This
was most prominently noted in the discussion on “hierarchy”,
 J.C. Bendul, H. Blunck / Computers in Industry 105 (2019) 260–272 269

implying that internal consistency of the model cannot be
ensured, since not all relationships between concepts have
explicitly been considered [117]. (2) The manufacturing system
requirements (here included as an “input” to the classification
framework), should be more specific. The design dimensions are
discussed with regard to their impact on myopic behavior, but the
degree of myopic behavior which is tolerable—even desirable—in
a given production system setting, has to be contingent on the
requirements posed on that system. (3) So far, the design
dimensions have not been operationalized. The aim to analyti-
cally understand interdependencies between the traits of the
problem description and the (likely) best control approach has
been of high interest in production research for many years. For
instance, in 1997, Rogers and Brennan put this question in the
spotlight: “Of primary importance is the fundamental question
concerning the choice of control architecture: i.e. is it possible to
determine whether a specific control architecture is appropriate for
solving a given manufacturing system control problem?” [23], p.
881). However, qualitatively seizing the design space may serve as
a prerequisite for further operationalization. (4) The triangular
shapes used in Figs. 3 and 4 to indicate higher and lower levels of
myopia may be misinterpreted as linear relations between the
design decision and myopic behavior. However, this research is
only a first step to better understand the emergence and effects of
myopia in general. Given the lack of quantification of both the
design dimensions (as the independent variable) as well as the
degree of myopic behavior (the dependent variable) means that
the form of relationship between the two cannot be determined as
of now. Eventually, a sustained and enduring push by the academic
community to address the limitations mentioned above should
allow us to develop a clearer picture of the nature of this
relationships.

Fig. 4. Mapping the reviewed control approach into the classification framework.
270 J.C. Bendul, H. Blunck / Computers in Industry 105 (2019) 260–272
7. Conclusion
In this paper, we have reviewed literature from multiple
research domains and the various theoretical findings and design
approaches reported therein, to create a classification of design
decisions, through which the emergence of myopic behavior in a
distributed manufacturing control system can be controlled.
While the literature provides several examples of and evidence
for each mechanism, the generalizability, scaling behavior, and
interplay of the design decisions are yet unknown, and a
profound mechanistic understanding of the interplay between
system design decisions and the emergence of myopic behavior
is still not available. We have demonstrated how the classifica-
tion model can be applied in order to differentiate between
existing control approaches based on distributed control
architectures. This type of classification model can be used for
the development of new control architectures that are both (1)
distinct from existing approaches, i.e. by exploring a so far
untouched region of the design space, and that both (2) exhibit
basic features for reducing myopic behavior. Our paper is meant
to provide initial proof of concept, based on the definitions of the
architectures reviewed.
References
[1] Bernd Scholz-Reiter, Michael Görges, Thorsten Philipp, Autonomously
controlled production systems | Influence of autonomous control level on
logistic performance, CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 58.1 (2009) 395–398.
[2] Wilhelm Bauer, Sebastian Schlund, Dirk Marrenbach, Oliver Ganschar,
Industrie 4.0 - Volkswirtschaftliches Potenzial für Deutschland. Studie.
BITKOM Bundesverband Informationswirtschaft, Telekommunikation und
neue Medien e.V. and Fraunhofer Institut für Arbeitswirtschaft und
Organisation (IAO), 2014.
[3] European Commission, Digitising European Industry Accessed: 2017-04-11.
url:, (2016) . https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/digitising-
european-industry.
[4] Bob Van der Vecht, Frank Dignum, John-Jules Ch. Meyer, Martijn Neef, A
dynamic coordination mechanism using adjustable autonomy.
Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems III,
in: Jaime Simão Sichman, Julian Padget, Sascha Ossowski, Pablo Noriega
(Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4870, Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 83–96.
[5] Weiming Shen, Lihui Wang, Qi Hao, Agent-based distributed manufacturing
process planning and scheduling: a state-of-the-art survey. Systems, man,
and cybernetics, part c: applications and reviews, IEEE Trans. 36.4 (2006)
563–577.
[6] Damien Trentesaux, Distributed Control of Production Systems. Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence 22.7. Distributed Control of Production
Systems, (2009) , pp. 971–978.
[7] Adriana Giret, Damien Trentesaux, Software engineering method for
intelligent manufacturing systems: a comparative survey. Industrial
applications of holonic and multi-agent systems, in: Vladimir Marík, Arnd
Schirrmann, Damien Trentesaux, Pavel Vrba (Eds.), Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, vol. 9266, Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 11–
21.
[8] T. Philipp, F. Böse, K. Windt, Evaluation of autonomously controlled logistic
processes, in: Roberto Teti (Ed.), Proceedings of 5th CIRP International
Seminar on Intelligent Computation in Manufacturing Engineering,
University of Naples, Ischia, Italy, 2006, pp. 347–352.
[9] Zambrano Rey, Thérése Bonte Gabriel, Vittaldas Prabhu, Damien Trentesaux,
Reducing Myopic Behavior in FMS Control: a Semi-heterarchical Simulation-
optimization Approach. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 46.0.
Simulation-optimization of Complex Systems: Methods and Applications,
(2014) , pp. 53–75.
[10] Thomas Y. Choi, Kevin J. Dooley, Manus Rungtusanatham, Supply networks
and complex adaptive systems: control versus emergence, J. Oper. Manag.
19.3 (2001) 351–366.
[11] Luc Bongaerts, Laszlo Monostori, Duncan McFarlane, Botond Káadár,
Hierarchy in distributed shop floor control, Computers in Industry, vol.
43.2(2000) , pp. 123–137.
[12] Michael Schenk, Siegfried Wirth, Egon Müller, Factory Planning Manual -
Situation-driven Production Facility Planning. 1st, Springer Science +
Business Media, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010.
[13] George Chryssolouris, in: Frederick F. Ling, William Howard Hart 2nd (Eds.),
Manufacturing Systems: Theory and Practice, Springer-Verlag, 2006.
[14] A.M. Farid, L. Ribeiro, An Axiomatic Design of a Multi-agent Reconfigurable
Mechatronic System Architecture. Industrial Informatics, IEEE Transactions
on 11.5 (Oct. 2015), (2015) , pp. 1142–1155.
[15] H. Van Dyke Parunak, Agents in overalls: experiences and issues in the
development and deployment of industrial agent-based systems, Int. J. Coop.
Inf. Syst. 09.03 (2000) 209–227.
[16] McKinsey and Company, Industry 4.0 | How to Navigate Digitization of the
Manufacturing Sector., McKinsey & Company, 2015.
[17] Heiner Lasi, Peter Fettke, Hans-Georg Kemper, Thomas Feld, Michael
Hoffmann, Industry 4.0, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 6.4 (2014) 239–242.
[18] Rajkumar, Ragunathan, Insup Lee, Lui Sha, and John Stankovic (2010).
Cyberphysical Systems: The Next Computing Revolution Proceedings of the
47th Design Automation Conference, DAC’ 10, Anaheim California. New York,
NY, USA: ACM, pp. 731-736.
[19] Luigi Atzori, Antonio Iera, Giacomo Morabito, The internet of things: a survey,
Computer Networks, vol. 54.15(2010) , pp. 2787–2805.
[20] Jayavardhana Gubbi, Rajkumar Buyya, Slaven Marusic, Marimuthu
Palaniswami, Internet of things (IoT): a vision, architectural elements, and
future directions, Future Generation Computer Systems 29.7. Including
Special sections: Cyber-enabled Distributed Computing for Ubiquitous Cloud
and Network Services & Cloud Computing and Scientific Applications | Big
Data, Scalable Analytics, and Beyond, (2013) , pp. 1645–1660.
[21] Detlef Zuehlke, Smart factory | towards a factory-of-things, Annu. Rev.
Control 34.1 (2010) 129–138.
[22] The Economist Intelligence Unit, Networked Manufacturing: The Digital
Future. Briefing Paper, The Economist Intelligence Unit Ltd., 2014.
[23] Paul Rogers, Robert W. Brennan, A simulation testbed for comparing the
performance of alternative control architectures, in: S. Andradorrit, K.J. Healy, D.
H. Withers, B.L. Nelson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Winter Simulation
Conference, IEEE Computer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA, 1997, pp. 880–887.
[24] Verstraete, Paul, Bart Saint Germain, Paul Valckenaers, Hendrik Van Brussel,
Jan Belle, Hadeli Hadeli, Engineering manufacturing control systems using
PROSA and delegate MAS, Int. J. Agent-oriented Softw. Eng. 2.1 (2008) 62–89.
[25] Lubomír Bakule, Decentralized control: an overview, Annual Reviews in
Control, 32.1(2008) , pp. 87–98.
[26] Arnoldo C. Hax, Harlan C. Meal, Hierarchical Integration of Production
Planning and Scheduling. Sloan School of Management Working Paper 656-
73, Massachusetts Institute of Technology., Cambridge, MA, 1973.
[27] Thomas W. Malone, Stephen A. Smith, Modeling the performance of
organizational structures, Oper. Res. 36.3 (1988) 421–436.
[28] Christoph Schneeweiß, Distributed Decision Making, 2nd, Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg, New York, 2003.
[29] Thomas W. Malone, Kevin Crowston, The interdisciplinary study of
coordination, ACM Comput. Surv. 26.1 (Mar. 1994) (1994) 87–119.
[30] Mary Uhl-Bien, Russ Marion, Bill McKelvey, Complexity Leadership Theory:
shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The
Leadership Quarterly 18.4. Leadership and Complexity, (2007) , pp. 298–318.
[31] Tom E. Burns, G.M. Stalker, The Management of Innovation”. University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership
Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship Available at SSRN:, (1961)
. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1496187.
[32] Benyamin B. Lichtenstein, Mary Uhl-Bien, Russ Marion, Anson Seers, James
Douglas Orton, Craig Schreiber, Complexity leadership theory: an interactive
perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems, Emerg. Complex. Organ.
8.4 (2006) 2–12.
[33] Ralph D. Stacey, The science of complexity: an alternative perspective for
strategic change processes, Strateg. Manag. J. 16.6 (1995) 477–495.
[34] David L. Levy, Applications and limitations of complexity theory in
organization theory and strategy, in: Jack Rabin, Gerald L. Miller, W.
Bartley Hildreth 2nd (Eds.), Handbook of Strategic Management, Marcel
Dekker, Inc., New York, Basel, 2000, pp. 67–87.
[35] L. Monostori, J. Váncza, S.R.T. Kumara, Agent-based systems for
manufacturing, CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 55.2 (2006) 697–720.
[36] J.ózsef Hatvany, Intelligence and cooperation in heterarchic manufacturing
systems, Robot. Comput. Manuf. 2.2 (1985) 101–104.
[37] Neil A. Duffie, Rex S. Piper, Nonhierarchical control of manufacturing
systems, J. Manuf. Syst. 5.2 (1986) 141.
[38] D.M. Dilts, N.P. Boyd, H.H. Whorms, The evolution of control architectures for
automated manufacturing systems, J. Manuf. Syst. 10 (1) (1991) 79–93.
[39] Guido Nassimbeni, Network structures and co-ordination mechanisms: a
taxonomy, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 18.6 (1998) 538–554.
[40] David Bennett, Rob Dekkers, Industrial networks of the future: a critical
commentary on research and practice, in: Krisztina Demeter (Ed.), Papers of
the 12th International EurOMA Conference on Operational and Global
Competitiveness, 2005, pp. 677–686.
[41] Katja Windt, Felix Böse, Thorsten Philipp, Autonomy in production logistics:
identification, characterisation and application, Robotics and Computer-
Integrated Manufacturing 24.4. ICMR2005: Third International Conference
on Manufacturing Research, (2008) , pp. 572–578.
[42] Hendrik Van Brussel, Jo Wyns, Paul Valckenaers, Luc Bongaerts, Patrick
Peeters, Reference architecture for holonic manufacturing systems: PROSA,
Comput. Ind. 37.3 (1998) 255–274.
[43] Vladimír Marík, Duncan McFarlane, Industrial adoption of agent-based
technologies, Intell. Syst. IEEE 20.1 (2005) 27–35.
[44] Zambrano Rey, Cyrille Pach Gabriel, Nassima Aissani, Abdelghani Bekrar,
Thierry Berger, Damien Trentesaux, The control of myopic behavior in semi-
heterarchical production systems: a holonic framework, Eng. Appl. Artif.
Intell. 26.2 (2013) 800–817.
 J.C. Bendul, H. Blunck / Computers in Industry 105 (2019) 260–272
[45] V. Marík, J. Lazansky, Industrial applications of agents technologies, Control
Eng. Pract. 15 (2007) 1364–1380.
[46] Alan Felstead, Tracing the connections: short-termism, training and
recession, Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. (2016).
[47] Kevin J. Laverty, Managerial myopia or systemic short-termism? The
importance of managerial systems in valuing the long term, Manag. Decis.
42.8 (2004) 949–962.
[48] David Marginson, Laurie McAulay, Exploring the debate on short termism: a
theoretical and empirical analysis, Strateg. Manag. J. 29.3 (2008) 273–292.
[49] William S. Lovejoy, Stopped myopic policies in some inventory models with
generalized demand processes, Manag. Sci. 38.5 (1992) 688–707.
[50] Yunzeng Wang, The optimality of myopic stocking policies for systems with
decreasing purchasing prices, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 133.1 (2001) 153–159.
[51] A. Tharumarajah, Survey of resource allocation methods for distributed
manufacturing systems, Prod. Plan. Control. 12.1 (2001) 58–68.
[52] Yves Pochet, Laurence A. Wolsey, Production Planning by Mixed Integer
Programming. Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial
Engineering, Springer, New York, 2006.
[53] Pradeep Dubey, Inefficiency of nash equilibria, Math. Oper. Res. 11.1 (1986) 1–
8.
[54] Grace Yuh-Jiun Lin, James J. Solberg, Effectiveness of flexible routing control,
Int. J. Flex. Manuf. Syst. 3 (3-4) (1991) 189–211.
[55] Paulo Leitão, Agent-based distributed manufacturing control: a state of-the-
art survey, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 22.7 (2009) 979–991 Distributed Control of
Production Systems,.
[56] Karuna Hadeli, Paul Verstraete, Bart Saint Germain, Hendrik Van Brussel, A
study of system nervousness in multi-agent manufacturing control system.
Engineering self-organising systems, in: Sven A. Brueckner, Giovanna Di
Marzo Serugendo, David Hales, Franco Zambonelli (Eds.), Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, Vol. 3910, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006, pp. 232–243.
[57] R.L. Graham, Bounds for certain multiprocessing anomalies, Bell Syst.
Technol. J. 45.9 (1966) 1563–1581.
[58] Dietrich Braess, Über ein Paradoxon aus der Verkehrsplanung,
Unternehmensforschung, vol. 12.1(1968) , pp. 258–268.
[59] W. Alshabi, S. Ramaswamy, M. Itmi, H. Abdulrab, Coordination, cooperation
and conflict resolution in multi-agent systems, in: Tarek Sobh (Ed.),
Innovations and Advanced Techniques in Computer and Information
Sciences and Engineering, Springer, Netherlands, 2007, pp. 495–500.
[60] Nikolai Matni, Ao Tang, John C. Doyle, A case study in network architecture
tradeoffs, Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCOMM Symposium on Software
Defined Networking Research. SOSR’ 15, ACM, Santa Clara, California, 2015
18:1-18:7.
[61] Timm Gudehus, Herbert Kotzab, Comprehensive Logistics, Springer, Berlin,
2009.
[62] S. Gershwin, R. Hildebrant, Rajan Suri, S. Mitter, A Control Perspective on
Recent Trends in Manufacturing Systems, vol. 6.2, IEEE Control Systems
Magazine, 1986, pp. 3–15 (Apr. 1986).
[63] Hopp, Wallace J and Mark L Spearman (2008). Factory physics. 3rd. McGraw-
Hill/Irwin New York. isbn: 978-007-123246-3.
[64] G.ünther Schuh (Ed.), Produktionsplanung und -steuerung. 3rd, Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006.
[65] Harish C. Bahl, Larry P. Ritzman, Jatinder N.D. Gupta, Determining Lot Sizes
and Resource Requirements: A Review. Operations Research, vol. 35.3(1987) ,
pp. 329–345.
[66] Lars Mönch, Agentenbasierte Produktionssteuerung komplexer
Produktionssysteme. 1st, Deutscher Universitäts Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2005.
[67] Albert D. Baker, A survey of factory control algorithms that can be
implemented in a multi-agent heterarchy: dispatching, scheduling, and
pull, J. Manuf. Syst. 17.4 (1998) 297–320.
[68] Robert W. Brennan, Douglas H. Norrie, Metrics for evaluating distributed
manufacturing control systems, Computers in Industry 51.2, Virtual
Enterprise Management, 2003, pp. 225–235.
[69] George Chryssolouris, Konstantinos Efthymiou, Nikolaos Papakostas,
Dimitris Mourtzis, Aris Pagoropoulos, Flexibility and complexity: is it a
trade-off? Int. J. Prod. Res. 51 (23-24) (2013) 6788–6802.
[70] Tim Roughgarden, Eva Tardos, How bad is selfish routing? J. ACM 49.2 (Mar.
2002) (2002) 236–259.
[71] Tim Roughgarden, The price of anarchy is independent of the network
topology, J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 67.2 (2003) 341–364 Special Issue on STOC
2002.
[72] Rok Vrabi9 c, Damir Husejnagi9c, Peter Butala, Discovering autonomous
structures within complex networks of work systems, CIRP Ann. Manuf.
Technol. 61.1 (2012) 423–426.
[73] Gerry Frizelle, Eric Woodcock, Measuring complexity as an aid to developing
operational strategy, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 15.5 (1995) 26–39.
[74] B. Scholz-Reiter, M. Freitag, Ch. de Beer, Th. Jagalski, Modelling dynamics of
Autonomous logistic processes: discrete-event versus continuous
approaches, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, vol. 54.1(2005) , pp.
413–416.
[75] Albert T. Jones, Larry H. Reeker, Abhijit V. Deshmukh, On information and
performance of complex manufacturing systems, Proceedings of the
Manufacturing Complexity Network Conference. (2002) 2002.
[76] Dirk Helbing, Hendrik Ammoser, Christian Kühnert, Information flows in
hierarchical networks and the capability of organizations to successfully
respond to failures, crises, and disasters, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and
271
its Applications 363.1, Information and Material Flows in Complex Networks,
2006, pp. 141–150.
[77] Michael Kearns, Siddharth Suri, Nick Montfort, An experimental study of the
coloring problem on human subject networks, Science 313.5788 (2006) 824–827.
[78] Bryan Horling, Victor Lesser, A survey of multi-agent organizational
paradigms, Knowl. Eng. Rev. 19.4 (Dec. 2004) (2004) 281–316.
[79] David Isern, David Sánchez, Antonio Moreno, Organizational structures
supported by agent-oriented methodologies, J. Syst. Softw. 84.2 (2011) 169–
184.
[80] Vincent T’Kindt, Jean-Charles Billaut, Multicriteria Scheduling |Theory,
Models and Algorithms, Springer, Berlin, 2006.
[81] Djamila Ouelhadj, Sanja Petrovic, A survey of dynamic scheduling in
manufacturing systems, J. Sched. 12.4 (2009) 417–431.
[82] Jean-Claude Billaut, François Roubellat, Characterization of a set of schedules
in a multiple resource context, J. Decis. Syst. 5.1-2 (1996) 95–109.
[83] S. Wu, Eui-Seok Byeon David, Robert H. Storer, A graph-theoretic
decomposition of the job shop scheduling problem to achieve scheduling
robustness, Oper. Res. 47.1 (1999) 113–124.
[84] Henning Blunck, Julia Bendul, Invariant-based production control reviewed:
mixing hierarchical and heterarchical control in flexible job shop
environments. Industrial applications of holonic and multi-agent systems,
in: Vladimír Marík, Arnd Schirrmann, Damien Trentesaux, Pavel Vrba (Eds.),
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9266, Springer International
Publishing, 2015, pp. 96–107.
[85] Tim Roughgarden, Stackelberg scheduling strategies, SIAM J. Comput. 33.2
(2004) 332–350.
[86] V.S.Anil Kumar, Madhav V. Marathe, Improved results for stackelberg
scheduling strategies, Peter Widmayer, Stephan Eidenbenz, Francisco
Triguero, Rafael Morales, Ricardo Conejo, Matthew Hennessy (Eds.),
Automata, Languages and Programming: 29th International Colloquium,
ICALP 2002 Málaga, Spain, July 8-13, 2002 Proceedings (2002) 776–787.
[87] Yannis A. Korilis, Aurel A. Lazar, Ariel Orda, Achieving network optima using
stackelberg routing strategies, IEEE. ACM 5.1 (Feb. 1997) (1997) 161–173.
[88] Vincenzo Bonifaci, Tobias Harks, Guido Schäfer, Stackelberg routing in
arbitrary networks, Mathematics of Operations Research, vol. 35.2(2010) , pp.
330–346.
[89] Rainer Kolisch, Make-to-Order Assembly Management, 1st ed., Springer
Science + Business Media, 2001.
[90] Christian Artigues, Jean-Charles Billaut, Carl Esswein, Maximization of
solution flexibility for robust shop scheduling, Eur. J. Oper. Res. (2005) 314–
328 165.2. Project Management and Scheduling.
[91] Aloulou Mohamed Ali, Marie-Claude Portmann, “An efficient proactive-
reactive scheduling approach to Hedge against shop floor disturbances.”
English, in: Graham Kendall, Edmund K. Burke, Sanja Petro-vic, Michel
Gendreau (Eds.), Multidisciplinary Scheduling: Theory and Applications,
Springer, 2005, pp. 223–246.
[92] Joc Cing Tay, Nhu Binh Ho, Evolving dispatching rules using genetic
programming for solving multi-objective flexible job-shop problems,
Comput. Ind. Eng. 54.3 (2008) 453–473.
[93] Patrick Peeters, Hendrik Van Brussel, Paul Valckenaers, Jo Wyns, Luc
Bongaerts, Martin Kollingbaum, Tapio Heikkilá, Pheromone based emergent
shop floor control system for flexible flow shops, Artificial Intelligence in
Engineering 15.4. Methodology of Emergent Synthesis, (2001) , pp. 343–352.
[94] H. Van Dyke Parunak, Go to the ant: engineering principles from natural
multi-agent systems, Ann. Oper. Res. 75.0 (1997) 69–101.
[95] D. Armbruster, C. de Beer, M. Freitag, T. Jagalski, C. Ringhofer, Autonomous
control of production networks using a pheromone approach, Physica a:
Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 363.1, Information and Material
Flows in Complex Networks, 2006, pp. 104–114.
[96] Bernd Scholz-Reiter, Thomas Jagalski, Julia C. Bendul, Autonomous control of
a shop floor based on Bee’s foraging behaviour, in: Hans-J.örg Kreowski,
Bernd Scholz-Reiter, Hans-Dietrich Haasis (Eds.), Dynamics in Logistics,
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 415–423.
[97] O. Cardin, P. Castagna, Using online simulation in holonic manufacturing
systems, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 22 (7) (2009) 1025–1033.
[98] Verstraete, Paul, Paul Valckenaers, Bart Saint Germain, Hendrik Van Brussel,
Karuna Hedeli, Integration of planning systems and an agent-oriented MES,
Int. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 8 (1-3) (2006) 159–174.
[99] Tom Holvoet, Danny Weyns, Paul Valckenaers, Patterns of delegate MAS". In:
self-adaptive and self-organizing systems, 2009. SASO’ 09, Third IEEE
International Conference on, (2009) , pp. 1–9.
[100] S.S. Heragu, R.J. Graves, Byung-In Kim, A. St Onge, Intelligent agent based
framework for manufacturing systems control, Systems, Man and
Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, IEEE Transactions on 32.5 (Sept.
2002) (2002) 560–573.
[101] H. Van Dyke Parunak, Sven A. Brueckner, Robert Matthews, John Sauter, How
to calm hyperactive agents, Proceedings of the Second International Joint
Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. AAMAS’ 03,
ACM, Melbourne, Australia, 2003, pp. 1092–1093.
[102] Borislav Hadzhiev, Katja Windt, Werner Bergholz, Marc-Thorsten Hütt, A
model of graph coloring dynamics with attention waves and strategic
waiting, Adv. Complex Syst. 12.6 (2009) 549–564.
[103] Marta Sales-Pardo, Daniel Diermeier, Luís A.Nunes Amaral, The impact of
individual biases on consensus formation, PLoS One 8.5 (May 2013) (2013)
e58989.
272 J.C. Bendul, H. Blunck / Computers in Industry 105 (2019) 260–272
[104] Nicholas R. Jennings, J.R. Campos, Towards a social level characterization of
socially responsible agents, Software Engineering. IEE Proceedings (1997)
11–25.
[105] Shaw Green, Leon Hurst, Brenda Nangle, P.ádraig Cunningham, Fergal
Somers, Richard Evans, Software Agents: a Review, Tech. rep. Trinity College
Dublin, Department of Computer Science, 1997.
[106] Henning Blunck, Julia Bendul, Controlling myopic behavior in distributed
production systems classification of design choices, Procedia CIRP 57.
Supplement C. Factories of the Future in the Digital Environment -
Proceedings of the 49th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems, (2016) ,
pp. 158–163.
[107] Mark L. Spearman, Michael A. Zazanis, Push and pull production systems:
issues and comparisons, Oper. Res. 40.3 (1992) 521–532.
[108] Johnny C. Ho, Yih-Long Chang, An integrated MRP and JIT framework,
Comput. Ind. Eng. 41.2 (2001) 173–185.
[109] Mark L. Spearman, David L. Woodruff, Wallace J. Hopp, CONWIP: a pull
alternative to kanban, Int. J. Prod. Res. 28.5 (1990) 879–894.
[110] Sarah M. Ryan, Bruno Baynat, F. Fred Choobineh, Determining inventory levels
in a CONWIP controlled job shop, IIE Trans. 32.2 (2000) 105–114.
[111] Paul Verstraete, Paul Valckenaers, Towards cooperating planning and
manufacturing execution systems, IFAC Proceedings Volumes 39.3.
Proceedings of the 12th IFAC Symposium on Information Control Problems in
Manufacturing, (2006) , pp. 393–398.
[112] Paulo Leitão, Francisco Restivo, ADACOR: a holonic architecture for agile and
adaptive manufacturing control, Comput. Ind. 57.2 (2006) 121–130.
[113] Paulo Leitão, Armando W. Colombo, Francisco Restivo, An approach to the
formal specification of Holonic control systems, Vladimír Marík, Duncan
McFarlane, Paul Valckenaers (Eds.), Holonic and Multi-Agent Systems for
Manufacturing: First International Conference on Industrial Applications of
Holonic and Multi-Agent Systems, HoloMAS 2003, Prague, Czech Republic,
September 1st-3rd, 2003 (2003) 59–70.
[114] Stewart Schlesinger, Roy E. Crosbie, Roland E. Gagné, George S. Innis, C.S.
Lalwani, Joseph Loch, Richard J. Sylvester, Richard D. Wright, Naim Kheir,
Dale Bartos, Terminology for model credibility, Simulation 32.3 (1979) 103–
104.
[115] Sascha Ossowski, Ana García-Serrano, Social structure in artificial agent
societies: implications for Autonomous problem-solving agents. Intelligent
agents V: agents theories, architectures, and languages, in: J.örg P. Müller,
Anand S. Rao, Munindar P. Singh (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
Vol. 1555, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1999, pp. 133–148.
[116] Les Gasser, Social conceptions of knowledge and action: DAI foundations and
open systems semantics, Artif. Intell. 47.1 (1991) 107–138.
[117] John G. Wacker, A definition of theory: research guidelines for different
theory-building research methods in operations management, J. Oper.
Manag. 16.4 (1998) 361–385.
[119] Thorsten Philipp, Christoph Beer, Katja Windt, Bernd Scholz-Reiter,
Evaluation of autonomous logistic processes- analysis of the influence of
structural complexity, in: Michael Hülsmann, Katja Windt (Eds.),
Understanding Autonomous Cooperation and Control in Logistics, Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007, pp. 303–324.