PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 23, 2026Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing0 citationsOpen Access

Smart Manufacturing Scheduling Under Data Latency: A Rolling-Horizon Two-Stage MILP Framework for OEM–Tier-1 Coordination

View Full Paper
HPHarshkumar Kiritbhai ParmarSRShivakumar Raman

Key Points

  • The aim is to enhance real-time scheduling in OEM–Tier-1 networks under data latency and stochastic machine availability.
  • Developed a two-stage mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) framework for scheduling.
  • Implemented a baseline plan and a rolling-horizon recourse model for capacity adaptation.
  • Used a synthetic testbed to benchmark performance under real-time and delayed data scenarios.
  • Achieved a 70% improvement in on-time fulfillment compared to static planning.
  • Eliminated terminal backlog in rolling-horizon scheduling scenarios.
  • Maintained MILP solution times under 0.1 seconds per cycle.

Abstract

Real-time coordination across OEM–Tier-1 manufacturing networks remains challenging due to delayed shop-floor data, stochastic machine availability, and the need for schedule stability. This paper presents a protocol-agnostic, two-stage mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) framework for real-time family-level scheduling. The method integrates MTConnect-like data streams without requiring adherence to any single communication standard. In Stage 1, a baseline plan is generated using expected capacity; in Stage 2, a rolling-horizon recourse model adapts the plan to observed (possibly lagged) capacity while incorporating a stability penalty to control resequencing. A synthetic OEM–Tier-1 testbed with three machines (two Tier-1, one OEM) is used to benchmark performance under real-time (L = 0) and delayed (L = 5) data scenarios. Across these scenarios, the real-time rolling scheduler improves strict on-time fulfillment by approximately 70% and eliminates terminal backlog relative to static planning, while MILP solve times remain under 0.1 s per cycle. Sensitivity experiments that vary disruption intensity, replanning interval (Δ), and stability weight (λ) show consistent qualitative trends and illustrate how the framework can be tuned to balance service performance against schedule stability without sacrificing computational tractability.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Parmar et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69e9b80e85696592c86eb774https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp10040142
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper