Some comments on Malakooti et al. ‘Integrated group technology, cell formation, process planning, and production planning with application to the emergency room’

Abstract

In this technical note, we suggest an alternative to the cellular layout for the emergency room problem discussed in Malakooti et al. (Malakooti, B., Malakooti, N.R. and Yang, Z., Integrated group technology, cell formation, process planning, and production planning with application to the emergency room. Int. J. Prod. Res., 2004, 42(9), 1769–1786). The alternative layout—hybrid flowshop layout—belongs to a class of hybrid cellular layouts that can be designed using the integrated suite of algorithms available in the production flow analysis and simplification toolkit (PFAST) software (Irani, S.A., Zhang, H., Zhou, J., Huang, H., Tennati, K.U. and Subramanian, S., Production flow analysis and simplification toolkit (PFAST). Int. J. Prod. Res., 2000, 38(8), 1855–1874). These layouts are intermediate between the traditional layout extremes—process layout and cellular layout—for a high-variety low-volume (HVLV) manufacturing facility. Our results indicate that the hybrid flowshop layout is superior to the cellular layout since it eliminates/reduces the duplication of procedures1, backtrack flows between non-adjacent procedures and by-pass flows between procedures. 1 A ‘procedure’ and a ‘patient’ in the emergency room layout problem are analogous to ‘machines (or work centres)’ and ‘parts (or products)’, respectively, in a typical manufacturing facility layout problem.