A Performance Based Multi-Skilled Labor Allocation Model for Cellular Manufacturing

V. A. A. U. de Silva
Orel Corporation Private Limited, Nawinna, Maharagama.
1. Background
Labour allocation is a major function of manufacturing shop floor control. This becomes a very
crucial decision process specially when the concerned manufacturing organization operates on highly
labour intensive processes such as garment manufacturing, electronic and electrical assembling,
automobile assembling, etc. On the other hand while the developed countries are moving into more
and more automated processes the developing countries such as Sri Lanka are still depending heavily
on labour mainly due to its availability and low cost. By nature, labour is a highly variable resource
and not a very dependable factor due to skill variations, learning curve, absenteeism, motivation and
also the changes and disturbances from the surrounding environments; social, organizational and
technological. Saadat, Tan, Owliya & Jules (2013) critically discuss the labour allocation problems
and trends in a manufacturing shop floor operation in the face of these changes and disturbances.
They suggest that the readiness of a labour allocation system to cope with such issues is the capability
to react to the situation with the minimum human intervention, which in fact is the main purpose of
this research.
In an effort to optimize labour usage, production literature has brought forward the value of proper
labour allocation including recruitment, training in general, cross functional training and monitoring.
Saadat, Tan, Owliya & Jules (2013) place emphasis on systematic and structured execution of the
above factors rather than using the traditional purely instinct-based decision-making process.
This research work selectively focuses on a cellular manufacturing (CM) model. Hyer (2001) states
that a cell is a production unit that performs several distinct operations (p. 203). It also describes the
use of multi-skilled (cross-trained) operators in the CM concept and these operators are described as
movable and flexible capacity which makes it possible to meet varying demand with varying staffing
levels, which is a basic requirement in the problem discussed in this work. Ser & Bera (1998) has
categorized CM into labour and machine intensive CM depending on the involvement of work in the
process. In a machine intensive cell the operator deals mostly with process control and has very little
or no direct impact on the output. In contrast, labour intensive cells output heavily depends on
operator performance and only items of small machines/equipment are used to perform each task.
This research work is carried out in a labour intensive CM process.
There is plenty of research work done on determining optimum manpower assignment in different
types of industries. Egilmez & Suer (2011) follow a stochastic approach to determine the optimal
manpower assignment and cell loading with respect to a maximum allowable risk. And more research

on similar areas has taken place even in the 80s and 90s. Dagli & Suer (1986) has worked on
assignment of appropriate manpower levels in assembly lines and proposed a two stage approach as
well. A heuristic method for manpower scheduling has been discussed by Wirth, Mohmoodi & Mosier
(1993).
The work by Abotaleb, Moussa & Hussain (2014) provides an approach for a similar problem which
considers multi-skilled manpower. This particular research considers a Critical Path Method in a
project during formulation of the model and does not discuss individual performance and CM. But
still it provides an interesting insight with its Genetic Algorithm (GA) based mathematical model.
Gronulate & Hartl (2003) has worked on a model to minimize the labour cost by a combination of
optimal loading sequence, worker allocation (single-skilled) and floater allocation (multi-skilled).
Raminfar, Zulkifli, Vasili & Hong (2013) have worked on dynamic deterministic integrated
mathematical models to simultaneously solve the production planning and cell formation problems in
CM systems. Bhaskar & Srinivasan (1997) have worked on operator allocation problems in CM under
two broad categories; Static and Dynamic. They try to balance workload and minimize makespan
using four different algorithms including GA for each category. Rafiei & Dehghan (2012) have
worked on a similar workforce assignment problem. They use cell simulation and Data Envelopment
Analysis (DEA) to find the most efficient assignment strategy for a machine intensive cell where
multiple workers can work on a single machine station. McDonald, Ellis, Aken, Koelling (2009)
discuss how multi-skilled workers are developed through cross-training in order to increase flexibility
in meeting fluctuating demand and to balance workload between cross-trained workers. And Askin &
Huang (2001) has worked on formulating a goal programming model to guide the worker assignment
and training process to create worker teams with high team synergy and individual job fitness in a CM
design stage.
Cesani & Steudel (2005) and Horng (2007) both discussed labour assignment frameworks based on
flexibility and intra-cell mobility. A non-linear programming model has been developed with the
objective of minimizing hiring, firing, training and overtime costs in a machine intensive
manufacturing environment by Othman, Bhuiyan, Gouw (2005).
Going beyond the labour allocation, as discussed before as well, the system has to cope with a certain
degree of uncertainty(disturbances). Rather than using experience, statistical data from the past
records could be used to integrate these uncertainties in the labour allocation model. In literature such
as Saadat(2010) and Lim(2011), a Holonic Manufacturing Systems (HMS) is applied with integrated
tolerance to predict uncertainty levels. Holon is referred to as a basic unit of the organization and
each holon is self-reliant but interacts and coexists with other holons. An labour allocation integrated

with HMS continuously plans these reactions, monitors them and applies adjustments accordingly to
ensure smooth assignment of labour to achieve optimum levels of output.

2. The Research Problem

At the concerned factory, the final assembly process has a cellular formation to produce several
products in parallel. The assembly workforce is multi-skilled and possess different skill levels at each
task. Currently the manufacturing process is struggling to cater to varying and increasing demand
levels with varying staffing levels. One of the main causes for this struggle is the instinct-based
manual manpower assignment method which does not produce the required departmental throughput.

3. Objectives
To develop a systematic computer aided labour allocation model would be developed for the assembly
process of the selected factory, which could be applied for similar industries as well, in order to
optimally utilize the multi-skilled workforce and increase the readiness to cope with the inherent
disturbances of a labour intensive process with minimum human intervention.

4. Research methodology
Production research and manufacturing management literature was consulted to study the methods
used to find solutions for similar problems as discussed in this research work. There have been many
models attacking different aspects of labour allocation problems using more simple stochastic
methods to more complex Genetic Algorithms(GA) and Fuzzy logic.
First the problem was formulated as a mathematical model as presented below. Binary indicators were
used as the decision variables in the problem formulation. These variables indicate whether operator l
is assigned to task s of product p.
Decision variable:

1,f operator lis assigned s of product p

x l p ={ 0,Otherwise
s

Objective:

Minimize Z

Max {CT l p x l p }( u , v ) P

Z =

p=u

(1)

Constraints:
v

x l p 1

; for l=1,2,,j

p=u s=1

(2)

xl p
p=u

=1

; for p=u,,v and s=1,2,..n

(3)

where CTlps is the average individual cycle time operator l at task s of product p. P represents the
planned set of products where u and v represent objects (individual products) of P.
The objective equation (1) is used to minimize the sum of maximum task cycle times of each
product/cell. The maximum task cycle time represents the bottleneck task which eventually becomes
the cell cycle time. First constraint (2) ensures that either each operator is assigned only to a single
task of a single cell (then the value is 1) or left unassigned (then the value is 0). The second constraint
(3) ensures that each and every task of all the planned production cells is assigned an operator.
This mathematical model was then represented in a MS Excel spreadsheet with collected operator task
CT data to be solved by the Solver feature available with Excel. The sample data set consists of four
production cells with three tasks each and 13 operators. Objective function is a non-linear equation.
Hence the GRG nonlinear method was chosen to do the optimization.
The same calculation was done for a set of production plans. And the results of these calculations
were compared against results of the instinct-based operator assignment done at the factory for the
same set of production plans.

5. Key findings

Excel Solver optimized the objective function within few seconds to give the operator

assignment to achieve that objective.

When compared with the manual assignment, the Excel based mathematical calculation gave
superior theoretical throughput rates.

5.1. Limitations:

The free version of Excel Solver allows handling up to 200 variables only. Which is not
enough to to model the whole assembly process which consists of at least 900 variables. But the
commercially available Premium Solver version allows up to 2000 variables.

6. Conclusions
The proposed simple mathematical model integrated with the fast and convenient computerized
calculation would enable production control personal to assign operators more effectively in terms of
overall throughput. And it is possible to assign priorities to certain production cells by multiplying the
bottleneck cycle time of the relevant cell in the equation (1) with a constant to evaluate as weighted
values. On the negative side, this kind of highly dynamic assignment method would have an negative
impact on team synergy and operator performance development.
As future work, it has been planned to formulate a training strategy to minimize the aforementioned
negative impact and also to integrate product takt time and variability to make service level
predictions and to devise an effective training plan.

7. References
1. Saadat, M., Tan, M.C.L., Owliya, M., Jules, G., 2013, Challenges and Trends in the
Allocation of the Workforce in Manufacturing Shop Floor, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 51(No.4).
2. Hyer, N., 2001. Reorganizing the Factory: Competing Through Cellular Manufacturing, 1st
Edition, Productivity Press.
3. Suer, G.A., Bera, I.S., 1998, Optimal operator assignment and cell loading when lotsplitting is allowed, Computer & Industrial Engineering 1998;Vol.35(Issue 34)
4. Egilmez, G., Suer, G., 2011, Stochastic Manpower Allocation and Cell Loading in Cellular
Manufacturing Systems, 41st International Conference on Computer & Industrial
Engineering.
5. Dagli, C. & Suer, G. A. (1986). Scheduling For Flexible Layout. Proceedings of The 17th
Midwest Decision Sciences Institute (Pp. 23-25). Nebraska.
6. Wirth, G. T., Mahmoodi, F., & Mosier, C. T. (1993). An Investigation of Scheduling Policies
in A Dual- Constrained Manufacturing Cell. Decision Sciences.

7. Abotaleb, I. S., Moussa, M. B., Hussain, S. M., 2014, Optimization of Allocating MultiSkilled Labor Resources Using Genetic Algorithms, CSCE 2014 General Conference.
8. Gronulate, M., Hartl, R. F., 2003, Workforce planning and allocation for mid sized truck
manufacturing: a case study, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41(No. 3)
9. Raminfar, R., Zulkifli, N., Vasili, M., Hong, T. S., 2013, An Integrated Model for Production
Planning and Cell Formation in Cellular Manufacturing Systems, Journal of Applied
Mathematics.
10. Bhaskar, K., Srinivasan, G., 1997, Static and dynamic operator allocation problems in
cellular manufacturing systems, International Journal of Production Research, Vol.35(No.12).
11. Rafiei, F. M., Dehghan, A., 2012, Flexible Labour Assignment in Cellular Manufacturing
System (A Simulation And DEA Approach), 2012 International Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Operations Management, Turkey.
12. McDonald, T., Ellis, K.P., Aken, E.M.V., Koelling, C.P., 2009, Development and application
of a worker assignment model to evaluate a lean manufacturing cell, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol.47(No.9)
13. Askin, G. A., Huang, Y., 2001, Forming effective worker teams for cellular manufacturing,
International journal of production research, Vol.39(Issue 11).
14. Cesani, V.I., Steudel, H.J., 2005, A study of labor assignment flexibility in cellular
manufacturing systems, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol.48(Issue 3).
15. Horng, S.M., 2007, A study of labor assignment in cellular manufacturing systems, Paper
presented at 19th International Conference on Production Research, Valparaiso, Chile.
16. Othman, M., Bhuiyan, N., Gouw, G.J., 2005, A New Approach to Workforce Planning, World
Academy of Science-Engineering and technology, Vol.5
17. Saadat, M., et al., 2010. A Holonic shop floor workforce allocation system. Proceedings,
Paper presented at 5th IEEE international conference on system of systems engineering, 22
24 June, Loughborough, UK,
18. Lim, Y., 2011, A Holonic Workforce Sizing Model Based on Demand Trend and Disturbance
Rate in Job-shop Production, European journal of Business and Management, Vol 3(No.4).
19. Hopp, W. J., Spearman, M.L., 2000. Factory Physics. 2nd Ed. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.