Results (
Indonesian) 1:
[Copy]Copied!
TSþþ extends TSþ with the addition that the cocoa farmers,when packing the cocoa beans, already mark all bags with uniquecodes and date. In this case the finished chocolate is traceable up tothe individual cocoa farmer. Alternatively, the local buying stationcould mark the bags at arrival, with the information of the farmerdelivering the beans.In Fig. 3 the different traceability systems can be seen.3.3.3. Different product recallsThe simulation model is able to simulate two possible foodcrises and corresponding recalls (R1 and R2) that could occur in thecase study supply chain. R1 simulates the product recall in case ofa contamination of the cocoa beans, which could be a chemicalcontamination while farming, fermenting or drying. In this case allchocolate bars produced with cocoa beans from a certain cocoafarmer need to be recalled. R2 simulates the product recall in caseof a contamination of a processing batch, which could be caused bya problem in a roasting process. In this case all chocolate barsproduced in a certain roasting process need to be recalled. Thesimulation models allow to run single and multiple simulations.Due to the importance of the roasting process it is also possible torun single or multiple simulations automatically for different processingbatch sizes. For this paper, we simulated the food scares fora range of processing batch sizes between 1,600 kg and 5,000 kg(every multiple of 200 kg). Each of the sizes is then run multipletimes, while information such as number of runs, processing batchsize, recall size and number of processing batches (which reflectsthe production efficiency) is registered, and average results can bedetermined.4. Results and discussion4.1. Comparing different production strategiesIn order to compare the production strategy based on productionefficiency (PS1) to the production strategy based on reducedbatch dispersion (PS2) the simulation model has been run fordifferent processing batch sizes. The average results are shown inFig. 4 as the difference in percentages between the two productionstrategies (values of PS1 represent the 100%) in (i) productionefficiency, (ii) recall size in case of contamination of the rawmaterials (R1) and (iii) recall size in case of contamination ofa processing batch size (R2).PS2 is a production strategy where the batches of raw materialsare not mixed. Thus, the last processing batch from a raw materialbatch might not fully occupy the batch processing equipment. Thatis, the production equipment that processes this smaller batch willonly be partially utilized. The actual overall utilization thereforedepends on the processing batch size b and the raw materials batchsize n. Combined, these two factors lead to a required number ofprocessing batches r (with r ¼ n/b) and a utilization ofu ¼ rQrS100% (1)where QrS denotes the smallest integer larger than or equal to r. Forsituations in which the processing batch size is fixed (as can beexpected in industry), but raw material batch size varies, this leadsto different expected utilizations for each possible processing batchsize b:ub ¼ 1jNjXi˛NriQriS(2)where ri is the required number of batches for raw material batchsize ni, i ˛ N an index representing the different possible rawmaterial batch sizes used in the simulation (based on the uniformdistribution discussed in Section 2.2), and rNr the number ofelements in set N. The expected process utilization value ub for theprocessing batch sizes simulated in our case study when using PS2can be seen in Fig. 5.Fig. 5 shows that, by simulating a large number of possible rawmaterial batch sizes, and thus a large set N, the expected utilizationub varies significantly. When producing with PS1, the raw materialbatches are mixed, always processing with fully occupied batchprocessing equipment, thus reaching high utilization in theproduction processes. Therefore, the number of processing batchesfor PS1, representing production efficiency, has a decreasing trendfor an increasing processing batch size. As the decrease in thenumber of processing batches for PS2 is not constant, thepercentage difference between the two production strategies is notincreasing at a constant rate in Fig. 4. This is most visible at processingbatch sizes around 4,400 kg, but smaller incontinuities canbe noticed around 2,800 kg and 3,600 kg. A chocolate manufacturerthat produces with a PS2 production strategy should therefore takethe expected utilization value ub as calculated in (2) and illustrated in Fig. 5 into account when deciding on the size of the processingbatches.
Being translated, please wait..
