Abstract
This paper builds on a recent empirical study of the setup‐reduction process that suggests setup‐reduction proceeds through three major stages and that each stage is dominated by a particular type of investment function. Specifically, it examines the question of how to best prioritize investments during the stage that emphasizes standardizing setups across a work center.
We compare different investment‐allocation rules in a multi‐item, capacity‐constrained, dynamic demand environment under a variety of cost, demand, and investment assumptions. This analysis shows that significant differences in benefits can be achieved depending on the way setup‐reduction investments are prioritized.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
