Facility location techniques

 —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — —

Sup­port trans­la­tion: http://amzn.to/1Z7d5oc
 — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — —
Facil­ity loc­a­tion tech­niques

Sev­er­al ana­lyt­ic tech­niques have been developed to assist firms in loc­a­tion ana­lys­is. The trans­port­a­tion meth­od determ­ines the best pat­tern of ship­ments from sev­er­al points of sup­ply (sources) to points of demand (des­tin­a­tions) so as to min­im­ize total trans­port­a­tion and pro­duc­tion costs. The factor weight­ing meth­od assigns a weight to each loc­a­tion decision factor based on its import­ance to man­age­ment. Loc­a­tion­al break-even ana­lys­is uses the “break-even” approach for cost com­par­is­on of altern­at­ive facil­ity loc­a­tion.







Loc­a­tion­al break-even ana­lys­is:

Loc­a­tion­al break-even ana­lys­is refers to the use of cost-volume ana­lys­is to make an eco­nom­ic com­par­is­on of loc­a­tion altern­at­ives. By identi­fy­ing fixed and vari­able costs and graph­ing them for each loc­a­tion, we can determ­ine which one provides the lowest cost. Loc­a­tion­al break-even ana­lys­is can be done math­em­at­ic­ally or graph­ic­ally. The graph­ic approach has the advant­age of provid­ing the range of volume over which each loc­a­tion is prefer­able.

This tech­nique involves three steps:
determ­ine the fixed and vari­able cost for each loc­a­tion.
plot the costs for each loc­a­tion, with costs on the ver­tic­al axis of the graph and annu­al volume on the hori­zont­al axis.
select the loc­a­tion that has the lowest total cost for the expec­ted pro­duc­tion volume.

Factor rat­ing meth­od

Decid­ing where to loc­ate a new facil­ity usu­ally includes sev­er­al factors that man­age­ment thinks are import­ant. The factor rat­ing meth­od is pop­ular because a vari­ety of rel­ev­ant cri­ter­ia can be included in a given case. Man­agers can then con­sider the res­ults of quant­it­at­ive approaches, such as Loc­a­tion­al break-even ana­lys­is or the trans­port­a­tion meth­od, togeth­er with the more qual­it­at­ive factor rat­ing approach in mak­ing a final decision.

There are six steps in the factor rat­ing meth­od:
Develop a list of rel­ev­ant factors (such as loc­a­tion, com­munity, incent­ives).
Assign a weight to each factor to reflect its rel­at­ive import­ance in the company’s object­ives.
Develop a scale for each factor (e.g. 1 – 10 points).
Have man­age­ment score each loc­a­tion on each factor, using the scale in step 3.
Mul­tiply the scores times the weight based on the max­im­um point score, con­sid­er­ing the res­ults of quant­it­at­ive approaches as well.


“ —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — – — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — – — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –

Appoġġ traduzz­joni: http://amzn.to/1Z7d5oc
 — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — – — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — – — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –
Tekniċi faċil­ità

Diver­si tekniċi anal­itiċi ġew żvi­lup­pati biex jgħinu lill-kumpan­iji fl-analiżi post. Il-met­odu tat-tras­port jid­de­termina l-aħjar mudell ta vjeġġi minn diver­si punti ta’ forni­ment (sor­si) għal punti ta domanda (des­tinazz­jon­iji­et) sabiex jim­min­imizzaw tras­port u produzz­joni totali ispe­jjeż. Il-met­odu fat­tur ta dif­fer­en­zjazz­joni tassen­ja piż lil kull fat­tur deċiż­joni lokazz­joni bbażat fuq l-import­an­za tagħha għall-ġest­joni. Lokalizza­zz­joni analiżi tal-fidi juża l-â € œbreak-evenâ approċċ € għall-para­gun ispiża tal-post faċil­ità altern­at­tiv.

Lokalizza­zz­joni tal-fidi analiżi:

Lokalizza­zz­joni analiżi tal-fidi tir­referi għall-użu ta analiżi ta’ volum ispe­jjeż li jagħm­lu para­gun eko­nomiku tal-altern­at­tivi lokazz­joni. Bil­li jiden­ti­fikaw l-ispe­jjeż fis­si u var­jab­bli u graph­ing min­nhom għal kull post, nist­għu jid­de­terminaw liema waħda tip­pre­vedi l-inqas spe­jjeż. Lokalizza­zz­joni analiżi tal-fidi jista jsir matem­atika­ment jew grafika­ment. L-approċċ grafika għand­ha l-vantaġġ li jip­provdi l-firxa ta volum li fuqha kull post huwa preferib­bli.

Din it-teknika tin­volvi tli­et stadji:
jid­de­termina l-ispiża fis­sa u var­jab­bli għal kull post.
plot l-ispe­jjeż għal kull post, bl-ispe­jjeż fuq l-assi ver­tikali tal-graff u l-volum ann­wali fuq l-assi orizzo­nt­ali.
tagħżel il-post li għan­du l-ispiża totali baxx għall-volum tal-produzz­joni mis­ten­ni­ja.

Met­odu tal-klas­si­fikazz­joni fat­tur

Jid­deċiedu fejn biex jill­okalizza faċil­ità ġdida nor­mal­ment jinkludi diver­si fat­turi li l-ġest­joni jaħseb huma import­anti. Il-met­odu tal-klas­si­fikazz­joni fat­tur huwa popolari minħab­ba var­jetà ta kriterji ril­evanti jist­għu jiġu inklużi fil f’każ partikolari. Man­iġers jist­għu imbagħad jikkun­sidra r-riżultati ta approċċi kwantit­at­tivi, bħal­ma huma l-analiżi tal-lokal­ità tal-fidi jew il-met­odu tat-tras­port, flimki­en ma’ l-approċċ tal-klas­si­fikazz­joni fat­tur aktar kwal­it­at­tiva fit-teħid ta deċiż­joni finali.

Hemm sitt passi fl-met­odu tal-klas­si­fikazz­joni fat­tur:
Tiżvi­lup­pa lista ta fat­turi ril­evanti (bħal-lokazz­joni, komunità, inċentivi).
Jassen­jaw piż lil kull fat­tur li jir­rif­let­ti l-import­an­za relat­tiva tagħha fil-com­panyâ € ™ s għan­iji­et.
Tiżvi­lup­pa skala għal kull fat­tur (eż 1 – 10 punt).
Have ġest­joni punteġġ kull post fuq kull fat­tur, tuża l-iskala fil-pass 3.
Immol­ti­p­lika l-punteġġi dar­bi­et il-piż ibbażat fuq il-punteġġ massimu punt, jikkun­sidraw ir-riżultati ta approċċi kwantit­at­tivi kif ukoll.


“ —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — – — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — – — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –

Onder­steun­ing ver­tal­ing: http://amzn.to/1Z7d5oc
 — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — – — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — – — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –
Fasiliteit geleë teg­nieke

Ver­skeie anal­it­iese teg­nieke is ontwikkel om maat­skappye te help om plek ontled­ing. Die ver­vo­er met­ode bepaal die beste voor­beeld van ver­vo­er van ver­skeie punte van die aan­bod (bron­ne) om punte van die vraag (bestem­mings) ten einde totale ver­vo­er en produk­siekoste te ver­mind­er. Die fak­t­or gewig met­ode ken n gewig aan elke plek besluit fak­t­or gebaseer op die belan­grikheid daar­van om die bestuur. Lig­gingsvereistes gelyk­breek anal­ise gebruik die â € œbreak-evenâ € ben­a­der­ing vir koste vergelyk­ing van altern­atiewe fasiliteit geleë.

Lig­gingsvereistes gelyk­breek anal­ise:

Lig­gingsvereistes gelyk­breek anal­ise ver­wys na die gebruik van koste-volume-anal­ise om n eko­nom­iese vergelyk­ing van plek altern­atiewe te maak. Deur die iden­ti­fiser­ing van vaste en ver­an­der­like koste en grafiese hulle vir elke plek, kan ons bepaal wat­ter een bied die laag­ste koste. Lig­gingsvereistes gelyk­breek anal­ise kan wiskun­dig of grafies gedoen. Die grafiese ben­a­der­ing het die voordeel van die ver­skaff­ing van die omvang van die volume waaroor elke plek is verkies­lik.

Hierdie teg­niek behels drie stap­pe:
bepaal die vaste en ver­an­der­like koste vir elke plek.
plot die koste vir elke plek, met koste op die ver­tikale as van die grafiek en jaar­likse volume op die hor­isontale as.
Kies die plek wat die laag­ste totale koste vir die ver­wagte produk­sie volume het.

Fak­t­or grader­ing met­ode

Besluit waar om n nuwe fasiliteit op te spoor sluit gewoon­lik n paar faktore wat bestuur dink is belan­grik. Die fak­t­or grader­ing met­ode is baie gewild as gevolg van n ver­skeiden­heid van rel­ev­ante kri­ter­ia kan ingesluit word in n gegewe geval. Bestuurders kan dan kyk na die res­ultate van kwantit­atiewe ben­a­der­ings, soos vir Lig­ging gelyk­breek anal­ise of die ver­vo­er met­ode, saam met die meer kwal­it­atiewe fak­t­or grader­ing ben­a­der­ing in n finale besluit.

Daar is ses stap­pe in die fak­t­or grader­ing met­ode:
Ontwikkel n lys van rel­ev­ante faktore (soos lig­ging, gemeenskap, aanspor­ings).
Ken n gewig aan elke fak­t­or tot sy relatiewe belan­grikheid in die com­panyâ € ™ s doel­wit­te weer­spieël.
Ontwikkel n skaal vir elke fak­t­or (bv 1 – 10 punte).
Het bestuur telling elke plek op elke fak­t­or, met behulp van die skaal in stap 3.
Ver­menigvuldig die tellings keer die gewig wat gebaseer is op die mak­sim­um punt telling, met inag­nem­ing van die res­ultate van kwantit­atiewe ben­a­der­ings asook.