algorithms

Article
Simulation on Cooperative Changeover of Production
Team Using Hybrid Modeling Method
Xiaodong Zhang *, Yiqi Wang and Bingcun Xu
Donlinks School of Economics and Management, University of Science and Technology Beijing, 100083 Beijing,
China; [email protected] (Y.W.); [email protected] (B.X.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 5 September 2019; Accepted: 23 September 2019; Published: 24 September 2019


Abstract: In the multi-variety and small-quantity manufacturing environment, changeover operation

occurs frequently, and cooperative changeover method is often used as a way to shorten the changeover
time and balance the workload. However, more workers and tasks will be affected by cooperative
changeover. As such, the effectiveness of the cooperative changeover is dependent on other factors,
such as the scope of cooperation and the proportion of newly introduced products. For this reason,
this paper proposes a hybrid modeling method to support the simulation study of the production
team's cooperative changeover strategies under various environments. Firstly, a hybrid simulation
modeling method consisting of multi-agent systems and discrete events is introduced. Secondly,
according to the scope of cooperation, this paper puts forward four kinds of cooperative changeover
strategies. This paper also describes the cooperative line-changing behavior of operators. Finally,
based on the changeover strategies, the proposed simulation method is applied to a production cell.
Four production scenarios are considered according to the proportion of newly introduced part.
The performance of various cooperative strategies in different production scenarios is simulated,
and the statistical test results show that the optimal or satisfactory strategy can be determined in
each production scenario. Additionally, the effectiveness and practicability of the proposed modeling
method are verified.

Keywords: hybrid modeling method; cooperative changeover; simulation; new products introduction

1. Introduction
With the increasingly fierce market competition and the diversified demand of customers,
the traditional large-scale lot production mode of manufacturing industry has been gradually replaced
by production modes such as multi-variety and small-quantity. The decrease of production batches
leads to frequent changeover operations during the production process, which affects the overall
performance of the production system.
As an important link in the production process, changeover refers to the process of converting
machines in a production line from producing one kind of product to another, involving complex
knowledge processing operations such as programming, debugging and inspection. Reference [1]
suggests that the changeover time has significant impacts on productivity, lead time, work-in-process
inventory and quality. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the level of quick changeover.
Because the changeover process involves a lot of complicated manual work, it cannot be completely
replaced by artificial intelligence and automation equipment; it still needs to rely on a high-quality
production team. In addition, the changeover task is easy to decompose and suitable for operators to
complete through cooperation, so the changeover operation requires a high degree of human–machine
collaboration and human–human collaboration. On account of the cost of skill training, the skills
possessed by operators are usually complementary [2], and the cooperative changeover method is often

Algorithms 2019, 12, 204; doi:10.3390/a12100204 www.mdpi.com/journal/algorithms

Algorithms 2019, 12, 204 2 of 16

used as a way to shorten the changeover time and balance the workload. However, frequent cooperative
line-changing would affect the work of too many workers. Therefore, cooperative changeover could
not improve the performance of production systems in all scenarios. Additionally, the effectiveness
of cooperative changeover depends on the production scenario and the degree of cooperation.
For example, with the same cooperative changeover mode, the effect in a production scenario where
new products are introduced frequently will certainly differ from the effect in a production scenario
where mature products are mass-produced. Starting from this problem, this paper divides cooperative
changeover into four modes according to the degree of cooperation: non-cooperation, cooperation
for mature products, cooperation for new products and total cooperation. The effects of different
cooperative changeover modes on the production system are then studied in various production
scenarios. The purpose of this research is to offer managers some quantitative suggestions, so that they
can decide which cooperative changeover mode should be adopted in a certain production scenario.
In addition, the method used to conduct research is another important problem. Given that the
production process contains a large number of stochastic, discrete events and nonlinear relationships,
and operators are active and collaborative, simulation is considered to be the most effective research
method. To describe the operators with autonomy and cooperativity in the production system, it is
suitable to use the Agent-Based Simulation (ABS) method [3]. The production team can be constructed
into a multi-agent system by the ABS method, describing the cooperative changeover behavior of
operators [4]. On the other hand, the whole production process has the characteristics of discrete-event
system [5], therefore a single ABS modeling method is not suitable for describing the entire production
process. Considering these two factors, this paper proposes a hybrid modeling method consisting of
multi-agent systems and discrete events.
To sum up, this study is done for the purpose of solving two problems: (1) how to construct a
hybrid simulation model of a production system to support the simulation study of different cooperative
changeover strategies in various scenarios and (2) in a certain production scenario, what kind of
cooperative changeover mode is more suitable.

2. Related Work
In collaborative systems where at least a portion of tasks for a job can be performed simultaneously,
worker cooperation may help increase the average task speed or labor productivity. Therefore,
the cooperative behavior is often used as an organizational driver to improve the performance of
production systems. Qin et al. [6] have regarded cooperation as a kind of worker flexibility which can
increase the adaptability of production systems in fluctuating production environments by improving
quality and motivation, as well as reducing productivity loss and work fatigue. Yauch [7] has
pointed out that cooperation can help teams generate new ideas and insights, and is one of the team
attributes needed to promote agile manufacturing. Therefore, the cooperative changeover can improve
system performance through flexibility, agility, etc., especially for the multi-variety and small-quantity
manufacturing environment. In addition, some empirical studies of manufacturing companies have
also demonstrated the positive impact of cooperation on system performance. Zhang et al. [8] have
conducted empirical research on 317 firms and have found that cross-functional cooperation within
a plant significantly contributes to the mass customization capability. According to the coopetition
theory, Liu et al. [9] have conducted empirical research on 26 high-tech companies and have found it is
crucial for managers to motivate cooperation when hyper competition emerged given that cooperation
helps turn the harm of competition to the benefit.
The current research on the worker assignment with cooperative mode is mainly implemented
by constructing a mathematical model, which is solved by using mathematical programming or
optimization approaches. Buzacott [10] have used queueing models to analyze the performance
of cooperative teams and have found that the mean job completion time is shorter for teams than
for individuals. Wang et al. [11] have proposed a worker assignment model with flexibility and
cooperation, which was solved by the improved NSGAII algorithm. The results show that the
Algorithms 2019, 12, 204 3 of 16

cooperative model is superior to the non-cooperative one in terms of makespan and maximum worker
load by focusing productivity on bottlenecks. Kuo and Liu [12] have dealt with an operator assignment
problem, in which inter-cell manpower transfer was taken into consideration, solved by a two-phase
methodology. The empirical results show that there is an opportunity to save manpower when
inter-cell manpower transfer is allowed. Celano et al. [13] have proposed a worker assignment model
of assembly U-lines of which the objective was to minimize the total conveyor stoppage time. When a
worker was not able to complete an operation, help from frontal and downstream workers was allowed
and several help policies between workers were proposed. The genetic algorithm was used to solve
the model, and the results could guide managers to adopt what strategies with different workstation
lengths and walking speeds. In these mathematical models, operators are considered as production
resources, and cooperation among operators is regarded as a multi-resource scheduling problem.
This type of modeling ignores the autonomy and cooperative behavior among operators, so it is
difficult to reflect the actual cooperative process.
The discrete-event simulation method is another important method to analyze the manufacturing
process. This method can construct a production process model based on the information, such as
product process routes and the facility layout, and describe the randomness and discrete events in the
process accurately and conveniently. Bokhorst et al. [14] have proposed two cooperation modes in
production cell: Load-oriented Cooperation and Resource-oriented Cooperation. The discrete-event
modeling method was used to analyze the impacts of the two cooperation modes on system performance.
The main experimental conclusion is that the maximum effect of load-oriented cooperation is higher
than that of resource-oriented cooperation. Yue et al. [15] have used the discrete-event modeling
method to build a simulation model of workshop with double resource constraints. Considering
the learning and forgetting effect of workers, they have studied the effects of the multi-functionality
level, the pattern of skill overlaps and the distribution of skills on production efficiency at different
product life cycles. Nembhard and Prichont [16] have used the discrete-event modeling method
to study the impacts of different cross-training levels on production efficiency at different rotation
intervals. Simulation results show that shorter intervals perform better overall, and the combination
of high multi-functionality with long rotation intervals provides the lowest productivity. However,
the production system model constructed by the discrete-event simulation method is unable to reflect
the characteristics of the initiative and cooperation of operators, resulting in a large error of the
model [17].
The agent-based modeling method is good at describing the individual-level behavior and
strategies, and has been rapidly developed and widely used in manufacturing these years [18].
Wang et al. [19] have proposed a framework for smart factories, which constructed physical resources
such as machines, products and transportation equipment into agents, and have provided a negotiation
mechanism for multi-agent systems. Four proposed strategies, which can avoid the deadlock problem,
have been combined and used in simulation experiments and have effectively improved the production
efficiency. Xiang and Lee [20] have put forward a multi-agent production system consisting of
order agents, job agents, machine agents, work center agents, etc., and have combined an ant
colony intelligence with coordination mechanisms of agents to optimize production scheduling.
The experimental results show that the proposed adaptive mechanism is better than the rule-based
mechanism in many measurements. From the above researches, it can be found that it is difficult to
clearly describe the temporal sequence and overall logic of the production process by simply using
multi-agent systems to simulate production systems.
Therefore, some scholars have made some useful explorations in combining these two modeling
methods to simulate a collaborative system. Qiu et al. [21] have used the hybrid modeling method
to simulate the cooperative maintenance behavior of the workers in production cells. The results
indicate that the failure time of machines generated by adopting the cooperative maintenance strategy
is shorter than that of the independent maintenance strategy. Zhang et al. [22] have constructed a
human–machine integrated model of manufacturing cells using the hybrid modeling method, and have
Algorithms 2019, 12, 204 4 of 16

Algorithms 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16

compared different methods of organizational division of labor in the changeover process. The results
indicate that adopting the independent changeover and the cooperative changeover together has
changeover together has better performance than only adopting the specialized changeover or the
better performance than only adopting the specialized changeover or the independent changeover in
independent changeover in terms of workload balance and system stability. Liraviasl et al. [23] have
terms of workload balance and system stability. Liraviasl et al. [23] have proposed a framework for
proposed a framework for reconfigurable manufacturing systems, based on the hybrid modeling
reconfigurable manufacturing systems, based on the hybrid modeling method, which allows flexible
method, which allows flexible modeling of any new production scenario or system layout. In
modeling of any new production scenario or system layout. In addition, each agent can work with
addition, each agent can work with other agents according to the specific rules, which are modifiable
other agents according to the specific rules, which are modifiable when the manufacturing system is
when the manufacturing system is facing changes in production requirements. Ferjani et al. [24]
facing changes in production requirements. Ferjani et al. [24] have used the hybrid modeling method to
have used the hybrid modeling method to construct the simulation model of the demand fluctuation
construct the simulation model of the demand fluctuation manufacturing system and have integrated
manufacturing system and have integrated the fatigue model in operator agents. Then the effects of
the fatigue model in operator agents. Then the effects of the number of operators and the number of
the number of operators and the number of operators' skills on production efficiency and operator
operators' skills on production efficiency and operator fatigue levels have been studied. The results
fatigue levels have been studied. The results indicate that increasing the number of operators' skills
indicate that increasing the number of operators' skills can shorten the average production time, and
can shorten the average production time, and the fatigue level of the operator is the lowest when
the fatigue level of the operator is the lowest when both the number of personnel and the number of
both the number of personnel and the number of skills are the highest.
skills are the highest.
According to the literature reviews, we can see that multi-agent systems can reflect the
According to the literature reviews, we can see that multi-agent systems can reflect the initiative,
initiative, autonomy and cooperativity of operators. Additionally, the production process described
autonomy and cooperativity of operators. Additionally, the production process described by using
by using discrete-event modeling method can reflect the temporal sequence and integrity of the
discrete-event modeling method can reflect the temporal sequence and integrity of the production
production process. Considering the research objective of this paper, we will use the hybrid
process.
modelingConsidering the research
method to study objective of
the cooperative this paper,behavior
changeover we will use
of athe hybrid modeling
production team. method to
study the cooperative changeover behavior of a production team.
3. Hybrid Simulation Model of Production System
3. Hybrid Simulation Model of Production System
3.1. Frame
3.1. Frame of
of Hybrid Simulation Model
Hybrid Simulation Model
The frame
The frame of
of hybrid
hybrid simulation
simulation model
model is
is shown
shown in
in Figure
Figure 1.
1. It consists of
It consists of simulation
simulation inputs,
inputs,
simulation outputs,
simulation outputs, model
model of
of discrete
discrete production
production process,
process, integration
integration interface
interface of
of hybrid
hybrid model
model and
and
multi-agent model.
multi-agent model.

Figure 1. Frame
Figure 1. Frame of
of hybrid
hybrid simulation
simulation model.
model.

In
In the
the multi-agent
multi-agent system,
system, the
the interaction
interaction between
between agents
agents follows
follows the
the contract
contract network
network protocol
protocol
which distributes the tasks in the system by introducing the tendering-bidding-winning mechanism
which distributes the tasks in the system by introducing the tendering-bidding-winning mechanism
of
of the
the market
market [25].
[25]. The
The task
task assignment
assignment inin the
the production
production system
system consists
consists of
of two
two phases.
phases. In
In the
the first
first
phase,
phase, the manager agent, as a tenderer, generates a production task based on the production state
the manager agent, as a tenderer, generates a production task based on the production state
data and issues the task to operator agents. In the second phase, the winner of the first phase needs
to determine whether to launches cooperation. If so, the winner of the first phase will become a
tenderer in the second phase, and then send the assisted task to the rest of operator agents. In the
Algorithms 2019, 12, 204 5 of 16

data and issues the task to operator agents. In the second phase, the winner of the first phase needs to
determine whether to launches cooperation. If so, the winner of the first phase will become a tenderer
in the second phase, and then send the assisted task to the rest of operator agents. In the background of
production systems, the bidder is referred to as the applicant of the task in two phases, and the winner
of the second phase is referred to as the assistant.

• The simulation inputs include a production scenario and a cooperative changeover strategy.
Firstly, according to the proportion of new product orders in total orders, the production scenarios
are divided into four kinds: only producing of mature products, small-scale introduction of new
products, middle-scale introduction of new products and large-scale introduction of new products.
Secondly, cooperative changeover strategies are also divided into four kinds: non-cooperative
strategy, cooperative strategy for mature products, cooperative strategy for new products and
totally cooperative strategy. The non-cooperative strategy refers to the strategy that the operator
directly conducts the changeover operation independently rather than launches cooperation.
For the other three strategies, the operator will send an assisted changeover task to the other
operators for a particular type of products. If there is only one applicant, the applicant will be
confirmed as the assistant of the operator to conduct the changeover operation cooperatively;
if there is more than one applicant, the applicant with the highest skill level will be confirmed as the
assistant; if there is no applicant, the operator will conduct the changeover operation independently.
• The simulation outputs include two evaluation indicators. Firstly, manufacturers hope to have
the new products on the market as soon as possible. Therefore, improving production efficiency
is an essential object for them. In this paper, production cycle is used to measure production
efficiency, which represents the effective production cycle with the non-working hours excluded.
Secondly, due to the high cost of skill training, the skills to conduct the changeover operation
independently are usually mastered by a small number of operators, which results in a large
difference in workload among operators. Workload Balance Level (WBL) is used to measure the
workload difference among operators and calculated using:
PK
k=1 tlk /K
WBL = q 2 , (1)
PK  PK
k=1 tlk − k=1 tlk /K / (K − 1)

where tlk represents the total workload of operator k, and K represents the number of operators.
• The model of discrete production process is established by discrete-event modeling method and
collected information, such as the layout of the facilities and the process route of each product
type in the production system.
• The integration interface of hybrid model is used to implement the interaction between the model
of discrete production process and multi-agent model, such as transferring production state data
to the multi-agent model and driving operator agents to participate in the production process.
• The multi-agent model describes the manager agent, machine agents, operator agents and the
relationships among agents. The machine agents have the capability of numerical control
machining. Additionally, they can detect the processing status of the in-process product
through the event trigger mechanism, and transfer the status to the integration interface of
hybrid model. The manager agent receives status data from the integration interface, generates
production tasks and issues the tasks to operator agents. After receiving task feedback information
from the operator agents, the manager agent can coordinate potential conflicts in the task
application and then assign each task to the determined operator agent. Operator agents have the
preference for task selection and the ability to complete tasks independently and cooperatively.
The relationships among agents include the organizational structure, division of the production
team, agreements of human–machine collaboration, human–machine relationship and mechanisms
of conflict coordination.
Algorithms 2019, 12, 204 6 of 16

Algorithms 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16

3.2. Logic of Running Model
From a process perspective, the operator agents run as a part of the discrete production process.
From a process perspective, the operator agents run as a part of the discrete production process.
Figure 2 shows the simulation logic of hybrid model. Step 1: complete the simulation inputs by
Figure 2 shows the simulation logic of hybrid model. Step 1: complete the simulation inputs by setting
setting the new product introduction rate in the production plan and the cooperative changeover
the new product introduction rate in the production plan and the cooperative changeover strategy
strategy of production team, and then start the model of discrete production process; Step 2:
of production
machine agents team, in and then start
the discrete the model
production of discrete
process model production
will transferprocess; Step 2: machine
the production status toagents
the
in manager
the discreteagent through the integration interface of hybrid model once an operation that requiresagent
production process model will transfer the production status to the manager to
through the integration
be executed by operator interface of detected;
agents is hybrid modelStep 3:once
the an operation
manager agentthat requires
generates to be executed
a production taskby
operator
based agents
on the is detected;
status data, Step
and 3: the manager
issues the task agent
to the generates a production
operator agents; Step 4:task
eachbased on the
operator status
agent
data, and issues the task to the operator agents; Step 4: each operator agent
feeds the task application information to the manager agent through decision making; Step 5: thefeeds the task application
information
manager agentto thecoordinates
manager agent through
potential decision
conflicts basedmaking;
on feedbackStepinformation,
5: the manager and agent coordinates
then assigns the
potential
task toconflicts based onoperator
the determined feedbackagent;
information,
Step 6: and then assigns
the operator agentthewho
task gets
to the determined
the operator
task will decide
whether
agent; to the
Step 6: launch cooperation
operator according
agent who gets thetotask
the production status information
will decide whether and the cooperative
to launch cooperation according
changeover
to the productionstrategy,
statusand then will select
information and thethecooperative
independent or cooperative
changeover production
strategy, and then mode
willthrough
select the
the interaction
independent with otherproduction
or cooperative operator agents;
mode Step
through7: the
theintegration
interactioninterface
with other of operator
hybrid model drives
agents; Step 7:
operator agents to participate in the production process independently or cooperatively;
the integration interface of hybrid model drives operator agents to participate in the production process Step 8:
repeat Steps 2–7 until all production tasks are completed and then the simulation
independently or cooperatively; Step 8: repeat Steps 2–7 until all production tasks are completed and outputs are
obtained.
then the simulation outputs are obtained.

Figure 2. Flowchart of the simulation logic.

Figure 2. Flowchart of the simulation logic.
Algorithms 2019, 12, 204 7 of 16

4. Changeover Behavior of Operator Agents

4.1. Time Consumption of the Changeover Operation

To improve the efficiency for operators to conduct the changeover operation cooperatively,
the changeover tasks are divided into multiple subtasks according to their process characteristics.
Then two operators can be reasonably assigned according to the operational characteristics of the
subtasks. There are two ways to assign subtasks. The first one is to distribute the subtasks to the
two operators with approximately equal workload and both operators will perform their subtasks
independently. In this way, serial workflows can be transformed into parallel workflows. The second
one is letting two operators work together to complete subtasks. For changeover tasks, these two
ways need to be combined. The calculation equations of time consumption for conducting changeover
operation independently and cooperatively are respectively introduced as follows.
The phases in the first way to assign subtasks are defined as the parallel production phases,
and the phases in the second way are defined as the interactive production phases. It is assumed that a
changeover task has N parallel production phases and M interactive production phases.
Equation (2) describes the time consumption Tk1 k2 generated by operator k1 and operator k2 to
complete the changeover operation cooperatively. In the equation, tsi1 k1
represents the time consumption
for the operator k1 to independently complete the first part of the subtasks of the i-th parallel production
phase; tsi2
k
represents the time consumption for the operator k2 to independently complete the second
2
j
part of the subtasks of the i-th parallel production phase; tck k represents the time consumption for the
1 2
operator k1 and operator k2 to complete subtasks of the j-th interactive production phase together.
Equation (3) describes the time consumption Tk1 generated by operator k1 to complete the
changeover operation independently. In the formula, the two-part subtasks of parallel production
j
phases are completed serially by the operator k1 , and tck represents the time consumption for the
1
operator k1 to complete subtasks of the j-th interactive production phase independently.
With Equations (2) and (3), the time consumption of the changeover operation during simulation
can be calculated.
N
X M
X
j
 
Tk1 k2 = max tsi1 i2
k1 , tsk2 + tck ; k1 = 1, 2 . . . K; k2 = 1, 2 . . . K; k1 , k2 (2)
1 k2
i=1 j=1

N
X M
X
j
Tk1 = (ts i1 i2
k1 +tsk )+ tck ; k1 = 1, 2 . . . K (3)
1 1
i=1 j=1

4.2. State Chart of Operator Agents

The state chart is used to describe the autonomous and collaborative behavior of operator agents
during the changeover process. The state chart of operator agents’ changeover behavior according to
the process of the changeover operation is shown in Figure 3. The figure shows that a changeover
task can be divided into a parallel production phase and an interactive production phase. In the
parallel production phase, s11 includes importing new programs or calling original programs, checking
programs and checking the locating datum; s12 includes disassembling and cleaning the current
fixtures, cleaning the installation deck and assembling new fixtures. In the interactive production
phase, c1 includes debugging, inspecting and recording the results. It is assumed that the information
transfer between agents is instantaneous in this model.
her skills and selection preference, and then submit the task application to the manager. (2) If “Yes”,
the operator will be transited to the “being off duty” state at first, and not to the “select a task from
the task list” state until the simulation clock runs to work time.
Whether the operator can get the task depends on the manager’s feedback. (1) If "Yes", the
Algorithms 2019, 12, 204 8 of 16
operator is transited to a new state according to the task type. (2) If "No", the operator is transited to
the initial "waiting for tasks" state.
Entry point

Changeover task Waiting for tasks

Information of Assisted changeover task
the issued tasks
Get a Launch cooperation Interact with Get an assisted
Response In the
changeover task Y other operators changeover task
N to the tsak off-work hours

N Being off Disassemble and clean

Disassemble and clean Get an assistant
duty the current fixtures
the current fixtures Y

Clean the Import new programs or Clean the

installation deck call original programs installation deck

Check the programs

Assemble new fixtures and locating datum Assemble new fixtures
Task type

Import new programs or Waiting for the

call original programs partner’s task completed
Y N Y
Check the programs Debug, inspect and record Select a task from
In the N
and locating datum the results with the partner off-work hours the task list Get a task

Debug, inspect and Complete the task

record the results

Figure 3. State chart of operator agents’ changeover behavior.

Figure 3. State chart of operator agents’ changeover behavior.
The entry point of state chart is the “waiting for tasks” state. After receiving information of the
issued tasks from publishers, the operator is transited to the “response to the task” state. The publishers
of changeover tasks are managers, while the assisted changeover tasks are published by operators.
If the operator master the skills required for the task, the “Agree” message will be fed back to the
publisher from the operator, otherwise the feedback message is “Reject”. Then the operator is transited
to the “waiting for tasks” state.
The publisher should make a judgment after all the feedback messages are collected. If there is
more than one “Agree” feedback message, the task assignment will be completed according to the
conflict coordination mechanism, and the “task confirmation” message will be sent to the selected
operator; if all the feedback messages are “Reject”, the type of the task will be judged next. If the task is
a changeover task, it will be added to the task list by the manager; if the task is an assisted changeover
task, the operator as the publisher will conduct the changeover operation directly and independently.
The selected operator will get the task and move to a new state according to the task’s type once
the “task confirmation” message is received from the publisher.
Taking the changeover task as an example, the operator will decide whether to launch cooperation
with the operators in the “waiting for tasks” state according to the cooperative changeover strategy
and production status information. (1) If the operator who has launched cooperation gets an assistant,
then the operator as the initiator will begin to perform the subtask s11 and the operator as the assistant
will get an assisted changeover task and begin to perform the subtask s12 . Once both the subtasks
have been completed, the two operators start to perform the subtask c1 together. As the whole task is
completed, both the operators enter the “complete the task” state. (2) If the operator cannot get any
assistant or there is no need to launch cooperation at all, the operator will begin to perform all the
subtasks independently. As the task is completed, the operator enters the “complete the task” state.
If there are any tasks in the task list that the operator masters the required skills, the operator will
select a task according his or her preference.
The operator in the “complete the task” state needs to check whether the current moment is in
the off-work hours. (1) If “No”, the operator will select a task from the task list according to his or
Algorithms 2019, 12, 204 9 of 16

her skills and selection preference, and then submit the task application to the manager. (2) If “Yes”,
the operator will be transited to the “being off duty” state at first, and not to the “select a task from the
task list” state until the simulation clock runs to work time.
Whether the operator can get the task depends on the manager’s feedback. (1) If “Yes”, the operator
is transited to a new state according to the task type. (2) If “No”, the operator is transited to the initial
“waiting for tasks” state.

5. Case Study
We apply the proposed hybrid simulation method to the study of cooperative changeover
strategies of a certain production cell which adopts a multi-variety and small-quantity production
mode. The production cell, where three types of parts denoted as TC (Transmission Case), EC1 (Engine
Cylinder) and EC2 (Engine Case) are produced, is equipped with 18 numerical control machines
denoted as M1 to M18, 6 operators denoted as O1 to O6, and automated transportation equipment. In
response to market demand, new parts are often introduced into the cell.
Due to the frequent changeover operations and new parts introduction, changeover has become a
bottleneck in the production process. Therefore, there is an urgent need to select suitable cooperative
changeover strategies in manufacturing environments with different new parts introduction levels.
To meet this need, the simulation model of the production cell is established using the hybrid modelling
method proposed in this paper. Then the influence of the cooperative changeover strategies on the
production cell is quantitatively studied with new parts introduction considered, thus helping the
manager make the most effective decisions.

5.1. Basic Information of Production Cell

In this case, operators need to conduct the loading, unloading, and changeover operations during
the production process. (1) When a machine is idle and there is at least one part to be machined in its
queue, the first part needs to be loaded before machining. (2) Every part needs to be unloaded after
machining. (3) When converting a line from running one type of parts to another, changeover operations
of machines need to be conducted. The loading and unloading time of parts and changeover time of
machines are both subject to normal distributions, and the machining time is constant. The loading and
unloading skills for the same type of machines are universal, but the changeover skills for machines
are related to the process characteristics of the parts. The assumptions and rules in the simulation
model are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Assumptions and rules in the simulation model.

Assumptions and Rules Descriptions

TC: M1→ M2→ M3→ M4→ M5→ M6→ M7→ M8→
M9→ M10;
EC1: M11→ M12→ M13→ M14→ M15→ M16→
Production process routes of three types of parts
M17→ M18;
EC2: M11→ M12→ M1→ M2→ M3→ M4→ M13→
M14→ M5→ M6→ M7→ M8→ M17→ M18.
Machines that need to be converted M3, M4, M5, M6, M13, M14.
S1={M1, M2, M11, M12}; S2={M3, M4, M15, M16};
Types of machines S3={M5, M6, M7, M8}; S4={M9, M10, M13, M14} and
S5={M17, M18}.
Parts are removed from processing queues according
Parts processing rule
to first-in-first-out rule.
(1) Changeover tasks are superior to loading and
unloading tasks;
Task selection preferences of operators
(2) Tasks of the same type are removed from the task
list according to first-in-first-out rule.
Coordination rule for task application conflicts The task is assigned to the highest skilled operator.
Algorithms 2019, 12, 204 10 of 16

Table 1 shows that parts of types TC and EC1 can be processed simultaneously, while parts of
EC2 can only be processed separately due to machine constraints in the process route. The simulation
software Anylogic 7.1.2 is selected to build the hybrid model of the production cell. The secondary
development such as the cooperative changeover behavior of operator agents is programmed in Java
language.
Algorithms The
2019, 12,3D view
x FOR of REVIEW
PEER the model developed is shown in Figure 4. 10 of 16

Figure 4. 3D
3D view
view of
of the
the production
production cell.

Table 2 shows the personnel skills configuration of the production cell. Each operator operator has two
loading andandunloading
unloadingskills with
skills withdifferent skillskill
different levelslevels
and two
andassisted changeover
two assisted skills with
changeover different
skills with
skill levels.
different skillAdditionally, Operators
levels. Additionally, O2, O3 and
Operators O2, O5
O3 have thehave
and O5 wholethechangeovers skills forskills
whole changeovers specific
for
machines.
specific An operator
machines. with the required
An operator with theassisted
required changeover skill can conduct
assisted changeover skill the
can line-changing
conduct the
operation for aoperation
line-changing machine cooperatively
for a machinewith another operator
cooperatively who hasoperator
with another the required
whowhole
has thechangeover
required
skill, but
whole cannot conduct
changeover thecannot
skill, but changeover
conduct operation for the machine
the changeover operationseparately. In Table
for the machine 2, LNSx (dIn
separately. 1)
denotes
Table 2,the
LNlevel
Sx(d1)d1denotes
for the Sx-class skilld1offor
the level loading and unloading,
the Sx-class skill ofWloading
My (d2 ) denotes the level dW
and unloading, 2 for the
My(d 2)

whole changeover
denotes the level dskill
2 for of
themachine My, and AMz
whole changeover (d3 )ofdenotes
skill machine theMy,
level
andd3Afor the
Mz(d 3) assisted
denotes changeover
the level d3
skillthe
for of assisted
machinechangeover
Mz. skill of machine Mz.

Table 2. Personnel skills configuration.

Table 2. Personnel skills configuration.
Personnel Number
Personnel Number Skills Configuration
Skills Configuration
O1
O1 LN S1(9),
LNS1 (9), LN
LNS2S2(5),
(5),AAM3
M3(5),
(5),AAM4 (5)
M4 (5)
O2
O2 LN
LNS2 (9), LN
S2(9), LNS3 (5),
S3(5), A
A M5 (5), A
M5(5), A M6 (5), WM3M3(8),
M6(5), W (8),WW (8)
M4M4 (8)
O3 LNS3 (9), LNS1 (5), AM3 (7), AM4 (7), WM5 (8), WM6 (8)
O3
O4
LNS3(9), LNS1(5), AM3(7), AM4(7), WM5(8), WM6(8)
LNS3 (9), LNS5 (5), AM13 (5), AM14 (5)
O4
O5 LNS4
LN (9), LN
S3(9), LNS3S5(5),
(5),AAM5
M13 (5),AM6
(7), AM14
(7),(5)
WM13 (8), WM14 (8)
O5
O6 LNS5
LN (9), LN
S4(9), LNS4S3(5),
(5),AAM13
M5(7), A AM14
M6(7),
(7) WM13(8), WM14(8)
O6 LNS5(9), LNS4(5), AM13(7), AM14(7)
Table 33shows
Table shows thethe
distributions
distributionsof time takentaken
of time by operators with Skill
by operators Level
with 5 toLevel
Skill complete5 tochangeover
complete
subtasks of six
changeover machines.
subtasks Themachines.
of six first set of The
datafirst
in each
set table cellin
of data consists of thecell
each table mean value and
consists standard
of the mean
deviation of the time required for the subtasks of mature parts, and the second one
value and standard deviation of the time required for the subtasks of mature parts, and the second is for the subtasks of
new parts. The skill level is gradually increased from 1 to 9, and the difference
one is for the subtasks of new parts. The skill level is gradually increased from 1 to 9, and theof mean value between
adjacent levels
difference is 5%
of mean and between
value the difference
adjacentof standard
levels is 5% deviation
and theisdifference
2%. Because the operators
of standard do not
deviation is
have enough experience in the tasks of the new parts, the time consumption
2%. Because the operators do not have enough experience in the tasks of the new parts, the time of the new parts tasks is
significantly higher than that of the mature parts tasks, especially for the changeover
consumption of the new parts tasks is significantly higher than that of the mature parts tasks, tasks, which are
closely related
especially to the
for the production
changeover process
tasks, which ofare
parts.
closely related to the production process of parts.
Algorithms 2019, 12, 204 11 of 16

Table 3. Time distributions of changeover subtasks (Unit: Min).

Machine
M3 M4 M5 M6 M13 M14
Subtask
(15.1,2.5), (15.6,2.6), (14.4,2.2), (16.2,2.4), (15.0,2.4), (16.1,2.7),
s11
(22.3,3.3) (22.8,3.4) (20.3,2.7) (23.1,3.2) (22.8,3.2) (22.6,3.4)
(18.3,2.3), (17.1,2.2), (17.3,2.1), (19.0,2.5), (18.1,2.4), (18.9,2.7),
s12
(23.2,3.0) (22.1,3.1) (21.2,2.7) (24.5,2.8) (23.9,3.2) (23.9,3.3)
(34.1,2.7), (33.2,2.7), (32.1,2.1), (35.0,2.5), (34.7,2.4), (34.7,2.8),
c1
(45.0,3.7) (43.6,3.8) (41.0,3.3) (45.8,3.5) (44.5,3.5) (45.8,3.2)

Table 4 shows the distributions of time taken by operators with assistants of different skill levels
to complete subtask c1 of six machines.

Table 4. Time distributions of completing subtask c1 cooperatively (Unit: Min).

Machine
M3 M4 M5 M6 M13 M14
Skill Level
(25.2,1.8), (26.1,1.8), (24.8,1.6), (26.1,1.7), (25.0,1.6), (25.9,1.7),
5
(33.7,2.9) (35.2,3.0) (32.6,2.6) (35.0,2.6) (33.5,2.7) (34.3,2.5)
(23.3,1.7), (24.6,1.6), (22.9,1.4), (24.1,1.7), (23.9,1.6), (23.5,1.5),
7
(31.4,2.7) (32.7,2.5) (30.2,2.5) (32.0,2.3) (31.0,2.5) (31.5,2.6)

5.2. Experimental Schemes

28 historical orders of the production cell are taken to form an order sequence. Four different
new parts introduction rates of 0, 25%, 50% and 75% are set, which respectively represent four
production scenarios: (1) only producing mature products, (2) small-scale introduction of new products,
(3) middle-scale introduction of new products, and (4) large-scale introduction of new products.
To analyze the impact of different cooperative changeover strategies on evaluation indicators
of the production cell in different production scenarios, we combine four cooperative changeover
strategies and four production scenarios to obtain 16 experimental schemes of E1 to E16, as shown in
Table 5. According to the descriptions of the four kinds of cooperative changeover strategies, E1 is the
same as E9, and E5 is the same as E13. The simulation outputs are statistically analyzed after running
each simulation experiment 20 times.

Table 5. Experimental schemes.

New Parts Introduction Rate Descriptions of the Changeover

0 25% 50% 75%
Changeover Strategies Strategies in This Case
Non-cooperative strategy for
Non-cooperative strategy E1 E2 E3 E4
changeover tasks of all parts
Cooperative Strategy for changeover
tasks of mature parts and
Cooperative strategy for E5 E6 E7 E8
non-cooperative strategy for
mature products
changeover tasks of new parts
Cooperative Strategy for changeover
tasks of new parts and
Cooperative strategy for new products E9 E10 E11 E12
non-cooperative strategy for
changeover tasks of mature parts
Cooperative strategy for changeover
Totally cooperative strategy E13 E14 E15 E16
tasks of all parts
Algorithms 2019,
Algorithms 12, x204
2019, 12, FOR PEER REVIEW 1212of
of 16
16

5.3. Results and Discussion

5.3. Results and Discussion
5.3.1. Workload Balance Level
5.3.1. Workload Balance Level
The mean values of workload balance levels obtained by adopting four strategies in four
The mean values of workload balance levels obtained by adopting four strategies in four production
production scenarios are shown in Figure 5. It can be seen that the non-cooperative strategy has the
scenarios are shown in Figure 5. It can be seen that the non-cooperative strategy has the lowest
lowest workload balance level in all production scenarios, while the totally cooperative strategy has
workload balance level in all production scenarios, while the totally cooperative strategy has the
the highest one. In addition, the relationship between workload balance level and new parts
highest one. In addition, the relationship between workload balance level and new parts introduction
introduction rate is negative when using the cooperative strategy for mature products and positive
rate is negative when using the cooperative strategy for mature products and positive when using the
when using the cooperative strategy for new products.
cooperative strategy for new products.

4.2
Mean value of workload balance levels

Non-cooperative
4.15
strategy
4.1
4.05 Cooperative strategy
for mature products
4
3.95 Cooperative strategy
3.9 for new products
3.85
Totally cooperative
3.8 strategy
3.75
0 25% 50% 75% New parts introduction rate

Figure 5.
Figure Meanvalues
5. Mean valuesof
ofworkload
workload balance
balance levels
levels under
under different
different conditions.
conditions.

To analyze the reasons for the above results, the average cooperation rates of the changeover tasks
To analyze the reasons for the above results, the average cooperation rates of the changeover
under different conditions are calculated, as shown in Table 6. The Pearson correlation analysis is then
tasks under different conditions are calculated, as shown in Table 6. The Pearson correlation
implemented to obtain the correlation between the average cooperation rate of changeover tasks and the
analysis is then implemented to obtain the correlation between the average cooperation rate of
workload balance level in each production scenario, as shown in Table 7. The analysis results show that
changeover tasks and the workload balance level in each production scenario, as shown in Table 7.
in the four production scenarios, the cooperation rate of the changeover tasks and the workload balance
The analysis results show that in the four production scenarios, the cooperation rate of the
level are significantly positively correlated, which means the cooperative changeover is an effective
changeover tasks and the workload balance level are significantly positively correlated, which
way to balance the workload. Therefore, the degree of preference for cooperation by changeover
means the cooperative changeover is an effective way to balance the workload. Therefore, the
strategies determines the level of workload balance. Because the preference degree for cooperation by
degree of preference for cooperation by changeover strategies determines the level of workload
the cooperative strategy for mature products or by the cooperative strategy for new products is greatly
balance. Because the preference degree for cooperation by the cooperative strategy for mature
affected by the new parts introduction rate, the workload balance level presents monotony.
products or by the cooperative strategy for new products is greatly affected by the new parts
introduction rate, the workload balance level presents monotony.
Table 6. Average cooperation rates of changeover tasks under different conditions.

Table 6. Average
Newcooperation rates of changeover
Parts Introduction Rate tasks under different conditions.
0 25% 50% 75%
Changeover Strategies
New Parts Introduction Rate
Non-cooperative strategy 00 25%
0 050% 075%
Changeover Strategies
Cooperative strategy for mature products 50.90% 38.30% 22.50% 9.90%
Non-cooperative
Cooperative strategy
strategy for new products 00 8.00%0 0
24.75% 38.05%0
Cooperative strategy forstrategy
Totally cooperative mature products 50.90% 49.10%
50.90% 38.30% 45.65%
22.50% 47.15%
9.90%
Cooperative strategy for new products 0 8.00% 24.75% 38.05%
Totally
Table cooperative
7. Correlation strategy
analysis 50.90%
of the cooperation rate and the 49.10% 45.65%level.47.15%
workload balance

New Parts Introduction Rate Sample Size Correlation Coefficient/Significance

Table 7. Correlation analysis of the cooperation rate and the workload balance level.
0 40 0.830 ***
New Parts Introduction
25% Rate Sample 80 Size Correlation Coefficient/Significance
0.748 ***
50%
0 80
40 0.685 ***
0.830***
75%
25% 80
80 0.682 ***
0.748***
50% *** means p < 0.01.
Note: 80 0.685***
75% 80 0.682***
Note: ***means p<0.01.
Algorithms 2019, 12, 204 13 of 16
Algorithms
Algorithms 2019,
2019, 12,
12, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 13
13 of
of 16
16

5.3.2.
5.3.2. Production
Production Cycle
Cycle
The
The mean
mean values
values ofof production
production cycles
production cycles under
under different conditions
conditions are
different conditions shown
are shown
shown in in Table
in Table 8.
8. It
Table 8. It can
can
can
be seen that
be seen that when
that when only
whenonly producing
onlyproducing mature
producingmature products,
matureproducts,
products,the production
thethe production
production cycle obtained
cycle
cycle obtained
obtained by adopting
by adopting
by adopting the
the
non-cooperative
the non-cooperative
non-cooperative strategy is
strategy
strategy the shortest.
is the
is the With
shortest.
shortest. the
WithWith increase of
the increase
the increase the new
of new
of the parts
the new introduction
partsparts rate,
introduction
introduction the
rate,rate,
the
shortest
the
shortest production
shortest cycle
production
production is
is obtained
cyclecycle by
by adopting
is obtained
obtained the
the cooperative
by adopting
adopting the cooperative
cooperative strategy for
for new
strategy
strategy products,
for new
new and
products,
products, and
the
the longest
and is
is obtained
the longest
longest by
by adopting
is obtained
obtained the
the non-cooperation
by adopting
adopting the non-cooperation
non-cooperation strategy.
strategy.
strategy.

Table 8. Mean
Table 8. Mean values
values of
of production
production cycles
cycles under different
under different conditions
differentconditions (Unit:
conditions(Unit:
(Unit: Min).
Min).
New
New Parts
NewParts Introduction
PartsIntroduction Rate
Rate
Introduction Rate 0 00 25%
25%
25% 50%
50%
50% 75%
75%
75%
Changeover
Changeover
Changeover Strategies
Strategies
Strategies
Non-cooperative
Non-cooperative
Non-cooperative strategy
strategystrategy 5995
5995
5995 6323
6323
6323 6761
6761
6761 7167
7167
7167
Cooperative
Cooperative strategy
strategy for
for mature mature
Cooperative strategy for mature products
products
products 6063
6063
6063 6344
6344
6344 6748
6748
6748 7155
7155
7155
Cooperative strategy
Cooperative for
strategynew products
for new products 5995
5995 6304
6304 6703
6703 7113
7113
Cooperative strategy for
Totally cooperative strategy new products 5995
6063 6304
6365 6703
6719 7113
7125
Totally
Totally cooperative
cooperative strategy
strategy 6063
6063 6365
6365 6719
6719 7125
7125
To
To further
To further analyze
furtheranalyze
analyze thethe impact
impact
the of
of the
impact the
the cooperative
of cooperative changeover
changeover
cooperative strategy
strategy
changeover on
on the
the changeover
on the changeover
strategy process,
changeover
process,
the
process, the
mean the mean
values values
of both
mean of
average
values both
of both average
changeover changeover time
time and average
average changeover and
time waitingaverage waiting
time for
and average loading
waiting time
andfor
time loading
unloading
for loading
and
tasksunloading tasks
during thetasks
and unloading during
changeover the
during processchangeover process
under different
the changeover under
processconditionsdifferent conditions
are compared.
under different conditions are
Theare compared.
results The
are shown
compared. The
results
in are
Figures
results shown
are6shown in
and 7, in Figures
respectively.6 and
Figures 6 and 7, respectively.
Referring Referring
to the results
7, respectively. to
in Table
Referring the
to 6,
theweresults in
can find
results Table
that the
in Table 6, we can find
cooperative
6, we can find
that
that the
mode cancooperative
the mode
reduce the time
cooperative can
can reduce
reduce the
modeconsumption of
thethetime
time consumption
changeover task. of
consumption Atthe
of the changeover
the same time, due
changeover task.
task.to At
thethe
At same
addition
the same
time,
of due
onedue
time, to the
operator addition
to the in of one operator
the line-changing
addition of one operatortasks,in the
in the line-changing
the waiting tasks,
time for
line-changing the
other
tasks, waiting
thetasks time
during
waiting timethefor other tasks
forchangeover
other tasks
during
during the
process changeover
changeover process
is increased.
the process isis increased.
increased.

69
69
Mean

Non-cooperative
Meanvalue

67
67 Non-cooperative
strategy
strategy
65
65
valueofofaverage

63
63 Cooperative
Cooperative strategy
strategy
61 for
61 for mature
mature products
averagechangeover

products
59
59
57
57 Cooperative
Cooperative strategy
strategy
changeovertime/min

55 for
for new
new products
products
55
53
53 Totally
Totally cooperative
cooperative
51
time/min

51 strategy
strategy
49
49
00 25%
25% 50%
50% 75%
75% New
New parts
parts introduction
introduction rate
rate
Figure 6. Mean values of average changeover time under different
different conditions.
Figure 6. Mean values of average changeover time under different conditions.
conditions.
Mean
Meanvalue

1.68 Non-cooperative
Non-cooperative
1.68
strategy
strategy
valueofofaverage

1.63
1.63
1.58 Cooperative
1.58 Cooperative strategy
strategy
averagetask

1.53 for
for mature
mature products
products
1.53
1.48
1.48 Cooperative
Cooperative strategy
taskwaiting

strategy
1.43
1.43 for
for new
new products
products
waitingtime/min

1.38
1.38
Totally
Totally cooperative
cooperative
1.33
time/min

1.33 strategy
strategy
1.28
1.28
00 25%
25% 50%
50% 75%
75% New
New parts
parts introduction
introduction rate
rate
Figure
Figure 7.
7. Mean
Mean values
Mean values of
values of average
of average task
average task waiting
task waiting time
waiting time under
time under different
different conditions.
conditions.
Algorithms 2019, 12, 204 14 of 16

For the purpose of verifying whether there are significant differences in the mean values of
production cycles by adopting different strategies in each production scenario, hypothesis test analysis
is conducted using the experimental data in Table 8. The results are shown in Table 9, where Tr1 , Tr2 ,
Tr3 and Tr4 respectively denote the mean values of production cycles when adopting non-cooperative
strategy, cooperative strategy for mature products, cooperative strategy for new products and totally
cooperative strategy. In addition, the new parts introduction rate is r.

Table 9. Hypothesis test results.

Null Hypothesis Degree of Freedom T value /Significance Test Result Test Conclusion

T10 = T40 38 −3.30 *** Rejection T1o < T4o

T125% = T225% 38 −1.18 No rejection Uncertain
T125% = T325% 37.34 1.70 * Rejection T125% > T325%
T125% = T425% 38 −2.03 ** Rejection T125% < T425%
T225% = T325% 38 2.26 ** Rejection T225% > T325%
T225% = T425% 36.97 −0.84 No rejection Uncertain
T325% = T425% 38 −2.98 *** Rejection T325% < T425%
T150% = T250% 35.40 0.68 No rejection Uncertain
T150% = T350% 38 4.09 *** Rejection T150% > T350%
T150% = T450% 35.78 2.18 ** Rejection T150% > T450%
T250% = T350% 38 2.59 ** Rejection T250% > T350%
T250% = T450% 37.98 1.32 No rejection Uncertain
T350% = T450% 38 −0.98 No rejection Uncertain
T175% = T275% 35.64 0.90 No rejection Uncertain
T175% = T375% 36.82 3.95 *** Rejection T175% > T375%
T175% = T475% 35.78 2.42 ** Rejection T175% > T475%
T275% = T375% 37.75 3.53 *** Rejection T275% > T375%
T275% = T475% 30.98 1.88 * Rejection T275% > T475%
T375% = T475% 32.53 −0.77 No rejection Uncertain
Note: * means p < 0.1, ** means p < 0.05, *** means p < 0.01.

When Strategy A has a significant advantage over Strategy B, it can be considered that Strategy
A is superior to Strategy B in a statistical sense. According to the test results, when only mature
products can be produced, the production cycle obtained by adopting the non-cooperative strategy has
a significant advantage; when the new products are introduced in small quantities, the production
cycle obtained by adopting the cooperative strategy for new products has a significant advantage;
when medium or large quantities are introduced, the production cycle, obtained by adopting the
cooperative strategy for new products or the totally cooperative strategy, has a significant advantage.

5.3.3. General Discussion

The two sections above provide management advice for production systems that focus on a
single indicator. For production systems that focus on the above two indicators, when only mature
products can be produced, both the totally cooperative strategy and the non-cooperative strategy are
satisfactory strategies. On the other hand, when new products are introduced in small quantities,
the three strategies, except the cooperative strategy for mature products, are all satisfactory strategies.
However, when new products are introduced in medium or large quantities, the totally cooperative
strategy is the optimal one among the four strategies.
The experimental results show that the effectiveness of cooperative changeover is indeed related
to the degree of cooperation and the new products introduction rate. According to the results of this
Algorithms 2019, 12, 204 15 of 16

study, the managers of production systems can choose the optimal or satisfactory cooperative strategy
according to the production scenario and their objectives.
At present, the research on cooperative behavior of operators in production systems mainly adopts
mathematical programming, optimization approaches, single discrete-event simulation, or single
agent-based simulation. However, the production system models established by above research
methods inappropriately simplify the actual production process, resulting in a large deviation in the
experimental results. The hybrid modeling method proposed in this paper can solve this problem, and
the effectiveness and practicability of the hybrid method are verified.

6. Conclusions
In the multi-variety and small-quantity manufacturing environment, changeover operation occurs
frequently. The changeover time has a significant impact on productivity, lead time, work-in-process
inventory and product quality. Cooperative changeover method is often used as an organizational
driver to shorten the changeover time and balance the workload. To study the influence mechanism of
cooperative changeover strategy on the performance of production system under different proportions
of new product introduction, this paper introduces a hybrid modelling method consisting of multi-agent
systems and discrete events to construct the simulation model of production system, proposes four
kinds of cooperative changeover strategies, and describes the cooperative changeover behavior of
operator agents in detail. The proposed simulation method is applied to a production cell where
16 experimental schemes obtained by combining four strategies and four production scenarios are
simulated and compared. Then, the selections of cooperative changeover strategies in different
production scenarios are summarized. However, the number of experimental schemes implemented in
this paper is still limited, and only satisfactory solutions can be obtained. There is still a large space
for strategic optimization. In response to this deficiency, the future research will further enrich the
cooperative strategies of the production team from the perspective of the adaptability of operator agents,
and further subdivide production systems and operators, thus providing more precise cooperative
changeover schemes for managers.

Author Contributions: X.Z. designed the hybrid model framework and experimental scheme; Y.W. built the
simulation model, implemented the simulated experiments and analyzed the statistical results; B.X. performed
the literature review. All the authors wrote the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No.
71871018 and 71231001.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Karim, R. Impact of Changeover time on productivity: A case study. Int. J. Eng. Technol. IJET-IJENS 2013, 13,
42–48.
2. Hopp, W.J.; Oyen, M.P. Agile workforce evaluation: A framework for cross-training and coordination.
IIE Trans. 2004, 36, 919–940. [CrossRef]
3. North, M.J.; Macal, C.M. Managing Business Complexity: Discovering Strategic Solutions with Agent-Based
Modeling and Simulation; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
4. Lee, J.H.; Kim, C.O. Multi-agent systems applications in manufacturing systems and supply chain
management: A review paper. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2008, 46, 233–265. [CrossRef]
5. Detty, R.B.; Yingling, J.C. Quantifying benefits of conversion to lean manufacturing with discrete event
simulation: A case study. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2000, 38, 429–445. [CrossRef]
6. Qin, R.; Nembhard, D.A.; Barnes, W.L., 2nd. Workforce flexibility in operations management. Surv. Oper.
Res. Manag. Sci. 2015, 20, 19–33.
7. Yauch, C.A. Team-based work and work system balance in the context of agile manufacturing. Appl. Ergon.
2007, 38, 19–27. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Algorithms 2019, 12, 204 16 of 16

8. Zhang, M.; Zhao, X.; Qi, Y. The effects of organizational flatness, coordination, and product modularity on
mass customization capability. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 158, 145–155. [CrossRef]
9. Liu, M.L.; Liu, N.T.; Ding, C.G.; Lin, C.P. Exploring team performance in high-tech industries: Future trends
of building up teamwork. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2015, 91, 295–310. [CrossRef]
10. Buzacott, J.A. Commonalities in reengineered business processes: Models and issues. Manag. Sci. 1996, 42,
768–782. [CrossRef]
11. Wang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Liu, S. Multi-objective Worker Assignment Planning Model and Algorithm Considering
Worker Flexibility and Cooperation. In Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE International Conference on Computer
Supported Cooperative Work in Design, Nanjing, China, 9–11 May 2018.
12. Kuo, Y.; Liu, C.C. Operator assignment in a labor-intensive manufacturing cell considering inter-cell
manpower transfer. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2017, 110, 83–91. [CrossRef]
13. Celano, G.; Costa, A.; Fichera, S.; Perrone, G. Human factor policy testing in the sequencing of manual mixed
model assembly lines. Comput. Oper. Res. 2004, 31, 39–59. [CrossRef]
14. Bokhorst, J.A.C.; Slomp, J.; Gaalman, G.J.C. Cooperation in a distributed dual resource-constrained
manufacturing system. Int. J. Comput. Appl. Technol. 2006, 26, 83–90. [CrossRef]
15. Yue, H.; Slomp, J.; Molleman, E.; Van Der Zee, D.J. Worker flexibility in a parallel dual resource constrained
job shop. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2008, 46, 451–467. [CrossRef]
16. Nembhard, D.; Prichanont, K. Cross training in serial production with process characteristics and operational
factors. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2007, 54, 565–575. [CrossRef]
17. Oliveira, M.L.M.; Montevechi, J.A.B.; Pinho, A.F.; Miranda, R.C. Using hybrid simulation to represent the
human factor in production systems. Int. J. Simul. Model. 2017, 16, 263–274. [CrossRef]
18. Monostori, L.; Váncza, J.; Kumara, S.R.T. Agent-based systems for manufacturing. Cirp Ann. 2006, 55,
697–720. [CrossRef]
19. Wang, S.; Wan, J.; Zhang, D.; Li, D.; Zhang, C. Towards smart factory for industry 4.0: A self-organized
multi-agent system with big data based feedback and coordination. Comput. Netw. 2016, 101, 158–168.
[CrossRef]
20. Xiang, W.; Lee, H.P. Ant colony intelligence in multi-agent dynamic manufacturing scheduling. Eng. Appl.
Artif. Intell. 2008, 21, 73–85. [CrossRef]
21. Qiu, J.; Zhao, C.; Zhang, X.; Hu, Y. A comparative simulation on corrective maintenance strategies in
cellular manufacturing considering worker collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 18th International
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, Hsinchu, Taiwan, 21–23 May 2014.
22. Zhang, X.; Qiu, J.; Zhao, D.; Schlick, C.M. A human-oriented simulation approach for labor assignment
flexibility in changeover processes of manufacturing cells. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 2015, 25,
740–757. [CrossRef]
23. Liraviasl, K.K.; ElMaraghy, H.; Hanafy, M.; Sany, S.N. A framework for modelling reconfigurable
manufacturing systems using hybridized discrete-event and agent-based simulation. IFAC-PapersOnLine
2015, 48, 1490–1495. [CrossRef]
24. Ferjani, A.; Ammar, A.; Pierreval, H.; Elkosantini, S. A simulation-optimization based heuristic for the online
assignment of multi-skilled workers subjected to fatigue in manufacturing systems. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2017,
112, 663–674. [CrossRef]
25. Smith, R.G.; Davis, R. Frameworks for cooperation in distributed problem solving. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man
Cybern. 1981, 11, 61–70. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).