Corrigendum to “Characterizing and structuring a new make‐to‐forecast production strategy” [J. Oper. Manage. 25 (3) (2007) 623–642]
| Author | Jaap Arts,Jack Meredith,Umit Akinc,Bas Zwartelé |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2015.05.002 |
| Date | 01 July 2015 |
| Published date | 01 July 2015 |
Journal
of
Operations
Management
37
(2015)
59–60
Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
Journal
of
Operations
Management
j
o
ur
na
l
ho
mepage:
www.elsevier.com/locate
/jom
Corrigendum
Corrigendum
to
“Characterizing
and
structuring
a
new
make-to-forecast
production
strategy”
[J.
Oper.
Manage.
25
(3)
(2007)
623–642]
Jack
Mereditha,∗,
Umit
Akincb,1,
Bas
Zwarteléc,
Jaap
Artsc
aSchool
of
Business,
Wake
Forest
University,
P.O.
Box
7659,
Winston-Salem,
NC
27109,
United
States
bSchool
of
Business,
Wake
Forest
University,
Winston-Salem,
NC
27109,
United
States
cDepartment
of
Industrial
Engineering
&
Innovation
Sciences,
Eindhoven
University
of
Technology,
Den
Dolech
2,
P.O.
Box
513,
5600
MB
Eindhoven,
The
Netherlands
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Article
history:
Received
4
February
2015
Received
in
revised
form
6
May
2015
Accepted
6
May
2015
Available
online
28
May
2015
Accepted
by
D.R.
Guide
This
Erratum
corrects
some
of
the
values
in
Table
2
of
our
previous
manuscript.
The
corrections
do
not
change
the
paper’s
original
conclusions
that
more
sophisticated
heuristic
rules
perform
better,
but
with
the
better
contributions
of
the
heuristic
rules,
the
optimization
rules’
improvements
are
now
more
modest.
The
authors
have
been
pleased
that
since
its
publication
in
2007,
we
have
heard
from
researchers
and
consultants
across
the
globe
regarding
both
applying
this
new
“make-to-forecast”
(Meredith
and
Akinc,
2007)
approach
and
possible
ways
of
extending
the
strategy.
Recently,
however,
we
heard
from
the
last
two
co-authors
of
this
erratum
who
were
trying
to
replicate
our
results
but
were
getting
even
better
performance
than
was
shown
in
the
original
Table
2:
Simulation
results.
Table
2
Simulation
results.
Scenario
Rejected
orders
(%)
FG
Inv.
(%)
Contribution
ratio/amt.
with
policy
OP/w
as
a
%
of
#1
#
Pdtn
time
Lead
time
Cost
trend
BOM
release
HR-1
HR-2
HR-3
OP
w/o
flex
OP
w/flex
1
20
10
Decr.
Mixed
13.8
0.8
.295/2101
.338/2405
.411/2924
.454/3238
.459/3272
100
2
20
10
Decr.
Stndrd.
13.8
0.8
.469/3338
.470/3349
.475/3384
.497/3548
.506/3617
110
3
20
10
Incr.
Mixed
13.8
0.8
.650/4632
.668/4761
.655/4663
.683/4879
.711/5080
155
4
12
6
Decr.
Mixed
15.6
3.7
.238/999
.296/1241
.351/1474
.410/1730
.413/1740
90
5
12
10
Decr.
Mixed
13.5
0.8
.426/1850
.471/2042
.578/2502
.626/2719
.631/2733
137
6
20
6
Decr.
Mixed
15.9
3.2
.231/1597
.262/1813
.302/2084
.345/2383
.345/2385
75
7
20
8
Decr.
Mixed
14.6
1.8
.268/1890
.309/2173
.370/2603
.400/2820
.404/2845
88
8
20
12
Decr.
Mixed
12.9
0.2
.356/2553
.397/2847
.480/3437
.514/3682
.527/3779
115
9
#1
but
const.
order
arrival
of
1.0
0.0
0.0
.222/1597
.225/1619
.403/2897
.425/3055
.438/3146
95
10
#1
except
Poisson
=
1.0
4.7
7.0
.235/1596
.285/1932
.361/2455
.363/2448
.369/2482
80
11
#1
except
empirical
order
arrival
12.8
0.0
.343/2460
.355/2545
.390/2795
.418/3004
.421/3026
92
12
#1
except
JIT
deliveries
13.7
0.8
.300/2064
.317/2175
.324/2228
.402/2869
.411/2939
90
13
#1
except
correlated
variants
13.7
0.8
.387/2812
.438/3177
.537/3892
.580/4216
.586/4254
128
DOI
of
original
article:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.04.006.
∗Corresponding
author.
Tel.:
+1
336
758
4467;
fax:
+1
336
758
6133.
E-mail
addresses:
meredijr@wfu.edu
(J.
Meredith),
akinc@wfu.edu
(U.
Akinc).
1Tel.:
+1
336
758
5035.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2015.05.002
0272-6963/©
2015
Elsevier
B.V.
All
rights
reserved.
To continue reading
Request your trial