Optimizing Facility Layout & Material Flow Logistics for Productivity Enhancement: A Systematic Engineering Approach

This is a synthetic analytical study, not an implemented manufacturing case. The main limitation is the assumed connection between reduced handling and reduced starvation. The conversion factor is exposed precisely because it cannot be inferred from route distance alone. The model does not reproduce dispatch timing, competing jobs, buffer blocking, or worker task precedence, and therefore does not validate a feasible detailed schedule. The capacity constraints are fixed gross-unit ceilings for a single product. A changing product mix, sequence-dependent setup, equipment failure, or variable yield could alter the bottleneck. The partial-batch calculation improves the handling estimate but still assigns identical load-and-unload time to full and partial containers. This is a conservative simplification of fixed dispatch work rather than a measured service-time function. Under the stated assumptions, reducing bottleneck starvation from 70 to 35 min raises whole-unit output from 240 to 266 per shift. Expected acceptable output increases from 235.20 to 260.68 units, while paid labour productivity increases from 4.90 to 5.43 units per labour-hour. The gain disappears when no handling saving benefits the bottleneck and is constrained by demand and downstream capacity. The principal conclusion is that layout improvement creates productivity potential, while flow synchronization determines whether that potential is realized. A defensible productivity model must disclose the time-conversion assumption, retain quality and labour denominators, and recalculate logistics at the resulting output. This approach produces a narrower but more interpretable claim than assigning output gains directly from a distance-reduction percentage. Data availability. The model inputs and calculation rules are reported in the methods and tables. All results can be reproduced from the disclosed dataset.

Anjos, M. F., & Vieira, M. V. C. (2017). Mathematical optimization approaches for facility layout problems: The state-of-the-art and future research directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 261(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.01.049 Anjos, M. F., & Vieira, M. V. C. (2021). Mathematical optimization approach for facility layout on several rows. Optimization Letters, 15, 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11590-020-01621-z De Carlo, F., Arleo, M. A., Borgia, O., & Tucci, M. (2013). Layout design for a low capacity manufacturing line: A case study. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 5, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5772/56883 Dombrowski, U., & Ernst, S. (2013). Scenario-based simulation approach for layout planning. Procedia CIRP, 12, 354–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2013.09.061 Hosseini-Nasab, H., Fereidouni, S., Fatemi Ghomi, S. M. T., & Fakhrzad, M. B. (2018). Classification of facility layout problems: A review study. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 94, 957–977. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-0895-8 Jayachitra, R., & Prasad, P. S. S. (2010). Design and selection of facility layout using simulation and design of experiments. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 3(4), 437–446. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2010/v3i4.20 Kikolski, M., & Ko, C.-H. (2018). Facility layout design—Review of current research directions. Engineering Management in Production and Services, 10(3), 70–79. https://doi.org/10.2478/emj-2018-0018 Pérez-Gosende, P., Mula, J., & Díaz-Madroñero, M. (2021). Facility layout planning. An extended literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 59(12), 3777–3816. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1897176 Pourvaziri, H., Pierreval, H., & Marian, H. (2021). Integrating facility layout design and aisle structure in manufacturing systems: Formulation and exact solution. European Journal of Operational Research, 290(2), 499–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.08.012