19 Life Cycle Simulation System as a Tool for Improving …
277
users who require LIBs with 100% SOH and only accept newly manufactured LIBs,
as shown in Fig. 19.5.
We also checked the change in the number of inventories with respect to time.
The result is shown in Fig. 19.6. The figure shows that the number of the inventories
increases over time. We consider that some inventories become stagnant and make
no value for users.
Based on these results, we adopted two approaches in a step-by-step manner. First,
we changed the way of items’ allocation to users. Many users require the distance
to empty more than the distance that can be driven by the LIBs with 100% SOH. In
this case, a user must charge the LIBs at least once during the drive. In this sense,
there is not much difference between using a 100% SOH LIB and a LIB with SOH
slightly less than 100%. Therefore, we relaxed the restriction on the allocation of
LIB to the users and provided the LIB with SOH of 95–100 reused ones to the users
that required 100% SOH.
Second, we transferred the inventories that stayed in the buffer for five years to
use them for the secondary use. By using these two approaches in a buildup manner,
we attempted to increase the value proposition of each LIB and decrease the number
of LIBs to satisfy the users for a certain period of time.
19.5.3 Improvement of Item’s Flow Management in the Life
Cycle Scenario
We calculated the value provisions when adopting these two approaches in a stepby-step manner. Figure 19.3b shows the result when the allocation rule of the LIB
to the user changed, and Fig. 19.3c shows the result when the stagnated inventories
are transferred to the secondary use in addition to the change in the allocation rule.
As shown in Fig. 19.3, both the change in allocation and the alteration of sending
long-term stocked items increased the value provision for users. This was because
we minimized the number of items input in simulation, which increased the value
provision of each item for the users, thereby increasing the average value provision
for the users. In addition, Fig. 19.3c shows a higher value provision in secondary use
as compared to that shown in Fig. 19.3b. This is because items that were stagnated
in the primary use process were transferred to the secondary one and were used as
SB to make value for the secondary users. Figure 19.7 shows the number of initial
inventories and newly manufactured items in the simulation period. In fact, we can
see that the number of newly manufactured items of (b) and (c) is decreased compared
to (a).
Moreover, Fig. 19.8 shows the items’ flow and inventories in the assembly process
for (b). We can see that the number of stocks is almost nothing except the stocks
with SOH of 100%, which are intentionally controlled to keep the stock size to be
about 100 during the simulation period.
277
users who require LIBs with 100% SOH and only accept newly manufactured LIBs,
as shown in Fig. 19.5.
We also checked the change in the number of inventories with respect to time.
The result is shown in Fig. 19.6. The figure shows that the number of the inventories
increases over time. We consider that some inventories become stagnant and make
no value for users.
Based on these results, we adopted two approaches in a step-by-step manner. First,
we changed the way of items’ allocation to users. Many users require the distance
to empty more than the distance that can be driven by the LIBs with 100% SOH. In
this case, a user must charge the LIBs at least once during the drive. In this sense,
there is not much difference between using a 100% SOH LIB and a LIB with SOH
slightly less than 100%. Therefore, we relaxed the restriction on the allocation of
LIB to the users and provided the LIB with SOH of 95–100 reused ones to the users
that required 100% SOH.
Second, we transferred the inventories that stayed in the buffer for five years to
use them for the secondary use. By using these two approaches in a buildup manner,
we attempted to increase the value proposition of each LIB and decrease the number
of LIBs to satisfy the users for a certain period of time.
19.5.3 Improvement of Item’s Flow Management in the Life
Cycle Scenario
We calculated the value provisions when adopting these two approaches in a stepby-step manner. Figure 19.3b shows the result when the allocation rule of the LIB
to the user changed, and Fig. 19.3c shows the result when the stagnated inventories
are transferred to the secondary use in addition to the change in the allocation rule.
As shown in Fig. 19.3, both the change in allocation and the alteration of sending
long-term stocked items increased the value provision for users. This was because
we minimized the number of items input in simulation, which increased the value
provision of each item for the users, thereby increasing the average value provision
for the users. In addition, Fig. 19.3c shows a higher value provision in secondary use
as compared to that shown in Fig. 19.3b. This is because items that were stagnated
in the primary use process were transferred to the secondary one and were used as
SB to make value for the secondary users. Figure 19.7 shows the number of initial
inventories and newly manufactured items in the simulation period. In fact, we can
see that the number of newly manufactured items of (b) and (c) is decreased compared
to (a).
Moreover, Fig. 19.8 shows the items’ flow and inventories in the assembly process
for (b). We can see that the number of stocks is almost nothing except the stocks
with SOH of 100%, which are intentionally controlled to keep the stock size to be
about 100 during the simulation period.