Upload
sherman-harper
View
218
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
© Oliver Wyman Group SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
Unsung Heroes of MultiRail
16-October-2012
Marc Meketon
2© Oliver Wyman Group 2
Tasks:– Modeling– Calibration– Database– Integration– User Interface– Data validation– Reporting– Other analyses– Testing– Documentation– Installation– Other (non-OR)
– Project Mgmt– Business
Analysis– System admin
Analysis of results2Testing7Documentation3Installation1PL-Crew Planning (psg)100Modeling30Calibration15Database3Sector name 21,687Data validation3Reporting1Analysis of results1Testing16Documentation2Installation1SRT-Crew Planning100Modeling29Calibration59Database1Integration1User interface4Sector name 21,6870% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%ModelingCalibrationDatabaseIntegrationUser interfaceData valida-tionReportingAnalys is of result sTestingDocumentationInstallationLocomotiveModelingCalibrationDatabaseIntegrationUser interfaceData validationReportingAnalysi s of resultsTestingDocumentationInstallationOp Plan DesignModelingCalibrationDatabaseIntegrationUser interfaceData validationReportingAnaly sis of resultsTestingDocumentationInstallationCrew Planning (psg)ModelingCalibrationDatabaseIntegrationUser interfaceData validationReportingAnalysis of resultsTestingDocumentationInstallationCrew PlanningModelingCalibrationDatabaseIntegrationUser interfaceData validationReportingAnalysis of resultsTestingDocumentationInstallationLocomotiveModelingCalibrationDatabaseIntegrationUser interfaceData valida-tionReportingAnalysis o f resultsTestingDocumentationInstallationEmpty car dist.0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Allocation of Resources by Type of O.R. Based SystemIllustrative of typical systems built by railways
PLANNING SEMI-REAL-TIME
3© Oliver Wyman Group 3
Sally – our O.R. Protagonist
• Sally is a somewhat newly minted O.R. PhD. She has one-year of experience with the her employer, a large railway.
• Through Sally’s viewpoint, we will see the project mature and the heroic efforts of the unsung
Don’t be shocked at the lack of design –
• Sally’s viewpoint is myopic
• It is more fun to tell the story this way
4© Oliver Wyman Group 4
• Sally, our OR PhD is asked to create algorithm for finding a train route given “key” nodes and the network
• Sally researches algorithms and formulas (Dijkstra’s, A*, etc.)
• Calculating arrival/departure times shouldbe trivial
• Sally polishes her algorithm (network reduction theory, to remove or not to remove from PQ, etc.)
• Sally finishes her work!
• Sally codes away…
• …She thinks she understands data structures (including priority queues), but a random conversation with her computer science trained colleague, Claire, teaches her new tricks– Fibonacci heaps, “bucket” lists, etc.
• She begins implementation…
• …But first needs database help from Danna to design structures to read the train route and store the expanded route
Life of an O.R. SystemExpand Train Route as seen through the eyes of Sally
5© Oliver Wyman Group 5
• Asked to calibrate her results against established train schedules…
• …Her train arrival/departure times are different! Apparently, D ≠ RT!
• Her dwell times aredifferent!
• Time zones!
• Some yards use different time zones for entering versus leaving a yard, depending on train direction.– Needed help from the mainframe Cobol
programmer (Carol) who seems to be the only one that really understands time zone rules.
• Sally finishes calibration!
• Her client (Stevie) sometimes wants to enter initial departure time and run times and have her system calculate arrival/departure times.
• [Sally is then told by the Project Manager, Pamela, that she should be going through the IT Business Analyst, Irene]
• She consults with service designer Stevie– Certain yards want
arrival/departure times roundedto nearest 5 minutes
– Dwell time rules aren’t merely additive; crew lead time isparallel to fueling, but additiveto PU/SO times
Sadly, Sally learns that the task has just begunComplex Business Rules
6© Oliver Wyman Group 6
• No user interface, no ability for user to enter data or override route or time calculations
• Despite her fancy algorithms, expanding all the trains is still slower than expected
• Needs to interface to more systems
• DiscoversCalibration ≠ Tested
• Danna implements database constraints to ensure better referential integrity
• Ingrid, still working away on the user interface
• Valerie assists by developing various validations of the manually entered data.
• Theresa builds interfaces between the mainframe Train Scheduling System and this new product
• Claire, her computer science colleague, works extensively with Sally to create a multi-core version of the algorithm– Practically a complete rewrite of the
algorithm (it had too many static variables)– Claire fixed Sally’s lack of software
standards (variable names, etc.)– Code becomes “maintainable”
• Ingrid, the User Interface expert, is brought in to create a “Train designer” that uses calls Sally’s algorithm.
• Marie joins Ingrid, with Marie showing the trains routes on a map.
Sally is fooled againShe learns that an algorithm is not a system
Basel SBB
Maschen Rbf
Basel Bad Rbf
Padborg
7© Oliver Wyman Group 7
• Sally’s algorithm/code would be useful for another application, this time browser based– But needed to add acceleration “physics”
• Wilma, a web-service specialist, re-architects Sally’s code to be used as web-service and/or a client service– Wilma continues by ensuring the code is
scalable to hundreds of users – Claire’s re-write was a truly necessary.
• Danna fine tunes some database aspects
• Ingrid finishes the string-line user interface
• Sally is impressed with how her colleagues really put together this system. Finally it’s done!
• … or not!
• Wilma completes the re-architecture of Sally’s expanded train route algorithm into a web-service
• Roberta completes the reports
• Valeria completes the validations
• Theresa completes the integration with the TSS
• Ingrid & Marie are bringing to completion the user interface
• Roberta is helping out by creating a number of reports that use Sally’s algorithmic results (train-miles, train-hours, crew-starts)
• Ingrid starts working on an editable String-Line graphics to display the expanded trains
• Sally discovers complexities in adding acceleration/deceleration
Sally & Team Keeps up the PaceShe learns that an algorithm is not a system
8© Oliver Wyman Group 8
• Hard core testing begins, with Terry leading the test group.
• Sally’s algorithm bombed when called from the string-line program under multi-user demands
• Claire needed to rethink some of her multi-core tricks that collided with the multi-user aspect of the code
• The team celebrates completion and installation of the system.
• The fantasy begins: The users are wildly happy – no bugs, all the features they wanted were included
• Wendy wrote extensive user documentation
• Ingrid wrote system installation documentation, guidelines for the help desk
• Theresa formally documented the interfaces to the mainframe TSS system.
• Danna needed to implement some record locking rules
• Pamela (project manager) demands to know when the project will be finished.
Closing to the FinaleSally’s little algorithm grew up!
9© Oliver Wyman Group 9
Sally Gives INFORMS Presentation
• She gives a nice, 22 minute presentation that describes her algorithm– Modified Dijkstra’s– Fancy priority queue implementation– Network reduction strategies– Her results of various experiments on different aspects of the algorithm– How fast it is– How many users call upon it
• But the real heroes and their contribution: Danna, Claire, Ingrid, Marie, Roberta, Valerie, Wendy, Wilma, Theresa, Stevie, Pamela, Irene, Terry are never acknowledged!– After all, this is an RAS INFORMS presentation. Isn’t the focus on O.R.??
10© Oliver Wyman Group 10
My Unsung Heroes
Jini, David, MingDean, Bonnie, David, Kevin, Francis, Stephanie, Toma, Ping, (me), Soma, Alex, Wendy, Sebastian,
11© Oliver Wyman Group 11
Second Example: Locomotive Planning Model
• A Locomotive/Equipment Planning Model has been installed at several clients
• The next few slides try to make one point: the modeling was easy and quick compared to all the other aspects of the system.
Other:• Efficiency of units • Switching rules• Repositioning costs
The plan cycles locomotivesfrom one train to the next
Locomotives legally assigned to a train
Train is assignedsufficient power
Repositioning Plan Fleet size limitsLOCOMOTIVEMODEL
MultiRail Locomotive Planning
SystemCharacteristics of Locomotive PlanA well-formed plan considers many constraints and objectives
The solution must satisfy:• Balance (locos in=locos out)• Legality of assignments• Minimum connection time
The solution should satisfy:• Preferred locomotive assignments• Fleet size• No consist busting with
time limits
The solution minimizes• Locomotive Transit and
tonnage costs• Efficiency of locomotives• Costs for repositioning
The solution considers all constraints and costs are
simultaneously, throughout the entire network
MultiRail Locomotive Planning
SystemModel LogicModel uses a sophisticated multi-commodity network flow formulation
14© Oliver Wyman Group 14
Inputs and Input Management
Data Editors
Locomotive sets (business rules)–Fleet size, assignment preferences,
minimum connection times, etc.
Projects and operating plan
Validations, data checks
Multi-user considerations
Outputs and Output Management
Solution analysis–Key operating statistics–Train assignments and day-of-week
details
Outputs saved for projects and locomotive sets
Comparisons between sets
Key statistics archived for future comparisons
Model
MultiRail Locomotive Planning
SystemSoftware infrastructure to create the planning system is complexThe model is dwarfed by the supporting system
15© Oliver Wyman Group 15
Meaningful analysis
Knowing the difference between showing the locomotive assignments, and showing how to understand the locomotive assignments
Ability to store multiple sets of locomotive plan parameters, run the model for these sets of compare at least the key statistics side-by-side
Ability to run
The ability to store a base operating plan, and variations of the plan as projects
The ability to store key statistics for later comparisons (e.g. year-over-year)
What if’s & comparison
Projects
Validations
Archiving
The ability for the system to make sophisticated checks of the model input and give warnings, errors and indications of problems
MultiRail Locomotive Planning
System
Making the product easy to use, easy to understandData editingDocument-ation
Goals of a Locomotive Planning SystemBuilding a good planning system is as important as building a good model
16© Oliver Wyman Group 16
Project nameProject name
Locomotive setname
Locomotive setname
MultiRail Locomotive Planning
SystemThe Locomotive Planning System uses Projects and Locomotive Sets
17© Oliver Wyman Group 17
Many Adjustable Business Rules are contained in a Locomotive Set
Locomotive switch timesLocomotive switch times
Fleet size limitationsFleet size limitations
User preferences for locomotive assignments
User preferences for locomotive assignments
18© Oliver Wyman Group 18
Locomotive setmanagement
Locomotive setmanagement
Single loco set assigned to
multiple projects
Single loco set assigned to
multiple projects
MultiRail Locomotive Planning
SystemLocomotive Sets Contains Adjustable Business RulesFull management of locomotive set; can be assigned to multiple projects
19© Oliver Wyman Group 19
MultiRail Locomotive Planning
SystemAnalyze Solutions – Locomotive imbalancesCalculating prior to running model
20© Oliver Wyman Group 20
MultiRail Locomotive Planning
System
Top grid summarizes assignment and
productivity for each train
Top grid summarizes assignment and
productivity for each train
Bottom grid details
assignments and connections
Bottom grid details
assignments and connections
Analyze Solution – Locomotive assignments by Train
21© Oliver Wyman Group 21
Analyze Solution - ConnectionsMultiRail
Locomotive Planning System
22© Oliver Wyman Group 22
Analyze Solutions – Fleet Utilization StatisticsMultiRail
Locomotive Planning System
23© Oliver Wyman Group 23
Analyze Solutions – Specialized Reports on Train miles, locos/run, etc.MultiRail
Locomotive Planning System
24© Oliver Wyman Group 24
Analyze Solution – Schedule Improvement RecommendationsMultiRail
Locomotive Planning System
25© Oliver Wyman Group 25
MultiRail Locomotive Planning
SystemAbility to compare results from two locomotive setsUsually, but not always, within the same project
26© Oliver Wyman Group 26
Tasks:– Modeling– Calibration– Database– Integration– User Interface– Data validation– Reporting– Other analyses– Testing– Documentation– Installation– Other (non-OR)
Analysis of results2Testing7Documentation3Installation1PL-Crew Planning (psg)100Modeling30Calibration15Database3Sector name 21,687Data validation3Reporting1Analysis of results1Testing16Documentation2Installation1SRT-Crew Planning100Modeling29Calibration59Database1Integration1User interface4Sector name 21,6870% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%ModelingCalibrationDatabaseIntegrationUser interfaceData valida-tionReportingAnalys is of result sTestingDocumentationInstallationLocomotiveModelingCalibrationDatabaseIntegrationUser interfaceData validationReportingAnalysi s of resultsTestingDocumentationInstallationOp Plan DesignModelingCalibrationDatabaseIntegrationUser interfaceData validationReportingAnaly sis of resultsTestingDocumentationInstallationCrew Planning (psg)ModelingCalibrationDatabaseIntegrationUser interfaceData validationReportingAnalysis of resultsTestingDocumentationInstallationCrew PlanningModelingCalibrationDatabaseIntegrationUser interfaceData validationReportingAnalysis of resultsTestingDocumentationInstallationLocomotiveModelingCalibrationDatabaseIntegrationUser interfaceData valida-tionReportingAnalysis o f resultsTestingDocumentationInstallationEmpty car dist.0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Allocation of Resources by Type of O.R. Based SystemIllustrative of typical systems built by railways
PLANNING SEMI-REAL-TIME
QUALIFICATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING
CONDITIONS
This report is for the exclusive use of the Oliver Wyman Group client named herein. This report is not intended for general circulation or publication, nor is it to be reproduced, quoted or distributed for any purpose without the prior written permission of Oliver Wyman Group. There are no third party beneficiaries with respect to this report, and Oliver Wyman Group does not accept any liability to any third party. Information furnished by others, upon which all or portions of this report are based, is believed to be reliable but has not been independently verified, unless otherwise expressly indicated. Public information and industry and statistical data are from sources we deem to be reliable; however, we make no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of such information. The findings contained in this report may contain predictions based on current data and historical trends. Any such predictions are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties. Oliver Wyman Group accepts no responsibility for actual results or future events.The opinions expressed in this report are valid only for the purpose stated herein and as of the date of this report. No obligation is assumed to revise this report to reflect changes, events or conditions, which occur subsequent to the date hereof.
All decisions in connection with the implementation or use of advice or recommendations contained in this report are the sole responsibility of the client. This report does not represent investment advice nor does it provide an opinion regarding the fairness of any transaction to any and all parties.
28© Oliver Wyman Group 28
29© Oliver Wyman Group 29