30 views

Uploaded by biz

Multiple and Bicriteria Scheduling- A Literature Survey

- Preguntas_PEM_3
- !!!!Kuwait
- jay17
- opt-lp1
- integer programming
- 08 Linear
- 57c82ea6221906e563c5cf8acba19f84
- AJEE_15_2_Albrecht
- Lyamin y Sloan, 2002b.pdf
- one note.pdf
- 171901(25.11.14)
- Blending module.pdf
- ZR-05-31
- Linear Programming Problem
- Lecture 4 - Randomized Algorithms for Linear Programming
- Case Study MMTE
- Feasibility Pump - Fishetti e Lodi
- 1-s2.0-S0005109801000541-main
- 978-0-387-95864-4
- matlab

You are on page 1of 17

North-Holland

A literature survey

Amit Nagar, Jorge Haddock and Sunderesh Heragu

Department of Decision Sciences and Engineering Systems, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy,

N Y 12180-3590, USA

Received September 1992; revised March 1993

Abstract: Real life scheduling problems require the decision maker to consider a number of criteria

before arriving at any decision. A solution which is optimal with respect to a given criterion might be a

poor candidate for some other. The trade-offs involved in considering several different criteria provide

useful insights to the decision maker. Thus considering problems with more than one criterion is more

relevant in the context of real life scheduling problems. Surprisingly, research in this important field has

been scarce when compared to research in single criterion scheduling. In this paper, we provide a

detailed literature survey of multiple and bicriteria problems in scheduling. We also provide a broad

classification scheme for scheduling problems.

Keywords: Scheduling; Survey

1. Introduction

Scheduling is an important aspect of operational level shop floor decisions. Its importance

and relevance to industry has prompted researchers to study it from different perspectives

over the past three decades. Scheduling literature

ranges from deterministic case to the stochastic

case, from single machine problem to the multiple machine problem and from static to dynamic

problem. Research on multiple and bicriteria

scheduling has been scarce, especially when compared to research in single criterion scheduling.

Dileepan and Sen (1988) list only sixteen papers

in their survey paper on bicriteria scheduling. A

Correspondence to: Prof. S. Heragu, Department of Decision

Sciences and Engineering Systems, Rensselaer Polytechnic

Institute, Troy, NY 12180-3590, USA.

multi-objective single machine scheduling yielded

thirty-two papers. The thrust of research on

scheduling has been on a single criterion problems; the complexity of scheduling problems provides a possible explanation for the lack of published research in problems involving multiple

criteria. It is well known that optimal solutions

can be found for only relatively small single criterion problems. In fact, only two algorithms (polynomial or pseudo-polynomial) have been reported for the single machine bicriteria problem

- the pseudo-polynomial algorithm was developed by Van Wassenhove and Gelders (1980) and

the polynomial algorithm was developed by Cheun

and Bulfin (1990). Both of these algorithms generate a set of efficient solutions for the bicriteria

problem. Van Wassenhove and Gelders' approach is shown to solve problems with up to 50

SSDI 0 3 7 7 - 2 2 1 7 ( 9 3 ) E 0 1 4 0 - S

that the branch and bound algorithms in Dileepan

and Sen (1991), Sen and Gupta (1983), and Sen

et al. (1988) amongst others, have the potential to

generate all efficient solutions if the parametric

approach is taken. However due to the nature of

branch and bound algorithm, these algorithms

are not polynomial or pseudo-polynomial. Since

multiple criteria problems are even more complex, literature in multiple criteria scheduling is

scarce. However, in most applications it is beneficial and necessary to measure the goodness of a

schedule with respect to different criteria. In the

absence of optimal solutions, this provides more

flexibility to the decision maker by allowing

h i m / h e r to consider multiple schedules corresponding to the different sub-optimal solutions.

Dudek et al. (1992) note that the absence of

multiple criteria from flowshop scheduling problems may have been one of the reasons for lack of

practical applications for these problems.

In a survey paper on bicriteria static scheduling, Dileepan and Sen (1988) list sixteen papers.

They classify the bicriteria scheduling problems

into two classes. The first class of problems consists of problems in which one of the criteria is

included in the objective function and the other

in the constraint. In the second class of problems,

both criteria are included in the objective function, with the requirement that the schedule be

feasible.

Another survey of multiple objective single

machine scheduling papers published by Fry et al.

(1989), argues that classification based on articulation of preferences by the decision maker (e.g. a

priori, a posteriori or interactive) is not sufficient

due to the problem specific nature of scheduling

algorithms. According to Fry et al. (1989) such

classification must be secondary. The primary

classification must be based on specific criteria

involved in the model. Fry et al. (1989) prefer this

classification because solution procedures for

scheduling problems largely depend on the criteria included in the model.

In this paper, we present a survey of previous

research on multiple and bicriteria scheduling.

The objective is to encompass the developments

in the field, as well as to provide avenues for

further research. We begin by developing a classification scheme for the available literature in the

next section. In Section 3, we discuss scheduling

89

papers that are concerned with multiple and bicriteria problems. Observations based on literature survey are given in Section 4, followed by

summary and conclusions in the final section.

2. A classification scheme

Dileepan and Sen (1988) develop a classification scheme which categorizes papers based on

the number of criteria included in the objective

function. Fry et al. (1989) take a different approach and develop a classification scheme based

on the criteria involved in the model.

However, both the surveys are restricted to

single machine scheduling problems. In this paper, we develop a new classification scheme (see

Figure 1) which provides a natural categorization

of the literature in multiple and bicriteria

scheduling.

Some issues which we seek to address through

this classification scheme are:

types of models considered in literature;

criteria that have been popular with researchers;

solution techniques most widely used for

solving these problems.

The above classification amply describes the

breadth of literature available for multiple and

bicriteria scheduling problems.

2.1. Nature o f the problem

parameters can be ascertained with certainty, we

model the problem as a deterministic scheduling

problem. Otherwise, we have a stochastic problem. In the latter, the parameters are modeled as

random variables, which follow some known

probability distribution. Stochastic models, in

general, capture real life situations better than

deterministic models as they do not assign specific values to the parameters. An important aspect of stochastic models is the fitting of a distribution to reflect the behavior of parameters.

2.2. Shop configuration

the number of machines available on the shop

floor. Scheduling literature identifies two cases,

90

Input(NewJobs)

N A T U R E O F THE P R O B L E M

deterministic

stochastic

SHOP C O N F I G U R A T I O N

single machine

multiple machines

parallel machines

flowshop

jobshop

Output(CompletedJobs)

Fig. 2. A p u r e flowshop

traditional optimization methods

dynamic programming

branch and bound

use of trade-off curves

integer programming formulations

more recent methods

genetic algorithm

simulated annealing

tabu search

PERFORMANCE MEASURE INVOLVED

regular (e.g., flowtime, makespan)

non regular (e.g., job earliness)

CRITERIA

bicriteria

- multi-criteria

A P P L I C A T I O N S (e.g., production scheduling)

Fig.

1. Classification s c h e m e for m u l t i p l e

scheduling problems

and bicriteria

one machine processes all the jobs, it is known as

the single machine problem. In this case, the

problem is to find an order in which the jobs

must be processed on this machine. In contrast to

real world situations, this case is highly simplistic;

nevertheless it lays the foundation for the more

complex multiple machine case. It is also useful

to model and study bottleneck problems, which

occur frequently on the shop floor, An overall

shop can also be seen as a 'single machine' in an

aggregate formulation of the problem.

More complex configurations arise when there

are multiple machines on t h e shop floor. The

parallel machine;

flowshop;

jobshop.

A shop is said to have parallel machine configuration when there are a number of one operation jobs which can be processed on any of the

machines. The level of complexity of this configuration is more than that for the single machine.

Theory of parallel machines is a stepping stone

for development of the theory for multiple machines

Flowshop is a configuration in which machines

are arranged in a serial fashion; each job has to

pass through each machine. In particular, such a

configuration is called a pure flowshop and is

depicted in Figure 2. As the jobs are processed by

each machine, they are multi-stage in nature.

Each stage defines an operation, and each joboperation pair can be identified by a 2-tuple

(i, j), representing the i-th job's j-th operation.

The most complex of all cases is the jobshop

configuration in which the operations of the jobs

are equally likely to be assigned to any machine

for processing (see Figure 3). In this case, there is

no common pattern for job routing.

New Jobs

In-ProcessJobs

Y[~i"

roach,k~

In-ProcessJobs

Completed Jobs

Fig. 3. W o r k f l o w at a typical m a c h i n e in a j o b s h o p

2.3. Solution methodology

established techniques such as branch and bound

(Sen and Gupta, 1983), dynamic programming

(Van Wassenhove and Gelders, 1978), and tradeoff curves (John, 1989) to solve scheduling problems. The technique of pairwise job interchange

has also been widely used. These techniques have

been reasonably successful in solving a large

number of combinatorial problems, including

scheduling problems.

Both branch and bound and dynamic programming are implicit enumeration techniques,

wherein a number of candidate solutions are

eliminated by judiciously applying certain restrictive criteria. Unfortunately, both the techniques

are not efficient for large problems. It is well

known that dynamic programming suffers from

state space explosion. This is a phenomenon in

which calculations to solve the problems become

enormous as the number of state variables increases. This restricts the scope of dynamic programming approach in solving large problems. In

branch and bound, the execution time varies considerably over different data sets. The choice of

branching variable and the bounding approach

strongly influence the algorithm's performance.

Due to the difficulty in obtaining optimal solutions, a large number of problem specific heuristic techniques have been developed. These

heuristics are designed to consider the trade-offs

between solution quality and computational time

complexity.

Many researchers have developed integer programming models for different versions of the

scheduling problem. The idea is inherently appealing since the scheduling problem formulated

as an integer program can be solved by the available integer programming algorithms. However, it

has long been realized that such an approach is

applicable to only small problems. The reason for

this is that the mathematical programming formulation of scheduling problems are usually large

and the available integer programming algorithms

are not able to solve them efficiently.

However, an advantage of these formulations

is that they are able to accommodate a variety of

criteria in a single model. Another approach is to

solve the integer programs without the integer

restrictions, thus enabling the use of available

91

can handle problems of much larger size without

requiring excessive memory. The disadvantage of

such an approach is that the non-integer solutions have to be rounded up to the nearest integer. In many cases, this has shown to produce

inferior solutions when compared to the optimal

solutions.

In recent years some promising new heuristic

techniques have been developed. Examples of

these are simulated annealing, tabu search, and

genetic algorithm. Compared to the latter two,

simulated annealing has been more widely used

in scheduling literature. Recently there has been

an increasing interest in genetic algorithms as a

tool to solve complex combinatorial optimization

problems.

Complexity analysis forms an important part of

heuristic solution procedures. Wherever possible

we discuss the complexity of the solution procedure. However, for papers which develop branch

and bound and dynamic programming based solution procedure we do not discuss the complexity,

as they exhibit exponential behavior.

2.4. Performance measure

A measure of performance is said to be regular if it is a non-decreasing function of job completion times and the scheduling objective is to

minimize the performance measure. Examples of

regular measures are job flowtime ( F ) , schedule

makespan (Cmax) and tardiness based performance measures. A large number of scheduling

problems have been studied with regular measures of performance. The most widely used measures are related to job flowtime and job tardiness. Traditionally it has been most difficult to

find optimal solutions for tardiness-based objectives, such as number of tardy jobs.

The focus has shifted from regular to non-regular measures with the advent of the just-in-time

philosophy. A non-regular performance measure

is usually not a monotone function of the job

completion times. An example of such a measure

is job earliness, wherein jobs are penalized if they

are completed earlier than their due-dates. The

non-regular characteristic of the performance

measure led researchers to develop completely

new methodologies for scheduling problems, as

the earlier ones were no longer applicable.

92

"o

=o

~S

o

(1990) present extensive literature reviews of papers involving non-regular penalty measures.

Hence, we review literature involving regular

measures only. Some literature has been cited on

multiple and bicriteria factory scheduling

(Pauline, 1990), and dynamic resource constrained scheduling problems (Norbis, 1988).

scheduling problem was presented in the previous

section. However, for our discussion it will be

sufficient to use a smaller classification scheme

based on the number of machines and criteria

present in the model. The discussion will be

categorized under four different types of models,

namely,

single machine bicriteria;

single machine multiple criteria;

multiple machine bicriteria;

multiple machine multiple criteria.

As far as possible, the discussion will be arranged in a chronological order so as to emphasize on the evolution of literature. To the extent

possible, we will cite any linkages between the

papers. The integer programming formulations

will be discussed in a separate section. Table 1

provides a complete tabulated classification of

the papers discussed in the survey. The papers

have been referenced by the first four alphabets

of the first author's last name and year of publication in Table 1.

one criterion can be categorized under single

machine bicriteria problems. The first of these

was published by Smith in 1956. However, the

next paper in this category was published only in

1972 by Heck and Roberts. Since then a number

of researchers have chosen to study Smith's problem while others have studied different multiple

and bicriteria problems. The most widely used

criteria have been related to job flowtime and job

tardiness.

93

category, a further sub-classification based on the

criteria used in the model is provided below:

flowtime and tardiness based criteria;

weighted flowtime and tardiness based criteria;

cost component with any secondary criteria;

miscellaneous.

The first three classes cover the breadth of available literature, with the fourth class including

papers that cannot be included in other classes.

One of the earliest results in bicriteria scheduling was published by Smith (1956). H e develops

an algorithm for minimizing the sum of completion times subject to the restriction that no jobs

are late. His algorithm is based on a theorem

which states: Given that no jobs are tardy, the

last job (k) in the sequence has the following

properties:

(i))2in=lti - d~ < O, and

(ii) t k > ti, for all i for which E]=ltj - d i < O,

where t i is the processing time and d i is the

due-date for job i. An extension of this result was

also proposed for weighted sum of completion

times in this paper. It asserted that to minimize

F w (weighted flowtime) subject to the constraint

that no jobs are tardy, the jobs must be ordered

in increasing order of the ratio ( t i / a i ) , where t i is

defined as before and a i is the weight attached to

the flowtime of job i. Smith's algorithm has been

shown by Lenstra et al. (1979) to be bounded by

O(n log n), where n is the number of jobs.

Heck and Roberts (1972) extend Smith's result

by relaxing the no tardiness condition. Instead,

they place a user specified bound on maximum

tardiness. Given that Tm~x is the maximum tardiness, mathematically the extension is equivalent

to rewriting property (i) as

ti

d k < Tm~.

i--1

number of tardy jobs as the two criteria. A simple

procedure is first proposed to schedule the jobs

so as to minimize the flowtime, with a specified

number of jobs on time. This is then used in

94

to produce good sub-optimal schedules. A branch

and bound algorithm which uses efficient fathoming criterion to produce optimal schedules quickly

is also presented. Emmon's (1975b) provides an

example to illustrate the methodology, and compares the performance of his algorithm with that

of Moore (1968).

Sen and Gupta (1983) consider a dual criteria

problem. The objective is to minimize a linear

combination of flowtime and maximum tardiness

of a number of jobs on a single machine. They

develop a branch and bound approach and present computational results. As determined by Van

Wassenhove and Gelders (1980) their approach is

able to generate all the efficient points. (For a

bicriteria problem involving criteria C 1 and C2, a

point i is said to be efficient if Cl(i) < C I ( j ) and

C2(i) < C2(j), with one of the inequalities holding

strictly, for all j in the solution space.) Sen and

Gupta (1983) also determine the dominant factors that can affect the computational time required to arrive at optimal solutions.

Chand and Schneeberger (1986) analyze

Smith's (1956) heuristic for the single machine

scheduling problem. Several cases of the constrained weighted completion time (CWCT) problem, where Smith's heuristic will lead to an optimal solution, are identified. They also provide an

analysis of Smith's heuristic and show that the

fractional increase in objective function value for

his heuristic is unbounded in the worst case. They

also note that results in their paper can be useful

in developing branch and bound methods for

solving the single machine scheduling problem.

Lenstra (1972) and Chand and Schneeberger

(1984) have shown that the CWCT problem with

unequal weights is an NP-hard problem.

For a long time it was considered that the

problem of minimizing the sum of weighted completion times subject to a secondary constraint is

the same as that of minimizing the sum of completion times subject to the same constraint. As

mentioned above, Smith (1956) provides an algorithm for the latter and extended the results for

the former case. Heck and Roberts (1972) also

present an algorithm for an extended version of

Smith's problem and claim that it can be extended to the problem of weighted completion

times. However, Burns (1976) has shown that this

was not the case by providing a counter example

for the problem of weighted completion times. A

new algorithm that converges to a local optimum

for both the weighted and unweighted problems

is presented in Burns (1976).

Van Wassenhove and Gelders (1978) compare

four procedures for the mean flowtime and

weighted tardiness single machine problem.

Branch and bound algorithms are developed in

three procedures; the lower bounds for these

algorithms are obtained from a transportation

problem relaxation, an assignment problem relaxation, and a Lagrangian relaxation algorithm. The

best bound is provided by the Lagrangian relaxation method. A dynamic programming approach

is also developed, which requires large memory

but is efficient with respect to computational

time.

Bansal (1980) extends Burns' (1976) algorithm,

which finds a locally optimal solution for the

problem of minimizing weighted sum of completion times subject to the condition that every job

be completed by its due-date. Bansal (1980) asserts that Burns' (1976) algorithm may sometimes

provide a local optimum solution which is far

from the global optimum. He presents a branch

and bound approach to find a globally optimal

solution and illustrates the solution procedure

through an example.

Miyazaki (1981) considers a single machine

bicriteria problem with mean weighted flowtime

and job tardiness as the two criteria. Interestingly, this problem was first studied by Smith

(1956) and later extended by Heck and Roberts

(1972). Miyazaki's approach is also to treat one of

the criteria, namely, mean weighted flowtime as

objective and the other as a constraint. The approach is to develop a necessary condition under

which the local and global solutions are different,

and consequently develop an efficient algorithm

to obtain an improved schedule based on the

locally optimal schedule. Computational experiences including CPU time to obtain the results,

and the core memory size required for the algorithm are reported to provide insight into the

quality of solution. Comparisons are made with

similar results from Smith (1956) and Burns

(1976).

problem of minimizing weighted flowtime subject

to release dates. The authors argue that whenever different ready times (ready time is the time

at which jobs are released in the system) are

considered, the models using the same ready times

for all the jobs are no longer adequate. This is

true since inserting idle times may now become

beneficial. Using certain dominance properties,

they develop an improved branch and bound algorithm for this problem. Computational results

are given for a ten job problem and the proposed

algorithm is shown to provide satisfactory results.

No results are provided for larger problems.

A note on scheduling problem with dual criteria was published by Emmons (1975a) in which

the primary objective was to minimize the maximum penalty, Cm~x = maxj{cj(F/), V] = 1, 2 , . . . , n},

where, ci(t) is the cost of completing the job at

time t. Within the subset of schedules which

minimizes the maximum penalty, a schedule with

minimal total flowtime is sought. Lawler's (1973)

theorem, is incorporated in the results obtained

by Heck and Roberts (1972) to arrive at good and

often optimal solutions, Emmons cautions that

extending this result to the weighted flowtime

problem is not possible as simply as has been

stated by Smith (1956). A counter example is

provided to support this assertion.

Van Wassenhove and Gelders (1980) consider

a scheduling problem with holding costs and maximum tardiness as the criteria. Instead of considering the holding costs directly, they use flowtime

as an equivalent criterion, presumably because it

is traditionally a more popular criterion with the

researchers. Their approach is based on the traditional methods of multiple criteria decision making (MCDM), primarily to make use of their

theoretical foundations. They determine an efficient set of points and give a pseudo polynomial

algorithm to enumerate all these efficient points.

For a minimization problem, a sequence 7r* is

considered efficient if there does not exist any

other sequence ~-, such that H ( ~ - ) < H(Tr*) and

T(~-) < T(~-*), where H(~-) is the job flowtime

and T(Tr) is its tardiness. This requires their

algorithm to search only in the region of efficient

points, thus effectively reducing the search. The

complexity analysis of the algorithm shows that it

95

cases. The authors also provide computational

results to illustrate the functioning of their algorithm. It was hoped that the paper will provide

motivation for using the existing literature on

multiple criteria optimization to solve multiple

criteria scheduling problems.

A single machine sequencing problem with

total weighted flow cost plus job processing cost

was considered by Vickson (1980). The processing

costs for jobs are considered to be linear functions of processing times. The paper is unique in

that both sequencing of the jobs and their processing times are considered to be controllable.

The problem formulation includes the development of a total cost function, which includes job

flow and job crashing costs. The solution procedure fixes the status or processing time of a job

and uses Smith's (1956) weighted ratio test to

minimize the cost function. This is followed by

some tests to determine the optimal status of the

jobs. For example, it determines whether or not

to expedite certain jobs. The size of the problem

is reduced using these tests and the residual

problem of optimizing over all jobs with undecided status is formulated as one of optimal row

and column selection from a symmetric matrix.

Objective function bounds, theorems providing

optimal solutions under special conditions on

crashing and uncrashing costs are also discussed

in the paper. For the more general case, a minimum penalty heuristic (MPH) is developed and

results are obtained to determine its performance

bounds. Computations are carried out to determine the performance of the heuristic on medium

sized problems. It is shown to provide optimal

solutions in all but one of the test problems.

Van Wassenhove and Baker (1982) discuss a

bicriteria approach to scheduling with time/cost

trade-offs, wherein processing times are a function of resource availability. Similar problems with

time/cost trade-offs are considered by Vickson

(1980) and Elmaghraby (1979). The difference is

that they combine the resource allocation and

sequencing costs into a one-dimensional cost

function, whereas Van Wassenhove and Baker

deal with these costs separately. Their approach

uses a greedy algorithm to produce an efficient

frontier of schedules; the efficient frontier is a set

of efficient points in which the end points are

connected. The analysis is extended to a more

96

represented by a non-decreasing function of completion time. The bicriteria problem then becomes that of minimizing a weighted function of

completion times and total crashing cost. An algorithm using three different procedures is used

to find the efficient frontier for this extended

problem. An argument based on mathematical

induction is used to show that the solution algorithm indeed provides optimal solutions. The approach developed in this paper finds all efficient

points in at most O(n 2) time. In contrast, the

algorithm proposed by Vickson (1980) generates

one efficient point in O(n 2) time. Computational

aspects of the solution approach are also discussed.

John (1989) generalizes the problem involving

maximum tardiness and sum of completion times,

which was earlier studied by Van Wassenhove

and Gelders (1980). He develops an algorithm for

an n-job single machine problem, n / 1 / / G m a x,

Tmax, where Gmax represents a non-decreasing

penalty function based on completion times. His

algorithm is based on Emmon's (1975a) theorem

which uses Lawler's minimum penalty rule. As

each step of his algorithm requires O(n 2) steps,

he provides certain theorems to ease the computational burden. Completeness of the algorithm is

proved by showing that it generates one sequence

corresponding to each efficient point in the objective function space. To further illustrate the

solution procedure, he provides an example and

computational results based on the experimentation.

Cheng (1991) discusses a bicriterion static

scheduling problem, in which the primary objective is to minimize the maximum penalty function, yi(Ci), of job completion times, while the

secondary objective is to minimize the total job

flow time. He extends the results of Emmons

(1975a) and develops an improved algorithm to

reduce the computational effort to find the optimal solution. An interesting comparison based on

the number of steps required to find optimal

solution, is made with Emmons' procedure. It is

shown that Cheng's procedure consistently takes

fewer steps to arrive at an optimal solution. Based

on the second order derivative of the difference

in number of steps, it is shown that function of

differences is monotone and hence achieves global

minimum. The global minimum provides the max-

The maximum and minimum improvements are

of the order O(n 2) and O(n) respectively.

3.1.4. Miscellaneous

machine scheduling problem involving sequence

dependent setup times and linear delay penalties.

The delay penalty for each job is a linear function

of the sum of various processing times for preceding jobs, i.e., it is based on the delay induced past

the start time. The setup cost of each job is

dependent only upon the job that immediately

precedes it. The paper discusses several branch

and bound algorithms which use depth first search

and priority rules to traverse the tree. The lower

bound is derived using the matrix reduction

method [Little et al., 1963]. A hybrid algorithm

analogous to Morin and Marsten's (1976) approach to the travelling salesman problem is also

used. The hybrid algorithm consists of a dynamic

programming approach, in which the fathoming

criterion of branch and bound is used to reduce

storage and computational requirements. Computational results are reported for a set of randomly

generated problems, which endorse effectiveness

of the heuristic. They also show the superiority of

the hybrid approach over pure branch and bound

methods in yielding confirmed optimal solutions

for a given set of problems.

Shanthikumar (1983) considers a single machine problem with the dual objective of minimizing the maximum tardiness with minimum number of jobs tardy. An algorithm for the maximum

tardiness problem is first developed, which is

then incorporated in the branch and bound algorithm to obtain optimal solutions. Considerable

amount of branching is eliminated by using certain theorems and conditions. The algorithm is

compared to the one provided by Kao (1980).

Nelson et al. (1986) consider a problem where

desirability of a schedule is based on more than

one performance measure. They develop procedures that are used to construct trade-off curves.

These curves are advantageous since they provide

a complete set of possibly optimal solutions for

any objective function. Algorithms are presented

for three two-criteria and one three-criteria problems involving mean flowtime (F), maximum tardiness (Tm~) and number of tardy jobs (ha-). In

particular, (F and na-), (ff and Tmax), and (na-

and Tma~) problems are considered for the bicriteria case and (n T, if, and Tma~) problem is

considered for the three criteria case. To reduce

the size of search space restrictive theorems are

applied. Thus the algorithms provide a very small

number of efficient solutions when compared to

the number of permutation schedules. This has

much significance to the decision maker, since

good decisions can be made quickly. The computational times are the lowest for (if, Tma0 and

largest for (nT, Tmax) problems. The computational complexity is calculated for the three problems. It is noted that the algorithms for (if, n T)

and (n T, Tm~x) problems are not polynomial. The

complexity of the (if, Tmax) problem is given to be

O(n2~ log n), where ~ is the average processing

time and n is the number of jobs. They also

discuss some research directions that are possible

for heuristic approaches, e.g., man-machine interactive approaches, with computational efficiency based on the type of problem studied.

According to the author, work in this paper has

the potential to stimulate research in complex

multiple criteria scheduling models.

Another aspect of the bicriteria scheduling

problem is studied by Sen et al: (1988) involving

total flowtime and range of lateness of the jobs.

They develop a lower bound for the weighted

objective function, for use in a branch and bound

algorithm. They also provide a necessary condition for optimality. The authors note that the

procedure h a s the potential to identify all efficient solutions characterized by Van Wassenhove

and Gelders (1980).

Dileepan and Sen (1991) consider another aspect of the problem involving total flowtime and

range of lateness by using a linear combination of

total flowtime and squared lateness. They develop sufficient optimality conditions and a lower

bound based on these conditions. A branch and

bound approach is used in which a priori information about precedence relationships is used to

fathom the nodes. The authors also report their

computational experiences with the branch and

bound procedure.

Cheun and Bulfin (1990) consider a single machine bicriteria problem, where all jobs have

identical processing times. When the processing

times are equal to one, the problem is commonly

referred to as the unit execution time problem

(UET). They provide a polynomial time algorithm

97

problems are those in which the most important

criterion is first minimized, followed by minimization of other criteria while retaining the previous

optimal as a constraint.) The criteria C1 and C2

are chosen from F (flowtime), T (tardiness), U

(number of tardy jobs) or weighted versions of

these three criteria. They also develop an algorithm for 1/UET/C1,C2 problem, in which a set

of non-dominated points is generated and the

decision maker makes explicit trade offs to arrive

at an acceptable solution. Their approach to solving these problems is to formulate the UET problem as an assignment problem, as shown below:

Min

E Ecijxij,

i

s.t.

~xii=l ,

J

~.,xii=l,

i=l,...,n,

j = l . . . . . n,

xii>O, i= l,...,n,

j= l,...,n,

where i, j represent the job and schedule position respectively and c(i, j) denotes the cost of

scheduling job i in position j. They used the

assignment model to solve the primary criterion

component of the problem. Then the best solution for the secondary criterion was found from

among the alternative solutions to the primary

criterion problem. It was also claimed that the

bicriteria problem can be solved by any technique

available for multiple criteria linear programming

(MCLP). This is due to the uni-modular structure

of the constraint matrix. Complexity analysis was

provided for the algorithms developed in their

paper. In particular, for the secondary criterion

problems, it is noted that in the worst case all

unit processing time problems can be solved by

solving two assignment problems. An assignment

problem can be solved in O(n 3) time, so all the

secondary criterion problems discussed in this

paper can be solved in polynomial time. For the

bicriteria problems, the time complexity is polynomial if the number of efficient solutions is

bounded by a polynomial, It is shown that except

for I / U E T / W F , WU, 1 / U E T / W F , WT and

1 / U E T / W T , WU, all other bicriteria problems

discussed in this paper can be solved in polynomial time.

98

the problem first studied by Cheun and Bulfin

(1990). The paper provides an interpretation of

the Cheun and Bulfin solution for the value function case, 1 / / f ( C a , C2), which assumes the availability of a function f(C1, C2). It notes that their

solution may not always be consistent with the

traditional objective and develops ways of obtaining consistent solutions. The authors note that

there are several flaws in the Cheun and Bulfin

solution for the simultaneous case, 1 / / C 1 , C 2.

They argue that the MCLP algorithms do not

always produce all the efficient solutions because

of the discrete nature of assignment problem. To

prove this assertion an example is provided with

weighted flowtime and weighted number of tardy

jobs as the criteria. They develop a new procedure which generalizes Van Wassenhove and

Gelders (1980) algorithm and guarantees to produce a completely representative set of efficient

schedules. It is noted that the computational

complexity of their procedure depends on the

range (zl) of C2. Even though the complexity of

1 / U E T / C 1 , C2 < A is undetermined, specific instances of this problem can be solved in polynomial time. They also show that, the procedure

developed in their paper can solve the

1 / U E T / C 1 , Tmax problem in order O(n 4) time.

3.2. Single machine multiple criteria models

Research in the single machine multiple criteria scheduling has been scarce when compared to

single machine bicriteria problem. In this section,

we review four papers that deal with the multiple

criteria problem.

Kao (1980) presents a decision theoretic approach to the single machine scheduling problem

with multiple criteria. He encodes the value

trade-offs over performance criteria such as flowtime, tardiness and number of tardy jobs in a

multi-attribute value function. An implicit enumeration procedure is used for finding preferred

job processing sequences that maximize this value

function. To validate his findings he complements

them with examples, and reports some computational experiences. He points out that when tardiness is one of the criteria included in the value

function, his solution procedure is constrained by

the problem size. He also notes that his solution

approach merits consideration only when trade-

desiderata.

Ignizio (1984) notes that the conventional approach to modeling and solving most scheduling

problems involves the development of a mathematical model employing discrete variables and a

single criterion. He points out that such models

are inherently combinatorially explosive and require an alternative modeling approach. He made

an important observation which distinguishes his

model from the classical model. His model considers the job-to-job interference which can degrade or delay the schedule completion. An example of such interference occurs in a chemical

processes when a noxious gas or contaminants

might delay start of the next job. One of the

objectives of his model is to minimize such interference. Another objective is to minimize the

makespan of schedule. The model itself is in

vector maximization linear form with linear functions and continuous variables. The absence of

discrete variables is an advantage when compared

to the classical models. It is hoped that his model

will find applications in diverse areas such as,

frequency planning and air defense, interceptor

scheduling and production scheduling. Numerical

results are provided for randomly generated

problems ranging in size from 10 to 120 jobs.

Daniels (1990) considers the problem of resource allocation in a single machine scheduling

environment. Such a problem requires not only

job scheduling but also the distribution of resources to individual jobs. The approach adopted

in this paper generalizes the work of Van

Wassenhove and Baker (1982). It measures

schedule performance using maximum and individual job tardiness, and then achieves the processing time requirements through the application of different resources. Construction algorithms are developed with the objective of minimizing the amount of available resources required to satisfy the specified tardiness limits.

The algorithms are designed to reduce the computational burden involved in constructing trade

off curves amongst the two objectives, namely,

resource allocation and maximum tardiness. Finally, numerical examples are provided to explain

the concepts developed in the paper.

Norbis and Smith (1988) formulate the NPhard resource constrained scheduling problem

(RCSP) as a multiple objective mathematical pro-

RCSP necessitates the use of dynamic and quasidynamic approaches to this problem. The approach is called quasi-dynamic when data-updating and re-scheduling are done only on the occurrence of an event such as: change in resource

availability, new job arrivals, or changes in duedate or expected processing time. The difference

between the two approaches is that quasi-dynamic is used when a static schedule has been

obtained while the dynamic is used on a continuous basis. A multilevel, multi-priority heuristic is

designed, where different objectives are used to

rank priorities at each level. The main contribution of the paper is that decision making is done

in an interactive setting, where the decision maker

is allowed to specify hi s / he r trade offs before

arriving at a solution. Apart from providing flexibility, such an approach prevents a large increase

in computational requirement. Complexity analysis of the proposed algorithm is discussed and

computational results are also provided. The

complexity of heuristic developed in this paper is

shown to be of the order O(n3), where n is the

number of jobs.

3.3. Multiple machine bicriteria models

multiple machine scheduling problem has not

been dealt with adequately in the literature. In

this section, four papers that attempt to minimize

two criteria are surveyed.

Lin (1983) incorporates the concept of dominance precedence relationships into a multicriteria framework to develop a solution algorithm for

the single machine problem. A schedule s is

defined as non-dominated if and only if for any

other schedule s', H ( s ' ) < H ( s ) ,

implies that

H ( s ' ) = H ( s ) , where H ( s ) = (hi(s), h2(s)) is a

vector representing the two criteria. Theoretical

results of precedence which are applicable to all

non-dominated schedules are first derived. The

dominance precedence relations (DPR) are then

incorporated into a multiple criteria dynamic programming framework to improve the computational efficiency. Computational time required to

arrive at optimal solutions and algorithm efficiency are also reported.

Selen and Hott (1986) formulate the standard

flowshop scheduling problem as a goal program.

99

to schedule jobs in a flowshop to minimize a

linear combination of makespan and flowtime.

The model consists of m n + n + m constraints, n 2

binary integer, and 2 m n - 2n + 1 continuous

variables (where m is the number of machines

and n is the number of jobs). An empirical verification of the model is done by comparing the

solutions to their mathematically derived counterparts, for a semi-ordered flowshop. In addition, they also choose a randomly generated problem to show the general applicability of the derived formulation.

Wilson (1989) presents an improvement over

Selen's (1986) formulation. His formulation uses

substantially fewer variables (ran) at the expense

of certain additional constraints (2ran + n - m),

the number of integer variables being the same as

before. The major limitation of both models is

the presence of n 2 binary variables. Thus, a 50-job

problem will contain 2500 binary integer variables. Computation times are compared for the

two formulations for small problems and results

reported.

Nagar et al. (1992) discuss a branch and bound

approach for a two machine flowshop scheduling

problem. The criteria included in the model are

job flowtime and schedule makespan. Both linear

and convex combinations of the objective function are used. It is shown that a lower bound can

be obtained by arranging jobs using the shortest

processing time rule (SPT) on the first machine.

SPT means that the jobs are arranged in a nondecreasing order of their processing times. A

heuristic is developed to provide a n upper bound.

It is shown that in many instances, the upper

bound provided by the heuristic algorithm serves

to improve the computational performance of

branch and bound algorithm. In fact, the heuristic provides optimal solutions for a large number

of problems when the second machine is dominant. It is shown that the SPT rule is optimal for

the class of problems where processing times on

the two machines are equal. Computational resuits, as shown below, are provided for different

classes of the problem:

The branch and bound algorithm works best

when the processing time for each job is greater

on the second machine. In this case, we can even

solve up to 400 job problems.

When the processing times are random, the

100

algorithm provides solutions only for 14 job problems. It does not provide solutions for larger

problems.

3.4. Multiple machine multiple criteria models

Multiple criteria models involving multiple machines represent the most general class of

scheduling models. These models include flowshop and jobshop configurations, which are difficult to analyze even when they involve a single

criterion. Our literature survey revealed a scarcity

of papers dealing with these models. We have

come across only two papers which discuss different aspects of this problem. It must also be noted

that these models have extensive practical applications, since they emulate real world situations

very closely. The paper by Deckro et al. (1982)

presents a goal programming model for job shop

scheduling problem which considers a multiple

performance system of evaluations and incorporates multiple organizational goals. The single

criterion model in Pritsker et al. (1969) is modified to include multiple criteria. Deckro et al.

(1982) provides an example to illustrate the solution procedure. This problem is further intensified by the inclusion of priorities in the model.

An advantage of the goal programming formulation over the integer program is the existence of

optimality conditions, i.e., if the priorities are

satisfied, an optimal solution has been found.

The solution procedure require 45% less computational time to arrive at the solution compared

to the integer programming formulation. The authors note that there are no computer codes that

will take advantage of the special structure of the

formulation. In the absence of such codes, large

problems can become computationally intractable.

Wein and Chevalier (1992) model the job-shop

as a two-station multiclass queueing network and

consider three scheduling decisions, namely,

due-date setting, job release, and priority sequencing. These decisions are made such that

work-in-process inventory (WIP) and due-date

lead time (DDLT) are minimized subject to an

upper bound restriction on the proportion of

tardy jobs. DDLT is defined as the intervening

period of time between the time a job arrives and

its due-date. Their approach is to decompose the

problem into two easier ones. The first problem

scheduling problem where the performance measures are mean cycle time, mean throughput, and

mean WIP inventory. The second problem is

modeled as a dynamic, stochastic due-date

scheduling problem where the performance measures are mean DDLT and proportion of tardy

jobs. Simulation studies are conducted under

moderate and heavy loading of two machine jobshop. Comparisons are made with different combinations of other scheduling policies under different due-date setting, job release, and priority

sequencing rules. As a result of the simulation

experiments, three scheduling principles are proposed which can improve the performance of the

jobshop considered in this paper.

3.5. Integer programming formulations

Integer programming formulations of scheduling problems have generated interest in the 1960s.

These formulations provide insights into the

structure of the problem and are useful in development of heuristic procedures and priority rules.

Bowman (1959) presents an integer programming formulation of the scheduling problem. The

objective of his model is to complete the final

operation of all jobs as early as possible. Bowman

mentions that even for a problem of moderate

size his method requires large amount of computation; hence the practical applicability of the

model was rather restricted.

Wagner (1959) formulates an integer programming model for a general machine scheduling

problem, where the objective is to minimize

makespan. Two special cases of this model,

namely, an n-machine and a three-machine flowshop are also considered. He notes that the proposed model is useful only for small problems

and is computationally intractable for larger ones.

His formulation is later used to solve six

6 / 3 / P / C m a x problems, using an integer programming algorithm due to Gomory.

Dantzig (1960) formulates a machine-job

scheduling model as a linear program. He develops a compact network representation of the

possible activities which permits generating just

the activity to enter the basis of each iteration

without explicitly generating the others. This is

done by using an efficient algorithm for computing the shortest route through a network.

formulation of the jobshop model. The model

includes sequencing restrictions and also restrictions on job-to-job interference. He claims that

his formulation is considerably smaller than either Bowmans' (1960) or Wagners' (1959) models

and thus merits computer experimentation. Wagners model had almost twice as many variables as

Manne's model.

Greenberg (1968) presents a mixed integer

programming formulation for the general

scheduling problem. He develops separate models with the objective of minimizing makespan

and idle time. The formulation is computationally

intractable, even for small problems, due to t h e

presence of m n 2 variables of which m n ( n - 1)

were integer variables (m is the number of machines and n is the number of jobs). So, he

develops a branch and bound technique for which

the formulation reduces to a series of non-integer

linear programs of moderate sizes. However, he

notes that his technique is computationally feasible only for smaller problems.

Frieze and Yadegar (1989) describes a new

integer programming formulation of the permutation flowshop problem, in which the objective is

to minimize the makespan. They present an algorithm for solving a linear programming relaxation

of the integer program, giving a lower bound.

This lower bound is then compared and found

better than the known lower bounds provided by

Brown and Lomnicki (1966) and Ignall and

Schrage (1965). They note that even though their

formulation can have an exponential number of

constraints, its linear programming relaxation can

be solved in polynomial time. Computational experiments are carried out to evaluate the performance of proposed bounds, using several existing

problems. The bounds developed in this paper

are found to be either independent or superior to

the known bounds.

4. O b s e r v a t i o n s b a s e d o n literature survey

the discussion of Section 3 and the classification

which was developed in Section 2. The advantage

of linking the discussion with the classification is

that it helps in indicating the strengths and weak-

101

motivation for developing the classification

scheme. We will list these observations and elaborate upon them, where necessary.

Not much research has been done with

stochastic models. Nearly all of the research has

been carried out under the assumption that the

processing times are deterministic.

Most of the work can be categorized under

the single machine case; only a few papers have

considered multiple machines in their models.

This is true despite the fact that most shop floors

employ more than one machine. Once again, we

feel that the lack of interest in the multiple

machine case has been due to the complex nature

of scheduling problems. It also indicates a shortcoming of the conventional techniques, and hence

the need to develop new methodologies to successfully deal with these problems.

The criteria most often used by researchers

seem to be related to job flowtime. Specifically,

performance measures involving individual, average or total, and weighted flowtime have been

most commonly used. Tardiness based performance measures, such as, number of tardy jobs

(n T) and maximum tardiness (Tmax) have also

been widely used. To provide a more realistic

criterion to measure schedule performance, researchers have often used cost functions. These

functions are usually in the form of penalties

based on some performance characteristics.

The solution methodology primarily comprises of implicit enumeration techniques such as,

branch and bound, dynamic programming, and

trade off curves. Successful implementation of

these techniques largely depends on identifying

special problem structure, i f any, and using this

information to devise fathoming criteria, A major

drawback of the implicit enumeration procedures

is the computation time requirement for larger

problems. Certain new procedures primarily designed to efficiently deal with large search spaces

have gained popularity over the past few years.

These include simulated annealing, tabu search,

and genetic algorithm. However, we have not

come across any paper using these techniques to

solve the multiple machine multiple criterion

scheduling problem.

Existing algorithms for integer programming

models have not been very successful in efficiently solving large scale scheduling problems.

102

Operational Research 5/3, 177-181.

A discussion o f p u b l i s h e d l i t e r a t u r e on m u l t i p i e a n d b i c r i t e r i a s c h e d u l i n g is p r e s e n t e d in this

p a p e r . T h e p a p e r s a r e g r o u p e d a c c o r d i n g to t h e

n u m b e r o f m a c h i n e s a n d c r i t e r i a i n c l u d e d in t h e

model. Only regular measures of performance

have b e e n i n c l u d e d in this review, since extensive

l i t e r a t u r e is a v a i l a b l e for n o n - r e g u l a r m e a s u r e s

n e c e s s i t a t i n g a s e p a r a t e survey. M o r e o v e r , F r y et

al. (1989) i n c l u d e s o m e p a p e r s involving n o n - r e g u l a r m e a s u r e s in t h e i r survey o n single m a c h i n e

m u l t i p l e objective r e s e a r c h . R a g h a v a c h a r i (1988)

a n d B a k e r a n d S c u d d e r (1990) p r o v i d e extensive

surveys for s c h e d u l i n g l i t e r a t u r e involving n o n regular performance measures. A possible reason

for s c a r c e r e s e a r c h in m u l t i p l e a n d b i c r i t e r i a

s c h e d u l i n g is t h e c o m b i n a t o r i a l n a t u r e o f t h e s e

p r o b l e m s . O u r survey shows t h a t t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l

t e c h n i q u e s have n o t b e e n v e r y successful a n d

h e n c e n e w p r o c e d u r e s n e e d to b e d e v e l o p e d .

T e c h n i q u e s such as, s i m u l a t e d a n n e a l i n g , t a b u

search, a n d g e n e t i c a l g o r i t h m s have b e e n successful in d e a l i n g w i t h c o m b i n a t o r i a l o p t i m i z a t i o n

p r o b l e m s . This m a k e s t h e m a g o o d c a n d i d a t e for

m u l t i p l e c r i t e r i a p r o b l e m s . It s h o u l d b e h o w e v e r

n o t e d t h a t all t h e s e t e c h n i q u e s a r e g e n e r i c in

n a t u r e a n d h e n c e n e e d to b e c o m p l e m e n t e d with

p r o b l e m specific k n o w l e d g e . This k n o w l e d g e is

u s u a l l y i n c o r p o r a t e d in t h e f o r m o f s p e c i a l i z e d

heuristics. It is h o p e d t h a t using p r o b l e m specific

h e u r i s t i c s in c o n j u n c t i o n with t h e s e g e n e r i c t e c h n i q u e s will p r o v i d e h y b r i d a l g o r i t h m s w h i c h a r e

a b l e to solve c o m p l e x m u l t i p l e a n d b i c r i t e r i a

s c h e d u l i n g p r o b l e m s . A n o t h e r issue t h a t n e e d s to

b e a d d r e s s e d in f u t u r e r e s e a r c h is t h e d e v e l o p ment of interactive models. The decision maker

can extract maximum possible information from

such m o d e l s . It also p r o v i d e s d e c i s i o n m a k e r s

w i t h m o r e l a t i t u d e in specifying a p r i o r i i n f o r m a tion or making decisions a posteriori.

References

Baker, K.R. (1974), Introduction to Sequencing and Scheduling, Wiley, New York.

Baker, K.R., and Scudder, G.D. (1990), "Sequencing with

earliness and tardiness penalties: A review", Operations

Research 38/1, 22-36.

Bansal, S.P. (1980), "Single machine scheduling to minimize

weighted sum of completion times with secondary criterion

linear delay penalties and sequence dependent setup

costs", Operations Research 29/1, 146-160.

Berry, P.M. (1990a), "Satisfying conflicting objectives in factory scheduling", in: Proceedings of the Conference on

Artificial Intelligence Applications at Santa Barbara, CA;

publ. by IEEE, Piscatway, NJ, 101-107.

Berry, P.M. (1990b), "Resolving conflicting objectives in factory scheduling", in: First International Conference on

Expert Planning System at Brighton, UK, IEEE Conf.

Publication No. 322, IEEE, Michael Faraday House,

Stevenage, UK, 16-21.

Bianco, L., and Ricciardelli, S. (1982), "Scheduling of a single

machine to minimize weighted completion time subject to

release dates", Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 29,

151-167.

Bowman, E.H. (1959), "The schedule-sequencing problem",

Operations Research 7, 621-624.

Brown, A.P.G., and Lomnicki, Z.A. (1966), "Some applications of the branch-and-bound algorithm to the machine

scheduling problem", Operations Research 7, 173-182.

Burns, R.N. (1976), "Scheduling to minimize weighted sum of

completion times with secondary criteria", Naval Research

Logistics Quarterly 23/1, 125-129.

Chand, S., and Schneeberger, H. (1984), "Single machine

scheduling to minimize weighted completion time with

maximum allowable tardiness", Working Paper, Krannert

Graduate School of Management, Purdue University.

Chand, S., and Schneeberger, H. (1986), "A note on the single

machine scheduling problem with minimum weighted completion time and maximum allowable tardiness", Naval

Research Logistics Quarterly 33/3, 551-557.

Cheng, T.C.E. (1991), "An improved solution procedure for

the n /1/max{Yi(Ci)} ~ C i scheduling problem", Journal

of the Operational Research Society 42/5, 413-417.

Cheun, C. (1989), "Multicriteria scheduling for a single machine: analysis and algorithms", Ph.D. Thesis, Auburn

University.

Cheun, C., and Bulfin, R.L. (1990), "Scheduling unit processing time jobs on a single machine with multiple criteria",

Computers & Operations Research 17/1, 1-7.

Coffman, Jr., E.G. (1976), Computer and Job Shop Scheduling

Theory, Wiley, New York.

Conway, R.W., Maxwell, W.L., and Miller, L.W. (1967), The

Theory of Scheduling, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Daniels, R.M. (1990), "A multi-objective approach to resource allocation in scheduling", European Journal of Operational Research 48/2, 226-241.

Dantzig, G.B. (1960), "A machine-job scheduling problem",

Management Science 6, 191-196.

De, P., Ghosh, J.B., and Wells, C.E. (1991), "Some clarifications on the bicriteria scheduling of unit execution time

jobs on a single machine", Computers & Operations Research 18/8, 717-720.

Deckro, R., Hebert, J., and Winkofsky, E. (1982), "Multiple

criteria job shop scheduling", Computers & Operations Research 9/4, 279-285.

Dileepan, P., and Sen, T. (1988), "Bicriterion static scheduling research for a single machine", Omega 16/1, 53-59.

Dileepan, P., and Sen, T. (1991), "Bicriteria scheduling with

total flowtime and sum of squared lateness", Engineering

Costs and Production Economics 21/8, 295-299.

Dudek, R.A., Panwalker, S.S., and Smith, M.L. (1992), "The

lessons of flowshop scheduling research", Operations Research 40/1, 7-13.

Emmons, H. (1975a), "A note on scheduling problems with

dual criteria", Naval Research Logistics Quaterly 22/3,

615-616.

Emmons, H. (1975b), "One machine sequencing to minimize

mean flowtime with minimum number tardy", Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 22, 585-592.

French, S. (1982), Sequencing and Scheduling, Ellis Horwood,

Chichester, UK.

Frieze, A.M., and Yadegar, J. (1989), "New integer programming formulation for the permutation flowshop problem",

European Journal of Operational Research 40/1, 90-98.

Fry, T.D., Armstrong, R.D., and Lewis, H. (1989), "A framework for single machine multiple objective sequencing

research", Omega 17/6, 595-607.

Garcia, F. (1982), "Multiple objectives criteria in sequencing

problems on a single machine", Jonrnadas Mathematicas

Hispano-Lucas, Actas IX, Spain, 615-617.

Gonzalez, J., and Reeves, G. (1983), "Master production

scheduling: A multiple objective linear programming approach", International Journal of Production Research

21/4, 553-562.

Greenberg, H.H. (1968), " A branch and bound solution to the

general scheduling problem", Operations Research 16/2,

353-361.

Heck, H., and Roberts, S. (1972), " A note on the extension of

a result on scheduling with secondary criteria", Naval

Research Logistics Quarterly 19, 403-405.

Huckert, H., Rhode, R., and Roglin, O., Weber, R. (1980),

"On the interactive solution to the multi-criteria scheduling problem", Computers & Operations Research 24, 47-60.

Ignall, E., and Schrage, S. (1965), "Applications of branch and

bound technique to some flowshop scheduling problems",

Operations Research 13, 400-412.

Ignizio, J.P. (1984), " A generalized goal programming approach to the minimal interference, multi-criteria, N x 1

scheduling problem", IIE Transactions 16/4, 316-322.

John, T.C. (1989), "Tradeoffs solutions in one machine productive scheduling for minimizing flowtime and maximum

penalty", Computers & Operations Research 16/50, 471479.

John, T.C., and Sadowski, R.P. (1984), "On a bicriteria

scheduling problem", Presented at the T I M S / O R S A

meeting at Dallas, TX.

Kao, E.P.C. (1980), "A multiple objective decision theoretic

approach to one machine scheduling problems", Computers & Operations Research 7/4, 251-259.

Lawler, E.L. (1973), "Optimal sequencing of a single machine

subject to precedence constraints", Management Science

19/5, 544-546.

Lenstra, J.K., Rinnooy Kan, A.H.G., and Brucker, P. (1979),

"Complexity of machine scheduling problems", Annals of

Discrete Mathematics 1, 343-362.

Lin, S.K. (1983), "Hybrid algorithm for sequencing with bicriteria, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 39,

105-124.

Little, J.D.C., Murty, K.G., Sweeney, D.W., and Karel, C.

103

(1963), "An algorithm for the Travelling Salesman Problem", Operations Research 11, 979-989.

Manne, A.S. (1960), "On the jobshop scheduling problem",

Operations Research 8, 219-223.

Miyazaki, S. (1981), "One machine scheduling problem with

dual criteria", Journal of the Operations Research Society

of Japan 24/1, 37-50.

Moore, J.M. (1968), "An n job, one machine sequencing

algorithm for minimizing the number of late jobs", Management Science 15/1, 102-109.

Morin, T.L., and Marsten, R.E. (1976), "Branch and bound

strategies for dynamic programming", Operations Research

24, pp. 611-627.

Nagar, A., Heragu, S., and Haddock, J. (1992), "A branch and

bound approach to the bicriterion scheduling problem",

Technical Report No. 37-92-315, Rensselaer Polytechnic

Institute, Troy, NY 12180.

Nelson, R.T., Sarin, R.K., and Daniels, R.L. (1986), "Scheduling with multiple performance measures: The one-machine case", Management Science 32, 464-479.

Norbis, M.I., and Smith, J.M. (1988), "A multi-objective

multi-level heristic for dynamic resource constrained

scheduling problems", European Journal of Operational

Research 33, 30-41.

Pritsker, A.A., Watters, L.J., and Wolfe, D.M. (1969), "Multiproject scheduling with limited resources: A zero-one

programming approach", Management Science 16-10, 93108.

Raghavachari, M. (1988), "Scheduling problems with non-regular penalty functions - A review", Opsearch 25/3, 144164.

Selen, W.J., and Hott, D. (1986), "A mixed integer goal

programming formulation of the standard flow-shop

scheduling problem", Journal of the Operational Research

Society 37/12, 1121-1128.

Sen, T., and Gupta, S.IC (1983), " A branch and bound to

solve a bicriterion scheduling problem", lIE Transactions

15, 84-88.

Sen, T., Raiszadeh, M.E., and Dileepan, P. (1988), "A branch

and bound approach to the bicriterion scheduling problem

involving total flowtime and range of lateness", Management Science 34/2, 254-260.

Shanthikumar, J.G. (1983), "Scheduling n jobs on one machine to minimize the maximum tardiness with minimum

number tardy", Computers & Operations Research 10/3,

255-266.

Slowinski, R. (1981)~ "Multi-objective network scheduling with

efficient use of renewable and nonrenewable resources",

European Journal of Operational Research 7, 265-273.

Smith, W.E. (1956), "Various optimizers for single stage production", Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 3/1, 59-66.

Trzaskalik, T. (1989), "Multi-objective, multi-period planning

for a manufacturing plant", Engineering Costs and Production Economics 20/2, 113-120.

Van Wassenbove, L.N., and Baker, ICR. (1982), "A bicriterion approach to time/cost trade-offs in sequencing",

European Journal of Operational Research 11, 48-54.

Van Wassenhove, L.N., and Gelders, F. (1978), "Four solution techniques for a general one machine scheduling

problem: A comparative study", European Journal of Operational Research 2/4, 281-290.

Van Wassenhove, L.N., and Gelders, F. (1980), "Solving a

104

Vickson, R.G. (1980), "Choosing the job sequence and processing times to minimize total processing plus flow cost

on a single machine", Operations Research 28/5, 11551167.

Wagner, H.M. (1959), "An integer programming model for

machine scheduling", Naval Research Logistics Quarterly

6, 131-140.

the job-shop scheduling problem", Management Science

38/7, 1018-1033.

Wilson, J.M. (1989), "Alternative formulation of a flowshop

scheduling problem", Journal of the Operational Research

Society 40/4, 395-399.

- Preguntas_PEM_3Uploaded byWilson Ortiz
- !!!!KuwaitUploaded bypunct_0
- jay17Uploaded byPunith Raaj
- opt-lp1Uploaded byPinky Jena
- integer programmingUploaded bymissMIT
- 08 LinearUploaded bychilledkarthik
- 57c82ea6221906e563c5cf8acba19f84Uploaded byMoseley Miranda
- AJEE_15_2_AlbrechtUploaded byIago
- Lyamin y Sloan, 2002b.pdfUploaded byMarco Antonio Serrano Ortega
- one note.pdfUploaded bytomaleks007
- 171901(25.11.14)Uploaded byVIPUL
- Blending module.pdfUploaded byBrandy Gonzalez
- ZR-05-31Uploaded byumairned
- Linear Programming ProblemUploaded byrdeepak99
- Lecture 4 - Randomized Algorithms for Linear ProgrammingUploaded bygdenunzio
- Case Study MMTEUploaded bySaurabh Kumar Sharma
- Feasibility Pump - Fishetti e LodiUploaded byRafael Henrique
- 1-s2.0-S0005109801000541-mainUploaded byMiloš Milenković
- 978-0-387-95864-4Uploaded bytoneiam
- matlabUploaded byZawali DzArticles
- Computer Engineering Sample SopUploaded byBalaprakash Sugumar
- 39-77-1-PBUploaded byAparna Rajasekharan
- data leakage detectionUploaded byPallavi Gowda
- M3L2Uploaded bySayali Ketkar
- cfol03Uploaded bysuhail.rizwan
- smu mca -MC0079Uploaded byShrikant Bhardwaj
- IJETR041206Uploaded byerpublication
- Design Basic in dUploaded bydarkruse
- 000Uploaded byTanmoy Das
- MB0048 spring drive 2012 solvedUploaded byashish15666

- Multiobjective Production Scheduling a SurveyUploaded bybiz
- The Lagrangian Relaxation Method for Solving Integer Programming ProblemsUploaded bybiz
- VocabulaireUploaded bybiz
- vnsUploaded bybiz
- Resource Constrained Assignment ProblemsUploaded bybiz
- Ingle Machine Scheduling to Minimize Total Weighted Earliness Subject to Minimal Number of Tardy JobsUploaded bybiz
- Presentation 12 (Location I)Uploaded bybiz
- New Solution Methods for Single Machine Bicriteria Scheduling Problem- Minimization of Average Flowtime and Number of Tardy JobsUploaded bybiz
- Using Mathematical Programming and Simulation to Study FMS Machine UtilizationsUploaded bybiz
- mainUploaded bybiz
- Using Genetic Algorithms for Single-machine Bicriteria Scheduling ProblemsUploaded bybiz
- Multicriteria SchedulingUploaded bybiz
- Lagrangian Based Approach to Solve a Two Level Capacitated Lot Sizing ProblemUploaded bybiz
- lectureUploaded bybiz
- Bi-criteria Scheduling Problems- Number of Tardy Jobs and Maximum Weighted TardinessUploaded bybiz
- Bicriterion Stochastic Scheduling on One or More MachinesUploaded bybiz
- Queeing Theorem _ExampleUploaded bybiz
- Waiting Line ManagementUploaded bybiz
- Introduction to SimioUploaded bybiz
- A survey of the state-of-the-art of common due date assignment and scheduling researchUploaded bybiz
- Bi-criteria Scheduling on Parallel Machines Under Fuzzy Processing TimeUploaded bybiz
- Simio Reference GuideUploaded byVishal Tamraparni
- Ga for Bin Packing and Line BalancingUploaded bybiz
- Queueing ToolsUploaded bypillushn
- Chap 01 SlidesUploaded byramu reddy
- Computer SimulationUploaded bykim
- Bescherelle_ConjugaisonUploaded bybiz
- Discrete Event Simulation ModelingUploaded bySamrat Mukhopadhyay

- AssignmentUploaded byRavi Kumar
- Opearting SystemUploaded bylovishsindhwani
- Lec-4-Algo-Spr15-Recursion.pptUploaded byZoHaib Ahmed
- Me ResumeUploaded bygsvamsi
- Exploiting Generative Models in Discriminative Classifiers PDFUploaded byMelissa
- AssignmentUploaded byPriya Bhatnagar
- Big endian vs Little endian.pdfUploaded byTsurue
- Operating Systems SyllabusUploaded byrockin_ravi_vit
- 4.2BSD and 4.3BSD as Examples of the UNIX System - John S. Quarterman, Abraham Silberschatz and James L. PetersonUploaded bysungoduk
- ARM7TDMIUploaded byArihant Khanagond
- List of Predatory Journals _ Stop Predatory JournalsUploaded byMuralitharan Jothimani
- e50242da313cc708cac89f54e30ce75fb434.pdfUploaded byAzhar mohd
- Computer 6Uploaded byPrince John Ladia II
- Acceleration of Solving Maxwell’s Equations Using Cluster of GPUsUploaded byJournal of Telecommunications
- Fft QueriesUploaded byAnnapurna Kamadi
- MinorsUploaded byMisolovo123
- Learning to Play Othello Without Human KnowledgeUploaded byAnonymous 6VQrirYk
- Fast Fourier Transform Algorithms and Applications PDFUploaded byKatie
- CPP PresentationUploaded byapi-3754742
- Zapdf.com Education Industry and You a Vital AllianceUploaded byBong Tho
- Cs101_Lec02Uploaded byFahad Nabeel
- 1 soft computingUploaded bySumit Kumar
- managers-guide-to-mixing-agile-and-waterfall.pdfUploaded byGpineda
- Software Engineering Breakdown HierarchyUploaded byninisbppt
- Signature Recognition System AnalysisUploaded byfdacunha
- Dist DebugUploaded byliuyl
- Metodología: Feature Driven DevelopmentUploaded byRoger Zavala
- Eligible Programmes Si Scholarships for Global Professionals 2019Uploaded bySajjad Hossain Shuvo
- Dijk StraUploaded byDerlis Walter Hodge
- Ashutosh Jain (CISA-Qualified, CEH, M.sc IT)Uploaded byAmit Kumar