Professional Documents
Culture Documents
An Introduction To Goal Programming
An Introduction To Goal Programming
1.1 INTRODUCTION
After the II world war, the, Industrial world faced a depression and to solve the
various industrial problems. Industrialist tried the models, which were successful in
solving their problems. Industrialist learnt that the techniques of OR can conveniently
apply to solve industrial problems. Then onwards, various models of OR/GP have
been developed to solve industrial problems. In fact GP models are helpful to the
managers to solve various problems; they face in their day to day work. These models
are used to minimize the cost of production, increase the productivity and use the
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the goal programming (GP) and
relationship of GP within the fields of multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) will
be discussed. Specifically, this chapter seeks to introduce and describe different type
of GP models that will be used throughout this thesis. Over the past five decades,
research in the field of industry. This chapter will also introduce some definition of GP
related.
2
1.2 DEFINITIONS
Decision Variable: A decision variable is defined as a factor over which the decision
decision problem can be measured. There are many possible criteria arising from
different fields of application but some of the most commonly arising relate at the
highest level to
Cost
Profit
Time
Distance
Performance of a system
Safety considerations
A decision problem which has more than one criterion is therefore referred to
problem. The space formed by the set of criteria is known as criteria space.
3
Achievement Function: The function that serves to measure the achievement of the
continuous or discrete variables, in which all functions have been transformed into
goals.
solve linear goal programs. More recently it defines certain specific models and
Negative Deviation: The amount of deviation for a given goal by which it is less than
Positive Deviation: The amount of deviation for a given goal by which it exceeds the
aspiration level.
Satisfice: An old Scottish word referring to the desire, in the real world, to find a
practical solution to a given problem, rather than some utopian result for an
satisfied in order for the solution to be implementable in practice. This is distinct from
the concept of a goal whose non-achievement does not automatically make the
4
only take certain values within its range. The most common sign restriction is for the
Feasible Region: The set of solutions in decision space that satisfy all constraints and
sign restrictions in a goal programming form the feasible region. Any solution that
Trade-off: A trade-off (or tradeoff) is a situation that involves losing one quality or
aspect of something in return for gaining another quality or aspect. It often implies a
decision to be made with full comprehension of both the upside and downside of a
particular choice; the term is also used in an evolutionary context, in which case the
conflicting objective measures. Each of these measures is given a goal or target value
to be achieved. Unwanted deviations from this set of target values are then minimized
goal programming variant used. As satisfaction of the target is deemed to satisfy the
5
(2) Determine the degree of attainment of the goals with the available resources.
(3) Providing the best satisfying solution under a varying amount of resources and
rational, but also suggests that he is the optimizer who strives to allocate scarce
relevant aspects of the decision environment, a stable system of preference, and ability
of the firm have raised a question as to whether such assumptions regarding economic
man can be applied to the decision maker in any realistic sense. For an individual to be
According to broad empirical investigation, however, there is no evidence that any one
problem.
6
maximization of profits. If this were the situation, decision analysis would not be such
a difficult task. In reality, the decision maker may have only a vague idea as to what is
the best outcome for the organization in a global sense. Furthermore, he often is
incapable of identifying the optimal choice due to either his lack of analytical ability
evidence which suggests that the practice of decision making is affected by the
Schubik [1964]. Indeed, scientific methodology and rational choice are not always
with his environment, and always relates possible decision outcomes and their
consequences to its unique conditions. This concern with the environment context of
the decision results in modifications which further remove him from the classical
Decision making, purely based on past experiences, judgment and intuition has
become rather difficult. The human mind is also not capable of perceiving in all details
more than seven parameters, on an average, at a time. The decision making is no more
an art where the decision maker can apply mental models to find solution. It is
Today, effective and timely decisions are crucial for successful management of
useful. These techniques were found application to industries. In the present scenario,
the decision maker has to deal with vast data, number of alternatives and different
decision situations before taking any decision. At the same time, the rapid
multi-objective type.
the foundation for decision making. Decisions are also constrained by environmental
factors such as government regulations, welfare of the public and long-run effects of
the decision on environmental conditions (i.e., pollution, quality of life, use of non-
renewable resources etc). In order to determine the best course of action, therefore, a
The issue becomes one of value trade-offs in the complex socio-economic structure of
hand, it is extremely difficult to answer questions such as what should be done now,
what can be deferred, what alternatives are to be explored, and what should be the
Consequently, one of the most important and difficult aspects of any decision
concerning the future of the industrialized society have echoed the same theme. When
the system must be obtained by achieving a delicate balance among such multiple
and use of natural resources, international co-operation for economic stability, and
civil rights and equal opportunity provisions. There is obviously a need for continuous
as one who attempts to achieve a set of objectives to the fullest possible extent in an
advantage of using goal programming over other techniques is with dealing with real-
world decision problems is that it reflects the way manages actually make decisions.
organizational, and managerial consideration into model through goal levels and
substantial improvement in the modeling and analysis of the real life situation. The
9
functions and continuous or discrete variables. Further, the general goal programming
model provides a relatively reasonable structure under which the traditional, single
objective tools (such as linear and nonlinear programming) may be viewed simply as
special cases.
has its actual implementation. The initial development of the concept of goal
1961 although Charnes, Cooper and Ferguson claim that the idea actually originated in
1955. In essence they proposed a model and approach for dealing with certain linear
constraints. Since it might well be impossible to satisfy exactly all such goals, one
attempts to minimize the sum of the absolute values of the deviation from such goals.
Goal programming now encompasses any linear, integer, zero-one, or nonlinear multi-
objective problem, for which preemptive priorities may be established, the field of
manner as for linear programming, the difference being that the details of all the
objective functions are entered in the desired priority. Another approach to goal
the problem. The objective function is then to minimize the deviation from the stated
goals. The deviations represented by the objective function are given weights as
coefficients in accordance with priorities assigned to the various goals. The problem is
then solved using the linear programming model; hence sensitivity analysis is also
feasible.
context of solving the multi-objective problems in different areas for taking the
efficient, timely and accurate decision. The various researches have been made so far
and the researchers have been continually exploring this field for more than five
decades and even today the process is on to gets a lucid picture of this tool attributing
Cooper [1961]. The tool was extended and enhanced by their student and, later, by
other investigators, most notably Ijiri [1965], Jaaskelanen [1969], Lee and Clayton
[1970], Ignizio [1976], Gass [1986], Romero [1991], Tamiz and Jones [1996]. Since
then many researchers have done a lot of work about extensions of goal programming
al., [1998] such as production planning, financial planning, capital budgeting planning,
etc.
specific problem type with the identified multiple objectives and the solution
generation problem with interval-valued target goals. Dean and Schniederjans [1990]
management for rice production in West Bengal. Golany et al. [1991] proposed a goal
programming inventory control model applied at a large chemical plant. This proposed
model yielded an efficient compromise solution and the overall levels of decision
making satisfaction with the multiple fuzzy goal values. Larbani and Aouni [2011]
presented a new approach for generating efficient solutions within the goal
programming model followed by the efficient test for the goal programming solution.
Leung and Ng [2007] presents a goal programming model for production planning of
perishable products. Mukherjee and Bera [1995] discussed the solution of a project
selection by applying goal programming technique. Sen and Nandi [2012a] applied a
goal programming approach to rubber plantation planning in Tripura. Sen and Nandi
12
[2012b] formulated an optimal model by using goal programming for rubber wood
door manufacturing factory in Tripura. Sen and Nandi [2012c] reviewed goal
programming and its application in plantation management. Sinha and Sen [2011]
approach to maximize production quantity to make tea, profit and demand and
Barak Valley of Assam in order to flourish the tea industries. Tamiz et al. [1996]
oil industry.
Leung and Chan [2009] developed a preemptive goal programming model for
Ghiani et al. [2003] proposed a mixed integer linear goal programming model
Italian textile company which resulted to outperform the hand-made solutions put to
use by the management so far. Lee et al. [1989] formulating industrial development
policies by a zero-one goal programming approach. Nja and Udofia [2009] formulated
the mixed integer goal programming model for flour producing companies. Pati et al.
management of the paper recycling logistics system. Silva da [2013] proposed multi-
13
choice mixed integer goal programming optimization for real problems in a sugar and
work force costs, carrying inventory costs and rates of changes in work force using
programming for optimizing service industry market using virtual intelligent agent.
Mekidiche et al. [2013] applied weighted additive fuzzy goal programming approach
to aggregate production planning. Petrovic and Akoz [2008] proposed a fuzzy goal
programming model for solving the problem of loading and scheduling of a batch
programming model for aggregate production and logistics planning for increase profit
technique for solving the vender selection problem with multiple objectives. Tsai et al.
approach with priority for channel allocation problem in steel industry. Mustafa
planning. Arthur and Lawrence [1982] proposed a multiple goal production and
Lee and Shim [1986] established priorities for small business by interactive
multiple objective decision methods were proposed by Masud and Hwang [1981,
along with AHP strategy for tracking and tackling environmental risk production
planning problem that minimizes damages and wastes in dairy production system.
programming with multiple objectives. It was refined by Ijiri in 1965. The major
differences are an explicit consideration of goals and the various priorities associated
composed of deviational variables only. In the formulation two types of variable are
used. They are decision variables and deviational variables. There are two categories
programming) and goal constraints, which are expressions of the original functions
with target goals, set priorities and positive and negative deviational variables.
The goal programming model may be categorized in terms of how the goals
preemptive. In cases of preemptive goals programming, the goals are assigned priority
15
levels. The goals are ranked from the most important (goal 1) to the least important
(goal m) and the objective function coefficient assigned for the (deviational) variable
representing goal is Pi. Rather they are convenient way of indicating that one goal is
important than the other. These coefficients indicate that the weight of goal 1 is much
larger about the value or cost of a goal or a sub goal, but often can determine its upper
or lower limits. The decision maker can determine the priority of the desired
attainment of each goal or sub goal and rank the priorities in an ordinal sequence.
Obviously, it is not possible to achieve every goal to the extent desired. Thus, with or
without goal programming, the decision maker attaches a certain priority to the
achievement of a particular goal. The true value of goal programming, therefore, is its
Charnes and Cooper [1977] presented the general goal programming model
i i (1)
i 1
n
Goal constraints: aij x j di di bi , for i 1,..., m
j 1
16
n
System constraints: aij x j bi , for i m 1,..., m p
j 1
with d i , d i , xj
simultaneously. Hence, either one or both of these variable must have a zero value;
that is,
Both variables apply for the non-negativity requirement as to all other linear
i i
Minimize both under- and
overachievement
n n
1
di aij x j bi aij x j bi
2 j 1 j 1
n n
and i ij j i ij j i .
j 1 j 1
constrints) and the same nonnegative restriction on the decision variables as the LP
model. It should be mentioned that some GP researchers (see Ignizio 1985b) feel that
the term objective function is not an accurate term and the terms achievement function
priority level being infinitely more important than any deviations in lower priority
programming. Iserman [1982], Sherali [1982] and Ignizio [1983a] stated the
used when there exist a clear priority ordering amongst the goals to be achieved.
priority classes. Here, it is assumed that no two goals have equal priority. The goals
are given ordinal ranking and are called preemptive priority factors. These priority
the P1 goal is so much more important than the P2 goal and P2 goal will never be
attempted until the P1 goal is achieved to the greatest extent possible. The priority
relationship implies that multiplication by n, however large it may be, cannot make the
i i i (2)
i 1
n
Goal constraints: aij x j di di bi , for i 1,..., m
j 1
n
System constraints: aij x j bi , for i m 1,..., m p
j 1
where there are m goals, p system constaints, k priority levels and n decision variables
Here, the difference between equations (1) and (2) is the priority factors in the
objective function.
variables at the same priority level shows the relative importance of each deviation.
Charnes and Cooper (1977) stated the weighted goal programming model as:
i i i i (3)
i 1
n
Goal constraints: aij x j di di bi , for i 1,..., m
j 1
n
System constraints: aij x j bi , for i m 1,..., m p
j 1
20
assigned to the respective positive and negative deviation variables. The relative
weights may be any real number, where the greater the weight the greater the assigned
importance to minimize the respective deviation variable to which the relative weight
is attached. This model is a non-preemptive model that seeks to minimize the total
While Ijiri (1965) had introduced the idea of combining preemptive priorities
and weighting, Charnes and Cooper (1977) suggested the goal programming model as:
m ni
i ik i ik i (4)
i 1 k 1
n
Goal constraints: aij x j di di bi , for i 1,..., m
j 1
n
System constraints: aij x j bi , for i m 1,..., m p
j 1
[1976]. It uses to minimize the maximum unwanted deviation, rather than the sum of
weighted GP model in (3) can view as the two extreme types of GP models in which
(sometimes conflicting) objectives. While that definition also applies to GP, MCDM is
Furthermore, GP can provide a unifying basis for most MCDM models and methods.
With this purpose, extended lexicographic goal programming has recently been
proposed.
The various points of origin, methodology and future directions for MCDM
can be found in Starr and Zeleny [1977], Hwang et al. [1980], Rosenthal [1985],
Steuer [1983] and more in Dyer [1973], Fishburn [1974], Steuer [1986], Zionts and
22
antially
On the conceptual level the relationship of MCDM and GP can be seen in what
Zionts [1992] calls the four subareas that make up MCDM. These four subareas that
comprise MCDM are listed in Table 1.2. According to Zionts [1992] the subarea of
contributor to this subarea of MCDM. Indeed, Zoints and Wallenius [1976] suggest
that the development of GP was a beginning point for MCDM, particularly this
subarea. How can one distinguish a GP model from the other multiple criteria
mathematical programming models? In most cases, the MCDM models in this subarea
Goal programming
Fuzzy GP
ANALYSIS
One of the most promising techniques for multiple objective decision analysis
is goal programming. Goal programming is a powerful tool which draws upon the
programming can handle decision problems having a single goal with multiple sub
goals. The technique was originally introduced by Charnes and Cooper [1961], and
further developed by Jaaskelainen [1969], Lee and Bird [1970], Lee [1972] and
Ignizio [1976]. Then many researchers such as Kwak and Schniederjans [1979, 1985],
Ignizio [1987, 1989], Hallefjord and Jornsten [1988], Reaves and Hedin [1993],
Hemaida and Kwak [1994], Bryson [1995], Easton and Rossin [1996] etc., surveyed,
case study and applications of goal programming and multiple criteria decision
making (MCDM) and concentrate his views for overview of techniques for solving
of MCDM methods given by Zanakis and Gupta [1985], Steuer [1986], Romero
[1986], Tamiz and Jones [1995] etc. is usual practice to differentiate methods based on
deals with decision making problem with multiple objectives. Often goals set by
incommensurable.
24
conflicting goals so that low order goals are satisfied or have reached the point beyond
which no further improvements are desirable. If the decision maker can provide an
organization and if all relationships of the model are linear, the problem can be solved
by goal programming.
and what can be achieved within the given set of constraints are minimized. In the
simplex algorithm of linear programming such deviations are called slack variables.
variable is represented in two dimensions, both positive and negative deviations from
each sub goal or goal. Then the objective function becomes the minimization of these
The solution of any linear programming problem is based on the cardinal value
allows for an ordinal solution. The decision maker may be unable to obtain
information about the value or cost of a goal or a sub goal, but often can determine its
software (or computers) to help support the growth of this computationally dependent
The purpose of this chapter is to review all of the various types of GP solution
methodologies that have appeared in this thesis. This review includes the primary GP
algorithms and methodology used to generate linear GP, integer GP and nonlinear GP
solutions for GP models. We will begin by categorizing them into four groups of
Linear GP (which includes all linear based GP solution methods), Integer GP (which
includes methodology used to generate all integer, mixed integer and zero-one integer
and a final other group for all methodology that does not fit into the other three
groups.
26
proof for solving LP models structured as GP problems can be found in Charnes and
Cooper [1961, pp. 210-215]. With the improvements of preemption, the generalized
inverse approach and the illustrative use of the simplex based algorithm by Iziri
the LP proof by Charnes and Cooper [1961] was sufficient to justify the mathematical
[1973].
Some GP algorithms can only be used with a single type of GP model; others
have been designed to handle a wider variety of GP models. This logic has been taken
to the extreme in MULTIPLEX model and algorithm see Ignizio [1985a], which
claims to be able to work with LP, weighted GP, preemptive GP and fuzzy GP
models.
The basic algorithms used to solve the weighted GP, preemptive GP and their
combinations are available in Ignizio [1976, 1982], Iziri [1965], Lee [1972] and
Alp and Murray [1996], Arthur and Ravindran [1978], Reduced size algorithms
analysis
Charnes and Cooper [1977], Evans and Steuer [1973], Mathematical proofs for GP
Romero [2001]
Bhargava et al. [2011], Kettani et al. [2004], Knoll and Weighted GP methodologies
Arthur and Ravindran [1980], Charnes and Cooper Algorithms for both models
methodologies
Crowder and Sposito [1987], Ignizio [1985a, 1987] Solution by dual solution
Akgul [1984], Alvord [1983], Baran et al. [2013], General discussion of issues
integer LP problems one of the most common integer methodologies is the branch-
and-bound solution method. Arthur and Ravindran [1980] developed their branch-and-
integer solutions the most commonly approach is some type of enumeration method.
Garrod and Moores [1978] developed their zero-one GP solution methodology using
the same approach. Ali et al. [2011] applied an integer goal programming approach for
According to Saber and Ravindran [1993] there are four major approaches to
nonlinear GP:
adapted by Ignizio [1976] for GP. This methodology permits nonlinear goal
programming. Originally developed by Miller [1963], this approach was modified for
included in the GP model by restricting the range of the decision variables into
separable functions that are assumed linear. This methodology is based on the logic of
deviation variables in the objective function. For a good review of the mechanics of
30
nonlinear GP algorithms and methodology see (Ringuest and Gulledge [1982] and
(2) Direct search based nonlinear GP methods utilize some type of logical search
pattern or methods to obtain a solution that may or may not be the best satisfying
solution. The logic process is based on repeated attempts to improve a given solution
by evaluating its objective function and/or goal constraints. The basic search idea
originated with Box [1965], but was applied to GP by many others including Nanda et
al. [1988]. Hooke and Jeeves [1961] developed a single objective, continuous variable,
unconstrained optimization method that was later adopted for GP by Ignizio [1976]
(3) Gradient based nonlinear GP methods use calculus or partial derivatives of the
nonlinear goal constraints or the objective function to determine the direction in which
the algorithm is to search for a solution and the amount of movement necessary to
achieve that solution. While gradient based methods are generally more efficient in
obtaining a solution, they may not be appropriate for GP models whose goal
Lee [1985a], Lee and Olson [1985], and Olson and Swenseth [1987] all
developed a version of a gradient method for GP called the chance constraint method.
obtained its probabilistic or chance name. The use of the chance constraint method
requires the assumption that the technological coefficients are normally distributed.
31
Developed for linear GP by Arthur and Ravindran [1978] using a simplex based
solutions. It works on the basis of finding smaller subproblems that lead to an optimal
solution. By solving these smaller problems and eliminating decision variables form
the model, the size of the model is reduced. A special version of the gradient based
method is called the decomposition method. The decomposition method can solve
Dantzig and Wolfe [1960] LP decomposition method, where large models are
decomposed into smaller sub models whose solution will be used to generate the
solution to the original larger model. Algorithms and research on the decomposition
methods for GP can be found in Ruefli [1971], Sweeney et al. [1978], Lee [1983], and
methodology for example can be used to model and solve some classes of stochastic
but one that involves periodic feedback to the decision maker to guide the direction of
the search. The term sequential goal programming (SGP) is often used with the
Interactive GP has been used for all types of GP models (i.e., linear GP, integer
GP and nonlinear GP). Any of the methods that are used to solve GP problems can be
the mechanics of the various methods see Van and Nijkamp [1977], Spronk [1981].
There are at least four other algorithm based methodologies that are
(1) Interval GP
(2) Fractional GP
(4) Fuzzy GP
Each of these other methodologies can and often are used with linear GP,
integer GP and nonlinear GP models. They also offer unique modeling features that
(1) Interval GP: Interval GP allows parameters, particularly the right-hand-side goal
33
where an upper boundary, bu and lower boundary, bl for the right-hand-side values can
be stated as:
bl ijxj u (1)
constraints:
where the du+ and dl- are both minimized in the objective function and the other
deviation variables are free to permit some compromised value for the resulting right-
hand-side value. This method can be used to deal with a variety of formulation issues
goals or targets see Min and Storbeck [1991]. Vitoriano and Romero [1994] proposed
means for dealing with fractional values. For a review of some of the controversy see
34
Hannan [1977, 1981] and Soyster and Lev [1978]. Fractional GP is also an extension
of LP, called fractional LP see Martos [1964], Bitran and Novaes [1973].
(3) Duality Solution: It has been shown that GP models can be solved more
efficiently and without some computational problems by solving the dual formulation
of the GP model see Dauer and Krueger [1977], Ignizio [1985a]. This method is not
without its problems as observed by Crowder and Sposito [1987] and replied to by
(4) Fuzzy GP: Fuzzy GP is based on fuzzy set theory. Fuzzy sets are used to describe
imprecise goals. These goals are usually associated with objective functions and are
used to reflect both a weighting (with values from zero to one) and range of goal
achievement possibilities. The numerical relationship between the goal of profit and
utility in the profit occurrences. The relationship between the weighting and the profit
function can be linear or nonlinear. Most importantly, this methodology allows the
decision maker who cannot precisely define goals to at least express them using a
weighting structure that is not limited. This makes fuzzy programming an idea
approach when utility function type goals are to be used in the GP model.
Fazlollahtabar et al. [2013] proposed a fuzzy goal programming model for optimizing
service industry market by using virtual intelligent agent. Kumar et al. [2004]
approached a fuzzy goal programming for vendor selection problem in a supply chain.
1.8.2.1 Duality in GP
dual decision variable) of each of the right-hand-side values in terms of the single
objective function units (Fand and Puthenpura [1993], pp. 56-72). The same basic
be found in Markowski and Ignizio [1983a, 1983b], Ogryczak [1986, 1988b] and
contribution in GP models has to be in terms of all of other goals in the model. That is,
the marginal contribution of one goal in terms of all other goals. An excellent
Chapter 18).
36
Other studies have extended duality analysis in GP. An iterative algorithm with
its dual formulation was discussed by Dauer and Krueger [1977]. Ben-Tal and
Teboulle [1986] added an even greater degree of complexity to the use of duality with
models have also been shown to enhance computational efficiency for solving GP
problems when compared to other standard algorithms see Dauer and Krueger [1977],
Ignizio [1985].
According to Ignizio ([1982], Chapter 19) there are seven types of changes that
Most of these have been illustrated by application see in Lee [1972], Ignizio
[1982], Schniederjans [1984], all provide basic methodologies for undertaking these
computer coding for a FORTRAN program presented the first published source of
software for all the various types of weighted and preemptive linear GP models. Other
ode that
of a package of software. Other specialized computer codes whose ability to deal with
a smaller subset of GP problem soving have been developed over the years.
Unfortunately, most such codes do not end up in journal publications and even
their applications are not always reported until years after they appear in the literature.
The Lee [1993] used the AB:QM, version 3.1, microcomputer or PC which was more
adequate to do solve the small problems. The AB:QM software can handle a 50 goal
converted into the linear GP equivalent. AB:QM also does not provide duality or
sensitivity analysis for GP models. Excel solver are most commonly used in GP
models.
models could be processed by their software. There are list of some advanced
AMPL Boyd & Fraser Pub. Linear GP, Integer GP, Nonlinear GP,
Ferncroft Village
Danvers, MA 01923
CPLEX Mixed CPLEX Optm. Inc. Linear GP, Integer GP, Nonlinear GP,
Incline Village,
NV89451
GAMS Boyd & Fraser Pub. Linear GP, Integer GP, Nonlinear GP,
Ferncroft Village
Danvers, MA 01923
Extended LINDO LINDO Systems Linear GP, Integer GP, Duality, Sensitivity
Chicago, IL 60622
HS/LP Haverly Syst. Inc. P. Linear GP, Integer GP, Nonlinear GP,
NJ 07834 Analysis
39
MINOS, NPSOL and Stanford Business Linear GP, Integer GP, Nonlinear GP,
View. CA 94043
MPSX-MIP/370 Altium, of IBM IBM Linear GP, Integer GP, Nonlinear GP,
MS 936 Duality,
Kingston, NY 12401
Solvers Frontline Systs. Inc. Linear GP, Integer GP, Nonlinear GP,
Incline Village, NY
89450
TN 37010-1520
problems. The fact is that GP is applicable only under certain specified assumptions
40
and conditions. Most GP applications have thus far been limited to well-defined
deterministic problems. Furthermore, the primary analysis has been limited to the
universal technique for modern decision analysis many refinements and further
After the study of the literature, we have been able to identify a number of
models and solution techniques in goal programming that have been developed and
used in problem solving. These various models and techniques of goal programming
1.10 CONCLUSION
Virtually all models developed for managerial decision analysis have neglected
important factors that greatly influence the decision process. In this study, the goal
environment.
In the nearly half century since its development, goal programming has
-objective
41
practicality of approach.
within the subject area of multi criteria decision making (MCDM). Furthermore, we
designed to obtain a basic or primary solution for a problem. These primary types of
methods included linear GP, integer GP and nonlinear GP. Each of these types of
methodologies was subdivided into various other existing methodologies. This chapter
List of computer software supporting GP solution are also included in this thesis.