R5 IJPQM 05november19 IBNMAJDOUZINEB PlanningandschedulingproblemsofproductionsystemsReview

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/337148981
Planning and scheduling problems of production systems:

review, classiﬁcation and opportunities
Article in International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management · December 2019

DOI: 10.1504/IJPQM.2019.103520
CITATIONS READS
2 5,383
5 authors, including:
Zineb Ibn Majdoub Hassani Abdellah El Barkany

Faculté des Sciences et Techniques Fès Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University
9 PUBLICATIONS 30 CITATIONS 105 PUBLICATIONS 426 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Darcherif Abdel Moumen Abdelouahhab Jabri

Génie Electrique, Productique et Management Industriel Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University
152 PUBLICATIONS 568 CITATIONS 37 PUBLICATIONS 122 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
European Higher Education Area and other relevant issues View project
RG Achievement View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Abdellah El Barkany on 08 December 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

372 Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2019
Planning and scheduling problems of production

systems: review, classification and opportunities
Zineb Ibn Majdoub Hassani*

Mechanical Engineering Laboratory,
Faculty of Science and Techniques,
Sidi Mohammed Ben Abdellah University,
B.P. 2202 – Route d’Imouzzer – FEZ, Morocco
and
ECAM-EPMI,
13 Boulevard de l’Hautil,
95092 Cergy Pontoise Cedex, France
Email: Zineb.ibn1@gmail.com
*Corresponding author
Abdellah El Barkany
Email: a_elbarkany2002@yahoo.fr
Abdel Moumen Darcherif

ECAM-EPMI,
Email: m.darchrif@ecam-epmi.fr
Abdelouahhab Jabri
Email: abdelouahhab.jabri@gmail.com
Ikram El Abbassi
ECAM-EPMI,
Email: i.elabbassi@ecam-epmi.fr
Copyright © 2019 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Planning and scheduling problems of production systems 373
Abstract: Production planning and scheduling are generally treated

sequentially. Scheduling largely depends on the production quantities
computed at the production planning level. Ignoring scheduling constraints in
planning leads to inconsistent decisions, therefore, this generates unfeasible
solutions. Moreover, solving these problems in complex manufacturing systems
is a big challenge in production management. So, integrating production
planning and scheduling is crucial to realise the coherence between objectives
and workshop’s capacities. That is why industries are seeking to improve their
production systems to make them more flexible, competitive and reactive,
through a better production management and integrating approaches. This
paper represents a literature review of the production planning, scheduling and
the different approaches that have been elaborated in order to solve the main
problematic.
Keywords: production; planning; scheduling; coupling; constraints; criteria;

optimisation; simulation.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Hassani, Z.I.M.,

El Barkany, A., Darcherif, A.M., Jabri, A. and El Abbassi, I. (2019) ‘Planning
and scheduling problems of production systems: review, classification and
opportunities’, Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 28, No. 3,
pp.372–402.
Biographical notes: Zineb Ibn Majdoub Hassani is a PhD candidate at the

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Sciences and Techniques,
University of Sidi Mohammed Ben Abdellah, Morocco. She received her
Industrial Engineering Diploma in 2016 from the same university. Her research
interests include production, planning, scheduling and optimisation.
Abdellah El Barkany is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Science and

Technology of Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University. He is an Engineer in
Quality Control and Maintenance graduated from the National School of
Electricity and Mechanics (ENSEM) of Casablanca in 1997. He is also a
Doctor in Mechanics Applied to the Construction of the ENSEM of Casablanca
in 2007. He has more than 20 years of experience in higher education and
scientific research. He has given several training courses in Moroccan
companies. He has published numerous scientific papers, and supervised or
co-supervised 17 PhD theses. His main research topics are mechanical design,
production, quality, maintenance, logistic and optimisation.
Abdel Moumen Darcherif is CEO of ECAM-EPMI Graduate School since 2001

and Vice-President of Paris-Seine University in charge of student life,
since 2015, Researcher at Quartz Laboratory (EA 7393) since 2002, and
G2Elab-Grenoble (UMR CNRS) from 1987 to 1993. He has provided more
than 20 technical expertise for large European firms (Alstom, Schneider, EDF,
France-Telecom, …) and co-led two engineering and consulting companies. He
is a senior member of IEEE. He has published hundreds of scientific papers,
and supervised or co-supervised 15 PhD theses.
Abdelouahhab Jabri is a Professor at the Mechanical Engineering Department

in Faculty of Sciences and Techniques, Sidi Mohammed Ben Abdellah
University. He obtained his PhD in Mechanical Engineering Department from
the same faculty in 2013. He received his Mechanical Engineering from the
same university in 2008. He has published many papers in different academic
journals and his research interests span from production and fabrication.
374 Z.I.M. Hassani et al.
Ikram El Abbassi is an Assistant-Professor at the ECAM-EPMI, Graduate

School of Engineering, since 2010, Head of the Energetics Academic Program
since 2012 and Director of Strategic Development since 2018. She received her
PhD in Energetics with honours from the University of Pau in 2009. She has
published more than 60 scientific papers and has co-supervised six PhD
students. Her main research topics are innovative materials and energy
efficiency in industry and buildings.
1 Introduction
For a long time, the industry has evolved in an uncertain environment where demand can
vary considerably, depend on economic conditions, the emergence of new markets and
the diversity of products (Hassani et al., 2018). The intense competition and the rigorous
desires of the consumers encourage the industries to design products increasingly
performing, to renew frequently their ranges and to constantly propose new
functionalities (Demirel et al., 2018). Also, according to Majanoja et al. (2017)
“companies must address the constantly evolving quality needs and to implement quality
improvement.”
Faced with the uncertainties, industries work to promote their production system
through a better production management, because of the dramatical changes, in the later
part 20th century, of the globally manufacturing system (Ahuja and Randhawa, 2017).
However, the areas of scheduling and planning are particularly important for the
production due to the times and flexible use of the production area (Baumung and Fomin,
2018). Actually, the production management is done in four stages: planning, scheduling,
execution and control (Baki, 2006). According to Wolosewicz (2008) and Xinyu et al.
(2010) planning and scheduling of production are one of the most important phases.
However, the decisions about these two activities are generally taken in sequential order.
Thus, production planning is initially taken at the tactical decision level and the various
jobs are planned at the operational decision level. The problem with this strategy is that,
at the tactical level, there is no detailed view of the workshop’s capacity at the scheduling
level. If these two problems are resolved separately, this sometimes leads to an
incoherency between planning and scheduling and, on the other hand, to sub-optimal
solutions. Thus, information on capacity becomes aggregated at the tactical level, which
does not guarantee the respect of the scheduling constraints (Gómez Urrutia et al., 2012).
Consequently, production plans may not be feasible and are not verified after being
transmitted to the operational level (Gómez Urrutia, 2014). In this way, methods such as
the MRP (Wolosewicz, 2008), which consider an infinite capacity of the system, have
been widespread in order to introduce it into several production systems. Over the years,
the incoherency of the decisions has been recognised and researchers have sought to
integrate planning and production scheduling. According to Shobrys and White (2000)
and Saygin and Kilic (1999), production planning improves the productivity of
production systems and scheduling can optimise processes, but some researchers have
shown that this could not be achieved if planning and scheduling are treated separately.
Therefore, in recent years, various works have been proposed to solve the problem of the
inconsistency between planning and scheduling by different approaches.
So, the literature review is carried out with the aim of analysing the works carried out
previously and to give a general and global idea on the different approaches developed.
We also highlight the strong points as well as the weaknesses of the approaches. This
review represents a starting point for our future work to develop an original mathematical
model that integrates new operational constraints during planning. Then develop new
resolution methods to optimise the system.
Our main objectives behind this literature review are:
• balancing the works carried out over the time concerning planning, scheduling and
their integration
• make a comparative study of the different approaches proposed
• verify the results obtained from existing approaches
• develop a new mathematical model based on the most efficient existing work
• optimise the proposed system using new resolution methods.
This article is presented is six sections, in Sections 1, 2 and 3, we give an overview
of planning and scheduling production systems, then in Section 4 we present
the strategies and methods for solving the problem. Section 5 explicit the approaches
that have been elaborated to integrate planning and scheduling in order to improve
the industries production system then a synthesis is proposed and then analysed to
draw the fundamental ideas to propose an achievable model at the operational level.
Finally, in the last section a conclusion is proposed, and the limitations of the problem are
highlighted.
2 Production planning review
For a long time, man has worked to organise his way of managing his activities to
improve his productivity and efficiency. During the industrial and economic revolution,
appeared the emergence of an ‘organised’ production. The emergence of this production
is organised and reveals the beginnings of the production management. This last one,
gather a set of decisions which aimed an efficient organisation of production in an
enterprise. It is based on many analytical tools and problem-solving methods that seek to
limit the resources needed to obtain a production, with known technical and commercial
characteristics (Wolosewicz, 2008). According to Chassang and Tron (1983) “well
managing production means first recognising and understanding the needs and objectives
of the company’s strategy. Production management is a tool at the service of the
company’s strategy” (Talbi et al., 2016).
Therefore, production planning plays an imperative part in manufacturing
organisation. In each stage of the transformation of raw materials into finished goods
it requires a meticulous production planning to confirm the achievement of
the production targets, optimise the resources (Attri and Grover, 2017; Gidwani
and Dangayach, 2017). Also, to improve the quality of industrial services
(Negri and Holgado, 2016).
2.1 Decision levels

To better situate the various problems in production management, (Malhotra and
Sharma, 2002) propose a simple framework that classifies decision-making areas
where opportunities exist for the integration of marketing and exploitation functions.
Generally, management decisions in an organisation are ranked according to
the following three levels (Anthony, 1965; Galasso, 2007; Thierry et al., 1994; Ettaye
et al., 2017):
• The strategic level concerns long-term decisions to carry out the company strategy.
This implies a coherent definition of the activities portfolio of the stable resources
which intends to implement in order to achieve its objectives. Strategic planning is
based on aggregated data.
• The tactical level includes medium-term decisions for the use of resources and the
planning of activities from a more detailed level than the strategic plan. Among these
functions, is the preparation of the production plan: which mean, on the first hand,
the persons to be planned and to be trained, and on the other hand, the planning of
production, which is a preliminary programming for a set of periods whose
amplitude varies.
• The operational level includes short-term decisions to plan in detail the operations
defined in the production plan at the finest level of detail. It provides the daily
flexibility to cope with expected fluctuations in demand, availability of resources and
react to hazards in accordance with tactical decisions.
An important limitation in supply chain management is that different levels of
decision-making are most often treated separately and hierarchically, hence the objectives
of the higher level become constraints for the next lower level (Gómez Urrutia
et al., 2012). Constraints at the lower level are usually poorly considered in the
upper level, so solutions at the higher level are not necessarily feasible (Gómez
Urrutia, 2014). According to Guyon (2010), Lenstra et al. (1977), Carlier and Chrétienne
(1988), Leung (2004), Pinedo (2004) and Baptiste et al. (2004), production planning
aims to allocate human resources or material resources for different tasks. It is a
tactical decision that links between long-term strategic decisions and short-term
operational decisions. It represents the action of preparing the detailed operations
instructions necessary to transform the engineering design, the resulting production
plan contains the processes, process parameters, machines, tools and facilities needed for
production (Tan and Khoshnevis, 2000). Moreover, it is very important because all the
sources of disturbances arise from this level (Alaoui Selsouli, 2011). The planning is
based on the following information: demands, production capacity, labour volume,
available quantifications and product information as well as different costs. These
information are gathered and analysed to develop production plans which determine for
each period of the planning horizon: the quantities to produce for each product, the stock
levels required for finished products and components, the use of human resources and
materials, processes and operations relevant to production (Tan and Khoshnevis, 2000;
Wolosewicz, 2008). Obviously, at this level, the main concern is to find the most optimal
way to manage the use of the production means in order to satisfy the demands at the
lowest costs.
2.2 Planning techniques

Formal planning approaches are added to other approaches to simultaneously manage the
flow and the means of production (Guyon, 2010; Aarab et al., 2017). These include the
methods MRP, MRP II, ERP and APS. According to Ettaye et al. (2017), the material
requirements planning (MRP) has started between 60 and 70 years ago. Genin et al.
(2001) and Orlicky (1975) report the MRP principle and how it has been born from the
need to synchronise the available quantities of materials, components and subsets in a
context of fixed lead times and stable products without taking into account the
workshop’s capacity. The evolution towards the MRP II (manufacturing resources
planning) was justified by the need to take into account the capacities of resources,
production, supply, subcontracting, storage, distribution, and also financial. Adjustment
decisions on these resources are made in advance at different levels, taking into account
their implementation delay. Thus, the planning structure MRP II comprises five levels of
decision-making and planning (James and Blackstone John, 1998; Vollman et al., 1997):
• strategic plan
• manufacturing and sales plan (PIC)
• master production schedule (PDP)
• material requirements planning (MRP)
• workshop control.
The term manufacturing and sales plan (PIC) shows that it is not only a function that
produces production plans but a function concerned with the coordination of critical
activities in the supply chain. For Vollman et al. (1997) [this plan reflects strategies
(increase market share) and tactics (increase stocks for improved service) that are feasible
through the supply chain]. According to Feng et al. (2008), the PIC gathers all the
processes to establish the provisional production plan at the tactical level and which links
the strategic objectives of the company with the operational issues of master production
schedule in order to balance demand and supply. Other authors such as Stadler (2005)
and Meyr et al. (2005), consider that the MRP links between the tactical and operational
levels. Several disadvantages of these systems were discovered and then solved by the
implementation of enterprise resource planning (ERP). By installing an ERP,
organisations provide connectivity from the beginning to the end of the supply chain. The
disadvantage of such a system lies in the sequential consideration of the needs and then
the capacity of the resources. The heuristics used to synchronise activities are always
based on MRP II logic (Genin, 2003). The ERP’s lead to a high degree of coordination
complexity in problem-solving (Monk, 2005; Hung et al., 2003; Voß and Woodruff,
2003; Esteves and Pastor, 2001; Hopp and Spearman, 2000; Plossl, 1994; Lunn and Neff,
1992). ERP supports the reduction of costs and the search for efficiency by integrating
the processes of the company, we are today in a context of inter-entity cooperations that
must improve the overall performance of the chain. To reply to these challenges, new
planning systems have emerged, notably, advanced planning system (APS) which aimed
to optimise the overall function of a company’s supply chain (Stadler and Kilger, 2000).
The APS tool seems now to be able to synchronise all the resources, materials and
capacities to reach an ‘optimal’ planning. APS use a set of known methods, made
accessible and efficient by continuous improvement of computing technologies

(Wolosewicz, 2008). According to Giard (2003) “all companies now have an affordable
computing power that is out of line with the biggest companies, twenty years ago.”
According to Ettaye et al. (2016) there exist another classification according to the
activities of planning models in production such as conceptual, analytical and based on
artificial intelligence and one based on simulation approach.
2.3 Lot-sizing problem

In a batch production context, sequencing decisions can hardly be considered less
important than production quantity decisions, which can only be dealt when lot sizes are
known (Wolosewicz, 2008). Dauzère-Pérès and Lasserre (1994, 2002) and Ouenniche
et al. (1999) studied the impact of sequencing decisions on operations for the lot-sizing
problem, sequencing operations and flow-shop scheduling. Small time bucket lot sizing
problems concerns the sequencing of lots and short time problems (Drexl and Kimms
(1997). A basic small bucket problem is the discrete lot sizing and scheduling problem
(DLSP). The idea of the DLSP is called all-or-nothing production, which means the full
capacity is used and only one item can be produced per period. In the case of continuous
setup lot-sizing problem (CSLP), still only one item is produced per period but not the
full capacity is used. In the proportional lot-sizing and scheduling problem (PLSP), the
remaining capacity in a given period is used for scheduling a second item, this limit the
number of the products to manufacture on one period (Drexl and Kimms, 1997). The
general lot-sizing and scheduling problem (GLSP) considered multiple products but
features a single capacitated machine (Timpe, 2002).
At the planning level, there is a serious problem that affects lot sizing decisions
because producing a large number of items in a period generates significant inventory
costs. It is important to determine the optimum size of lot production for each product
and period. Thus, the aim is to satisfy the demand at the least possible cost and to regroup
the demands of different periods to produce in advance. Indeed, it is very expensive to
produce an article at each period since there are costs and lead time associated with each
product. The objective of lot-sizing problems is to find a compromise between the
different costs in order to calculate an optimal production size. Harris (1990) proposed a
first policy that consists of setting a lot size and tracking the demand period by period or
containing a periodic quantity. The proposed model is the economic order quantity
(EOQ), which determines an optimal constant lot size by minimising manufacturing,
control and storage costs in a constant demand, mono-product and non-constraint
capacity system. Then, Wagner and Whitin (2004) proposed a polynomial algorithm for
the problem without capacity which provides an optimal quadratic time solution O (T2)
where T is the number of periods. It allows calculating variable lot sizes for each period
in order to solve the single product problem without capacity constraints. Nevertheless, at
the time of its development, the computing power of computers did not allow to deploy
this method. For this reason, this algorithm has been improved in O (TlogT) by Aggarwal
and Park (1993), Federgruen and Tzur (1991), Wagelmans et al. (1992) and Van Hoesel
et al. (1994). When capacity constraints are taken into account, the problem becomes
NP-difficult (Florian et al., 1980; Bitran and Yanasse, 1982). Chen et al. (1994) proved
that the problem was not NP-difficult by proposing a pseudo-polynomial algorithm to
solve it. Except that, in these methods, capacity constraints are not taken into
consideration, which explains the non-feasibility of the solutions in certain cases. The
problems with capacity constraints have been studied since the 1970s, with the aim of
reducing the feasibility gap between medium-term and short-term planning decisions.
However, the vast majority of developed models only provide feasible solutions for very
specific scenarios, in workshops with few resources. In addition, capacity is generally
not accurately modelled, so solutions are suboptimal (Drexl and Kimms, 1997;
Gómez Urrutia, 2014).
3 Production scheduling review
At the operational level, it is necessary to follow the production plan determined at the
tactical level, which means to produce the quantities (or lots) fixed in this plan, within the
acceptable time, taking into account the different constraints. This is decisive in reducing
the cost of production and increasing the company’s profit (Lebbar et al., 2016).
Scheduling is defined according to Xinyu et al. (2010) as a process that grants operations
to time-limited resources in order to satisfy or optimise several criteria. Indeed, solving a
scheduling problem amounts to determine the sequences of operations on resources by
minimising a given criterion. According to Esquirol and Lopez (1999) and Lopez and
Roubellat (2001), it consists of placing the activities or tasks over the time, taking into
account the temporal constraints (delays or constraints of precedence) and the availability
of resources required by tasks. Scheduling problems are widely studied in the literature
(Brucker, 1998; Carlier and Chrétienne, 1988; Pinedo, 2001; Esquirol and Lopez, 1999).
In the article of Johnson (1954) showed that the problem of optimising the criterion
adopted makespan in the case of a flow-shop with two machines is polynomial and if it
exceeds two machines it becomes a problem NP-difficult. In this sense, Sriskandarajah
and Goyal (1989) and Garey and Jonhson (1977) showed that even in the case of a simple
flow-shop with a single machine at each workstation, the problem is always considered
NP-difficult. Among the studies about the scheduling problem, we find Liu and Chang
(2000) which is concentrated on the modelling of flow-shop scheduling taking into
account the sequencing configurations including time and cost. Then, Trabelsi (2013)
discussed how to solve the scheduling problem for the case of a flow-shop and flow-shop
hybrid under blocking constraints. On the other hand, Boukef (2009) developed a genetic
algorithm to solve the problem in the case of flexible workshop and flow-shop
and applied his code in a pharmaceutical industry to evaluate its effectiveness.
For Quang-Chieu et al. (2015), they proposed classical heuristic algorithms and
metaheuristics aiming to minimise the total delay in a flow-shop of permutation. In
contrast to Mebarek (2008), he explored and justified the application of standard
metaheuristics in the case of a simple job-shop with n-tasks and m-machines and he did
not work to propose new techniques. In the literature, several approaches for solving
scheduling problems have been proposed and which consider the various constraints of
realisation, beginning with exact methods that give an exact solution (Smith and Dudek,
1967), then heuristics that seek to obtain approximate solutions with a reasonable
deviation from the optimal solution (Osman and Potts, 1989). At the same time, Zouba
et al. (2011) studied the problem of scheduling non-preemptive tasks on two identical
parallel machines in the presence of an operator, in order to minimise the makespan
criterion. His presence is necessary for the execution of the tasks. The authors consider
that the operator can take care of the machines in several ways, giving them different
priorities. As a result, the execution time of the tasks becomes variable. They deal with
the case where operator assignments can be changed at any time. They propose a
geometric representation of the problem and give some properties characterising the
optimality of a solution. In the same sense (Neubert and Savino, 2009) treated the
problem of workforce scheduling with the number of workstation is more than workers.
As far as Azemi et al. (2011) are interested in the scheduling problem in a job-shop,
where operations can be interrupted by unavailability of periods. They proposed a
mathematical model of approximate methods including construction heuristics that
quickly develop scheduling, based on strategies decision to solve the problem.
3.1 Production workshop configurations

The manner in which scheduling is carried depends on the configuration of the workshop
and the number of resources and their capacity to treat operations. Indeed, the problems
of scheduling workshops are divided into three main classes of problems depending in
the common production range in all works (Hassam, 2012).
3.1.1 Single machine

Only one resource is available for processing all the jobs. There are either products that
require only one operation, production orders are composed of a single operation that
requires the same machine or polyvalent resources (Gómez Urrutia et al., 2012;
Wolosewicz, 2008). This is the simplest case of all others because the order sequence is
unimportant (Hassam, 2012). Problem-solving of one machine allows the development of
methods for solving more complex problems for several machines (Wolosewicz, 2008).
According to El Bahloul (2008), one of the interesting situations, where we can meet this
kind of configurations, is where we are front of a production system including a
bottleneck machine that influences the whole process.
3.1.2 Parallel machines

A set of identical machines is available to carry out production orders. Machines are
called identical when they can perform all tasks indiscriminately and the execution time
of the task remains the same according to the machine which runs it (Pessan, 2008). Each
job passes through a single resource, except that there are several parallel resources
available to perform the operation. The parallel machines model is a generalisation of the
single machine model. Scheduling is done in two stages: the first one consists in
assigning production orders to the machines and the second step consists in establishing
the sequence of execution on each machine (Wolosewicz, 2008; Gómez Urrutia et al.,
2012).
3.1.3 Flow-shop workshop

The flow-shop is a processing system in which the sequence of each job is fully specified
(Emmons and Vairaktarakis, 2013). In such a workshop, a set of jobs must be processed
on M machines, M = {M1, M2, ..., Mm}. Each job requires several transformation steps
on different resources in stations. There are M operations, Oik = {Oi1, Oi2, ..., Oim},
operation Oik needs an execution time Pik on machine Mk ∈ M (Lebbar et al., 2016). The
processing steps are the same for all manufactured products and the inter-machine storage
capacity is defined (Rossit et al., 2018). Since all jobs must follow the same sequence,
this generates significant waiting times which can lead to an increase in the inventory
level of semi-finished products (Gómez Urrutia et al., 2012). A flow-shop flexible is a
variant of the flow-shop. It is a generalisation of the single-range workshop and parallel
machines, instead of M machines in series, there are S floors or stations in series
containing machines in parallel (Emmons and Vairaktarakis, 2013). It consists of
assigning each job to one of the available machines, station by station (Iranpoor et al.,
2007).
3.1.4 Job-shop workshop

Like the flow-shop, the job-shop has several different resources and each job has to go
through several resources before being transformed into a finished product. Unlike the
flow-shop, the sequences between jobs can be different. In this type of workshop, waiting
times and inventories of semi-finished products are generated between the production
stations and the adjustment time of the machines to switch from one product to another
can be important. It is important to control production capacity while planning production
quantities, so each operation can organise a coherent beginning and end date. This
problem is undoubtedly the most studied in the literature (Jain and Meeran, 1999;
Gómez Urrutia et al., 2012; Wolosewicz, 2008; Guyon, 2010). It was demonstrated
NP-complete by Hendrik and Rinnooy (1976), Garey and Johnson (1979), Garey et al.
(1976) and Xie and Chen (2018). Like the flow-shop, there is also the flexible job-shop,
with several polyvalent resources in parallel per workstation. It is necessary not only to
order the operations as well as possible but also to determine the best resource allocation
(Gómez Urrutia et al., 2012; Dauzère-Pérès and Paulli, 1997).
3.1.5 Open-shop workshop

It is a multi-job and multi-resource system with different sequences between jobs, such as
the job-shop. So, each product must perform a set of operations but in a completely free
order. This type of problem is rarely studied in the literature since its applications are
rather limited in companies (Gómez Urrutia et al., 2012).
4 Strategies and resolution methods review
Planning and scheduling are two separated modules. Planning level takes account of
aggregated capacity constraints and this does not in any way guarantee that the proposed
production plan is feasible when it is transmitted at the operational level (Gómez Urrutia,
2014). Moreover, the capacity constraints modelled in the plan do not represent the
reality in terms of the availability of resources. Therefore, the estimated production time
for a product is often different from the real-time of its production, which is a source of
significant delays in delivery or work in progress for the company (Wolosewicz, 2008).
For entities compliance with deadlines is a real requirement, hence the obligation to
ensure that deadlines are met at the lowest possible cost. It is, therefore, important to deal
with both planning and scheduling modules simultaneously.
4.1 Resolution strategies

Actually, problems related to production management are very critical especially for
companies looking to improve continuously their performance. So, it is necessary to
devise more appropriate methods. On this subject, according to Maravelias and Sung
(2009), there are three categories of strategies for solving the problems of planning and
scheduling, Figure 1 shows them.
Figure 1 Problem-solving strategies (see online version for colours)
4.1.1 Hierarchical approach

The planning problem is solved initially, without taking into account the detailed
scheduling constraints. Thus, the production plan is not necessarily realisable at the
scheduling level, and the solution corresponds to a lower bound of the integrated
problem. In a second time, the scheduling problem is solved by fixing the decision
variables determined at the planning level. The problem arises when it becomes
impossible to find a workable schedule to follow the production plan (Gómez Urrutia
et al., 2012). Moreover, it is likely that the gap between the solution obtained and the
optimum is very large (Mehra et al., 1996).
4.1.2 Iterative approach

This strategy allows a systematic exchange of information between the level solving the
planning problem and the level dedicated for solving the scheduling problem. It provides
a feasible solution, but the overall optimum is not guaranteed (Gómez Urrutia et al.,
2012).
4.1.3 Integrated approach

In integrated approaches a single problem is considered with an integrated formulation so
there is no separation between planning and scheduling problems (Wolosewicz, 2008).
Solving such a model does not give an optimal solution to the global problem within
acceptable calculation times. Only small problems can be solved optimally. This is why it
is necessary to use decomposition or relaxation methods to reduce the complexity of the
problem in integrated approaches. The optimality of the solution is not guaranteed, but
the relationship between quality of solution and calculation time becomes acceptable
(Gómez Urrutia et al., 2012).
4.2 Resolution methods

Solving optimisation problems is based on operational research techniques. Several
approaches for resolving problems have been developed to deal with various scheduling
problems in different types of environment. Methods of solving scheduling problems can
be classified into two types of methods: exact methods and approximate methods.
The exact methods are intended to determine the optimal solution to the problem but
can be very costly in terms of time and memory for large problem instances. They depend
on the size of the problems dealt with and of jobs to be scheduled (Fleischmann, 1990).
They often require a very large calculation effort (Wolosewicz, 2008).
The approximate methods are interested in obtaining the best possible solution, but
the optimality is not guaranteed. They are often applied to solve NP-difficult problems.
Their objective is to considerably reduce the computational effort by reducing the space
of the solutions to be explored. Figure 2 shows the different approximate and exact
methods of resolutions (Gómez Urrutia et al., 2012).
In order to facilitate our work, we propose Table 1 which contains all the
abbreviations of the exact and approximate methods that will be used thereafter.
Table 1 Abbreviation of exact and approximate methods
Methods Abbreviation
Heuristics H
Lagrangian heuristics LH
Greedy heuristics GH
Meta-heuristics MH
Lagrangian relaxation LR
Lagrangian decomposition LD
Decomposition of Dantzig-Wolfe DDW
Benders decomposition BD
Branch and bound BB
Branch and price BP
Dynamic programming DP
Simplex S
Branch and cut BC
Search tabu ST
Local search LR
Simulated annealing SA
Research with neighbourhood RN
Genetic algorithm GA
4.3 Nomenclature of the models

In order to simplify the notations adopted in the mathematical models, it is necessary to
explain the parameters used and which represent the decision variables, the parameters
for the case of a multilevel problem and others. Table 2 shows the decision variables used
in the models and their meanings (Wolosewicz et al., 2015, 2006; Lasserre, 1992;
Wolosewicz, 2008; Gómez Urrutia, 2014).
Table 2 Decision variable
Variable Meaning
Xi,l Quantity to produce from item i in period l
Yi,l A launch variable that is equal to 1 if the product i is made in period
l (Xil > 0), 0 otherwise
I il+ Positive stock level of product i at n of period l
I −
il
Negative stock level (out of stock) of product i at n of period l
Cip Cost of production per unit of product i
C i
inv Cost of storage per unit of product i
C i
back Cost of stock-out per unit of product i
Cis Launching costs per unit of product I

DS(i) All direct successors of product i in the nomenclature
DP(i) All immediate predecessors of product i in the nomenclature
gij Number of units of product i required to produce a unit of product j
(gij = 0 if j 6 ∈ DS(i))
Dil Demand for product i at period l
capal Length of period l (capacity available)
Li Period for obtaining the product i
Ji,l Production order associated with product i at period t
O All operations
Oi,m,t Operation of the product i to be manufactured on the resource m at period t
i(o) Product associated with operation o
l(o) Period associated with operation o
E All the pairs of operations that must be produced on the same resource
S(y) All operations associated with the sequence y
(o, o′) ∈ S ( y ) The operation o precedes the operation o′ in the sequence of a resource
M Number of resources
Figure 2 Resolution methods (see online version for colours)
5 Review approaches to solve the integration of planning and scheduling

production system
5.1 Review methodology

Ensuring a complete search requires the management of several tasks simultaneously,
starting with the discovery of the documents, the evaluation of their contents and the
elaboration of a summary of information. The aim is to produce a general and detailed
bibliography on approaches for solving the problem of planning and scheduling of
production systems. In this perspective and as shown in Figure 3, many databases were
examined including: IEEE Xplore, Springer, Elsevier, Science Direct, Scopus, DOAJ,
Emerald, Taylor and Francis and finally Web of Knowledge. In order to be efficient
several key questions were asked and served as guidelines. To ensure a thorough search
in the different databases, appropriate keywords have been chosen which will identify the
problematic in particular: production; planning; scheduling; constraint; criterion;
coupling; integration; modelisation; optimisation and simulation. In addition, several
combinations of the above keywords have also been developed to make the results more
relevant. The research returned 280 documents that are divided between doctoral theses,
scientific articles and a few articles from industry professionals. Redundant and
commercially oriented documents were excluded, limiting study and analysis to
115 documents.
Figure 3 Research process (see online version for colours)
5.2 Review resolution approaches

Generally, a job may be involved in one or more alternative process production plans.
The planning of the production plan constitutes the input step and the scheduling
organises the work on the machines while the relations of precedence in the production
plans are satisfied (Sugimura et al., 2001).
Although planning and scheduling are considered as technical keys for development
and collaborative manufacturing, integration between them remains a real challenge
(Wang and Shen, 2007). In this sense, various studies have been done to address the
problem of inconsistency between planning and scheduling, starting with hierarchical,
then iterative, and finally integrated approaches. In terms of hierarchical approaches, in
the thesis of Guyon (2010), the author focused on the problem of integrating agent
planning and production scheduling. Its approach follows a hierarchical strategy and
consists essentially in assigning the working hours to multi-qualified operators at the
lowest cost. The quality and quantity of the human resources induced must define, for
production, the complete scheduling of a set of preemptive jobs symbolising the demands
of customers. The author has formulated two models in the form of linear programs. The
first one concerns the resolution of the main problem and the second one exploits the
aggregation of certain data and decision variables. Mehra et al. (1996) dealt with the case
of a multi-level workshop and considered an aggregation of machines and time periods.
They presented two levels of hierarchy. First, the aggregation of the production planning
of the products families and then of the work centres. The model established has been
solved by linear programming. Venkateswaran and Son (2005) believes that hierarchical
production planning is a formal bridge between the strategic and operational levels. The
goal is to optimise the performance of the monitor at each decision level and simulate it.
On the other hand, Lasserre (1992) was the first to deal with the problem using an
iterative approach. The author considered a single-level problem of planning and
scheduling production. His approach decomposes the problem into K under planning
problems with fixed sequence of operations and lot size. K represents the number of
iterations of the problem resolution. This iterative procedure ensures the feasibility of
production plans at the operational level. Unlike other works, which deal with the
scheduling problem period by period, scheduling is considered throughout the planning
horizon as a single problem. In the thesis of Dauzère-Pérès (1992), the author developed
a planning model including enough conditions of a scheduling existence for the computed
production plan. An iterative procedure allows improving the plan by reducing the cost
associated with each iteration and to ensure a monotonic convergence towards a locally
optimal solution. Later, the two authors of Dauzère-Pérès and Lasserre (1994) based their
work on the Lasserre (1992) approach and developed a new multi-pass approach to solve
a production problem at two different levels (the first one setting the lot sizes to be
produced for a given job sequence on a machine and the second one establishing the job
sequences to produce according to the lot sizes). They have modelled the problem of lot
sizing and scheduling by the disjunctive graph. Reciprocally, Tempelmeier and Derstroff
(1996) proposed almost the same approach as Dauzère-Pérès & Lasserre (1994) for a
problem of several products and several levels taking into account the time to obtain and
the launch times. Indeed, there are several inconsistencies in their model compared to
Dauzère-Pérès and Lasserre (1994) especially when there are two articles i and j to
produce before t period and whose lead times are zero. We suppose that j must be
produced before i, in the model of Tempelmeier and Derstroff (1996), no constraint
assures this hypothesis, whereas in Dauzère-Pérès and Lasserre (1994) it is assured.
Consecutively, in the article of Roux et al. (1999), considered a multi-level and multi-site
problem. They followed an iterative resolution strategy similar to Dauzère-Pérès and
Lasserre (1994) and Lasserre (1992) except that at each iteration several scheduling
problems are solved. At the level of each iteration, the scheduling problem is solved with
a metaheuristic for the proposed production plan. Over the time, a new version of the
model of Dauzère-Pérès and Lasserre (1994) and Lasserre (1992) has been developed
(Dauzère-Pérès and Lasserre, 2002). It solves the problem for the multi-level case by
including the time to obtain the products and this is by introducing links in the
nomenclature between the products and the lot sizes of the successor products in the
stocks balance constraints. In the case of integrated approaches, for Zhang and Yan
(2005), the goal was to solve the planning and scheduling problem in a job-shop which is
based on a hybrid genetic algorithm and used the longest and shortest manufacturing time
(LPT, SPT) to generate the first sequence. The formulated model is nonlinear in mixed
variables and the scheduling is carried out period by period. Sikora et al. (1996) proposed
an integrated approach where decisions on lot sizing and scheduling are taken separately.
Their approach solves the problem from the first to the last period of the time horizon.
During each period, the procedure involves intercepting the sequencing of operations
resource and lot size determination for an ice maker using a modified silver-meal
heuristic until the capacity is used at maximum. In the articles Hooker (2005, 2007)
proposed an approach based on a Benders (1962) decomposition. This technique solves
problems by linear programming or constraint programming. In order to integrate
planning and scheduling, Giglio and Minciardi (2002) and Timpe (2002) proposed a
model composed of two types of decision variables: continuous variables for the lot
sizing problem and binary variables for the sequence of resource operations. Their
method of resolution fixes all the binary variables and thus their model is solved using a
standard tool. For Kim et al. (2003), it deals with the problem of lot sizing, sequencing
and assignment.
The author proposed a linear mixed variable program for a lot sizing problem taking
into account the start of production and solved it by applying a separation and evaluation
procedure. Kimms (1999) also described an approach that simultaneously solves process
planning and scheduling problems in multiple job-shop using a symbiotic evolution
algorithm. This problem is not really a problem of production planning since the
production quantities are not determined and the objective is to minimise the absolute
deviation of the machine loads, the average time and the total duration of the periods. In
the same sense, Jodlbauer (2006) presented a genetic algorithm for the problem of the
proportional lot sizing and scheduling problem (PLSP) for the case of several machines
and multi-level nomenclature, they showed that the proposed approach improves the
MRP II approach. Wolosewicz et al. (2012) considered a single machine problem and
proposed an integrated approach based on a specific property of the launch cost function.
It allows replacing the formulation in integers by the activities number of the production
start in the mathematical model. In order to reduce the computation time and to improve
the quality of the results, new approaches like Wolosewicz et al. (2006), Gómez Urrutia
et al. (2012) and Wolosewicz (2008) have been proposed based on the works
(Dauzère-Pérès and Lasserre, 1994, 2002). Instead of following an iterative approach the
authors followed an integrated method where the sequence is modified through a
metaheuristic over the planning horizon and not solved at each iteration. This avoids
convergence towards a local optimum and to prospect new research spaces in order to
find a solution close to the total optimum (Gómez Urrutia, 2014). A Lagrangian heuristic
to solve the problem of planning with fixed sequence and taboo search to guide the
evolution of the sequence were implemented. In 2008, Wolosewicz developed in addition
in the thesis a smoothing procedure for obtaining a feasible solution and two approaches
for improving the sequencing of operations on resources using simulated annealing and
taboo search. The major difficulty of smoothing heuristics is that, since scheduling is
carried out over the entire planning horizon, production quantities between two periods
potentially modify the start and end dates of all operations, which change the capacity
utilised over a very large number of periods (Shah and Ierapetritou, 2012). The same
model has been improved by Wolosewicz et al. (2015) and so by introducing cost and
setup time. The authors added a new capacity constraint that is r(o) for this new model to
ensure that the last operation begins and ends during the last period.

l ( o ) − li ( o )
r ( o) = capal ∀o ∈ F (1)
l =1

l ( o ) −1
r (o) = capal ∀o ∈ L (2)
l =1
r (o) = max ( l ( o ) − li ( o )
l =1
capal , 
l ( o ) −1
l =1
capal ) (3)
∀o∈F  L
r (o) = 0 ∀o ∉ F  L (4)
Constraint (1), ensure that the first range of operation must start on a date guaranteeing
the respect of the obtaining time. Constraint (2), ensure that the last operation of each
range is available from the start date of its associated period. Constraint (3), define the
date of availability for transactions as being the first and last time in the manufacturing
range. Constraint (4), are used to formalise the definition.
Also Gómez Urrutia (2014) proposed an integrated approach for solving single-level
and multi-level problems in multi-product and multi-resource systems in a job-shop. The
author considers that integrating the constraints of capacities specific to planning
and scheduling problems are NP-difficult, for this reason, the author proposed a
decomposition of the integrated problem into planning sub-problems with a fixed
sequence. The proposed model was also solved by Lagrangian relaxation and then
improved by the taboo search. In Li and Ierapetritou (2010) studied the single-level and
multi-site problem with transport costs, where several markets can be satisfied in several
production sites, with different transport costs. To solve the integrated problem, they used
Lagrangian relaxation with a diagonal approximation method. In this case, if the request
is not satisfied at a given period, it must be satisfied during the next one.
The objective of the integrated problem is to minimise the sum of the costs of storage,
rupture, production and transport (Gómez Urrutia et al., 2012). The scheduling
constraints used in the model are those considered in Li and Ierapetritou (2009) and
Ouerfelli et al. (2009).
Figure 4 represents a clarification of the two iterative approaches of Dauzère-Pérès
(1992) and Lasserre (1992), which have been fused and have given as result a new
integrated approach (Dauzère-Pérès and Lasserre, 1994). The first approach of
Dauzère-Pérès (1992) aims to minimise the total production cost and considers the entire
production planning horizon and it includes scheduling constraint. While Lasserre (1992)
decompose the problem and fixed a sequence of operations to resolve the production.
The result approach represents the basic approach on which the majority of works
have been based in particular (Wolosewicz, 2008; Gómez Urrutia, 2014; Gómez Urrutia
et al., 2012; Dauzère-Pérès and Lasserre, 2002; Shah and Ierapetritou, 2012). The
proposed model integrates planning and scheduling and considers the exact capacity
disponible in the operational level. To define the optimal production plan, the sequence
of jobs is fixed according to the lot-size to produce.
The objective function (5), minimise the total cost of production. Constraint (6) is the
inventory balance equation in the multi-level case. Constraint (7) is the sequencing
constraint and the constraint on the operations start dates. Constraint (8) link the
continuous production variables X to the binary system variables Y. Constraint (9) define
the domains of the decision variables, it means that Xi,l, I il+ , I il− are continuous and
non-negative for all products and periods and Yil is a binary variable. Finally,
constraint (10), means that the variables to are non-negative continuous for all operations.
Minimise:
C i
p
X i ,l +  (Ci ,l
inv +
i I i ,l + Ciback I i−,l ) +  i ,l
CisYi ,l (5)
Subject to:
I il+ − I il− = I il+−1 − I il−−1 −  i∈DL ( i )

gij X il + Lj − Dil ∀i, l (6)
 (t o
o + pou X i ( o )l ( o ) ) < cl ∀l (7)
X i ,l ≤ ( T
k =1
)
Dik Yil ∀i, l (8)
X i ,l , I il+ , I il− ≥ 0 Yil ∈ {0, 1} ∀i, l (9)
to ≥ 0 ∀o (10)
Figure 4 Evolution schema of integrated approaches (see online version for colours)
5.3 Review analysis and discussion

Figure 5 illustrates the evolution of the research concerning the integration of planning
and scheduling production systems between 1992 to 2018.
Figure 5 Evolution of publications on the problem (see online version for colours)
Table 3 Synthesis of models and methods for solving the coupling of planning and scheduling
Authors Type of Resolution Method of Purpose of Purpose

Dauzère-Pérès Job-shop Iterative LH Minimise the Capacity
(1992) mono-level total cost constraint
Lasserre (1992) Job-shop Iterative GH Minimise the Capacity
mono-level cost of balancing constraint
inventory
Tempelmeier and Job-shop several Iterative LH Minimise the Installation
Derstroff (1996) products and total cost time
several levels
Dauzère-Pérès Job-shop, Iterative GH Minimise the Capacity
and Lasserre two-levels, total cost constraint
(1994) multi-pass
Roux et al. Multi-level and Iterative MH Minimise the Capacity
(1999) multi-site cost of a given constraint
function without
installation
time and cost
Dauzère-Pérès Job-shop and Iterative MH Minimise the Cost of
and Lasserre multi-levels cost of installation
(2002) production, and capacity
stock inventory constraint
and delay
Carrera (2012) Job-shop, Iterative BD Minimise the Production
mono-level cost of a given quantity,
function demand and
stock
inventory
Zhang and Yan Job-shop Integrated GA Minimise the Launch time,
(2005) total cost lot size
constraint
scheduling
Table 3 Synthesis of models and methods for solving the coupling of planning and scheduling
(continued)
Authors Type of Resolution Method of Purpose of Purpose

Wolosewicz et al. Multi-levels Integrated LH Minimise the Lead time,
(2006) total cost launch time
and cost,
capacity
constraint
Wolosewicz Job-shop Integrated LH Minimise the Capacity
(2008) mono-level total cost constraint,
cost and
start-up time
Wolosewicz et al. Job-shop Integrated LH Minimise the Cost and
(2015) mono-level total cost launch time
Shah and Job-shop Integrated LH Minimise the Constraint of
Ierapetritou multi-levels total cost capacity, lot
(2012) sizing and
scheduling
Sikora et al. Flow-shop Integrated H Minimise Launch time
(1996) mono-level makespan and
stock holding
costs
Hooker (2005) Mono-level Integrated BD Minimise total Capacity
cost and the constraints
makespan
Hooker (2007) Mono-level Integrated BD Minimise the Capacity
total cost, constraints
makespan and
total delay
Li and Mono-level and Integrated LH Minimise the Transport and
Ierapetritou multi-site cost of storage, break cost
(2010) breakage,
production and
transportation
Guyon (2010) Job-shop Hierarchical LP Minimise labour Capacity
costs constraints
Mehra et al. Multi-levels Hierarchical LP Minimise Capacity
(1996) inventory cost constraints
and delay
Venkateswaran Multiple products Hierarchical DP Minimise the Capacity
and Son (2005) and multi-levels cost of allocating constraints
production
quantities
Hassani et al. Job-shop Integrated BB Minimise the Capacity
(2018) mono-level production cost constraints
By analysing Figure 5, we deduce that between 1992 and 2006 the number of
publications evolved and stagnated until 2009 when there were new research and
improvements of previous publications. The importance of the planning and scheduling
phases in the production system has been the focus of recent interest. Indeed, the
integration of them not only allows to achieve the objectives set and meet customer
requirements but also optimise all resources and respect delivery deadlines by satisfying
the customer’s expectations.
In the next section, we present in Table 3 a synthesis of the approaches developed
from 1992 to 2018, each one with the strategy followed and the optimisation method
applied.
Concerning the manufacturing environment, Figure 6 shows that 63% of the
documents deal with the problem for a job-shop workstation, 21% solve it for the general
case of a multi-level workshop. While 11% tackle the problem for a mono-level and
finally 5% of the publications treat the case of the flow-shop.
Figure 6 The use of production workshops in the literature (see online version for colours)
Regarding strategies for planning and scheduling, Figure 7 shows that the integrated
approach is the most used. It represents 47% of the whole approaches, followed by the
iterative approaches with 37% and finally 16% for hierarchical approaches. The wise use
of the integrated approach is due to the resulting coherence between the production plan
and scheduling in the operational level. This strategy integrates operational constraints
while planning and considers almost the real capacity available.
Figure 7 Percentage of resolution approaches (see online version for colours)
However, the goal of the major integrated approaches is to minimise the sum of the
production, inventory, storage and setup cost subject to detailed scheduling constraints
for a fixed sequence of operations on the resources. And they also consider the capacity
constraints because they represent the reality of the existing resources which allow the
production plan to be feasible and avoid delay and dissatisfied customers. In

Gómez Urrutia et al. (2012), Gómez Urrutia (2014) and Wolosewicz et al. (2015),
operations for the production of all items at all periods are considered in the scheduling
problem using the conjunctive graph and the capacity constraints correspond to the paths
associated to the sequence. The nodes of the graph correspond to operations, the direct
arcs to the precedence relations and finally the pairs of disjunctive arcs to the operations
which are performed on the same machine (Adams et al., 1988).
Regarding the methods introduced to solve the problem, it was found from
Figures 8 and 9 that the approximate methods are present in 68% of the documentation
and the exact methods represent 32%. According to Figure 8, the most widespread
method is the Benders decomposition for the case of exact methods. Our analysis
revealed that it represents 16%, which is half of the overall percentage of exact methods,
followed by linear programming with 11% and finally dynamic programming with 5%.
As for the approximate methods, the lagrangian heuristics are the most developed with
37%, which represents more than half of the overall percentage of approximate methods,
then 11% for each metaheuristic and heuristic per bottleneck machine and finally 5% for
the genetic algorithm hybrid and heuristics. The lagrangian heuristics are used to solve
the integrated problems where capacity constraints are relaxed (Wolosewicz, 2008;
Gómez Urrutia, 2014; Gómez Urrutia et al., 2012; Wolosewicz et al., 2015).
Figure 8 Percentage of approximate and exact methods (see online version for colours)
Figure 9 Percentage of each method used (see online version for colours)
The wise use of approximate methods relieved to their adaptation to a variety of

combinatorial optimisation problems and they lead to relevant results in reasonable
calculating time. But there are relatively few contributions to understanding the reason
for this effectiveness. Whereas, the exact resolution methods allow to obtain solutions
whose optimality is guaranteed, in certain situations, however, good quality solutions can
be sought, without any guarantee of optimality, but to the benefit of a shorter calculation
time.
6 Conclusions and perspectives
This article represents a general synthesis of the integration of planning and scheduling
production systems. The major concern is that decisions made at the tactical level
(planning) when they are transmitted at the operational level (scheduling) they are not
realistic. Usually, the production plan established at the planning level is not feasible
because planning and scheduling are two modules handled independently. Planning
models take capacity constraints into account in aggregated way. In order to deal with
this problem, a detailed review of planning, decision levels and the problem of lot sizing,
which is an obstacle for production management, has been done. Then, in a second place,
scheduling and the different configurations of the production workshops have been
scanned. In the following, strategies and methods of resolution were identified, and
finally, a literature review was carried out on the hierarchical, iterative and integrated
approaches for planning and scheduling production system. To ensure coherency between
planning and scheduling decisions in the production systems, detailed scheduling
constraints need to be considered in the lot sizing mathematical models. The analysis
shows that the treatment of this problem began in 1992 and from 2009 it has known a
remarkable evolution which is reflected by the importance of integrating planning and
scheduling. 63% of the approaches found deal with the case of job-shop and this for its
generality because N jobs must pass through M machines while satisfying well-defined
constraints. Practically, 47% of the approaches found are integrated and consider a single
problem by developing a single formulation of the problem without any separation then
37% are iterative approaches and finally, 16% are hierarchical. Most of the approaches
found consider the capacity constraints because they represent the reality of the
availability of the resources while determining the production plan. 68% of the
approaches are solved by approximated methods specifically Lagrangian heuristics with
37%, which represents more than half of the total percentage. The use of the Lagrangian
heuristics is efficient to solve the integrated problems where capacity constraints are
relaxed. The basic idea consists in relaxing the complicating constraints by rolling them
up in the objective function with penalties. Then the obtained relaxed problem become
easier to solve. For the exact methods, they are used in 32% of the approaches.
Otherwise, the decomposition of Bender is the majoritarian with 16%, knowing that it
represents a linear optimisation method of a very large structure of blocks. The biggest
limitation of the existent approaches is the difficulty to integrate tactical and operational
decisions, which make the solutions in short-term unrealisable or suboptimal.
Consequently, this lead to economics losses. The use of integrated approaches instead of
the others is an important factor which make difference in the actual economic context.
The integration of tactical and operational decisions represents the coordination between
planning and scheduling, two important activities of the supply chain management.
Nevertheless, integrating planning constraints and scheduling reveal a real challenge
because of the complexity of integrating the operational constraint in the tactical level. In
the other hand, it requires the development of a dedicated and efficient resolution
method. So, as perspective in our next article we will propose a study of an integrated
approach for scheduling and planning in supply chain which allows determining a
realistic production plan for a fixed sequence of jobs.
Our model will consider detailed capacity constraints and other characteristics,
namely setup time and cost. For solving the problem, we plan to develop a genetic
algorithm and to improve the results and avoid its convergence to local optimum we will
hybridise it with a local search method like simulated annealing and taboo search.
Actually, the application of hybrid meta-heuristics has increasingly aroused academic
interest, hybrid methods combine different concepts of various meta-heuristics. They
merge the points strengths and eliminates the weaknesses of different concepts of
meta-heuristics. So, we propose to integrate the genetic algorithm with simulated
annealing to overcome the premature and slow converge rate of GA and it week ability to
ensure a local search. Through the cooling process adopted, simulated annealing has a
strong ability to avoid being blocked in a local optimum by seeking the optimum around
its initial solution. It tends to find local improvements efficiently.
In the other hand, the investigation of a theme such as production management and
more precisely planning and scheduling requires a colossal effort. Indeed, the reading of
any thesis can only shed light on some limited aspect. Hence the obligation to scan
several scientific articles in order to be able to explore and exploit the various syntheses
developed. The main objective of this literature review is to scan the work done over time
regarding planning, scheduling and coupling. Obviously, in the three axes mentioned
above, there is room for optimisation, which cannot be hidden. However, given the
general aspect of production, the main contribution of this paper lies in the synthesis of
the problem in a coherent and meaningful way.
References
Aarab, S., El Barkany, A. and El Khalfi, A. (2017) ‘The integration of maintenance plans and
production scheduling taking account of outsourcing: a literature review’, International
Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.1–22.
Adams, J., Balas, E. and Zawack, D. (1988) ‘The shifting bottleneck procedure for job shop
scheduling’, Management Science, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp.391–401, printed in USA.
Aggarwal, A. and Park, J. (1993) ‘Improved algorithms for economic lot size problems’,
Operations Research, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp.549–571.
Ahuja, I.S. and Randhawa, J.S. (2017) ‘5S implementation methodologies: literature review’, Int. J.
Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.48–74.
Alaoui Selsouli, M. (2011) Modeling and Solving a Problem of Joint Planning of Production and
Maintenance, Doctorate thesis of the University of Nantes Prepared at the National superior
School of Industrial Techniques and Mines, Specialty: Operations Research, Nantes.
Anthony, R. (1965) Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis, Division of
Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.
Attri, R. and Grover, S. (2017) ‘Analysis of quality enabled factors of production’, International
Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 22, No. 1, p.22, DOI: 10.1504/ijpqm.
2017.085845.
Azemi, S., Aggoune, R. and Dauzére-Pérès, S. (2011) Job-Shop Under Constraints of Availability
of Resources: Mathematical Model and Heuristics, Department of Manufacturing and
Logistics Sciences, CMP, School of Mines of Saint-Etienne, 880 Mimet Avenue, F-13541
Gardanne, France.
Baki, B. (2006) Probabilistic Planning and Scheduling under Temporal Constraints, Doctoral
thesis of the University of Caen Specialty: Informatics.
Baptiste, P., Neron, E. and Sourd, F. (2004) Modeles et algorithmes en ordonnancement, Ellipses.
Baumung, W. and Fomin, V. (2018) ‘Optimization model to extend existing production planning
and control systems for the use of additive manufacturing technologies in the industrial
production’, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp.222–228.
Benders, J. (1962) ‘Partitioning procedures for solving mixed-variables programming problems’,
Numerische Mathematik, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.238–252.
Bitran, G. and Yanasse, H. (1982) ‘Computational complexity of the capacitated lot size problem’,
Management Science, Vol. 28, No. 10.
Boukef, H. (2009) On the Scheduling of Workshops Job-Shop Fexible Algorithms and Flow-Shop
in Pharmaceutical Industries: Optimization by Genetics and Particulate Swarms, Central
School, Lille.
Brucker, P. (1998) Scheduling Algorithms, No. 1, pp.10–326, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Carlier, J. and Chrétienne, P. (1988) Scheduling Problem: Modelazition, Complexity, Algorithms,
Masson, Collection Studies and Research in Computer Science, p.330.
Carrera, S. (2012) Planning and Scheduling of Logistics Platforms, Data Processing, National
Polytechnic Institute of Lorraine.
Chassang, G. and Tron, H. (1983) Manage Production with the Computer, Erreur perimes Dunod
Collection.
Chen, H., Hearn, D. and Lee, C. (1994) ‘New dynamic programming algorithm for the single item
capacitated dynamic lot size mode’, Journal of Global Optimization, Vol. 4, No. 3,
pp.285–300, Springer.
Dauzère-Pérès, S. (1992) Integrated Approach to Planning and Scheduling Production, Doctoral
Thesis, Paul Sabatier University, Toulouse, France.
Dauzère-Pérès, S. and Lasserre, J. (1994) ‘Integration of lot sizing and scheduling decisions in a
jobshop’, European Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 75, No. 2, pp.413–426.
Dauzère-Pérès, S. and Lasserre, J. (2002) ‘On the importance of sequencing decisions in production
planning and scheduling’, International Transactions in Operational Research, Vol. 9, No. 6,
pp.779–793.
Dauzère-Pérès, S. and Paulli, J. (1997) ‘An integrated approach for modeling and solving the
general multiprocessor job-shop scheduling problem using tabu search’, Annals of Operations
Research, Vol. 70, pp.281–306.
Demirel, E., Özelkan, E. and Lim, C. (2018) ‘Aggregate planning with flexibility requirements
profile’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 202, No. 1, pp.45–58, Elsevier.
Drexl, A. and Kimms, A. (1997) ‘Lot sizing and scheduling-survey and extensions’, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 99, No. 2, pp.221–235.
El Bahloul, S. (2008) Flow-Shop with Two Machines with Latencies: Exact and Heuristic
Approach, Doctoral thesis presented at the University of Quebec in Chicoutim.
Emmons, H. and Vairaktarakis, G. (2013) Flowshop Scheduling: Theoretical Results, Algorithms,
and Applications, I.S. Science, Operations Research & Decision Theory Springer.
Esquirol, P. and Lopez, P. (1999) Scheduling, Technical Report, LAAS, Economica, Paris.
Esteves, J. and Pastor, J. (2001) ‘Enterprise resource planning systems research: an annotated
bibliography’, Communications of AIS, Vol. 7, No. 8.
Ettaye, G., Abdellah, E. and El Khalfi, A. (2016) ‘The integration of maintenance plans
andproduction scheduling for a degradable multi-state system: a literature review’,
InternationalJournal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.74–97.
Ettaye, G., El Barkany, A. and El Khalfi, A. (2017) ‘Modeling and optimization a
production/maintenance integrated planning’, International Journal of Engineering Research
in Africa, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.169–181.
Federgruen, A. and Tzur, M. (1991) ‘Simple forward algorithm to solve general dynamic lot sizing
models with n periods in O(n log n) or O(n) time’, Management Science, Vol. 37, No. 8,
pp.909–925.
Feng, Y., D’Amours, S. and Beauregard, R. (2008) ‘The value of sales and operations planning in
oriented strand board industry with make-to-order manufacturing system: cross functional
integration under deterministic demand and spot market recourse’, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 115, No. 1, pp.189–209.
Fleischmann, B. (1990) ‘The discrete lot-sizing and scheduling problem’, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp.337–348.
Florian, M., Lenstra, J. and Rinnooy Kan, H. (1980) ‘Deterministic production planning:
algorithms and complexity’, Management Science, Vol. 26, No. 7, pp.669–679.
Galasso, F. (2007) Supports Planning in Supply Chains in the Presence of Flexible Demand,
Doctoral thesis, National Polytechnic Institute of Toulouse, Toulouse.
Garey, E., Johnson, D. and Sethi, R. (1976) ‘The complexity of flow shop and job shop
scheduling’, Mathematics of Operations Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.117–129.
Garey, M. and Johnson, D. (1979) Computers and Intractability: a Guide to the Theory of
NP-Completeness, W.H. Freeman & Co. New York, NY, USA.
Garey, M. and Jonhson, D. (1977) ‘Two-processor scheduling with start times and deadlines’,
SIAM Journal on Computing. Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.416–426.
Genin, P. (2003) Robust Tactical Planning with use of an A.P.S Proposals for a Management Mode
by Reference Plane, Doctoral thesis, School of Mines, Doctoral College Scientific
Management Center, Paris, France.
Genin, P., Thomas, A. and Lamouri, S. (2001) Tactical Planning in the Context of ERP/APS,
pp.1–13, Integrated Design and Production, CPI.N.088, Fes.
Giard, V. (2003) Management of Production and Flows, 3e Ed., Economica, Collection Gestion,
Paris.
Gidwani, B.D. and Dangayach, G. (2017) ‘Productivity measurement and improvement – an
overview’, International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 20, No. 3,
pp.316–343.
Giglio, D. and Minciardi, R. (2002) ‘Integration of production planning and scheduling in
manufacturing systems’, IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics,
Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.123–156.
Gómez Urrutia, E., Aggoune, R. and Dauzère-Pérès, S. (2012) ‘New integrated method to solve the
problem of planning and scheduling’, 13th Congress of the French Society for Operational
Research and Decision Support – ROADEF, Angers, France, pp.239–240.
Gómez Urrutia, E.D. (2014) Integrated Optimization of Planning and Scheduling Decisions in a
Logistics Chain, Doctoral thesis at the National Higher School of Mines, Specialty: Industrial
Engineering, Saint Etienne.
Guyon, O. (2010) Coupling Planning and Scheduling: Hierarchical Approach and Decomposition,
Doctoral thesis, University of Angers, Computer Science Specialty.
Harris, F. (1990) ‘How many parts to make at once’, Operations Research, Vol. 38, No. 6,
pp.947–950.
Hassam, A. (2012) Development and Analysis of Real-Time Scheduling Methods for Flexible
Production Systems, Doctorat thesis at the University of Tlemcen, Faculty of Technology
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Tlemcen.
Hassani, Z.I.M., El Barkany, A., Jabri, A. and El Abbassi, I. (2018) ‘Models for solving integrated
planning and scheduling problem: computational comparison’, International Journal of
Engineering Research in Africa, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp.161–170.
Hendrik, A. and Rinnooy, K. (1976) Machine Scheduling Problems: Classification, Complexity and
Computation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Springer; Softcover reprint of the Original 1st ed.
1976 edition.
Hooker, J. (2005) ‘A hybrid method for planning and scheduling’, Constraints, Vol. 10, No. 4,
pp.385–401.
Hooker, J. (2007) ‘Planning and scheduling by logic-based benders decomposition’, Operations
Research, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp.588–602.
Hopp, W. and Spearman, M. (2000) Factory Physics, McGraw-Hill/Irwin Series Operations and
Decision Sciences.
Hung, Y., Chen, C., Shih, C. and Hung, M. (2003) ‘Using tabu search with ranking candidate list to
solve production planning problems with setups’, Computers and Industrial Engineering,
Vol. 45, No. N.5, pp.615–634.
Iranpoor, M., Ghomi, F., Fatemi Ghomi, S. and Mohamadinia, A. (2007) ‘Earliness tardiness
production planning and scheduling in flexible flowshop systems under finite planning
horizon’, Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 184, No. 2, pp.950–964.
Jain, A. and Meeran, S. (1999) ‘Deterministic job-shop scheduling: past, present and future’,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 113, No. 2, pp.390–434.
James, F. and Blackstone John, H. (1998) APICS Edition, 9th ed., Production and Inventory
Control Society, Atlanta, American.
Jodlbauer, H. (2006) ‘An approach for integrated scheduling and lot-sizing’, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 172, No. 2, pp.386–400.
Johnson, S. (1954) ‘Optimal two- and three-stage production schedules with setup times included’,
Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.61–68.
Kim, Y.K., Park, K. and Ko, J. (2003) ‘A symbiotic evolutionary algorithm for the integration of
process planning and job shop scheduling’, Computers & Operations Research, Vol. 30,
No. 8, pp.1151–1171.
Kimms, A. (1999) ‘Genetic algorithm for multi-level, multi-machine lot sizing and scheduling’,
Computers and Operations Research, Vol. 26, No. 8, pp.829–848.
Lasserre, J. (1992) An Integrated Model for Job Shop Planning and Scheduling, Management
Science, Toulouse.
Lebbar, G., El Barkany, A. and Jabri, A. (2016) ‘Scheduling problems of flexible manufacturing
systems: review, classification and opportunities’, International Journal of Engineering
Research in Africa, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp.142–160.
Lenstra, J.K., Hendrik, A., Rinnooy Kan, G. and Brucker, P. (1977) ‘Complexity of machine
scheduling problems’, Annals of Discrete Mathematics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.343–362.
Leung, J.Y-T. (2004) Handbook of Scheduling: Algorithms, Models and Performance Analysis,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Li, Z. and Ierapetritou, M. (2009) ‘Integrated production planning and scheduling using a
decomposition framework’, Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 64, No. 16, pp.3585–3597.
Li, Z. and Ierapetritou, M. (2010) ‘Rolling horizon based planning and scheduling integration with
production capacity consideration’, Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 64, No. 16,
pp.5887–5900.
Liu, C. and Chang, S. (2000) ‘Scheduling flexible flow shops with sequence-dependent setup
effects’, IEEE T Robotic and Autom., Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.408–419.
Lopez, P. and Roubellat, F. (2001) Scheduling of Production, Hermès Science Publications.
Lunn, T. and Neff, S. (1992) MRP, Integrating Material Requirements Planning and Modern
Business, Irwin/Apics Series in Production Management.
Majanoja, A-M., Linko, L. and Leppänen, V. (2017) ‘Global corrective action preventive action
process’, Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.29–47.
Malhotra, M.K. and Sharma, S. (2002) ‘Spanning the continuum between marketing and
operations’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.209–219.
Maravelias, C. and Sung, C. (2009) ‘Integration of production planning and scheduling: overview,
challenges and opportunities’, Computers & Chemical Engineering, Vol. 33, No. 12,
pp.1919–1930.
Mebarek, K. (2008) Use of Metaheuristic Strategies for Jobshop Scheduling, Magister thesis
Speciality Industrial Engineering at the University of El-hadj Lakhdhar-Batna, Faculty of
Engineering Science, Batna, Algeria.
Mehra, A., Minis, I. and Proth, J. (1996) ‘Hierarchical production planning for complex
manufacturing systems’, Advances in Engineering Software, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.209–218.
Meyr, H., Wagner, M. and Rohde, J. (2005) Structure of Advanced Planning Systems, Springer,
S.B. Heidelberg.
Monk, E. (2005) ‘Concepts in enterprise resource planning’, Course Technology, 4th ed., 272pp.
Negri, E. and Holgado, M. (2016) ‘Continuous improvement planning through’, International
Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 18, Nos. 2–3, DOI: 10.1504/ijpqm.
2016.076706.
Neubert, G. and Savino, M. (2009) ‘Flow shop operator scheduling through constraint’, Int.
Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 4, Nos. 5–6, p.549.
Orlicky, J. (1975) Material Requirements Planning, McGraw-Hill, London.
Osman, I. and Potts, C. (1989) ‘Simulated annealing for permutation flow-shop scheduling’,
OMEGA Int. J. Manage, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp.551–557.
Ouenniche, J., Boctor, F. and Martel, A. (1999) ‘The impact of sequencing decisions on multi-item
lot sizing and scheduling in flow shop’, International Journal Production Research, Vol. 37,
No. 10, pp.2253–2270.
Ouerfelli, H., Dammak, A. and Kallel Chtourou, E. (2009) ‘Benders decomposition method for an
integrated problem of production lot-sizing and scheduling’, International Conference on
Computers & Industrial Engineering (Troyes), IEEE, pp.323–327.
Pessan, C. (2008) Optimization of Series Changes by Scheduling Adjustment Tasks, Doctoral thesis
of the Université François Rabelais Tours, Computer Laboratory: ea2101 Team Order and
Conduct Supported on November 21, Tours.
Pinedo, M. (2001) Scheduling: Theory, Algorithms and Systems, Prentice-Hall, Springer.
Pinedo, M. (2004) Scheduling: Theory, Algorithms and Systems, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, Springer.
Plossl, G. (1994) Orlicky’s Material Requirement Planning, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Companies.
Quang-Chieu, T., Billaut, J. and Bouquard, J. (2015) ‘Matheuristic algorithms for minimizing total
tardiness in the m-machine flow-shop scheduling problem’, Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing, Vol. 29, No, 3, pp.617–628, Springer.
Rossit, D., Vásquez, Ó., Tohmé, F., Frutos, M. and Safed, M. (2018) ‘The dominance flow shop
scheduling problem’, Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp.21–28,
Elsevier.
Roux, W., Dauzère-Pérès, S. and Lasserre, J. (1999) ‘Planning and scheduling in a multi-site
environment’, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.19–28.
Saygin, C. and Kilic, S. (1999) ‘Integrating flexible process plans with scheduling in flexible
manufacturing systems’, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.268–280.
Shah, N. and Ierapetritou, M. (2012) ‘Integrated production planning and scheduling optimization
of multisite, multiproduct process industry’, Computers & Chemical Engineering, Vol. 37,
No. 1, pp.214–226.
Shobrys, D. and White, D. (2000) ‘Planning, scheduling and control systems: why can they not
work together’, Computers and Chemical Engineering, Vol. 24, Nos. 2–7, pp.163–173.
Sikora, R., Chhajed, D. and Shaw, M. (1996) ‘Integrating the lot-sizing and sequencing decisions
for scheduling a capacitated flow line’, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 30, No. 4,
pp.659–679.
Smith, M. and Dudek, R. (1967) ‘A general algorithm for solution of the n-job, m-machine
sequencing problem of the flowshop’, Oper. Res., Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.71–82.
Sriskandarajah, C. and Goyal, S. (1989) ‘Scheduling of a two-machine flowshop with processing
time linearly dependent on job waiting-time’, The Journal of the Operational Research
Society, Vol. 40, No. 10, pp.907–921.
Stadler, H. (2005) ‘Supply chain management and advanced planning – basics, overview and
challenges’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 163, No. 3, pp.575–588.
Stadler, H. and Kilger, C. (2000) Supply Chain Management and Advanced Planning: Concepts
Models, Software and Case Studies, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Sugimura, N., Hino, R. and Moriwaki, T. (2001) ‘Integrated process planning and scheduling in
holonic manufacturing systems’, IEEE International Symposium on Assembly and Task
Planning Soft Research, in Proceedings, Park, Fukuoka, Japan, Vol. 4, pp.250–254.
Talbi, E-G., Yalaoui, F. and Amodeo, L. (2016) ‘Metaheuristics for production systems’,
Operations Research/Computer Science Interfaces Series, Vol. 60, Springer, Cham.
Tan, W. and Khoshnevis, B. (2000) ‘Integration of process planning and scheduling – a review’,
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.51–63.
Tempelmeier, H. and Derstroff, M. (1996) ‘Lagrangian-based heuristic for dynamic multi-level
multi-item constrained lot sizing with setup times’, Management Science, Vol. 42, No. 5,
pp.738–757.
Thierry, C., Chapeaublanc, N., Lepage, P. and Bel, G. (1994) ‘Multi-site planning: a centralized or
a distributed approach’, the 11th International Conference on Systems Analysis and
Optimization (Discrete Event Systems), Sophia Antipolis, France, pp.609–615.
Timpe, C. (2002) ‘Solving planning and scheduling problems with combined integer and constraint
programming’, OR Spectrum, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp.431–448.
Trabelsi, C. (2013) Controlling Hardware of Partially Reconfigurable Systems on FPGA: from
Modeling to Implementation, Doctoral thesis at the University of Science and Technology,
Lille, France.
Van Hoesel, S., Kuik, R., Salomon, M. and Van Wassenho, L. (1994) ‘The single-item discrete lot
sizing and scheduling problem: optimization by linear and dynamic programming’, Discrete
Applied Mathematics, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp.289–303.
Venkateswaran, J. and Son, Y. (2005) ‘Hybrid system dynamic-discrete event simulation-based
architecture for hierarchical production planning’, International Journal of Production
Vollman, T., Berry, W. and Whybark, D. (1997) Manufacturing Planning and Control Systems,
4th ed., The McGraw-hill/Irwin Series Operations and Decision Sciences, New York.
Voß, S. and Woodruff, D. (2003) Introduction to Computational Optimization Models for
Production Planning in a Supply Chain, 2nd ed., Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
Wagelmans, A., Van Hoesel, S. and Kolen, A. (1992) ‘Economic lot sizing: an O(n log n)
algorithm that runs in linear time in the Wagner-Whitin case’, Operations Research, Vol. 40,
No. 1, pp.145–156.
Wagner, H. and Whitin, T. (2004) ‘Dynamic version of the economic lot-size model’, Management
Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.89–96.
Wang, L. and Shen, W. (2007) Process Planning and Scheduling for Distributed Manufacturing,
Springer-Verlag London Limited, London, UK.
Wolosewicz, C. (2008) Integrated Approach to Planning and Production Scheduling, Saint
Etienne, France.
Wolosewicz, C., Dauzère-pérès, S. and Aggoune, R. (2006) ‘A new approach for solving integrated
planning and scheduling problem’, in INCOM.
Wolosewicz, C., Dauzère-Pérès, S. and Aggoune, R. (2012) ‘A solving procedure for a general
integrated lot sizing and fixed scheduling problem’, European Journal of Operational
Wolosewicz, C., Dauzère-Pérès, S. and Aggoune, R. (2015) ‘Lagrangian heuristic for an integrated
lot-sizing and fixed scheduling problem’, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 244, No. 1, pp.3–12, Elsevier.
Xie, N. and Chen, N. (2018) ‘Flexible job shop scheduling problem with interval grey processing
time’, Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp.513–524, Elsevier.
Xinyu, L., Liang, G., Zhang, C. and Shao, X. (2010) ‘A review on integrated process planning and
scheduling’, International Journal of Manufacturing Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.161–180.
Zhang, X. and Yan, H. (2005) ‘Integrated optimization of production planning and scheduling for a
kind of job-shop’, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 26,
Nos. 7–8, pp.876–886.
Zouba, M., Baptiste, P., Rebaine, D. and Soumis, F. (2011) Scheduling Tasks on Two Parallel
Machines with a Single Operator: Geometric Approach, Polytechnic school of Montreal C.P.
6079, succ. Downtown, Montreal, Canada.
View publication stats

R5 IJPQM 05november19 IBNMAJDOUZINEB PlanningandschedulingproblemsofproductionsystemsReview

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

R5 IJPQM 05november19 IBNMAJDOUZINEB PlanningandschedulingproblemsofproductionsystemsReview

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Planning and scheduling problems of production systems:

Article in International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management · December 2019

Zineb Ibn Majdoub Hassani Abdellah El Barkany

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Darcherif Abdel Moumen Abdelouahhab Jabri

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

RG Achievement View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Planning and scheduling problems of production

Zineb Ibn Majdoub Hassani*

Abdel Moumen Darcherif

Copyright © 2019 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Abstract: Production planning and scheduling are generally treated

Keywords: production; planning; scheduling; coupling; constraints; criteria;

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Hassani, Z.I.M.,

Biographical notes: Zineb Ibn Majdoub Hassani is a PhD candidate at the

Abdellah El Barkany is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Science and

Abdel Moumen Darcherif is CEO of ECAM-EPMI Graduate School since 2001

Abdelouahhab Jabri is a Professor at the Mechanical Engineering Department

Ikram El Abbassi is an Assistant-Professor at the ECAM-EPMI, Graduate

2 Production planning review

2.1 Decision levels

2.2 Planning techniques

accessible and efficient by continuous improvement of computing technologies

2.3 Lot-sizing problem

3 Production scheduling review

3.1 Production workshop configurations

3.1.1 Single machine

3.1.2 Parallel machines

3.1.3 Flow-shop workshop

3.1.4 Job-shop workshop

3.1.5 Open-shop workshop

4 Strategies and resolution methods review

4.1 Resolution strategies

Figure 1 Problem-solving strategies (see online version for colours)

4.1.1 Hierarchical approach

4.1.2 Iterative approach

4.1.3 Integrated approach

4.2 Resolution methods

4.3 Nomenclature of the models

Cip Cost of production per unit of product i

Cis Launching costs per unit of product I

Figure 2 Resolution methods (see online version for colours)

5 Review approaches to solve the integration of planning and scheduling

5.1 Review methodology

Figure 3 Research process (see online version for colours)

5.2 Review resolution approaches

I il+ − I il− = I il+−1 − I il−−1 −  i∈DL ( i )

X i ,l , I il+ , I il− ≥ 0 Yil ∈ {0, 1} ∀i, l (9)

5.3 Review analysis and discussion

Authors Type of Resolution Method of Purpose of Purpose

Authors Type of Resolution Method of Purpose of Purpose

Figure 7 Percentage of resolution approaches (see online version for colours)

production plan to be feasible and avoid delay and dissatisfied customers. In

The wise use of approximate methods relieved to their adaptation to a variety of

6 Conclusions and perspectives

View publication stats

You might also like