Journal of Advances in Management Research

Scheduling of a flexible job-shop using a multi-objective genetic algorithm

Rajeev Agrawal L.N. Pattanaik S. Kumar
Article information:
To cite this document:
Rajeev Agrawal L.N. Pattanaik S. Kumar, (2012),"Scheduling of a flexible job-shop using a multi-objective
genetic algorithm", Journal of Advances in Management Research, Vol. 9 Iss 2 pp. 178 - 188
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09727981211271922
Downloaded on: 03 February 2016, At: 08:48 (PT)
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 08:48 03 February 2016 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 16 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 218 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Rakesh Kumar Phanden, Ajai Jain, Rajiv Verma, (2012),"A genetic algorithm-based approach for job
shop scheduling", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 23 Iss 7 pp. 937-946 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410381211267745
Hamid Reza Golmakani, Ali Namazi, (2012),"Multiple-route job shop scheduling with fixed periodic and age-
dependent preventive maintenance to minimize makespan", Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering,
Vol. 18 Iss 1 pp. 60-78 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552511211226193
V. Selladurai, P. Aravindan, S.G. Ponnambalam, A. Gunasekaran, (1995),"Dynamic simulation of job shop
scheduling for optimal performance", International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 15 Iss 7 pp. 106-120 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579510090444

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:540409 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0972-7981.htm

JAMR
9,2
Scheduling of a flexible job-shop
using a multi-objective genetic
algorithm
178 Rajeev Agrawal and L.N. Pattanaik
Department of Production Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology,
Mesra, India, and
S. Kumar
Department of Mechanical Engineering, GLA University, Mathura, India
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 08:48 03 February 2016 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to solve a flexible job shop scheduling problem where
alternate machines are available to process the same job. The study considers the Flexible Job Shop
Problem (FJSP) having n jobs and more than three machines for scheduling.
Design/methodology/approach – FJSP for n jobs and more than three machines is non polynomial
(NP) hard in nature and hence a multi-objective genetic algorithm (GA) based approach is presented
for solving the scheduling problem. The two objective functions formulated are minimizations of the
make-span time and total machining time. The algorithm uses a unique method of generating initial
populations and application of genetic operators.
Findings – The application of GA to the multi-objective scheduling problem has given optimum
solutions for allocation of jobs to the machines to achieve nearly equal utilisation of machine resources.
Further, the make span as well as total machining time is also minimized.
Research limitations/implications – The model can be extended to include more machines and
constraints such as machine breakdown, inspection etc., to make it more realistic.
Originality/value – The paper presents a successful implementation of a meta-heuristic approach to
solve a NP-hard problem of FJSP scheduling and can be useful to researchers and practitioners in the
domain of production planning.
Keywords Programming and algorithm theory, Production scheduling, Job sequence loading,
Flexible job shop problem, Make-span, Scheduling, Multi-objective genetic algorithm
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Production scheduling can be defined as the allocation of available production resources
over time to perform a collection of tasks. It is an important decision-making process at
an operation level. In a modern manufacturing environment, many scheduling problems
such as machines can be related, independent, and equal. Machines can require a certain
gap between jobs and can have sequence-dependent setups.
Most of the scheduling problems are very significant and hard to solve owing to the
complex nature of the problems. Scheduling problems involve solving the optimal
schedule under various objectives, different machine environments and characteristics of
the jobs. Some of the objectives include minimizing the make span, or the last completion
time of a job, minimizing the total completion time of all jobs, and minimizing the total
Journal of Advances in Management “lateness” of jobs Pasupathy et al. (2006). A number of methods or algorithms based on
Research various concepts are available to solve the different type of problems.
Vol. 9 No. 2, 2012
pp. 178-188 In today’s complex manufacturing setting, with multiple lines of products, each
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0972-7981
requiring many different steps and machines for completion, the decision maker for the
DOI 10.1108/09727981211271922 manufacturing plant must find a way to successfully manage resources in order to
 produce products in the most efficient possible ways. Finding the best schedule may be Scheduling FJS
easy or difficult depending on the machine environment, process constraint. Genetic using multi-
algorithms (GAs) are well suited for solving production scheduling problems, because
unlike heuristic methods, GAs operate on a population of solutions rather than a single objective GA
solution. In production scheduling this population of solutions consists of many
answers that may sometimes have different conflicting objectives. For example, in one
solution we may be optimizing a production process to be completed in a minimal 179
amount of time. In another solution we may be optimizing for a minimal amount of
defects. By increasing the speed of production one may run into an increase in the
number of defects in final products. As the number of objectives is increased,
the number of constraints for the problem also increases and in turn the complexity of
the problem also increases. GAs are ideal for these types of problems where the search
space is large and the number of feasible solutions is small. In a flexible job shop problem
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 08:48 03 February 2016 (PT)

(FJSP) several machines are available for each operation. It is an extension of job shop
problem ( JSP) because it contains assigning the operation to a machine and also the
sequencing of the operation on machine. Assigning the operation on different machines
is the most difficult part of FJSP because finding the best solution for optimum operation
sequence in the presence of several alternatives is computationally difficult.

2. Literature review
In the modern manufacturing plant, a machine has the capability of processing more
than one type of operation. This leads to a modified version of JSP called the FJSP.
There are two types of FJSP; for Type I FJSP, jobs have alternative operation sequences
and alternative identical or non-identical machines for each operation. The problem
is to select the operation sequences for jobs and determine the job processing orders
on machines. For Type II FJSP, jobs can have only fixed operation sequences, but
alternative identical or non-identical machines for each operation. The problem is to
arrange jobs to machines according to their operation sequences.
Zandieh et al. (2008) proposed a meta-heuristic approach for solving the flexible job
shop scheduling problem. This problem consists of two sub-problems, the routing
problem and the sequencing problem and is among the hardest combinatorial
optimization problems because finding the best solution for optimum operation
sequence in the presence of several alternatives is computationally difficult.
They proposed a GA-based approach for FJSP. Moon and Seo (2005) proposed a
genetic algorithm based approach for FJSP along with an advanced process planning
and scheduling model for the multi-objective problem. The objectives of the model
were to decide the schedules for minimizing make span and operation sequences
with machine selections considering precedence constraints, flexible sequences and
alternative machines. The problem was formulated as a mathematical model and an
evolutionary algorithm was developed to solve the model. Jeong et al. (2006) proposed
hybrid approach to production scheduling using GA and simulation. The GA was used
for optimization of schedules, and the simulation used to minimize the maximum
completion time for the last job with fixed schedules from the GA model. Wang and
Zhang (2006) proposed novel and systematical approach based on ordinal optimization
and optimal computing budget allocation technique to determine optimal combination of
genetic operators for flow-shop scheduling problems. Zhang et al. (2006) proposed an
adaptive GA (AGA) with multiple operators for flow-shop scheduling, which is a typical
NP-hard optimization problem. Pasupathy et al. (2006) proposed a Pareto-ranking-based
multi-objective GA, called a Pareto genetic algorithm (PGA) with an archive of non-
 JAMR dominated solutions subjected to a local search (PGA ALS). Chang et al. (2007) proposed
9,2 adaptive multi-objective GAs for scheduling of drilling operation in printed circuit board
industry. Parthasarathy and Rajendran (1997) proposed a simulated annealing heuristic
for scheduling to minimize mean weighted tardiness in a flow shop with sequence
dependent setup times of jobs with a case study of a drill-bit manufacturing industry.
Ouenniche and Boctor (2001) proposed G-group heuristic to solve the multi-product,
180 sequencing, lot sizing and scheduling problem in flow shops. Finke et al. (2007) proposed
a tabu search approach to the multiple machine, non-preemptive, earliness-tardiness
scheduling problem with unequal due dates in a flow shop with machine groups.
Zolfaghari and Liang (1999) proposed a hybrid tabu search and simulated annealing
approach solving the group scheduling and machining speed selection problems. In this
approach a short-term memory provided by the tabu list is used to avoid solution
re-visits while preserving the stochastic nature of the simulated annealing method.
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 08:48 03 February 2016 (PT)

Gupta et al. (1999) designed a tabu search algorithm for the two-stage flow-shop problem
with secondary criterion. Make-span minimization and total flow time minimization are
primary and secondary criteria, respectively. Rivera et al. (2007) proposed a cultural
algorithm, an alternative heuristic to solve the job shop scheduling problem. Chan et al.
(2006) proposed a GA-based approach to solve a resource constrained operations-
machines assignment problem and flexible job-shop scheduling problem.

3. Problem formulation
From the literature surveyed, it can be easily observed that work related to completion
time and total machine time as objectives has not been taken into account. Completion
time of an operation plays a major role in any flexible job shop for determining the
schedule and planning. The planning activity includes determination of optimum
operation sequences, machines and corresponding tooling to be used during the
production. So, a proper system of planning and control has to be in place for
optimizing the job shop production. Thus, such type of objective was adopted to
schedule a flexible job shop using GA approach.
The problem deals with flexible job shop, where alternate machines are available to
process on the same jobs. The problem is to assign each operation to a machine, such
that the maximal completion time (make span) and the total machining time of all the
operations are minimized.
In this case there are alternate machines available but not all machines can operate
on all jobs. There are in total 21 jobs and six machines available, with each machine
having the capability to operate on some of the jobs. The processing times for jobs on
different machines are given in Table I. And the objective is to minimize the maximum
completion time and the total machining time for the set of jobs by proper allocation of
the jobs to the available machines.

Jobs
Machines 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

M1 7 7 – 6 – 3 8 – 10 6 15 – – – – – 5 – – 13 –
M2 – – 6 – 9 5 – – – 5 – 6 – 5 – 5 – 8 7 – –
Table I. M3 – – 5 – – – 12 5 – – – – 6 – 6 – – – 10 – 7
Processing times M4 5 6 – – 8 – 9 – 10 – 6 – 6 – 4 3 – 6 – – 6
(minutes) for jobs on M5 – – 8 – – 6 – 8 – 6 – 5 – 9 – – 4 – 8 8 –
alternative machines M6 – – – 5 – – 8 – 7 – 5 – 8 – – 5 – 8 – 9 –
 Following assumptions have been made: Scheduling FJS
. setup time for machines and transfer time between the operations are negligible; using multi-
. machines and jobs are independent of each other, i.e. there are no precedence objective GA
relations/constraints among the machines and the jobs;
. a job needs to be operated on any one of the available machines;
. at a given time, a machine can execute only one operation; and 181
. neither release times nor due dates are specified.
3.1 Mathematical formulation
Notations:
n ¼ no. of jobs
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 08:48 03 February 2016 (PT)

m ¼ no. of machines
i ¼ index of jobs
j ¼ index of machines
Jq ¼ set of job to be operated on machine “q”, qA(1, 2, y, m)
P (i, j) ¼ processing time of job “i” on machine “j”
m ¼ an arbitrary large positive number
Xi,k ¼ starting time of operation on job “i” on machine “k”
e(i,l ) ¼ 1; if job i processed before job l
¼ 0; otherwise; where {i, l }AJq, qA(1, 2, 3 y m)
O(i, j ) ¼ 1; if job “i” is operated on machine “j”
0; otherwise
This would prevent assignment of a job to a machine that does not operate on it:
TM( j, k) ¼ total machining time of a given jth machine of kth chromosome
Ck ¼ make span ¼ Max{TM ( j, k)}; For kth chromosome (1pjp6)
“Max” denotes the maximum value (total machining time) out of various machines for
a given chromosome. This value would be the make span as it gives the operating time
of the machine that finishes last. Since it finishes last, the job that was last processed
would be on this machine. Hence the operating time of this machine would be the make
span as it gives the maximum completion time of the last job:
Nchr ¼ no. of chromosomes for the initial population
Tmt(k) ¼ total machining time of kth chromosome
Wm ¼ weightage of make span
Wt ¼ weightage of total machining time
Objective function:
" ( )#
X
Min Z ¼ max Pði; jÞOði; jÞ
1pipn
" #
X X
 Pði; jÞOði; jÞ Wt; where j 2 f1; mg
1pjpm 1pipn

Subject to:
xl; k  xi; k  Pði; kÞ þ mf1  eði; lÞgX0; 8q; if ði; lÞ 2 Jq ð1Þ
 JAMR xi; k  xl; k  Pðl; kÞ þ meði; lÞX0; 8q; if ði; lÞ 2 Jq ð2Þ
9,2
This multi-objective function minimizes the maximum completion time as well as the
total machining time for different chromosomes. Equations (1) and (2) represent
machine constraints, i.e. any machine can only process one job at a time.
The implementation methodology of GA (flowchart) is given in Figure 1.
182 Step 1: representation. A linear representation is selected for the chromosomes. The
chromosome is in the form of an array where the array index number is a measure
of the value “Part no. – 1” (since value allocation starts from 0 in an array). The
values stored in the array at respective positions are the machine numbers that
have been allocated to that part number. In total there are 21 jobs to be processed, so
the size of the array should be 21 with the values being stored from array (0) to
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 08:48 03 February 2016 (PT)

array (20); e.g. machine number for job 7 will be stored in array (6). While
allocating machine numbers to the various jobs it has been taken care that only
those machines are allotted at which the specific job is processed. This is done by
passing a zero value for all the machines where a job cannot be operated. The
processing times of various jobs for different available machines are stored in
the “Master Array” and a zero is allocated wherever the job cannot be operated by a
given machines. Then, generating a random number between 1 and 6 (since six
machines are available) and asserting that the value is not zero (if zero, then repeat
the process), allocation of the machine number generated to the part number
is performed.

Start

Population initialization

Gen = 1

Gen=Gen+1 Evaluate and assign fitness

Mutation

Crossover

Stopping
criteria met?
N

Figure 1. Y
Flowchart for the
algorithm End
 For example: Scheduling FJS
using multi-
objective GA
This chromosome represents one of the possible solutions. The values in the array
are the machine numbers that have been allocated to the various parts. The
machine numbers are generated randomly to fill the locations and all parts have 183
a number of alternate machines available, so a great number of chromosomes
are possible.
Step 2: initial population generation. The generation of the initial population in
GA is usually done randomly as given below.
Procedure:
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 08:48 03 February 2016 (PT)

(1) generate a random number between 1 and 6 (since we have six machines);
(2) assert that the value (processing time) for corresponding part no. is not zero by
checking from the Master Array (if zero, then repeat the process, go to Step 1);
(3) allocate the machine number generated to the part no.;
(4) repeat the process for all jobs (go to Step 1; till 21 jobs have been allocated
machines); and
(5) repeat the processes for desired number of chromosomes (go to Step 1; till
desired number of chromosomes have been reached). This generates our initial
population upon which the various genetic operators will be used to get to a
more fit generation of solutions.
Step 3: fitness (evaluation) function. When all the individuals (chromosomes) in the
population have been determined, they can be evaluated based on the objective
function. The objective of the problem is to minimize the make span and the total
machining time. Make span is the maximum completion time of all the jobs in a set. To
calculate the make span following steps are followed:
(1) read a chromosome and list the various jobs allotted to a machine;
(2) find the total operating time of a machine by adding the processing times of all
jobs allocated to it;
(3) find total operating time of all the machines; and
(4) find the maximum value of the completion time from the six machines,
this maximum operating time would be the make span of the given
chromosome.
For example, for the random chromosome given here the fitness value can be
calculated as follows:

The processing times for various assignments are read from the Master Array and
total machining time (TM) is calculated for the various machines.
TM[1] ¼ 7 þ 7 þ 6 ¼ 20; TM[2] ¼ 9 þ 5 ¼ 14; TM[3] ¼ 5 þ 10 ¼ 15; TM[4] ¼ 10 þ 6 þ
6 þ 4 þ 3 þ 6 ¼ 35; TM[5] ¼ 8 þ 5 þ 9 þ 8 þ 4 ¼ 34; TM[6] ¼ 5 þ 8 þ 8 ¼ 21.
 JAMR As is obvious the make span for the given chromosome is MAX(TM[1], TM[2], TM[3],
9,2 TM[4], TM[5], TM[6]) ¼ TM[4] ¼ 35.
Total machining time (TMT) is the sum of processing times of all machines. To
find the total machining time we add the processing times of jobs allotted on specific
machines for a given chromosome. The total machining time for this chromosome
is 139. The weightage for make span is 80 per cent and for total machining time is
184 20 per cent.
Make span ¼ 35; TMT ¼ 139;
Hence the fitness value ¼ (8  make span þ 2  TMT) ¼ 558.
The lower the make-span value, the fitter will be the chromosome.
The objective is to minimize this fitness value (measure of both make span and total
machining time) to as low as possible in the allowed number of iterations.
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 08:48 03 February 2016 (PT)

Step 4: crossover. In a GA, crossover recombines the genetic material in two parents’
chromosomes to make two children, in order to generate a better solution. Since in the
problem all jobs cannot be operated on all machines, random swapping is not possible.
A job can be allocated only to that machine which can operate on it, hence swapping
is done between the parents along the columns after the 11th position so that the
parents retain their properties till 11th position and swap values after that strictly
along the same columns to get characteristics of the second parent, resulting in
generation of a child chromosome. Just reversing the sequence of parents generates the
second child.
Step 5: mutation. Another important genetic operator is mutation. It introduces
some extra variability; it provides and maintains diversity in a population. Generally in
mutation a random chromosome is selected, two random positions are selected and are
swapped. But since in the problem all machines cannot operate all jobs, this cannot be
strictly followed. So a random chromosome is selected and a random position is
selected, and any other alternate machine, which can operate the concerned job,
replaces the value or machine number assigned to it.

4. Results and discussions

A program code (Cþþ) was developed to carry out the numerical experiments.
An initial population was generated of 55 chromosomes. The fitness value of each
chromosome was calculated. Then the two genetic operators were applied to the
population depending on their probability. Process is repeated for the desired number
of iterations and when the population has reached an optimal value, i.e. the fitness
value does not get lower even after a number of iterations, the best chromosome is
displayed (the one having the least fitness value or the most fit chromosome).
The GA parameters used during the implementation of as follows:
Population size ¼ 50 (Nchr)
Crossover rate (Pc ) ¼ 0.9 (probability of crossover)
Mutation rate (Pm ) ¼ 0.1 (probability of mutation)
Wm ¼ 8, Wt ¼ 2

The chromosome having the best fitness value after the iterations is:
 Make span ¼ 23 minutes. Scheduling FJS
Total machining time ¼ 120 minutes. using multi-
The fitness value for this chromosome is 424.
objective GA
In Table II, a comparison between finishing times of different machines for different
chromosomes is given.
As shown in Figure 2, the processing times are not distributed uniformly, i.e.
allocation of jobs to machines is not optimal leading to excessive utilization of certain 185
machines whereas some machines remain underutilized leading to larger value of
make span as well as a lot of idle time for the underutilized machines.
In Figure 3, a very good allocation of jobs to the machines can be found as the
processing times on most of the machines are nearly same, i.e. most of the machines are
running for nearly equal amount of time, thus decreasing the idle time of the machines
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 08:48 03 February 2016 (PT)

and minimizing make span as well as total machining time. There is proper utilization
of most of the machines.

5. Managerial implication of research

The job scheduling problem always poses challenges to the production manager to
optimize the utilization of resources at the same time to deliver products in due time.
The solutions to the scheduling problem were traditionally achieved through operation
research-based approaches. With the increase in job complexity and availability
of multi-functional machines these problems became more difficult to address
conventionally. The present work dealing with a flexible job shop scheduling proposes
a multi-objective GA solution with illustrative numerical problems. Manufacturing
firms for discrete part production may encounter similar scheduling problems in their

Finish time
Machines Random chromosome Most fit chromosome

M1 20 18
M2 14 22
M3 15 23 Table II.
M4 35 23 Comparison of finishing
M5 34 17 time of different machines
M6 21 17 for different chromosomes

Random
Processing time
M6
M5
M4
M3
M2 Figure 2.
Gantt chart showing make
M1 span for different random
chromosomes
0 10 20 30 40
 JAMR Processing time
Most fit
9,2
M6

M5

186 M4

M3

M2
Figure 3.
Gantt chart showing
M1
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 08:48 03 February 2016 (PT)

make span for different

most fit chromosomes
0 10 20 30

shop floor. Selection of the optimum routing and scheduling of jobs which minimizes
make span and total machining time is vital decisions for any manufacturing firm.
It directly affects the cost of production, utilization of resources and most importantly
completion of order in time. The proposed approach will help in achieving these goals
through selection of best schedule for the given production requirement.

6. Conclusion
The problem of flexible job shop scheduling with the objective of minimizing make
span and total machining time of jobs has been considered in the present work.
A multi-objective GA has been proposed. To demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed
GA approach on the scheduling problem, a code is developed and the numerical
experiment is carried out. The GA approach was found to give good solution to the
complex problem of FJSP. It can be used to solve more complex problems involving
more constraints such as breakdown and inspection using a similar approach or an
altered meta-heuristic approach.

References
Chan, F.T.S., Wong, T.C. and Chan, L.Y. (2006), “Flexible job-shop scheduling problem
under resource constraints”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 44 No. 11,
pp. 2071-89.
Chang, P.C., Hsieh, J.C. and Wang, C.Y. (2007), “Adaptive multi-objective genetic algorithms for
scheduling of drilling operation in printed circuit board industry”, Applied Soft Computing,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 800-6.
Finke, D.A., Medeiros, D.J. and Traband, M.T. (2007), “Multiple machine JIT scheduling:
a tabu search approach”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 21,
pp. 4899-915.
Gupta, J.N.D., Palanimuthu, N. and Chen, C.L. (1999), “Designing a tabu search algorithm for the
two-stage flow shop problem with secondary criterion”, Production Planning & Control,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 251-65.
Jeong, S.J., Lim, S.J. and Kim, K.S. (2006), “Hybrid approach to production scheduling using
genetic algorithm and simulation”, International Journal of Advance Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 28 Nos 1-2, pp. 129-36.
 Moon, C. and Seo, Y. (2005), “Evolutionary algorithm for advanced process planning and Scheduling FJS
scheduling in a multi-plant”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 311-25.
using multi-
Ouenniche, J. and Boctor, F.F. (2001), “The G-group heuristic to solve the multi-product,
sequencing, lot sizing and scheduling problem in flow shops”, International Journal of objective GA
Production Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 81-98.
Parthasarathy, S. and Rajendran, C. (1997), “A simulated annealing heuristic for scheduling to
minimize mean weighted tardiness in a flow-shop with sequence-dependent setup times of 187
jobs: a case study”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 475-83.
Pasupathy, T., Rajendran, C. and Suresh, R.K. (2006), “A multi-objective genetic algorithm for
scheduling in flow shops to minimize the make-span and total flow time of jobs”,
International Journal of Advance Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 27 Nos 7-8, pp. 804-15.
Rivera, D.C., Becerra, R.L. and Coello, C.A.C. (2007), “Cultural algorithms an alternative
heuristic to solve the job shop scheduling problem”, Engineering Optimization, Vol. 39
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 08:48 03 February 2016 (PT)

No. 1, pp. 69-85.

Wang, L. and Zhang, L. (2006), “Determining optimal combination of genetic operators for
flow shop scheduling”, International Journal of Advance Manufacturing Technology,
Vol. 30 Nos 3-4, pp. 302-8.
Zandieh, M., Mahdavi, I. and Bagheri, A. (2008), “Solving the flexible job-shop scheduling
problem by a genetic algorithm”, Journal of applied science, Vol. 8 No. 24, pp. 4650-5.
Zhang, L., Wang, L. and Zheng, D.Z. (2006), “An adaptive genetic algorithm with multiple
operators for flow-shop scheduling”, International Journal of Advance Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 27 Nos 5-6, pp. 580-7.
Zolfaghari, S. and Liang, M. (1999), “The group scheduling and machining speed selection
problems: a hybrid tabu search and simulated annealing approach”, International Journal
of Production Research, Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 2377-97.

Further reading
Goldberg, D.E. (1989), Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Li, L., Fuh, J.Y.H., Zhang, Y.F. and Nee, A.Y.C. (2005), “Application of genetic algorithm to
computer-aided process planning in distributed manufacturing environments”, Robotics
and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 568-78.

About the authors

Rajeev Agrawal is presently working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Production
Engineering at Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, India. He obtained his Master degree from
Motilal Nehru National institute of Technology, Allahabad in 2001 and has submitted a PhD
thesis in “e-manufacturing”, at Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, India. He has more than ten
years of experience and has published two papers in peer reviewed international journals,
three research papers in international conferences and 15 papers in proceedings of national
seminar/conferences. He is one of the coordinators for establishment of National MEMS Design
Centre at Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra. His field of Interest is CAD/CAM/CAPP and
currently he is working in the field of E-manufacturing. He has organized 11 conferences of
national and international level and has delivered a number of professional lectures in the field of
industrial engineering and manufacturing. He has edited proceedings in national conferences.
He is a life member of the International Association of Engineers (IAENG), Indian Society of
Technical Education, (ISTE), Indian Institute of Production Engineers (IIPE) and MIE in Institute
of Engineers (India). Rajeev Agrawal is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
rajeev_agra@yahoo.com
 JAMR L.N. Pattanaik is presently working as an Associate Professor in the Department of
Production Engineering at Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, India. He earned a PhD from
9,2 Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India on Cellular/Reconfigurable Manufacturing
Systems during 2005-2006 and a Master’s degree in Technology from Institute of Technology,
BHU, Varanasi, India. His 14 years of experience includes teaching and research, with
publications in journals such as Int. J. of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Int. J. of
188 Manufacturing Technology & Management, Int. Journal of Industrial & Systems Engineering, Int.
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Int. J. of Simulation & Modeling. He is reviewer of many
international journals of repute.
S. Kumar obtained a PhD degree in 1975. In addition to teaching and guiding research at
various levels in the field of technology, he has served as a Consultant on various projects/
problems including research grant-in-aids projects sponsored by various National Agencies such
as DST, AICTE, UGC etc., as well as contributing to the literature in the area. He has authored
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 08:48 03 February 2016 (PT)

many professional books, technical reports and more than 200 research papers, which have
appeared in leading technical journals and proceedings of seminar/conferences on national and
international importance. He has over 39 years of experience and is the fellow/member of many
academic and professional bodies.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Imran Ali Chaudhry, Abid Ali Khan. 2016. A research survey: review of flexible job shop scheduling
techniques. International Transactions in Operational Research 23:10.1111/itor.2016.23.issue-3, 551-591.
[CrossRef]
2. Shirley Sinatra Gran, Ismariani Ismail, Tracy Adeline Ajol, Abang Feizal Abang IbrahimMixed Integer
Programming model for flexible job-shop scheduling problem (FJSP) to minimize makespan and total
machining time 413-417. [CrossRef]
3. Anil Kr. Aggarwal, Vikram Singh, Sanjeev Kumar. 2014. Availability analysis and performance
optimization of a butter oil production system: a case study. International Journal of System Assurance
Engineering and Management . [CrossRef]
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 08:48 03 February 2016 (PT)