Framework for sustainable TVET-Teacher Education Program in Malaysia Public Universities

Studies had stated that less attention was given to the education aspect, such as teaching and learning in planning for improving the TVET system. Due to the 21st Century context, the current paradigm of teaching for the TVET educators also has been reported to be fatal and need to be shifted. All these disadvantages reported hindering the country from achieving the 5th strategy in the Strategic Plan for Vocational Education Transformation to transform TVET system as a whole. Therefore, this study aims to develop a framework for sustainable TVET Teacher Education program in Malaysia. This study had adopted an Exploratory Sequential Mix-Method design, which involves a semi-structured interview (phase one) and survey method (phase two). Nine experts had involved in phase one chosen by using Purposive Sampling Technique. As in phase two, 118 TVET-TE program lecturers were selected as the survey sample chosen through random sampling method. After data analysis in phase one (thematic analysis) and phase two (Principal Component Analysis), eight domains and 22 elements have been identified for the framework for sustainable TVET-TE program in Malaysia. This framework was identified to embed the elements of 21st Century Education, thus filling the gap in this research. The research findings also indicate that the developed framework was unidimensional and valid for the development and research regarding TVET-TE program in Malaysia. Lastly, it is in the hope that this research can be a guide for the nations in producing a quality TVET teacher in the future

A greedy heuristic approach for the project scheduling with labour allocation problem

Responding to the growing need of generating a robust project scheduling, in this article we present a greedy algorithm to generate the project baseline schedule. The robustness achieved by integrating two dimensions of the human resources flexibilities. The first is the operators’ polyvalence, i.e. each operator has one or more secondary skill(s) beside his principal one, his mastering level being characterized by a factor we call “efficiency”. The second refers to the working time modulation, i.e. the workers have a flexible time-table that may vary on a daily or weekly basis respecting annualized working strategy. Moreover, the activity processing time is a non-increasing function of the number of workforce allocated to create it, also of their heterogynous working efficiencies. This modelling approach has led to a nonlinear optimization model with mixed variables. We present: the problem under study, the greedy algorithm used to solve it, and then results in comparison with those of the genetic algorithms

Squeaky Wheel Optimization

We describe a general approach to optimization which we term `Squeaky Wheel' Optimization (SWO). In SWO, a greedy algorithm is used to construct a solution which is then analyzed to find the trouble spots, i.e., those elements, that, if improved, are likely to improve the objective function score. The results of the analysis are used to generate new priorities that determine the order in which the greedy algorithm constructs the next solution. This Construct/Analyze/Prioritize cycle continues until some limit is reached, or an acceptable solution is found. SWO can be viewed as operating on two search spaces: solutions and prioritizations. Successive solutions are only indirectly related, via the re-prioritization that results from analyzing the prior solution. Similarly, successive prioritizations are generated by constructing and analyzing solutions. This `coupled search' has some interesting properties, which we discuss. We report encouraging experimental results on two domains, scheduling problems that arise in fiber-optic cable manufacturing, and graph coloring problems. The fact that these domains are very different supports our claim that SWO is a general technique for optimization

Comparative Analysis of Metaheuristic Approaches for Makespan Minimization for No Wait Flow Shop Scheduling Problem

This paper provides comparative analysis of various metaheuristic approaches for m-machine no wait flow shop scheduling (NWFSS) problem with makespan as an optimality criterion. NWFSS problem is NP hard and brute force method unable to find the solutions so approximate solutions are found with metaheuristic algorithms. The objective is to find out the scheduling sequence of jobs to minimize total completion time. In order to meet the objective criterion, existing metaheuristic techniques viz. Tabu Search (TS), Genetic Algorithm (GA) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) are implemented for small and large sized problems and effectiveness of these techniques are measured with statistical metric

Biased-Randomized Discrete-Event heuristics for dynamic optimization with time dependencies and synchronization

Many real-life combinatorial optimization problems are subject to a high degree of dynamism, while, simultaneously, a certain level of synchronization among agents and events is required. Thus, for instance, in ride-sharing operations, the arrival of vehicles at pick-up points needs to be synchronized with the times at which users reach these locations so that waiting times do not represent an issue. Likewise, in warehouse logistics, the availability of automated guided vehicles at an entry point needs to be synchronized with the arrival of new items to be stored. In many cases, as operational decisions are made, a series of interdependent events are scheduled for the future, thus making the synchronization task one that traditional optimization methods cannot handle easily. On the contrary, discrete-event simulation allows for processing a complex list of scheduled events in a natural way, although the optimization component is missing here. This paper discusses a hybrid approach in which a heuristic is driven by a list of discrete events and then extended into a biased-randomized algorithm. As the paper discusses in detail, the proposed hybrid approach allows us to efficiently tackle optimization problems with complex synchronization issuesPeer ReviewedPostprint (published version

Simulation and optimization techniques applied in semiconductor assembly and test operations

The importance of back-end operations in semiconductor manufacturing has been growing steadily in the face of higher customer expectations and stronger competition in the industry. In order to achieve low cycle times, high throughput, and high utilization while improving due-date performance, more effective tools are needed to support machine setup and lot dispatching decisions. In previous work, the problem of maximizing the weighted throughput of lots undergoing assembly and test (AT), while ensuring that critical lots are given priority, was investigated and a greedy randomized adaptive search procedure (GRASP) developed to find solutions. Optimization techniques have long been used for scheduling manufacturing operations on a daily basis. Solutions provide a prescription for machine setups and job processing over a finite the planning horizon. In contrast, simulation provides more detail but in a normative sense. It tells you how the system will evolve in real time for a given demand, a given set of resources and rules for using them. A simulation model can also accommodate changeovers, initial setups and multi-pass requirements easily. The first part of the research is to show how the results of an optimization model can be integrated with the decisions made within a simulation model. The problem addressed is defined in terms of four hierarchical objectives: minimize the weighted sum of key device shortages, maximize weighted throughput, minimize the number of machines used, and minimize makespan for a given set of lots in queue, and a set of resources that includes machines and tooling. The facility can be viewed as a reentrant flow shop. The basic simulation was written in AutoSched AP (ASAP) and then enhanced with the help of customization features available in the software. Several new dispatch rules were developed. Rule_First_setup is able to initialize the simulation with the setups obtained with the GRASP. Rule_All_setups enables a machine to select the setup provided by the optimization solution whenever a decision is about to be made on which setup to choose subsequent to the initial setup. Rule_Hotlot was also proposed to prioritize the processing of the hot lots that contain key devices. The objective of the second part of the research is to design and implement heuristics within the simulation model to schedule back-end operations in a semiconductor AT facility. Rule_Setupnum lets the machines determine which key device to process according to a machine setup frequency table constructed from the GRASP solution. GRASP_asap embeds a more robust selection features of GRASP in the ASAP model through customization. This allows ASAP to explore a larger portion of the feasible region at each decision point by randomizing machine setups using adaptive probability distributions that are a function of solution quality. Rule_Greedy, which is a simplification of GRASP_asap, always picks the setup for a particular machine that gives the greatest marginal improvement in the objective function among all candidates. The purpose of the third part of the research is to statistically validate the relative effectiveness of our top six dispatch rules by comparing their performance on 30 real and randomly generated data sets. Using both GRASP and our ASAP discrete event simulation model, we have (1) identified the general order of dispatch rule performance, (2) investigated the impact of having setups installed on machines at time zero on rule performance, (3) determined the conditions under which restricting the maximum number of changeover affects the rule performance, and (4) studied the factors that might simultaneously affect rule performance with the help of a common random numbers experimental design. In the analysis, the first two objectives, weighted key device shortages and weighted throughput, are used to measure outcomes.Operations Research and Industrial Engineerin

Flow shop rescheduling under different types of disruption

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Production Research on 2013, available online:http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/00207543.2012.666856Almost all manufacturing facilities need to use production planning and scheduling systems to increase productivity and to reduce production costs. Real-life production operations are subject to a large number of unexpected disruptions that may invalidate the original schedules. In these cases, rescheduling is essential to minimise the impact on the performance of the system. In this work we consider flow shop layouts that have seldom been studied in the rescheduling literature. We generate and employ three types of disruption that interrupt the original schedules simultaneously. We develop rescheduling algorithms to finally accomplish the twofold objective of establishing a standard framework on the one hand, and proposing rescheduling methods that seek a good trade-off between schedule quality and stability on the other.The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for their careful and detailed comments that helped to improve the paper considerably. This work is partially financed by the Small and Medium Industry of the Generalitat Valenciana (IMPIVA) and by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) inside the R + D program "Ayudas dirigidas a Institutos tecnologicos de la Red IMPIVA" during the year 2011, with project number IMDEEA/2011/142.Katragjini Prifti, K.; Vallada Regalado, E.; Ruiz García, R. (2013). Flow shop rescheduling under different types of disruption. International Journal of Production Research. 51(3):780-797. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.666856S780797513Abumaizar, R. J., & Svestka, J. A. (1997). Rescheduling job shops under random disruptions. International Journal of Production Research, 35(7), 2065-2082. doi:10.1080/002075497195074Adiri, I., Frostig, E., & Kan, A. H. G. R. (1991). Scheduling on a single machine with a single breakdown to minimize stochastically the number of tardy jobs. Naval Research Logistics, 38(2), 261-271. doi:10.1002/1520-6750(199104)38:23.0.co;2-iAkturk, M. S., & Gorgulu, E. (1999). Match-up scheduling under a machine breakdown. European Journal of Operational Research, 112(1), 81-97. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(97)00396-2Allahverdi, A. (1996). Two-machine proportionate flowshop scheduling with breakdowns to minimize maximum lateness. Computers & Operations Research, 23(10), 909-916. doi:10.1016/0305-0548(96)00012-3Arnaout, J. P., & Rabadi, G. (2008). Rescheduling of unrelated parallel machines under machine breakdowns. International Journal of Applied Management Science, 1(1), 75. doi:10.1504/ijams.2008.020040Artigues, C., Billaut, J.-C., & Esswein, C. (2005). Maximization of solution flexibility for robust shop scheduling. European Journal of Operational Research, 165(2), 314-328. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.004Azizoglu, M., & Alagöz, O. (2005). Parallel-machine rescheduling with machine disruptions. IIE Transactions, 37(12), 1113-1118. doi:10.1080/07408170500288133Bean, J. C., Birge, J. R., Mittenthal, J., & Noon, C. E. (1991). Matchup Scheduling with Multiple Resources, Release Dates and Disruptions. Operations Research, 39(3), 470-483. doi:10.1287/opre.39.3.470Caricato, P., & Grieco, A. (2008). An online approach to dynamic rescheduling for production planning applications. International Journal of Production Research, 46(16), 4597-4617. doi:10.1080/00207540601136225CHURCH, L. K., & UZSOY, R. (1992). Analysis of periodic and event-driven rescheduling policies in dynamic shops. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 5(3), 153-163. doi:10.1080/09511929208944524Cowling, P., & Johansson, M. (2002). Using real time information for effective dynamic scheduling. European Journal of Operational Research, 139(2), 230-244. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(01)00355-1Curry, J., & Peters *, B. (2005). Rescheduling parallel machines with stepwise increasing tardiness and machine assignment stability objectives. International Journal of Production Research, 43(15), 3231-3246. doi:10.1080/00207540500103953DUTTA, A. (1990). Reacting to Scheduling Exceptions in FMS Environments. IIE Transactions, 22(4), 300-314. doi:10.1080/07408179008964185Ghezail, F., Pierreval, H., & Hajri-Gabouj, S. (2010). Analysis of robustness in proactive scheduling: A graphical approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 58(2), 193-198. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2009.03.004Goren, S., & Sabuncuoglu, I. (2008). Robustness and stability measures for scheduling: single-machine environment. IIE Transactions, 40(1), 66-83. doi:10.1080/07408170701283198Hall, N. G., & Potts, C. N. (2004). Rescheduling for New Orders. Operations Research, 52(3), 440-453. doi:10.1287/opre.1030.0101Herrmann, J. W., Lee, C.-Y., & Snowdon, J. L. (1993). A Classification of Static Scheduling Problems. Complexity in Numerical Optimization, 203-253. doi:10.1142/9789814354363_0011Herroelen, W., & Leus, R. (2005). Project scheduling under uncertainty: Survey and research potentials. European Journal of Operational Research, 165(2), 289-306. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.002Hozak, K., & Hill, J. A. (2009). Issues and opportunities regarding replanning and rescheduling frequencies. International Journal of Production Research, 47(18), 4955-4970. doi:10.1080/00207540802047106Huaccho Huatuco, L., Efstathiou, J., Calinescu, A., Sivadasan, S., & Kariuki, S. (2009). Comparing the impact of different rescheduling strategies on the entropic-related complexity of manufacturing systems. International Journal of Production Research, 47(15), 4305-4325. doi:10.1080/00207540701871036Jensen, M. T. (2003). Generating robust and flexible job shop schedules using genetic algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 7(3), 275-288. doi:10.1109/tevc.2003.810067King, J. R. (1976). The theory-practice gap in job-shop scheduling. Production Engineer, 55(3), 137. doi:10.1049/tpe.1976.0044Kopanos, G. M., Capón-García, E., Espuña,, A., & Puigjaner, L. (2008). Costs for Rescheduling Actions: A Critical Issue for Reducing the Gap between Scheduling Theory and Practice. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 47(22), 8785-8795. doi:10.1021/ie8005676Lee, C.-Y., Leung, J. Y.-T., & Yu, G. (2006). Two Machine Scheduling under Disruptions with Transportation Considerations. Journal of Scheduling, 9(1), 35-48. doi:10.1007/s10951-006-5592-7Li, Z., & Ierapetritou, M. (2008). Process scheduling under uncertainty: Review and challenges. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 32(4-5), 715-727. doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2007.03.001Liao, C. J., & Chen, W. J. (2004). Scheduling under machine breakdown in a continuous process industry. Computers & Operations Research, 31(3), 415-428. doi:10.1016/s0305-0548(02)00224-1Mehta, S. V. (1999). Predictable scheduling of a single machine subject to breakdowns. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 12(1), 15-38. doi:10.1080/095119299130443MUHLEMANN, A. P., LOCKETT, A. G., & FARN, C.-K. (1982). Job shop scheduling heuristics and frequency of scheduling. International Journal of Production Research, 20(2), 227-241. doi:10.1080/00207548208947763Nawaz, M., Enscore, E. E., & Ham, I. (1983). A heuristic algorithm for the m-machine, n-job flow-shop sequencing problem. Omega, 11(1), 91-95. doi:10.1016/0305-0483(83)90088-9O’Donovan, R., Uzsoy, R., & McKay, K. N. (1999). Predictable scheduling of a single machine with breakdowns and sensitive jobs. International Journal of Production Research, 37(18), 4217-4233. doi:10.1080/002075499189745Özlen, M., & Azizoğlu, M. (2009). Generating all efficient solutions of a rescheduling problem on unrelated parallel machines. International Journal of Production Research, 47(19), 5245-5270. doi:10.1080/00207540802043998Pfeiffer, A., Kádár, B., & Monostori, L. (2007). Stability-oriented evaluation of rescheduling strategies, by using simulation. Computers in Industry, 58(7), 630-643. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2007.05.009Pierreval, H., & Durieux-Paris, S. (2007). Robust simulation with a base environmental scenario. European Journal of Operational Research, 182(2), 783-793. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2006.07.045Damodaran, P., Hirani, N. S., & Gallego, M. C. V. (2009). Scheduling identical parallel batch processing machines to minimise makespan using genetic algorithms. European J. of Industrial Engineering, 3(2), 187. doi:10.1504/ejie.2009.023605Qi, X., Bard, J. F., & Yu, G. (2006). Disruption management for machine scheduling: The case of SPT schedules. International Journal of Production Economics, 103(1), 166-184. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.05.021Rangsaritratsamee, R., Ferrell, W. G., & Kurz, M. B. (2004). Dynamic rescheduling that simultaneously considers efficiency and stability. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 46(1), 1-15. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2003.09.007Ruiz, R., & Stützle, T. (2007). A simple and effective iterated greedy algorithm for the permutation flowshop scheduling problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 2033-2049. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.12.009Sabuncuoglu, I., & Goren, S. (2009). Hedging production schedules against uncertainty in manufacturing environment with a review of robustness and stability research. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 22(2), 138-157. doi:10.1080/09511920802209033Sabuncuoglu, I., & Kizilisik, O. B. (2003). Reactive scheduling in a dynamic and stochastic FMS environment. International Journal of Production Research, 41(17), 4211-4231. doi:10.1080/0020754031000149202Salveson, M. E. (1952). On a Quantitative Method in Production Planning and Scheduling. Econometrica, 20(4), 554. doi:10.2307/1907643Samarghandi, H., & ElMekkawy, T. Y. (2011). An efficient hybrid algorithm for the two-machine no-wait flow shop problem with separable setup times and single server. European J. of Industrial Engineering, 5(2), 111. doi:10.1504/ejie.2011.039869Subramaniam *, V., Raheja, A. S., & Rama Bhupal Reddy, K. (2005). Reactive repair tool for job shop schedules. International Journal of Production Research, 43(1), 1-23. doi:10.1080/0020754042000270412Taillard, E. (1990). Some efficient heuristic methods for the flow shop sequencing problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 47(1), 65-74. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(90)90090-xTaillard, E. (1993). Benchmarks for basic scheduling problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 64(2), 278-285. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(93)90182-mValente, J. M. S., & Schaller, J. E. (2010). Improved heuristics for the single machine scheduling problem with linear early and quadratic tardy penalties. European J. of Industrial Engineering, 4(1), 99. doi:10.1504/ejie.2010.029572Vallada, E., & Ruiz, R. (2010). Genetic algorithms with path relinking for the minimum tardiness permutation flowshop problem☆. Omega, 38(1-2), 57-67. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2009.04.002Vieira, G. E., Herrmann, J. W., & Lin, E. (2000). Predicting the performance of rescheduling strategies for parallel machine systems. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 19(4), 256-266. doi:10.1016/s0278-6125(01)80005-4Vieira, G. E., Herrmann, J. W., & Lin, E. (2003). Journal of Scheduling, 6(1), 39-62. doi:10.1023/a:1022235519958Yang, J., & Yu, G. (2002). Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, 6(1), 17-33. doi:10.1023/a:1013333232691Zandieh, M., & Gholami, M. (2009). An immune algorithm for scheduling a hybrid flow shop with sequence-dependent setup times and machines with random breakdowns. International Journal of Production Research, 47(24), 6999-7027. doi:10.1080/0020754080240063