Using real-time information to reschedule jobs in a flowshop with variable processing times

Versión revisada. Embargo 36 mesesIn a time where detailed, instantaneous and accurate information on shop-floor status is becoming available in many manufacturing companies due to Information Technologies initiatives such as Smart Factory or Industry 4.0, a question arises regarding when and how this data can be used to improve scheduling decisions. While it is acknowledged that a continuous rescheduling based on the updated information may be beneficial as it serves to adapt the schedule to unplanned events, this rather general intuition has not been supported by a thorough experimentation, particularly for multi-stage manufacturing systems where such continuous rescheduling may introduce a high degree of nervousness in the system and deteriorates its performance. In order to study this research problem, in this paper we investigate how real-time information on the completion times of the jobs in a flowshop with variable processing times can be used to reschedule the jobs. In an exhaustive computational experience, we show that rescheduling policies pay off as long as the variability of the processing times is not very high, and only if the initially generated schedule is of good quality. Furthermore, we propose several rescheduling policies to improve the performance of continuous rescheduling while greatly reducing the frequency of rescheduling. One of these policies, based on the concept of critical path of a flowshop, outperforms the rest of policies for a wide range of scenarios.Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación DPI2016-80750-

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

Towards robustness of production planning and control against supply chain disruptions

Just-in-time supply chains have become increasingly popular in past decades. However, these are particularly vulnerable when logistic routes are blocked, manufacturing capacities are limited or customs are under strain, as has been seen in the last few years. The principle of just-in-time delivery requires a coordinated production and material flow along the entire supply chain. Challenges in the supply chain can lead to various disruptions, so that certain manufacturing jobs must be changed, postponed or cancelled, which will then impact supply down the line up to the consumer. Nowadays, many planning and control processes in the event of a disturbance are based on the procedural knowledge of employees and undertaken manually by those. The procedures to mitigate the negative effects of disturbances are often quite complex and time-critical, making disturbance management highly challenging. In this paper, we introduce a real-world use case where we automate the currently manual reschedule of a production plan containing unavailable jobs. First, we analyse existing literature regarding the classification of disturbances encountered in similar use cases. We show how we automate existing manual disturbance management and argue that employing stochastic optimization allows us to not only promote future jobs but to on-the-fly create entirely new plans that are optimized regarding throughput, energy consumption, material waste and operator productivity. Building on this routine, we propose to create a Bayesian estimator to determine the probabilities of delivery times whose predictions we can then reintegrate into our optimizer to create less fragile schedules. Overall, the goals of this approach are to increase robustness in production planning and control

An Adaptive Rescheduling Strategy for Grid Workflow Applications

Scheduling is the key to the performance of grid workflow applications. Various strategies are proposed, including static scheduling strategies which map jobs to resources before execution time, or dynamic alternatives which schedule individual job only when it is ready to execute. While sizable work supports the claim that the static scheduling performs better for workflow applications than the dynamic one, it is questioned how a static schedule works effectively in a grid environment which changes constantly. This paper proposes a novel adaptive rescheduling concept, which allows the workflow planner works collaboratively with the run time executor and reschedule in a proactive way had the grid environment changes significantly. An HEFT-based adaptive rescheduling algorithm is presented, evaluated and compared with traditional static and dynamic strategies respectively. The experiment results show that the proposed strategy not only outperforms the dynamic one but also improves over the traditional static one. Furthermore we observed that it performs more efficiently with data intensive application of higher degree of parallelism.

Towards Robustness Of Production Planning And Control Against Supply Chain Disruptions

Just-in-time supply chains have become increasingly popular in past decades. However, these are particularly vulnerable when logistic routes are blocked, manufacturing capacities are limited or customs are under strain, as has been seen in the last few years. The principle of just-in-time delivery requires a coordinated production and material flow along the entire supply chain. Challenges in the supply chain can lead to various disruptions, so that certain manufacturing jobs must be changed, postponed or cancelled, which will then impact supply down the line up to the consumer. Nowadays, many planning and control processes in the event of a disturbance are based on the procedural knowledge of employees and undertaken manually by those. The procedures to mitigate the negative effects of disturbances are often quite complex and time-critical, making disturbance management highly challenging. In this paper, we introduce a real-world use case where we automate the currently manual reschedule of a production plan containing unavailable jobs. First, we analyse existing literature regarding the classification of disturbances encountered in similar use cases. We show how we automate existing manual disturbance management and argue that employing stochastic optimization allows us to not only promote future jobs but to on-the-fly create entirely new plans that are optimized regarding throughput, energy consumption, material waste and operator productivity. Building on this routine, we propose to create a Bayesian estimator to determine the probabilities of delivery times whose predictions we can then reintegrate into our optimizer to create less fragile schedules. Overall, the goals of this approach are to increase robustness in production planning and control

A Generic Mechanism for Repairing Job Shop Schedules

Reactive repair of a disrupted schedule is a better alternative to total rescheduling, as the latter is a time consuming process and also results in shop floor nervousness. The schedule repair heuristics reported in the literature generally address only machine breakdown. This paper presents a modified Affected Operations Rescheduling (mAOR) approach, which deals with many of the disruptions that are frequently encountered in a job shop. The repair of these disruptions has been decomposed into four generic repair actions that can be applied singularly or in combination. These generic repair actions are evaluated through a simulation study with the performance measures of efficiency and stability. The results indicate the effectiveness of the mAOR heuristic in dealing with typical job shop disruptions.Singapore-MIT Alliance (SMA

Optimization Models and Approximate Algorithms for the Aerial Refueling Scheduling and Rescheduling Problems

The Aerial Refueling Scheduling Problem (ARSP) can be defined as determining the refueling completion times for fighter aircrafts (jobs) on multiple tankers (machines) to minimize the total weighted tardiness. ARSP can be modeled as a parallel machine scheduling with release times and due date-to-deadline window. ARSP assumes that the jobs have different release times, due dates, and due date-to-deadline windows between the refueling due date and a deadline to return without refueling. The Aerial Refueling Rescheduling Problem (ARRP), on the other hand, can be defined as updating the existing AR schedule after being disrupted by job related events including the arrival of new aircrafts, departure of an existing aircrafts, and changes in aircraft priorities. ARRP is formulated as a multiobjective optimization problem by minimizing the total weighted tardiness (schedule quality) and schedule instability. Both ARSP and ARRP are formulated as mixed integer programming models. The objective function in ARSP is a piecewise tardiness cost that takes into account due date-to-deadline windows and job priorities. Since ARSP is NP-hard, four approximate algorithms are proposed to obtain solutions in reasonable computational times, namely (1) apparent piecewise tardiness cost with release time rule (APTCR), (2) simulated annealing starting from random solution (SArandom ), (3) SA improving the initial solution constructed by APTCR (SAAPTCR), and (4) Metaheuristic for Randomized Priority Search (MetaRaPS). Additionally, five regeneration and partial repair algorithms (MetaRE, BestINSERT, SEPRE, LSHIFT, and SHUFFLE) were developed for ARRP to update instantly the current schedule at the disruption time. The proposed heuristic algorithms are tested in terms of solution quality and CPU time through computational experiments with randomly generated data to represent AR operations and disruptions. Effectiveness of the scheduling and rescheduling algorithms are compared to optimal solutions for problems with up to 12 jobs and to each other for larger problems with up to 60 jobs. The results show that, APTCR is more likely to outperform SArandom especially when the problem size increases, although it has significantly worse performance than SA in terms of deviation from optimal solution for small size problems. Moreover CPU time performance of APTCR is significantly better than SA in both cases. MetaRaPS is more likely to outperform SAAPTCR in terms of average error from optimal solutions for both small and large size problems. Results for small size problems show that MetaRaPS algorithm is more robust compared to SAAPTCR. However, CPU time performance of SA is significantly better than MetaRaPS in both cases. ARRP experiments were conducted with various values of objective weighting factor for extended analysis. In the job arrival case, MetaRE and BestINSERT have significantly performed better than SEPRE in terms of average relative error for small size problems. In the case of job priority disruption, there is no significant difference between MetaRE, BestINSERT, and SHUFFLE algorithms. MetaRE has significantly performed better than LSHIFT to repair job departure disruptions and significantly superior to the BestINSERT algorithm in terms of both relative error and computational time for large size problems