Skip to main content
Log in

Maximizing the number of jobs scheduled at their baseline starting times in case of machine failures

  • Published:
Journal of Scheduling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigate the problem of keeping the maximum number of starting times of a baseline schedule if some machines happen to be out of order when the baseline schedule is to be implemented. If the machines are identical, we show that the problem is polynomially solved when no deadline is imposed on the reactive schedule and is strongly NP-hard otherwise. If the number of unrelated machines is fixed and if no deadline is imposed on the reactive schedule, a polynomial algorithm, based on a state graph, has been developed. We conclude with an open complexity question and some further research directions for this class of problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. French electricity supplier.

  2. Sorbonne Université, Campus Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris.

References

  • Barták, R., Veira, G. E., Herrmann, J., & Lin, E. (2003). Rescheduling manufacturing systems: A framework of strategies, policies and methods. Journal of Scheduling, 6, 39–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendotti, P., Chrétienne, P., Fouilhoux, P., & Quilliot, A. (2017). Anchored reactive and proactive solutions to the CPM scheduling problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 261(1), 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrétienne, P. (2018). Reactive and proactive single-machine scheduling to maintain a maximum number of starting times. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-2763-9.

  • Fulkerson, D. R., & Gross, O. A. (1965). Incidence matrices and interval graphs. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 15, 835–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garey, M., & Johnson, D. S. (1979). Computers and intractability: A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazir, O., Haouari, M., & Erel, E. (2010). Robust scheduling and robustness measures for the discrete time/cost trade-off problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(2), 633–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herroelen, W., & Leus, R. (2004a). The construction of stable project baseline schedules. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(3), 550–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herroelen, W., & Leus, R. (2004b). Robust and reactive project scheduling: a review and classification of procedures. International Journal of Production Research, 42(8), 1599–1620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vieira, G. E., Müller, T., & Rudovà, H. (2003). Minimal perturbation problem: A formal view. Neural Network World, 13(5), 501–511.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philippe Chrétienne.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Correctness proof of ALG(X, m, f)

Correctness proof of ALG(Xmf)

Proof

We denote by L the list \((1,\ldots ,n)\).

Let H be the subset returned by ALG(Xmf), and let \(H^*\) be an optimal x-compatible subset. Let i be the first job of L that belongs to H but not to \(H^*\). From the definition of i, every job \(k\in \{1,\ldots ,i-1\}\) either belongs to H and \(H^*\), or does not belong either to H or \(H^*\). So \(H^*\) contains a job \(j>i\) that does not belong to H since otherwise the number of jobs of \(S^*\) would be less than the number of jobs of H. Let us consider such a job j (\(j\in H^*\), \(j\not \in H\)) with a minimum \(x_j\) (see Fig. 10) and consider the set \(\bar{H}=H^*\setminus \{j\}\cup \{i\}\).

Fig. 10
figure 10

The exchange process \(\bar{H}=H^*\setminus \{j\}\cup \{i\}\)

From the definition of j, every job \(k>i\) such that \(x_k<x_j\) satisfies either (\(k\not \in H^*\), \(k\not \in H\)) or (\(k\in H^*\), \(k\in H\)) or (\(k\not \in H^*\), \(k\in H\)). Since \(x_j+p_j\ge x_i+p_i\), after time \(x_j\), the number of active jobs in \({\bar{H}}\) is at most equal to the number of active jobs in \(H^*\). Before time \(x_j\), the active jobs of \({\bar{H}}\) are also the active jobs of H. So, \({\bar{H}}\) is also an optimal solution. Further, we can repeat that exchange process until there is no such job i and conclude that H is an optimal x-compatible subset. \(\square \)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chrétienne, P. Maximizing the number of jobs scheduled at their baseline starting times in case of machine failures. J Sched 23, 135–143 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10951-019-00621-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10951-019-00621-x

Keywords

Navigation