Machine scheduling with earliness, tardiness and non-execution penalties
Introduction
The study of scheduling problems with earliness and tardiness (E/T) penalties is relatively recent. For many years, the research of scheduling problems focused on minimizing measures such as mean flow-time, maximum tardiness, and makespan, all non-decreasing in the completion times of tasks. For these measures, delaying execution of tasks results in a higher cost. However, the current emphasis in industry on the just-in-time (JIT) philosophy, which supports the notion that earliness, as well as tardiness, should be discouraged, has motivated the study of scheduling problems in which tasks are preferred to be ready just at their respective due dates, and both early and tardy products are penalized.
In this paper, we consider several E/T scheduling problems. We are given a set of tasks. Task Ti has an integer processing time pi>0 and a target starting time ai⩾0 (or equivalently, a due date di, where di⩾pi). There are m parallel machines, {M1,…,Mm}. Our notation follows that of Garey et al. [1].
A solution for T̃, is an assignment of each task Ti to a machine Mj and a schedule corresponding to that assignment, which determines a starting time si for Ti on Mj. The scheduling of starting times, must satisfy that no two tasks assigned to the same machine overlap in their execution time, and that the tasks are to be scheduled non-preemptively; once started, a task Ti must be executed to its completion, pi time units later.
A sequence defines the order in which, tasks are to be processed, whereas a schedule is a sequence with starting times calculated for each task. We assume nonnegative earliness penalty weight αi and nonnegative tardiness penalty weight βi, associated with task Ti. Ti incurs the earliness penalty αi(ai−si) if si<ai and it incurs the tardiness penalty βi(si−ai) if si>ai. We define ei=max{0,ai−si}≡(ai−si)+ and ti=max{0,si−ai}≡(si−ai)+ and thus, the penalty incurred by Ti is αiei+βiti. The overall cost of a solution, which we wish to minimize, is the sum of the individual penalties, i.e., . We refer to this cost function, as the Total Weighted Earliness and Tardiness problem (TWET—see [2]). In general, we denote the cost of solution T̃ by .
In Section 4, we introduce a new type of penalty to the E/T scheduling problems. Assume we are allowed to not-execute one or more of the tasks. Denote by γi the penalty incurred if Ti is not executed (processed). Thus, a modified TWET problem, is to minimize ∑i=1N[(1−xi)(αiei+βiti)+xiγi] where xi=0 if Ti is executed and xi=1, otherwise. The notion of task's non-execution, fits the JIT philosophy in that every violation or a breach of an agreement, should be penalized.
Section snippets
Literature review
The research can be classified into two main categories, which reflect the due date specifications:
- 1.
Problems with common due date {di=d}, which we denote CDD.
- 2.
Problems with distinct due dates {di}, which we denote DDD.
Generalizations of Algorithm GTW
Garey et al. [1], consider the 1|di,pi|MAD problem under a given sequence of tasks and present an time scheduling algorithm (Algorithm GTW). They also prove that if the tasks are not pre-ordered but, have a common length of processing time p⩾0, it is optimal to sequence the tasks such that ai⩽ai+1 for 1⩽i<N. The solution generated by the algorithm to this optimal sequence, is a minimum cost schedule in which si⩽si+1 for 1⩽i<N. We start this section by presenting Algorithm GTW after
Non-execution penalty
In this section we remove the requirement that all tasks must be executed. Denote by γi the penalty incurred if Ti is not executed. For example, a modified TWET problem is to minimize where xi=0 if Ti is executed and xi=1, otherwise. We will consider different cost functions and present polynomial time algorithms.
References (37)
- et al.
A survey of the state-of-the-art of common due date assignment and scheduling research
European Journal of Operational Research
(2002) - et al.
Algorithms for minclique scheduling problems
Discrete Applied Mathematics
(1997) The weighted common due date single machine scheduling problem revisited
Computers & Operations Research
(1996)- et al.
A neighborhood scheme with a compressed solution space for the early/tardy scheduling problem
European Journal of Operational Research
(1997) - et al.
Single machine scheduling to minimize mean absolute latenessa heuristic solution
Computers & Operations Research
(1990) - et al.
A genetic algorithm for job sequencing problems with distinct due dates and general early-tardy penalty weights
Computers & Operations Research
(1995) - et al.
Equivalence of mean flow time problems and mean absolute deviation problems
Operations Research Letters
(1990) The complexity of scheduling job families about a common due date
Operations Research Letters
(1997)A V-Shape property of optimal schedule of jobs about a common due date
European Journal of Operational Research
(1986)Completion time variance minimization on a single machine is difficult
Operations Research Letters
(1993)
Greedy heuristics for single-machine scheduling problems with general earliness and tardiness costs
Operations Research Letters
Scheduling about a common due date with job-dependent asymmetric earliness and tardiness penalties
European Journal of Operational Research
One-processor scheduling with symmetric earliness and tardiness penalties
Mathematics of Operations Research
Sequencing with earliness and tardiness penaltiesa review
Operations Research
Minimizing the average deviation of job completion times about a common due date
Naval Research Logistics Quarterly
Single- and multiple-processor models for minimizing completion time variance
Naval Research Logistics Quarterly
Minimizing mean absolute deviation of completion times about a common due date
Naval Research Logistics Quarterly
Minimizing absolute and squared deviations of completion times with different earliness and tardiness penalties and a common due date
Naval Research Logistics
Cited by (31)
Optimal restricted due date assignment in scheduling
2016, European Journal of Operational ResearchCitation Excerpt :Earliness-tardiness scheduling problems have attracted the attention of many researchers (see, e.g., Sundararaghavan and Ahmed, 1984; Hall and Posner, 1991; Hall, Kubiak, and Sethi, 1991; Hassin and Shani, 2005; Davis and Kanet, 1993; Sivrikaya-Serifoğlu and Ulusoy, 1999 and Sourd and Kedad-Sidhoum, 2008).
Minimizing earliness and tardiness costs in stochastic scheduling
2014, European Journal of Operational ResearchCitation Excerpt :James and Buchanan (1997) studied variations on a tabu-search heuristic and used an integer program to produce optimal solutions for problems up to 15 jobs. Detailed reviews of this literature have been provided by Kanet and Sridharan (2000), Hassin and Shani (2005) and M’Hallah (2007). The reason for emphasizing problem sizes in these studies, although they may be somewhat dated, is to contrast the limits on problem size encountered in studies of the distinct due-date problem with those encountered in the common due-date problem.
Development of hybrid evolutionary algorithms for production scheduling of hot strip mill
2012, Computers and Operations ResearchLagrangian domain reductions for the single machine earliness-tardiness problem with release dates
2010, European Journal of Operational ResearchMinimizing the weighted number of early and tardy jobs in a stochastic single machine scheduling problem
2007, European Journal of Operational ResearchJob Scheduling Problem in the Production of Electrical Equipment
2023, Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering
- 1
Present address: 59 Ben-Gurion St., Kfar Saba 44204, Israel.