Abstract
The goal of manufacturing scheduling is to allocate a set of jobs to the machines in the shop so these jobs are processed according to a given criterion (or set of criteria). Such criteria are based on properties of the jobs to be scheduled (e.g., their completion times, due dates); so it is not clear how these (short-term) criteria impact on (long-term) shop floor performance measures. In this paper, we analyse the connection between the usual scheduling criteria employed as objectives in flowshop scheduling (e.g., makespan or idle time), and customary shop floor performance measures (e.g., work-in-process and throughput). Two of these linkages can be theoretically predicted (i.e., makespan and throughput as well as completion time and average cycle time), and the other such relationships should be discovered on a numerical/empirical basis. In order to do so, we set up an experimental analysis consisting in finding optimal (or good) schedules under several scheduling criteria, and then computing how these schedules perform in terms of the different shop floor performance measures for several instance sizes and for different structures of processing times. Results indicate that makespan only performs well with respect to throughput, and that one formulation of idle times obtains nearly as good results as makespan, while outperforming it in terms of average cycle time and work in process. Similarly, minimisation of completion time seems to be quite balanced in terms of shop floor performance, although it does not aim exactly at work-in-process minimisation, as some literature suggests. Finally, the experiments show that some of the existing scheduling criteria are poorly related to the shop floor performance measures under consideration. These results may help to better understand the impact of scheduling on flowshop performance, so scheduling research may be more geared towards shop floor performance, which is sometimes suggested as a cause for the lack of applicability of some scheduling models in manufacturing.
Highlights
To handle the complexity of manufacturing decisions, these have been traditionally addressed in a hierarchical manner, in which the overall problem is decomposed into a number of sub-problems or decision levels [1]
Among the different decisions involved in manufacturing, here we focus on scheduling decisions
A first goal of the experiments is to establish which scheduling criterion is more related to the different shop floor performance measures
Summary
To handle the complexity of manufacturing decisions, these have been traditionally addressed in a hierarchical manner, in which the overall problem is decomposed into a number of sub-problems or decision levels [1]. Some justifications for using specific scheduling criteria are given without a formal proof It is usual in the scheduling literature to mention that minimising the completion time in a flowshop leads to minimising work-in-process, whereas this statement—as we discuss in Section 2.2—is not correct from a theoretical point of view. Makespan minimisation is heavily oriented towards increasing throughput, but it yields poor results in terms of average completion time and work-in-process This confines its suitability to manufacturing scenarios with very high utilisation costs as compared to those associated with cycle time and inventory. Minimisation of one definition of idle times results in sequences with only a marginal worsening in terms of throughput, but a substantial improvement in terms of cycle time and inventory This criterion emerges as an interesting one when the alignment with shop floor performance is sought.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
