Next Article in Journal
Exploring Travelers’ Characteristics Affecting their Intention to Shift to Bike-Sharing Systems due to a Sophisticated Mobile App
Next Article in Special Issue
Two-Machine Job-Shop Scheduling Problem to Minimize the Makespan with Uncertain Job Durations
Previous Article in Journal
Using Interval Analysis to Compute the Invariant Set of a Nonlinear Closed-Loop Control System
Previous Article in Special Issue
Some Results on Shop Scheduling with S-Precedence Constraints among Job Tasks

Linking Scheduling Criteria to Shop Floor Performance in Permutation Flowshops

Industrial Management, School of Engineering, University of Seville, 41004 Sevilla, Spain
Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Duisburg-Essen, 47057 Duisburg, Germany
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 30 October 2019 / Revised: 1 December 2019 / Accepted: 4 December 2019 / Published: 7 December 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Exact and Heuristic Scheduling Algorithms)
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. View Full-Text
Keywords: scheduling; shop floor performance; flowshop; manufacturing scheduling; shop floor performance; flowshop; manufacturing
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Framinan, J.M.; Leisten, R. Linking Scheduling Criteria to Shop Floor Performance in Permutation Flowshops. Algorithms 2019, 12, 263.

AMA Style

Framinan JM, Leisten R. Linking Scheduling Criteria to Shop Floor Performance in Permutation Flowshops. Algorithms. 2019; 12(12):263.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Framinan, Jose M., and Rainer Leisten. 2019. "Linking Scheduling Criteria to Shop Floor Performance in Permutation Flowshops" Algorithms 12, no. 12: 263.

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Back to TopTop