6201 Scheduling 2

Production Scheduling
Let all things be done decently and in order.

I Corinthians
Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000
http://www.factory-physics.com
Goals of Production Scheduling

High Customer Service: on-time delivery
Low Inventory Levels: WIP and FGI
UTILIZ
ATION
SERVICE
High Utilization: of machines
INVENTOR
Y
Meeting Due Dates Measures

Service Level:
Lateness:
Used typically in make to

order systems.
Fraction of orders which are
filled on or before their due
dates.
Used in shop floor control.

Difference between order due date
and completion date.
Average lateness has little meaning.
Better measure is lateness variance.
Tardiness:
Fill Rate:
Used typically in make to
stock systems.
Fraction of demands met
from stock.
Used in shop floor control.

Is equal to the lateness of a job if it
is late and zero, otherwise.
Average tardiness is meaningful but
unintuitive.
Classic Scheduling Assumptions (cont.)

Classic Scheduling: (only classic in academia)
Benefits Optimal schedules
Problems Bad assumptions.
All jobs available at the start of the problem.
Deterministic processing times.
No setups.
No machine breakdowns.
No preemption.
No cancellation.
Classic Single Machine Results

Minimizing Average Cycle Time:
Minimize by performing in shortest process time (SPT) order.
Makespan is not affected.
Mean Lateness
Minimizing Maximum Lateness (or Tardiness):
Minimize by performing in earliest due date (EDD) order.
If there exists a sequence with no tardy jobs, EDD will do it.
Minimizing Average Tardiness:

If common due dates, SPT works. Otherwise:
No simple sequencing rule will work. Problem is NP Hard.
Classic Multi Machine Results

Minimizing Makespan on Two Machines: given a set of jobs that
must go through a sequence of two machines, what sequence will yield the
minimum makespan?
Makespan is sequence dependent.
Simple algorithm (Johnson 1954):
1. Sort the times of the jobs on the two machines in two lists.
2. Find the shortest time in either list and remove job from both lists.
If time came from first list, place job in first available position.
If time came from second list, place job in last available
position in sequence.
3. Repeat until lists are exhausted.
The resulting sequence will minimize makespan.
Johnsons Algorithm Example

Data:
Job
1
2
3
Time on M1
4
7
6
Time on M2
9
10
5
Iteration 1: min time is 4 (job 1 on M1); place this job first and remove
from lists:
List 1
4 (1)
6 (3)
7 (2)
List 2
5 (3)
9 (1)
10 (2)
Johnsons Algorithm Example (cont.)

Iteration 2: min time is 5 (job 3 on M2); place this job last and remove
from lists:
List 1
6 (3)
7 (2)
List 2
5 (3)
10 (2)
Iteration 3: only job left is job 2; place in remaining position (middle).

Final Sequence: 1-2-3
Makespan: 28
Gantt Chart for Johnsons Algorithm Example
Machine 1
Machine 2
Time
3
1
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Short task on M2 to
clear out quickly.
Short task on M1 to
load up quickly.
The Difficulty of Scheduling Problems

Dilemma:
9E+22
Too hard for optimal solutions.

Need something anyway.
Classifying Hardness:
Class P: has a polynomial solution.
Class NP: has no polynomial solution.
8E+22
7E+22
6E+22
e n /10000
5E+22
4E+22
3E+22
2E+22
10000n10
1E+22
Example: Sequencing problems grow as n!.
0
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
Compare en/10000 and 10000n10.

At n = 40, en/10000 = 2.4 1013, 10000n10 = 1.0 1020
At n = 80, en/10000 = 5.5 1030, 10000n10 = 1.1 1023
3! = 6, 4! = 24, 5! = 120, 6! = 720, 10! =3,628,800, while
13! = 6,227,020,800
25!= 15,511,210,043,330,985,984,000,000
10
Computation Times
Current situation: computer can examine 1,000,000 sequences per
second and we wish to build a scheduling system that has response
time of no longer than one minute. How many jobs can we sequence
optimally?
Number of Jobs
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
20
Computer Time
0.12
0.72
5.04
40.32
millisec
millisec
millisec
millisec
0.36 sec
3.63 sec
39.92 sec
7.98 min
1.73 hr
24.22 hr
15.14 day
77,147 years
11
Effect of Faster Computers

Future Situation: New computer is 1,000 times faster, i.e. it can do 1
billion comparisons per second. How many jobs can we sequence
optimally now?
Number of Jobs
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
20
Computer Time
0.12 microsec
0.72 microsec
5.04 microsec
40.32 microsec
362.88 microsec
3.63 millisec
39.92 millisec
479.00 millisec
6.23 sec
87.18 sec
21.79 min
77,147 years
12
Polynomial vs. Non-Polynomial Algorithms

Polynomial Example: dispatching (sorting) time goes up as n log n.
Suppose, for comparison, that is takes the same amount of time to sort
10 jobs as it does to examine the 10! sequences. How large a problem
can we solve using dispatching?
Number of Jobs
10
11
12
.
20
30
.
80
85
90
.
100
200
Computer Time
3.6 sec
4.1 sec
4.7 sec
.
9.4 sec
16.1 sec
.
55.2 sec
59.5 sec
63.8 sec
.
72.6 sec
167.0 sec
13
Effect of Faster Computer

Situation: New computer 1000 times faster. How much does the size of
dispatching problem we can solve increase?
Number of Jobs
1000
2000
3000
.
10,000
20,000
30,000
35,000
36,000
.
50,000
100,000
200,000
Computer Time
1.1 sec
2.4 sec
3.8 sec
.
14.5 sec
31.2 sec
48.7 sec
57.7 sec
59.5 sec
.
85.3 sec
181.4 sec
384.7 sec
14
Implications for Real Problems

Computation: NP algorithms are slow to use.
No Technology Fix: Faster computers dont help on NP algorithm.
Scheduling is Hard: Real scheduling problems tend to be NP Hard.
Scheduling is Big: Real scheduling problems also tend to be quite
large; impossible to solve optimally.
15
Implications for Real Problems (cont.)

Robustness? NP hard problems have many solutions, and presumably
many good ones.
Example: 25 job sequencing problem. Suppose that only one in a
trillion of the possible solutions is good. This still leaves 15
trillion good solutions. Our task is to find one of these.
Role of Heuristics: Polynomial algorithms can be used to obtain

good solutions. Example heuristics include:
Simulated Annealing
Tabu Search
Genetic Algorithms
16
The Bad News

Violation of Assumptions: Most real-world scheduling problems
violate the assumptions made in the classic literature:
There are always more than two machines.
Process times are not deterministic.
All jobs are not ready at the beginning of the problem.
Process time are sequence dependent.
Problem Difficulty: Most real-world production scheduling

problems are NP-hard.
We cannot hope to find optimal solutions of
realistic sized scheduling problems.
Polynomial approaches, like dispatching, may
not work well.
17
The Good News

Due Dates: We can set the due dates.
Job Splitting: We can get smaller jobs by splitting larger ones.
Single machine SPT results imply small jobs clear out more
quickly than larger jobs.
Mechanics of Johnsons algorithm implies we should start with a
small job and end with a small job.
Small jobs make for small move batches and can be combined to
form larger process batches.
18
The Good News (cont.)

Feasible Schedules: We do not need to find an optimal schedule, only a
good feasible one.
Focus on Bottleneck: We can often concentrate on scheduling the

bottleneck process, which simplifies problem closer to single machine
case.
Capacity: Capacity can be adjusted dynamically (overtime, floating

workers, use of vendors, etc.) to adapt facility (somewhat) to
schedule.
19
Classic Dispatching Results

Optimal Schedules: Impossible to find for most real problems.
Dispatching: sorts jobs as they arrive at a machine.
Dispatching rules:
FIFO simplest, seems fair.

SPT Actually works quite well with tight due dates.
EDD Works well when jobs are mostly the same size.
LWR
SLK
Critical Ratio
Many (100?) others.
Problems with Dispatching:

Cannot be optimal (can be bad).
Tends to be myopic.
20
10
Scheduling Takeaways
Scheduling is hard!
Even simple toy problems generate complicated mathematics.
Scheduling can be simplified through the environment:

due date quoting
flow simplification sequencing in place of scheduling
Finite capacity scheduling is coming.

But in what form is unclear (shifting bottleneck, genetic
algorithms, rule based systems, etc.).
Diagnostics are important in scheduling .

pure optimization generally impossible
need good interface to allow human intervention
21
11

6201 Scheduling 2

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

6201 Scheduling 2

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Production Scheduling

Let all things be done decently and in order.

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Goals of Production Scheduling

High Utilization: of machines

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Meeting Due Dates Measures

Used typically in make to

Used in shop floor control.

Used in shop floor control.

Classic Scheduling Assumptions (cont.)

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Classic Single Machine Results

Minimizing Average Tardiness:

Classic Multi Machine Results

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Johnsons Algorithm Example

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Johnsons Algorithm Example (cont.)

Iteration 3: only job left is job 2; place in remaining position (middle).

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Gantt Chart for Johnsons Algorithm Example

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

The Difficulty of Scheduling Problems

Too hard for optimal solutions.

Example: Sequencing problems grow as n!.

Compare en/10000 and 10000n10.

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Effect of Faster Computers

Polynomial vs. Non-Polynomial Algorithms

Effect of Faster Computer

Implications for Real Problems

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Implications for Real Problems (cont.)

Role of Heuristics: Polynomial algorithms can be used to obtain

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

The Bad News

Problem Difficulty: Most real-world production scheduling

The Good News

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

The Good News (cont.)

Focus on Bottleneck: We can often concentrate on scheduling the

Capacity: Capacity can be adjusted dynamically (overtime, floating

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Classic Dispatching Results

FIFO simplest, seems fair.

Problems with Dispatching:

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Scheduling can be simplified through the environment:

Finite capacity scheduling is coming.

Diagnostics are important in scheduling .

Anda mungkin juga menyukai