contr ling
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
1/27
Int J Flex Manuf Syst
DOI 10.1007/s10696-006-9001-5
Controlling flexible manufacturing systems based on a
dynamic selection of the appropriate operationalcriteria and scheduling policy
Boris Shnits David Sinreich
C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006
Abstract This study presents the development of a multi-criteria control methodology
for flexible manufacturing systems (FMSs). The control methodology is based on a
two-tier decision making mechanism. The first tier is designed to select a dominant
decision criterion and a relevant scheduling rule set using a rule-based algorithm. In
the second tier, using a look-ahead multi-pass simulation, a scheduling rule that best
advances the selected criterion is determined. The decision making mechanism was
integrated with the shop floor control module that comprises a real-time simulationmodel at the top control level and RapidCIM methodology at the low equipment
control level.
A factorial experiment was designed to analyze and evaluate the two-tier deci-
sion making mechanism and the effects that the main design parameters have on the
systems performance. Next, the proposed control methodology was compared to a
selected group of scheduling rules/policies using DEA. The results demonstrated the
superiority of the suggested control methodology as well as its capacity to cope with
a fast changing environment.
Keywords FMS control Adaptive scheduling Simulation-based-control DEA
1 Introduction
At the beginning of the 20th century, automation played an important role in improving
productivity and quality while reducing cost. However, there was a serious drawback
to this early automationit was fixed, rigid, and tailored to each specific product.
B. Shnits () D. Sinreich
Davidson Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management,
TechnionIsrael Institute of Technology,
Haifa 32000, Israel
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
2/27
B. Shnits and D. Sinreich
Starting from the 1970s, there was a notable increase in the demand for product
variety, fast delivery, and high quality at affordable prices. To survive in fast changing
markets, many manufacturing companies had to cope with frequent model changes and
small production lots. The result was that flexibility and efficiency became essential
requirements in many manufacturing systems. Today we take it for granted that wecan purchase diverse commodities, from cars to computers, from clothing to shoes, at
affordable prices.
Instrumental to these achievements are computer integrated manufacturing (CIM)
and flexible manufacturing systems (FMSs) that offer the flexibility needed as a re-
sponse to fast changing market demands, yet maintain a high level of productivity
(Groover, 1987; Womack et al., 1990). These systems enable flexibility largely from
the use of versatile and/or redundant machines that facilitate alternative routing in
the system (Byrne and Chutima, 1997; Sabuncuoglu and Lahmar, 2003). The intro-
duction of alternative routing made it possible to better balance machine workloadsand achieve higher system robustness and productivity under dynamic conditions that
are caused by unexpected rush work orders and/or machine failures. As a result, it
is clear that the performance of an FMS is highly dependent on the selection of the
correct scheduling policy to control the system. This is not a simple task, especially
since product mix and overall system objectives change over time at a continually
increasing pace. To cope with these changes, Chandra and Talavage (1991) as well as
other researchers suggested postponing part routing and machine scheduling decisions
as much as possible. This way many more production options are kept open, and the
systems flexibility is better exploited.
Although all industrial organizations share the same main goal (profit), over time
changing internal and/or external settings may dictate different temporary objectives
for the manufacturing system, such as minimizing flow time, minimizing tardiness,
maximizing throughput, and minimizing WIP. This means that the shop floor controller
(SFC), in order to increase the systems effectiveness, has to have the capability of
dynamically addressing multiple criteria measures.
2 Literature review
FMS is a very popular research topic. Therefore, a large number of papers addressing
issues such as design, control, and analysis can be found in the literature. See review
papers such as Gupta et al. (1991), Rachamadugu and Stecke (1994), Balogun and
Popplewell (1999), and Chan et al. (2002). A major concern for some of these papers is
improving the effectiveness of FMS operations through the use of dynamic scheduling
and control methodologies. The following literature review focuses on different aspects
of this topic.
Most studies addressing this topic use adaptive or reactive scheduling that enables
an FMS to cope with randomness and variability by determining at every decision
point an appropriate scheduling policy or rule, based on the current state of the shop
floor. Different methods have been used to select dynamically the most appropriate
scheduling policy. Most of these methods are based on heuristics and use dispatching
rules.
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
3/27
Controlling flexible manufacturing systems based on a dynamic selection
Wu and Wysk (1989), Ishii and Talavage (1991, 1994), and Jeong and Kim (1998)
used simulation to forecast and evaluate the performance of different dispatching rules
in order to select the best rule for the next period. Sun and Yih (1996), Soon and De
Souza (1997), and Arzi and Iaroslavitz (1999) used neural networks as a forecast-
ing mechanism. Shaw et al. (1992) and Piramuthu et al. (1994) exploited inductivelearning to determine the preferable scheduling policies for different shop floor states.
Mesghouni et al. (1999), Qi et al. (2000), Rossi and Dini (2000), and Chryssolouris and
Subramaniam (2001) solved the dynamic scheduling problem in FMS using genetic
algorithms. Yu et al. (1999) and Subramaniam et al. (2000) employed fuzzy logic and
Trentesaux et al. (2000) used intelligent agents to select the appropriate scheduling
rule. Other studies used hybrid schemes such as neural networks and inductive learn-
ing (Kim et al., 1998), fuzzy logic and a genetic algorithm (Fanti et al., 1998), fuzzy
logic and simulation (Kazerooni et al., 1997), and finally a combination of learning,
intelligent agents, and simulation (Aydin and Oztemel, 2000).It is obvious that in order to exploit in full the capabilities of an FMS, its control
system has to be able to cope successfully with changes in the status of the shop floor
such as machine failure and/or maintenance, and changes in the operational objectives
of the system. Nevertheless, many studies (see Piramuthu et al., 1994; Mesghouni
et al., 1999; Aydin and Oztemel, 2000; Rossi and Dini, 2000; Subramaniam et al.,
2000) used a single criteria/objective. This means that all the decisions related to
system operations are based entirely on a single pre-defined criterion.
A different approach was presented by Wu and Wysk (1989), Ishii and Talavage
(1991), Cho and Wysk (1993), Soon and De Souza (1997) and Arzi and Iaroslavitz
(1999). In these studies different criteria measures were used; however the user had to
select these manually for each scheduling period. Although this approach offers some
sort of flexibility in using different criteria measures, the entire process relies on the
users ability and proficiency. The user is required to evaluate the system state at every
decision point and determine the most appropriate criterion for the next scheduling
period. Frequent intervention places an unreasonable mental workload on the user
who needs to derive and analyze the relevant data and decide in real time what the
best course of action for the next scheduling period will be. (This is probably why
none of these studies actually tried to change the criteria measures during the systems
operation.) On the other hand, if the scheduling period is extended to accommodate
the users mental load limitations, the system may lose its ability to respond in a timely
manner to all internal and/or external changes imposed on it.
Due to these limitations, several studies, such as Chryssolouris et al. (1991),
Kazerooni et al. (1997), Bistline et al. (1998), and Fanti et al. (1998) suggested com-
bining the different criteria measures into one, using some kind of weighing scheme.
The weighing scheme has to represent the relative importance of the criteria mea-
sures in achieving the objectives set forth by the organization. Although this approach
promotes the use of different criteria measures, the weighing scheme is fixed and
constant, and therefore, cannot accommodate changes in the organizations prioritiesin response to changing shop or market conditions.
In order to meet the need to improve manufacturing system efficiency under differ-
ent conditions, Yu et al. (1999) developed a mechanism that automatically changes the
systems objectives based on the dynamics of the shop floor. Nevertheless, Yu et al.s
mechanism allows predetermination of only one dispatching rule for each objective,
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
4/27
B. Shnits and D. Sinreich
and does not incorporate a mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of this rule under
current shop conditions.
In contrast to previous studies, the current paper suggests a mechanism that se-
lects the shops dominant operational criterion based on shop floor status, production
requirements, and system priorities. The chosen criterion is only one factor amongother relevant factors used to determine the best scheduling policy for the next period.
The dominant criterion and scheduling rule selection process is done on-line, without
interrupting the systems operation and without user intervention.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 3 describes the proposed two-
tier control scheme. The implementation of the control methodology is presented in
Section 4. Next, the performance evaluation of the proposed methodology is described
in Section 5. Finally, our conclusion and closing remarks are presented in Section 6.
3 The two-tier control methodology
The proposed control methodology expands the adaptive scheduling approach pre-
sented in the literature by enabling changes not only in the scheduling rules but also
in the objective criteria that govern the systems operations and affect the selection of
the appropriate scheduling rule.
3.1 Motivation
This research deals with a production system that operates in a highly dynamic environ-
ment, characterized by random arrivals of work orders, random machine breakdowns,
changes in due dates, and other disturbances. The literature argues that for these types
of environments, an adaptive scheduling approach seems to be more effective than
other scheduling methods. However, the shop floor control systems presented in ear-
lier studies are only partially adaptable to these dynamic changes. This study makes the
case that in a dynamic environment, it is important not only to select a good scheduling
rule, but also to determine an appropriate decision criterion upon which the perfor-
mance of each scheduling rule is measured. To better understand this relationship let
us consider the following example: Let us assume that at a certain point in time all the
work orders on the shop floor have due dates far into the future. In such a case, it could
make sense to select a criterion measure that aims to reduce the work orders flow
time, thereby freeing up machine time to better cope with future unexpected events.
This means that the scheduling rules will be selected based on how they can advance
the objective of minimizing flow time. However, if several urgent work orders arrive
with close due dates and high penalties for tardiness, it makes sense to change the
operational criterion measure to that of minimizing tardiness. This also means that the
scheduling rules will now be evaluated to see how they can advance the objective of
minimizing tardiness.This study focuses on developing and analyzing a multi-criteria adaptive scheduling
methodology for controlling an FMS. In order to cope with the dynamic and multi-
criteria environment in which an FMS operates, the proposed scheduling and control
scheme uses a two-tier control scheme. The suggested control mechanism is self-
adaptable to changing operational objectives and shop floor status. The dominant
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
5/27
Controlling flexible manufacturing systems based on a dynamic selection
criteria and the best scheduling policy are selected automatically at every decision
point (when it is necessary to make a scheduling decision). The main assumption
is that such a control methodology should improve overall system performance and
efficiency. This concept was first introduced in Shnits et al. (2004) as a possible solution
to the increase in the FMS environments variability and volatility. While Shnits et al.(2004) was only a conceptual and feasibility study, the current study forms in detail
the two-tier decision-making control mechanism and analyses its performance.
3.2 Description of the two-tier control scheme
In contrast to the adaptive control methodologies suggested in previous studies that
were based on dynamic selection of scheduling rules while determining the operational
criterion by a user, the proposed control mechanism selects first the shops dominant
operational criterion and only then the scheduling rule that best advances this criterionis chosen. The dominant criterion and scheduling rule selection process is performed
automatically without interrupting the manufacturing systems operation and without
any user intervention.
The different decision criteria can be classified as either customer-oriented or
system-oriented. The former includes criteria such as minimization of tardiness, late-
ness, number of tardy jobs etc., while the latter includes criteria such as throughput
maximization or flow time minimization. As it turns out, there are rules that better pro-
mote one decision criterion while other rules operate better with another criterion. The
suggested scheduling and control scheme, illustrated in Fig. 1, comprises a two-tier
decision making hierarchy.
Tier 1 is used to determine a dominant decision criterion based on the following:
r Production order requirements include part type information, quantities, arrival
times, due dates, and bonuses/penalties.r Actual shop floor status includes workload evaluation variables such as the number
of parts in the system, the actual system workload; work order urgency variables
such as average time to due date, critical ratio, average slack of parts in queue;
resource availability variables such as number of operating machines, time since the
last failure; and system utilization variables.r Manufacturing system priorities define the organizations operation policy by
determining target WIP levels, accepted tardiness, and customer relative importance.
Based on the chosen decision criterion, a predefined relevant rule set (from a
database of scheduling/dispatching rules) is chosen, together with an appropriate per-
formance measure that is subsequently used to evaluate these rules. Based on the
performance measure determined in tier 1, as well as the current shop floor state
and production order requirements, in tier 2 a scheduling rule (from a set of relevant
scheduling/dispatching rules established in tier 1), which best advances this measure,is chosen using a forecasting mechanism based on a look-ahead multi-pass simulation
module. Once the best scheduling rule is selected, the shop floor control system of the
FMS uses it to dispatch work orders during the next scheduling period.
The activation of the decision making process described above is done using a
triggering module. Following are some possible trigger activation modes:
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
6/27
B. Shnits and D. Sinreich
Forecasting theBest Scheduling
Policy
Decision
Criterions
Feedback
Tier 1
Real Time Shop
Floor Control
System
Actual FMS
Equipment
Scheduling
Work OrdersEquipmentStatus
Scheduling
Rules
Dominant
Decision
Criterion
Selection of
Dominant
Decision Criterion
and Relevant
Scheduling rulesRelevant
Scheduling
Rules
Production Order RequirementsSystem Priorities
Production Order
Requirements
Trigger forActivation
Decision Making
Mechanism
Trigger
Tier 2
Report
SelectedScheduling
Policy
Shop Floor
Status
Production Order Requirements
Fig. 1 The two-tier control scheme
r Selecting the dominant decision criterion and an appropriate scheduling rule for a
predefined scheduling period.r Reviewing the current decision criterion and scheduling rule at every change in
the shop floor status, e.g., each time a resource becomes available, or every time a
resource fails.r Reviewing the current decision criterion and scheduling rule each time the differ-
ences between the actual shop floor parameters and the expected parameters as
predicted by the last simulation forecast exceed some predetermined threshold.
4 The implementation of the two-tier control methodology
The suggested methodology implementation is largely based on the Arena 7.0 simula-
tion tool. This simulation language was selected from among others due to its ability
to operate in conjunction with a real time (RT) package, which is used as the real
time shop floor control software. Moreover, VBA (visual basic for applications) is
an integral part of Arena 7.0. This enables convenient access to databases, and easy
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
7/27
Controlling flexible manufacturing systems based on a dynamic selection
automation of Arena models. All information regarding the manufacturing system
(type of machines, the different part types including their possible routings, and the
redundancy among the machines) as well as the shop floor status at every decision
point is kept in an MS Access database. The flow of data between the Arena models
and the database is done through VBA using ActiveX Data Objects (ADO) technology.
4.1 FMS characteristics
We assume that the FMS is composed of several programmable multifunctional ma-
chining centers with large tool magazines and automatic tool changing capabilities.
In order to reduce machine waiting/idle time, each machining center is equipped with
a two position automatic palletizer that acts as an input/output buffer. In addition,
the system has a central buffer (AS/RS) that stores parts between process operations
and a material handling system that transfers parts between the central buffer and themachining centers. The FMS is capable of manufacturing a large, but finite, variety of
part types. Each part type needs to go through several operations in a predetermined
order that is based on some technological constraints. Each of these operations can be
performed by several machines subject to the availability of the appropriate tooling.
However, the processing time of an operation may differ from machine to machine.
Following are additional operation characteristics:
r
Production orders of the different part types arrive randomly or according to someproduction requirement list.
r Handling and transferring of parts in the FMS are done in single units (on single
unit-load pallets).r Each work order in the FMS occupies at any given point in time a single resource (a
machine, a material handling device, an input/output buffer, a central storage buffer
location).r Each machining center can operate on only one work order at a time.r There is no pre-emption.r
Tooling change times and load/unload time are included in part type processingtime.
r Processing time for each part type operation on each machining center is known and
fixed.r Work order due dates are known and fixed.r Machines can break down at random.r Transportation time between the central buffer and the machining centers is constant
for all part types.r Material handling devices are available whenever required.
4.2 Implementation mechanism
The implementation mechanism, illustrated in Fig. 2, consists of several separate mod-
ules operating in cooperation: the shop floor management block, the block responsible
for running the equipment, and the decision making block.
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
8/27
B. Shnits and D. Sinreich
Shop Floor
Controller
Arena RT
Shop Floor Management
Continuous OperationSystem Status
& Forecast
Database
MS Access
The Best
Dispatching Rule
Current System
Status
On-LineData
Collection
Decision
Criterion and
RelevantDispatching
Rules
Determining
Mechanism
Rule-Based
Algorithm
Forecasting
Mechanism
Arena
Fast Mode
Decision Making
Activation at each
decision point
Decision
CriterionDispatching
Rules Set
Production
Requirements
MS Excel
Nearest
Requirements
Forecast
FMSEquipment
Equipment Operation
Equipment
Controllers
RapidCIM(MPSGs)
Commands
Reaction to messages
Messages
Parts Arrival
Trigger
Mechanism Real SFStatus
Forecast
DM Activation
Fig. 2 The implementation of the suggested two-tier control methodology
4.2.1 The shop floor management module
The shop floor management module that serves as the FMS controller was imple-
mented using the Arena RT simulation tool. This module is responsible for sending
messages containing instructions on the required activities to the lower level equip-
ment controllers. This module also receives the execution completed messages back
from the equipment controllers and keeps track of the current equipment status. The
Arena simulation model is developed in a manner that supports alternative routings
and enables, if necessary, the dynamic exchange of scheduling policies (according to
instructions sent from the decision making mechanism that will be explained later),
without interrupting the systems operation.
During operation, the shop floor control module keeps track of parts moving from
the WIP central buffer to the different machining centers and back. This information is
collected in a database and appropriate tables in the database are updated accordingly
to reflect the current state of the shop floor.
4.2.2 The equipment operation module
The equipment controllers in the proposed scheme are C++ applications that are
designated to receive messages from the shop floor control module, interpret these
messages, send operation commands to the appropriate equipment unit, and transfer the
completion messages back to the shop floor control module. The equipment controllers
were implemented using the RapidCIM methodology (Wysk et al., 1992). However,
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
9/27
Controlling flexible manufacturing systems based on a dynamic selection
the suggested control scheme does not use the shop-level task executer, known as
the big executer (BigE) because of its rigidity (it was created for specific production
data and certain control logic), which affects the systems ability to utilize alternative
routing and produce a variety of part types.
4.2.3 The decision making mechanism
The decision making mechanism, activated at every decision point, comprises two
modules according to the proposed two-tier control scheme. The first module is im-
plemented using a rule-based algorithm and its task is to determine the preferable
decision criterion and relevant scheduling rules. This algorithm receives the current
system state (shop floor status and nearest production requirements) from the database
and returns the chosen dominant decision criterion.
The literature reveals (see Shnits et al., 2004) that the two most frequently usedcriteria are mean flow time (system oriented) and mean tardiness (customer oriented).
These two criteria were also chosen to serve, in the current study, as the FMS per-
formance evaluation measures. As a result, a rule-based algorithm was developed to
choose at any decision point one of these two criteria. Following is the notation and
suggested rules.
Notation:
j Part index 1, . . . , J
t Current time
Pj Average remaining processing time for a part j
DDj Due date for part j
M Number of repaired machines
C Ij Critical index for part j , where C Ij = Pj/(DDj t)
TCj Tardiness cost per time unit for part j
K1, K2, K3 System coefficients, where K1 0, K2 0, K3 0
C1,C2 Threshold levels for the tardiness costs
Rules:
If
j Pj
M> K1
j
(D Djt)J
and
j T Cj
J> C1, then
Choose Mean Tardiness as the dominant decision criterion
Else
If j : C Ij > K2 or1
C Ij< K3, then
If T Cj > C2, then
Choose Mean Tardiness as the dominant decision criterion
Else
Choose Mean Flow Time as the dominant decision criterionEnd If
Else
Choose Mean Flow Time as the dominant decision criterion
End If
End If
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
10/27
B. Shnits and D. Sinreich
The expression
j Pj/M denotes the average required time to complete the parts
that are processed in the system at that point in time. This expression is compared
to the average time to the due date
j (D Dj t)/J of these parts. If the for-
mer is greater than the latter, the system may have a problem meeting all of the
parts due dates. In such a case, it seems logical to determine processing priori-ties that minimize the parts mean tardiness. On the other hand, if it turns out that
there is enough time to complete parts in the system without violating the agreed
upon due dates, it makes more sense to try and minimize the parts mean flow
time.
It should be noted that even if, on average, there is no time pressure in the sys-
tem (first condition), there may be some urgent parts that are in danger of missing
their due dates or have missed them already. These cases can be detected through
the use of the critical index C Ij (second condition). If there are such parts in
the system, the mean tardiness criterion is chosen over the mean flow time cri-terion. The algorithm also makes it possible to take into consideration the aver-
age tardiness cost as well as the tardiness cost for each part separately, using C1and C2.
The coefficients K1, K2, and K3 reflect the system priorities by defining the rela-
tive importance of the considered criteria. Coefficient K1 refers to the overall system
status, while the coefficients K2 and K3 refer to parts individually. In case mini-
mizing tardiness is more important than minimizing flow time, K1 and K2 need to
be set relatively low. On the other hand, if minimizing flow time is more impor-
tant, K1
and K2
need to be set relatively high. In a system that considers minimiz-
ing tardiness as an organizational goal, the coefficients K2 and K3 should be set as
K2 > 0 and K3 = 0, so parts in danger of becoming late can be taken care of ahead of
time.
Preliminary test runs revealed that when K2 K1, the effect of the first condition
among the rules becomes negligible. However, when K2 K1, the effect of the
second condition (with K2) among the rules becomes negligible. In order to have
both conditions effective, K2 needs to be set slightly higher than K1. Based on this
insight it was decided to consider K1 (the main coefficient of the algorithm) as an
independent variable and to set K2 equal to K1 + 0.3 (the preferred gap between these
two coefficients as determined though the preliminary tests) in all of the following
experiments.
The second module of the decision making mechanism is the forecasting module
that is used for selecting the best scheduling rule from the relevant (according to the
dominant criteria measure) scheduling rule set. The forecasting module is developed
using the Arena 7 simulation tool and is similar to the model that serves as the shop
floor controller. A scheduling rule is chosen after the simulation model evaluates (look-
ahead) all relevant scheduling rules in the given rule set. Each evaluation run begins
with the current shop floor status that is supplied by the system status database. The
forecasting mechanism also takes into account the estimated production requirements,i.e., the new parts that are expected to arrive at the shop during the evaluation run. Once
the best scheduling rule is determined, it is passed on to the shop floor management
module via a communications network. This rule will govern the shop floor controllers
operation until a new decision will be required.
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
11/27
Controlling flexible manufacturing systems based on a dynamic selection
The evaluation of the different scheduling rules is performed according to a perfor-
mance measure that is related to the dominant decision criterion that was determined
by the top tier of the decision making mechanism. Following is the notation and the
two performance measures FCfor the mean flow time decision criterion and TCfor
the mean tardiness decision criterion:
Notation:
TW The duration of the look-ahead time-window
D Dj Due date for part j (in terms of the time-frame of the time-window)
ATj Arrival time of part j to the system (in terms of the time-frame of the time-
window)
C Tj Completion time of part j (in terms of the time-frame of the time-window)Pj Average remaining processing time for part j
FC=
J
j=1
(min(C Tj , T W) ATj + Pj ), (1)
T C=
J
j=1
max(0,min(C Tj , T W) D Dj + Pj ). (2)
The expression min(C Tj , T W) + Pj estimates the completion time of part j . For
parts that are completed during the simulation look-ahead run, Pj = 0and C Tj < T W;
hence, this expression is set to C Tj . However, for parts that do not complete their
process at the end of the look-ahead simulation run, Pj > 0 and T W < C Tj ; hence,
completion time is estimated as T W+ Pj .
The scheduling rules implemented in this study (listed in Table 1) include some
of the most popular scheduling rules that appeared in the literature (see, e.g., Gupta
et al., 1989; Montazeri and Wassenhove, 1990; Sabuncuoglu and Hommertzheim,
1993; Kutanoglu and Sabuncuoglu, 1999; Shnits et al., 2004). It is importantto notice that these rules were selected without loss of generality and other
scheduling rules or algorithms can be included in the scheduling/dispatching rule
set.
5 Performance evaluation of the proposed control scheme
The performance of the proposed dynamic scheduling and control mechanism was
evaluated in two steps. The first step (described in Section 5.2) focused on testingthe effects the different environmental and control variables have on the system per-
formance. In the second step (described in Section 5.3), the efficiency of the pro-
posed control methodology was evaluated by comparing it to some known individual
scheduling rules/policies and methods.
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
12/27
B. Shnits and D. Sinreich
Table 1 Scheduling/dispatching rules in use
Scheduling/dispatching rules in use
Rank Rule Description
1 FCFS First come first serve
2 LRPT Least remaining processing time
3 EDD Earliest due date
4 STPT Shortest total processing time
5 FASFS First arrive to system first serve
6 SLACK Minimum slack (difference between due date and current possible
completion time)
7 CR Critical ratio (ratio of remaining processing time and time to due date)
8 LRA Largest relative advantage (a part selected for processing on a specific
machine is the one that has an advantage in processing on this machine
relative to the other machines)9 SIO Shortest imminent operation
10 ATC Apparent tardiness cost (exponential function based measure taking into
account expected waiting time, slack and processing time of each part)
5.1 The test environment
The performance of the suggested two-tier control scheme was evaluated using a
test environment that is similar in size and scope to environments used in other
previous studies on dynamic scheduling such as Ishii and Talavage (1991, 1994),
Chandra and Talavage (1991), Kazerooni et al. (1997), Arzi and Iaroslavitz (1999),
Subramaniam et al. (2000), and Chryssolouris and Subramaniam (2001). The ex-
perimental environment in this study consists of six work-centers that can fail from
time to time and must be repaired. Machine failure and repair time were assumed
to follow an exponential distribution. The mean time between failures (MTBF) and
mean time to repair (MTTR) in minutes, for each work-center, were randomly
chosen from the uniform distributions U[1000, 3000] and U[100, 200] minutes,
respectively.
Parts are assumed to arrive to the shop according to a Poisson arrival process. Two
mean interarrival time (1/k) values for each part type k were determined. The first
was to achieve 86% machine utilization. This utilization in practical terms is on the
high end of what is considered manageable. The second interarrival time was chosen
to achieve a 73% machine utilization. As opposed to the previous workload, 73% is
at the lower end of what is considered acceptable in practical terms.
The system produces simultaneously ten different part types. Each of the part types
requires several operations and each of the operations can be performed on several
machines. The number of operations for each part type was randomly chosen using
the uniform distribution U[1, 7]. The average processing time of operation i for a partof type k, Oi k minutes, was randomly chosen from the uniform distribution U[5, 35].
The redundancy capabilities of the system were described through the number of
work-centers that are capable of processing each of the operations. This number was
randomly chosen for each operation from the uniform distribution U[1, 6]. Next, based
on this number, the actual work-centers were randomly selected. The actual processing
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
13/27
Controlling flexible manufacturing systems based on a dynamic selection
Table 2 Summary of the parameters characterizing the test environment
System Parameter Distribution
Number of machines in the system 6
Machine MTBF (minutes) Uniform [1000, 3000]Machine MTTR (minutes) Uniform [100, 200]
Number of part types 10
Number of operations each part of each type Uniform [1, 7]
is required to go through
Redundancy levelthe number of machines Uniform [1, 6]
that can perform an operation
Average processing time Oi k for each operation Uniform [5, 35]
i of each part type k (minutes)
Operation processing time on redundant machines Omi k (minutes) Oi k (1 + Uniform[0.15, 0.15])
Production demandthe required quantity of each part type Uniform [25, 75]
Average machine utilization (AMU) 73%, 86%Due date tightness (DDT) 200, 300
time on each of these work-centers Omi k was generated using the following equation:
Omi k = Oi k (1 + U[0.15, 0.15]).
The number of parts of each part type was also randomly chosen from the uniform
distribution U[25, 75] parts. The due date for every part was calculated as the sum-
mation of the parts arrival time, the average parts processing time and a random
variable chosen from the uniform distribution U[0, DDT], where DDT was defined
as the parameter that expresses the due date tightness. Two different levels for the
parameter DDTwere chosen, 200 minutes and 300 minutes. Table 2 summarizes the
parameters and their distributions that characterize the test environment.
A finite time horizon was used in this study. As such, the simulation run time was
defined as the time needed to complete processing all the parts defined. The actual
time varied between 8700 minutes and 10400 minutes based on the production data
generated and the parameter values selected. The warm-up period in all simulationruns was set at 3000 minutes. The simulation test environment was built based on
principles of discrete-event simulation modeling (Law and Kelton, 2000).
The activation of the decision making process is done right before a resource
becomes available and only if more than one part is currently waiting for this resource.
In addition, the elapsed time between two consecutive decisions has to be greater than
some threshold value (currently set to 2 minutes).
5.2 Analyzing the main parameters of the decision making mechanism
The decision making mechanism described in Section 4.2.3 is a principal component of
the proposed control scheme. The parameters of the decision making mechanism have
a significant impact on the system performance. Therefore, the aim of this experiment
is to analyze the effects these parameters have on the systems performance and to
determine the parameters preferable values.
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
14/27
B. Shnits and D. Sinreich
Table 3 The different levels of
the tested factors Factor Levels
K1 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
TW 20 50 80
AMU 73 86
DDT 200 300
5.2.1 Experiment design
A production data set for this experiment was randomly generated using the distribu-
tions described in Table 2. Based on preliminary tests, two control parameters were
found to be significant and were chosen to participate in the experiment: the look-
ahead time-window (TW) and the coefficient K1 of the rule-based algorithm. The
coefficient K2 was set to K1 + 0.3 and K3 was set to 0 (see Section 4.2.3). In order
to better analyze the effects that above mentioned control parameters have on the
systems performance, it was essential to define several shop floor states. Two param-
eters were chosen to characterize these states. The first defines the average machine
workload/utilization (AMU) and the second defines the due date tightness (DDT). All
together four experimental variables were used; their possible values are listed in Ta-
ble 3. Based on these values, a factorial experiment was designed to test the effects
that these variables have on the systems performance as measured by the mean flow
time FT and mean tardiness TR. It should be noted that the tardiness cost was not
taken into consideration in this experiment.
5.2.2 Experiment results
The effects that the four experimental variables have on the system performance as
described by the measures FT and TR are summarized in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.
The bold font indicates statistically significant effects.
Table 4 Analysis of variance of the variable effects on FT
Source DF Sum of squares F Ratio Prob > F
AMU 1 22736.323 17131.1
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
15/27
Controlling flexible manufacturing systems based on a dynamic selection
Table 5 Analysis of variance of the variable effects on TR
Source DF Sum of squares F Ratio Prob > F
AMU 1 467.14876 5307.479
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
16/27
B. Shnits and D. Sinreich
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
K1
TR
Fig. 4 The effect K1 has on TR
137
138
139
140
141
20 50 80
TW
FT
Fig. 5 The effect TWhas on FT
4.8
5
5.2
5.4
20 50 80
TW
TR
Fig. 6 The effect TWhas on TR
Tables 4 and 5 indicate that some of the interactions between the control variables
(TW and K1) and the shop state variables (AMU and DDT) also have a significantimpact on the systems performance as manifested through the measures FT and TR.
These interactions are illustrated in Figs. 711.
Figures 7 and 8 show that for tight due dates (DDT= 200), reducing the look-ahead
time window TWimproves system performance as exhibited by both measures FTand
TR. For spacious due dates (DDT= 300), better system performance is achieved with
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
17/27
Controlling flexible manufacturing systems based on a dynamic selection
137
138
139
140
141
TW =20 TW=50 TW =80
TW
FT
DDT=
200
DDT=
300
Fig. 7 DDT*T W interaction
effect on FT
3
4
5
6
7
20 50 80
TW
TR
DDT=
200
DDT=
300
Fig. 8 DDT*TWinteraction
effect on TR
120
130
140
150
160
20 50 80
TW
FT
AMU=86%
AMU=73%
Fig. 9 AMU*T W interaction
effect on F T
a mid-range look-ahead time window. This means, that when due dates are tight,
myopic decisions seem to work better. However, when due dates are more spacious,
considering future events has a potential to improve the decision making process.
It is obvious that as the systems workload increases, the decision-making process
is invoked more often. Therefore, its efficiency becomes a more crucial issue. Thisrelationship is illustrated in Figs. 9 and 10, which show that as the workload in the
shop (machine utilization) increases the impact that the look-ahead time window has
on both performance measures FTand TR is more significant.
The analysis also reveals that when due dates are tight, the selection algorithm of
the dominant decision criterion has a smaller impact (via its control variable K1) on
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
18/27
B. Shnits and D. Sinreich
2
4
6
8
20 50 80
TW
TR
AMU=86%
AMU=73%
Fig. 10 AMU*T W interaction
effect on TR
3
4
5
6
7
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
K1
TR
DDT=200
DDT=300
Linear
(DDT=300)
Linear
(DDT=200)
Fig. 11 DDT*K1 interaction
effect on TR
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
K1
TR
TW=20
TW=50
TW=80
Linear
(TW=20)
Linear
(TW=50)
Linear
(TW=80)
Fig. 12 TW*K1 interaction
effect on FT
the systems performance. This is mainly because the remaining time slack for the
different parts is too small and does not leave much room for maneuvering. Figure
11 shows that when due dates are more spacious, reducing K1 has a more significant
effect on improving the performance measure TR.Table 5 lists the interaction between the control variables TWandK1 as statistically
significant. The effect that this interaction has on the performance measure TR is
illustrated in Fig. 12. The figure shows that as K1 is set lower in conjunction with
larger look-ahead time windows, lower tardiness values can be achieved. However,
when K1 is set large, small and mid-range look-ahead time windows are preferred since
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
19/27
Controlling flexible manufacturing systems based on a dynamic selection
those have been shown to reduce TR. The explanation for this effect is related to the role
K1 has in the decision criteria selection algorithm. Setting K1 small means giving a
higher priority to minimizing tardiness and keeping parts due dates over minimizing
flow time. In such a case, increasing the look-ahead time window promotes early
detection of situations where time pressure may hamper the systems ability to meetthe parts due dates. Early detection improves the controllers ability to handle this
incidence. On the other hand, setting K1 large means reducing the priority of tardiness
as a performance measure. In this case it is less important to have an early detection
capability of time pressure situations; therefore, a look-ahead time window can be
reduced.
Table 5 also indicates that the interactions AMU*DDT*TW and AMU*DDT*K1have a significant effect on TR. Each one of these interactions is composed of the system
state variableAMUand the interactionsDDT*TWandDDT*K1 that were presented and
explained earlier (see Figs. 8 and 11). The analysis of the interactionsAMU*DDT*TWand AMU*DDT*K1 reveals that the effects of the interactions DDT*TWand DDT*K1are more significant as machine utilization is higher (AMU= 86%). This result is
consistent with the conclusion reached from analyzing Figs. 9 and 10, i.e., as the
systems workload increases, the effects of the different control variables and their
interactions become more significant because it becomes more important to implement
an efficient decision-making process.
The effects that the shop state variables AMU and DDT have on the systems
performance were also analyzed. This analysis reveals as expected, that when the
systems workload increases, mean flow time and mean tardiness increase as well.
In addition, tight due dates in conjunction with a higher system workload cause a
significant increase in the mean tardiness. On the other hand, when machine utilization
is relatively low, tardiness is almost not affected by the tight due dates.
5.3 Comparison of the proposed methodology to common scheduling policies
The main characteristics of the proposed control scheme are its two-tier decision-
making mechanism and its dynamic selection of criteria and scheduling rules. There-
fore, the following evaluation analysis focuses on these two characteristics.
The first objective is to assess the capability of the proposed methodology to cope
with a dynamic production environment. To do that, the performance of a system
using the suggested control methodology was compared to the performance of the same
system using the individual scheduling policies/rules described in Table 1. The second
objective is to assess the significance of determining a dominant criteria measure before
evaluating the different scheduling policies/rule. To do that, the performance of the
proposed two-tier decision-making mechanism was compared to the performance of
an adaptive control scheme used a single, fixed, operational decision criterion.
5.3.1 Using DEA for evaluating an efficiency of the proposed methodology
Since the proposed control methodology was developed to deal with an environment
in which the systems operational objectives change over time, it is imperative to use
a multi-criteria analysis technique for its evaluation. Carlyle et al. (2003) list sev-
eral multi-criteria analysis methods and measures. However, one of the most popular
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
20/27
B. Shnits and D. Sinreich
techniques (not mentioned in the above study) is a data envelopment analysis (DEA)
approach (Charnes et al., 1978). DEA was used in a large number of studies and ap-
plied in a wide variety of domains. See, e.g., Roll et al., 1989; Golany et al., 1994;
Adler and Golany, 2001. Production scheduling is one such domain (Ruiz-Torres and
Lopez, 2004).DEA is a technique used for evaluating the relative efficiencies of decision-making
units (DMUs). According to the DEA approach, the relative efficiency of a DMU is
defined as a ratio of the weighted sum of outputs to the weighted sum of inputs. The
efficiency of each DMU is calculated based on the best set of weights that are selected
for each DMU.
In this study, DEA approach is used to compare the relative efficiency of the different
scheduling rules/policies, based on the two chosen performance measuresflow time
and tardiness. These measures are used as the DEA models output while the input
that signifies the systems production and resource data was set to 1: (the input usedfor all of the different scheduling policies in each comparison has to be identical).
Following is the notation and the reduced DEA model:
Notation:
Yr j The value of the performance measure r for scheduling rule/policy j (j = 0
signifies the specific scheduling policy)
r The weight of the performance measure r (the decision variable of the model)m The number of performance measures in the output vector
n The number of output vectors (scheduling policies under consideration)
E0 The efficiency of the specific scheduling policy
Max E0 =
m
r=1
rYr0
s.t.
m
r=1
rYr j 1; j = 1, . . . , n; r= 1, . . . ,m; r 0
The linear programming model, described above, has to be solved for each one of
the scheduling rules/policies that are considered. The model determines the optimal
weights r for the performance measures that maximize the weighted efficiency E0for each scheduling rule/policy subject to the constraints that the efficiency of the
scheduling rules/policies cannot exceed 1.
5.3.2 Experiment design
For a more comprehensive comparison analysis, three different sets of production data
were generated randomly (each using a different random seed) based on the distribu-
tions described in Table 2. Each of these data sets was tested under four different shop
floor states, characterized by a combination of the values of the shop state variables
AMUand DDT, as listed in Table 6.
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
21/27
Controlling flexible manufacturing systems based on a dynamic selection
Table 6 Characterization of the
different shop floor states Shop floor state AMU DDT
1 73 200
2 73 300
3 86 200
4 86 300
Hence each scheduling rule/policy was tested using three different randomly gener-
ated sets of production data and four shop floor states. In other words, each scheduling
rule/policy was tested using 12 different scenarios.
The values of the experimental variables for the proposed control methodology were
set based on the results obtained from the previous experiment (described in Section
5.2). Based on the results illustrated in Figs. 58, the look-ahead time-window TW
was set to 50 for relatively loose due dates (DDT= 300) and to 20 for tighter duedates (DDT= 200). Next, based on the results illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4, the levels
of the control variable K1 were set to 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.8. To demonstrate
the capabilities of the proposed control methodology, the two-tier control scheme was
tested for each one of these values. The coefficients K2 and K3 were set as previously
indicated (see Section 5.2.1).
5.3.3 Experiment results
The average flow time F T and average tardiness T R over all 12 scenarios were cal-culated for each scheduling rule/policy listed in Table 1. These values were compared
to the average flow time and average tardiness achieved by the manufacturing system
operating using the proposed control methodology over all 12 scenarios for each of
the different values of the control variable K1. This comparison is denoted hereafter
as the aggregate comparison. A similar comparison was performed for each one of
the shop states separately, denoted hereafter as the separate comparison. The differ-
ence between the two comparisons is that in the latter, the average flow time F T and
average tardiness T R were calculated separately for each of the four shop floor states
over three scenarios only (three data sets).
In order to use the above-described DEA model, the average flow time and average
tardiness obtained is normalized as follows:
F TN=
Max{F T} F T
Max{F T} Min{F T} 100 (3)
T RN=
Max{T R} T R
Max{T R} Min{T R} 100 (4)
The normalized flow time F TN and normalized tardiness T RN, for the aggregatecomparison, are illustrated in Fig. 13. Figure 13 clearly shows that the results obtained
for the proposed control methodology (using the different K1 values) form an efficient
frontier. The two extreme points of this frontier represent the performance of the
adaptive control methodology operating with a single criterionflow time (FTC) or
tardiness (TRC). Figure 13 demonstrates that the proposed methodology can cope
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
22/27
B. Shnits and D. Sinreich
ATC
SLACK
EDD
CR
LRAFASFS
LRPTSIO
STPT
FCFS
FTC
TRC
45
55
65
75
85
95
50 55 60 65 70 75
FTN
TRN
Scheduling Rules
Proposed
Methodology
Single-Criteria Multi-
Pass Scheduling
Poly. (Proposed
Methodology)
Fig. 13 The performance of the proposed control methodology versus the performance of the individual
scheduling rules/policies
better with a dynamic environment compared to other scheduling rules/policies tested
in terms of flow time and tardiness.
The DEA results, shown in Table 7, confirm the overall superiority of the suggestedtwo-tier control methodology. According to the DEA, the efficiency of the proposed
scheduling mechanism is equal to 1 or very close to 1 (for all K1 values) and is higher
compared to the efficiency of the individual scheduling rules.
Table 7 Efficiency of the different scheduling policies using DEA
Efficiency
Proposed methodology K1 = 0.8 1
K1 = 1 1
K1 = 1.2 0.99512
K1 = 1.4 0.995411
K1 = 1.6 0.994344
K1 = 1.8 1
Single-criteria multi-pass scheduling Flow Time Criterion (FTC) 1
Tardiness Criterion (TRC) 0.989646
Scheduling rules FCFS 0.727013
LRPT 0.897867
EDD 0.920309
STPT 0.775118
FASFS 0.853347
SLACK 0.952912
CR 0.944172
LRA 0.940022
SIO 0.829488
ATC 0.955631
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
23/27
Controlling flexible manufacturing systems based on a dynamic selection
Table 8 Efficiency of the different control policies for the different shop floor states using DEA
Efficiency
State 1 State 2 State 3 State 4
Proposed methodology K1 = 0.8 1 0.990054 0.998446 1K1 = 1 1 0.995301 1 0.997821
K1 = 1.2 0.970675 1 0.989293 0.986362
K1 = 1.4 0.96972 0.988091 0.986969 0.999154
K1 = 1.6 1 0.978381 0.984593 0.992929
K1 = 1.8 1 1 1 1
Single-criteria multi- Flow Time Criterion 1 1 1 1
pass scheduling Tardiness Criterion 1 1 0.959939 0.977331
Scheduling rules FCFS 0.5214 0.592615 0.470359 0.556963
LRPT 0.85679 0.855099 0.838447 0.765246
EDD 0.910446 0.891681 0.811733 0.890083STPT 0.668246 0.70139 0.585165 0.534077
FASFS 0.813288 0.821505 0.702578 0.712895
SLACK 0.913532 0.948549 0.885791 0.929625
CR 0.864443 0.907183 0.856493 0.940456
LRA 0.88709 0.882016 0.931812 0.866255
SIO 0.761105 0.777093 0.69382 0.636301
ATC 0.913854 0.931459 0.894204 0.93819
11.02%
-5.87%-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
FT TR
Performance Measures
Relativeimprovementof
theproposedmethodology
N N
Fig. 14 Comparision of the
proposed methodology to an
adaptive mechanism using only
the flow time criterion
The results obtained for the separate comparison were similar to the results for the
aggregate comparison illustrated in Fig. 13 and Table 7. Table 8 lists the DEA results
for each of the four shop floor states examined.
The DEA results, listed in Table 8, show the superiority of the suggested two-
tier control methodology for each of the four shop floor states. The efficiency of the
proposed scheduling mechanism is equal to 1 or very close to 1 (for all K1 values)
and is higher compared to the efficiency of the individual scheduling rules.Figures 14 and 15 illustrate the ability of the suggested control methodology to cope
with the multi-criteria environment. These figures show the relative improvement (over
all the 12 scenarios) achieved by the proposed control methodology (average over all
K1 values) compared to an adaptive mechanism (using the same scheduling rules) that
uses only a single criterion.
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
24/27
B. Shnits and D. Sinreich
-0.31%
13.04%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
FT TR
Performance Measures
Relativeimprovementof
theproposedmethodology
N N
Fig. 15 Comparision of the
proposed methodology to an
adaptive mechanism using only
the tardiness criterion
The results illustrated in Fig. 14 reveal that an adaptive mechanism that uses flowtime as a single performance criterion achieves better flow time performance compared
to the proposed multi-criteria control methodology. However, its tardiness performance
is much worse compared to that achieved by the proposed control methodology. The
results illustrated in Fig. 15 reveal that an adaptive mechanism that uses tardiness
as a single performance criterion achieves similar tardiness performance compared
to the proposed multi-criteria control methodology. However, its flow time perfor-
mance is much worse compared to that achieved by the proposed control methodol-
ogy. Moreover, it seems that even if some of the parts in the system have tight due
dates, and as a result, the declared objective of the system is the minimization of
tardiness, it can be beneficial to change the systems operational decision criterion
occasionally from tardiness minimization to flow time minimization. This, highlights
the importance of the mechanism for the dynamic selection of an appropriate decision
criterion.
It should be noted that the relative improvement achieved by the proposed control
methodology compared to the single-criteria adaptive scheduling mechanism was also
examined separately for the different shop floor states defined in Table 6. The results
obtained were similar to those shown in Figs. 14 and 15. This means that the mechanism
for the dynamic selection of an appropriate decision criterion is important for all the
tested shop floor states.
6 Conclusions and final remarks
This study presents a new multi-criteria dynamic scheduling methodology for con-
trolling FMSs. In order to cope with the unpredictable environment in which an FMS
operates, the proposed control scheme uses a two-tier decision-making mechanism.
Although the capabilities of the proposed control mechanism were extensively an-
alyzed, it should be noted that the results obtained in this study cannot be simplygeneralized, especially since these results rely on a specific test environment. Hence,
further analysis of this mechanism was needed.
The proposed control methodology was evaluated and compared to individual
scheduling rules/policies and to an adaptive single-criteria scheduling method. The
results obtained demonstrate the superiority of the suggested control methodology as
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
25/27
Controlling flexible manufacturing systems based on a dynamic selection
well as its capability to cope with a fast-changing environment. The analysis clearly
shows that in a dynamic environment, it is important not only to select a good schedul-
ing rule/policy, but also to determine an appropriate decision criterion according to
which the performance of each scheduling rule/policy is measured. Specifically, it was
demonstrated that even if the declared objective of the system is the minimization oftardiness, it can be beneficial to occasionally select a criterion measure that aims to
reduce the work orders flow time, thereby freeing up machine time to better cope with
future unexpected events. The implementation of the proposed control methodology
is based on using similar simulation models for decision-making as well as for the
direct control of the actual manufacturing system.
The decision making mechanism in this study is limited to select at any decision
point one of two criteriamean flow time or mean tardiness. A possible research
extension of the proposed methodology can include support for additional decision
criteria or the capability to select some weighted combination of the dominant criteria.In addition, in the proposed methodology, the relative importance of the different sys-
tem objectives is expressed by the coefficients of the rule-based algorithm. Choosing
the right values for these coefficients is not a simple task. It might be useful to develop
some decision support system to facilitate this task. This however was outside the
scope of this paper.
Another issue is the activation of the decision-making mechanism. In this study,
the decision-making processes was activated right before a resource became available.
Hence, a possible research extension is to test different triggering modes, e.g., at fixed
time intervals or based on the gap between actual and planned performance. Additional
future research topics include testing the effects that machine redundancy have on the
performance of the proposed methodology and how efficient this methodology is for
less dynamic environments.
Acknowledgments This study has been supported, in part, by the Technion Hal and Inge Marcus Fund.
References
Adler N, Golany B (2001) Evaluation of deregulated airline networks using data envelopment analysis
combined with principal component analysis with an application to western Europe. Eur J Oper Res
132(2):260273
Arzi Y, Iaroslavitz L (1999) Neural network-based adaptive production control system for a flexible man-
ufacturing cell under a random environment. IIE Trans 31(3):217230
Arzi Y, Roll Y (1993) Real-time production control of an FMS in a produce-to-order environment. Int J
Prod Res 31(9):21952214
Aydin ME, Oztemel E (2000) Dynamic job-shop scheduling using reinforcement learning agents. Robot
Auton Syst 33(23):169178
Balogun OO, Popplewell K (1999) Towards the integration of flexible manufacturing system scheduling.
Int J Prod Res 37(15):33993428
Bistline SR, W. G, Banerjee S, Banerjee A (1998) RTSS: An interactive decision support system for solving
real time scheduling problems considering customer and job priorities with schedule interruptions.
Comput Oper Res 25(11):981995
Byrne MD, Chutima P (1997) Real-time operational control of an FMS with full routing flexibility. Int J
Prod Econ 51(12):109113
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
26/27
B. Shnits and D. Sinreich
Carlyle WM, Fowler JW, Gel ES, Kim B (2003) Quantitative comparison of approximate solution sets for
bi-criteria optimization problems. Decis Sci 34(1):6382
Chan FTS, Chan HK, Lau HCW (2002) The state of the art in simulation study on FMS scheduling: A
comprehensive survey. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 19(11):830849
Chandra J, Talavage J (1991) Intelligent dispatching for flexible manufacturing. Int J Prod Res 29(11):2259
2278Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper
Res 2(6):429444
Cho H, Wysk RA (1993) A robust adaptive scheduler for an intelligent workstation controller. Int J Prod
Res 31(4):771789
Chryssolouris G, Dicke K, Lee M (1991) An approach to short interval scheduling for discrete parts
manufacturing. Int J Comput Integ Manuf 4(3):157168
Chryssolouris G, Subramaniam V (2001) Dynamic scheduling of manufacturing job-shops using genetic
algorithms. J Intell Manuf 12(3):281293
Fanti MP, Maione B, Naso D, Turchiano B (1998) Genetic multi-criteria approach to flexible line scheduling.
Int J Approx Reason 19(12):521
Golany B, Roll Y, Rybak D (1994) Measuring efficiency of power plants in israel by data envelopment
analysis. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 41(3):291301Groover MP, (1987) Automation production systems and computer-integrated manufacturing. Prentice Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Chap 1:19
Gupta YP, Evans GW, Gupta MC (1991) A review of multi-criterion approaches to FMS scheduling prob-
lems. Int J Prod Econ 22(1):1331
Gupta YP, Gupta MC, Bector CR (1989) A review of scheduling rules in flexible manufacturing systems.
Int J Comput Integr Manuf 2(6):356377
Ishii N, Talavage JJ (1991) A transient-based real-time scheduling algorithm in FMS. Int J Prod Res
29(12):25012520
Ishii N, Talavage JJ (1994) A mixed dispatching rule approach in FMS scheduling. Int J Flexible Manuf
Syst 6(1):6987
Jeong K-C, Kim Y-D (1998) A real-time scheduling mechanism for a flexible manufacturing system: usingsimulation and dispatching rules. Int J Prod Res 36(9):26092626
Kazerooni A, Chan FTS, Abhary K (1997) A fuzzy integrated decision-making support system for schedul-
ing of FMS using simulation. Comput Integr Manuf Syst 10(1):2734.
Kim C-O, Min H-S, Yih Y (1998) Integration of inductive learning and neural networks for multi-objective
FMS scheduling. Int J Prod Res 36(9):24972509
Kutanoglu E, Sabuncuoglu I (1999) An analysis of heuristics in a dynamic job-shop with weighted tardiness
objectives. Int J Prod Res 37(1):165187
Law AM, Kelton WD (2000) Simulation modeling and analysis (3ed ed.). McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,
Singapore
Mesghouni K, Pesin P, Trentesaux D, Hammadi S, Tahon C, Borne P (1999) Hybrid approach to decision
making for job-shop scheduling. Prod Planning Control 10(7):690706
Montazeri M, Van Wassenhove LN (1990) Analysis of scheduling rules for an FMS. Int J Prod Res28(4):785802
Piramuthu S, Raman N, Shaw MJ (1994) Learning-based scheduling in a flexible manufacturing flow line.
IEEE Trans Eng Manag 41(2):172182
Qi JG, Burns GR, Harrison DK (2000) The application of parallel multi-population genetic algorithms to
dynamic job-shop scheduling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 16(8):609615
Rachamadugu R, Stecke E (1994) Classification and review of fms scheduling procedures. Prod Planing &
Control 5(1):220
Roll Y, Golany B, Seroussy D (1989) Measuring the efficiency of maintenance units in the Israeli Air Force.
Eur J Operat Res 43(2):136142
Rossi A, Dini G (2000) Dynamic scheduling of FMS using a real-time genetic algorithm. Int J Prod Res
38(1):120
Ruiz-Torres AJ, Lopez FJ (2004) Using the FDH formulation of DEA to evaluate a multi-criteria problem
in parallel machine scheduling. Comput Ind Eng 47(23):107121
Sabuncuoglu I, Hommertzheim DL (1993) Experimental investigation of an FMS due date scheduling
problem: evaluation of machine and AGV scheduling rules. Int J Flexible Manuf Syst 5(4):301323
Sabuncuoglu I, Lahmar M (2003) An evaluative study of operation grouping policies in an FMS. Int J
Flexible Manuf Syst 15(3):217239
Springer
-
7/29/2019 Contr Ling
27/27
Controlling flexible manufacturing systems based on a dynamic selection
Shaw MJ, Park S, Raman N (1992) Intelligent scheduling with machine learning capabilities: the induction
of scheduling knowledge. IIE Trans 24(2):156168
Shnits B, Rubinovitz J, Sinreich D (2004) Multicriteria dynamic scheduling methodology for controlling a
flexible manufacturing system. Int J Prod Res 42(17):34573472
Sinreich D, Palni L (1998) Scheduling pickups and deliveries in a multiple-load discrete carrier environment.
IIE Trans 30(11):10351047Soon TH, De Souza R (1997) Intelligent simulation-based scheduling of workcells: an approach. Integr
Manuf Syst 8(1):623
Subramaniam V, Ramesh T, Lee GK, Wong YS, Hong GS (2000) Job-shop scheduling with dynamic fuzzy
selection of dispatching rrules. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 16(10):759764
Sun Y-L, Yih Y (1996) An intelligent controller for manufacturing cells. Int J Prod Res 34(8):23532373
Trentesaux D, Pesin P, Tahon C (2000) Distributed artificial intelligence for FMS scheduling, control and
design support. J Intel Manuf 11(6):573589
Vepsalainen APJ, Morton TE (1987) Priority rules for job-shops with weighted tardiness costs. Manag Sci
33(8):10351047
Womack JP, Jones DT, Roos D (1990) The machine that changed the world. Rawson Associates, New York,
NY. Chapter 1, pp. 1115
Wu S-YD, Wysk RA (1989) An application of discrete-event simulation to on-line control and schedulingin flexible manufacturing. Int J Prod Res 27(9):16031623
Wysk R, Joshi SB, Pegden CD (1992) Rapid prototyping of shop floor control systems for computer
integrated manufacturing. ARPA Project #8881
Yu L, Shih HM, Sekiguchi T (1999) Fuzzy Inference-based multiple criteria FMS scheduling. Int J Prod
Res 37(10):23152333