English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

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.

Linking Scheduling Criteria to Shop Floor Performance in Permutation Flowshops