A performance evaluation of permutation vs. non-permutation schedules in a flowshop

Abstract

It has been pointed out that a permutation schedule can be improved by a non-permutation schedule in a flowshop with completion-time based criteria, but there is a lack of comprehensive analyses. This paper presents an extensive computational investigation concerning the performance comparison between permutation and non-permutation schedules. The computational results indicate that in general, there is little improvement made by non-permutation schedules over permutation schedules with respect to completion-time based criteria. But the improvement is significant with respect to due-date based criteria, including total tardiness and total weighted tardiness. The results provide practitioners a guideline as to when to adopt a non-permutation schedule, which may exhibit better performance but require additional computational and control efforts.

Computational complexity and solution algorithms for flowshop scheduling problems with the learning effect

“…Moreover, we will analyze two versions of the NEH algorithm (Nawaz, Enscore, & Ham, 1983). Namely, the basic NEH that provides only permutation schedules and NEH NP (Liao, Liao, & Tseng, 2006) that can also provide non-permutation solutions.…”

Including workers with disabilities in flow shop scheduling

“…with the same order on all machines. This is the reason most of the research has focused on the permutation variant, although for instances found in practice Tandon, Cummings and LeVan (1991), Liao, Liao and Tseng (2006) have shown that the makespan can be improved by 1% to 3% for the non-permutation flow shop. The concept of a permutation schedule for hybrid flow shops is more subtle: each job is scheduled in order at the stages at the earliest feasible time that a machine at that stage becomes available (EMMONS; VAIRAKTARAKIS, 2013).…”

A non-permutation flowshop scheduling problem with lot streaming: A Mathematical model

“…Moreover, it has been shown that NPFS schedules dominate PFS schedules (Pugazhendhi, et al 2003;Liao et al 2006). This is particularly relevant for practitioners since it means that productivity can be increased without any extra investment in machinery or any modification of the actual production system or product design.…”

“…This is particularly relevant for practitioners since it means that productivity can be increased without any extra investment in machinery or any modification of the actual production system or product design. Subsequent to the work of Pugazhendhi et al (2003) and Liao et al (2006), several algorithms and procedures have been proposed for solving NPFS (e.g., see Ying, 2008;Ying et al, 2010;Lin & Ying, 2009;Rossi & Lanzetta, 2014;Mehravaran & Logendran, 2012VahediNouri et al, 2013, Shen et al, 2014. Although the interest in the lot streaming has grown in the past few years, it has not been adopted as an optimization strategy or even studied in the context of NPFSs.…”