Comparing Mixed & Integer Programming vs. Constraint Programming by solving Job-Shop Scheduling Problems
Scheduling is a key factor for operations management as well as for business success. From industrial Job-shop Scheduling problems (JSSP), many optimization challenges have emerged since de 1960s when improvements have been continuously required such as bottlenecks allocation, lead-time reductions a...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2015 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de São Paulo (IFSP) |
| Repositorio: | Independent Journal of Management & Production |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:www.ijmp.jor.br:article/262 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://www.ijmp.jor.br/index.php/ijmp/article/view/262 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Constraint Programming Mixed an Integer Programming Job-shop Scheduling Problem Makespan minimization |
| Sumario: | Scheduling is a key factor for operations management as well as for business success. From industrial Job-shop Scheduling problems (JSSP), many optimization challenges have emerged since de 1960s when improvements have been continuously required such as bottlenecks allocation, lead-time reductions and reducing response time to requests. With this in perspective, this work aims to discuss 3 different optimization models for minimizing Makespan. Those 3 models were applied on 17 classical problems of examples JSSP and produced different outputs. The first model resorts on Mixed and Integer Programming (MIP) and it resulted on optimizing 60% of the studied problems. The other models were based on Constraint Programming (CP) and approached the problem in two different ways: a) model CP1 is a standard IBM algorithm whereof restrictions have an interval structure that fail to solve 53% of the proposed instances, b) Model CP-2 approaches the problem with disjunctive constraints and optimized 88% of the instances. In this work, each model is individually analyzed and then compared considering: i) Optimization success performance, ii) Computational processing time, iii) Greatest Resource Utilization and, iv) Minimum Work-in-process Inventory. Results demonstrated that CP-2 presented best results on criteria i and ii, but MIP was superior on criteria iii and iv and those findings are discussed at the final section of this work. |
|---|