2014 journal article
A practical method for evaluating worker allocations in large-scale dual resource constrained job shops
IIE Transactions, 46(11), 1209–1226.
author keywords: Job shop scheduling; dual resource constrained system; worker allocation; maximum job lateness
TL;DR:
This follow-up article formulates a revised step (ii) wherein each simulation invokes, an improved version of , to yield an approximation to the quasi-optimality gap, and concluded that the -based distribution did not differ significantly from its enumeration-based counterpart; and the revised evaluation method was computationally tractable in practice.
(via Semantic Scholar)
UN Sustainable Development Goal Categories
8. Decent Work and Economic Growth
(OpenAlex)
12. Responsible Consumption and Production
(Web of Science)
Source: Crossref
Added: February 21, 2020
In two recent articles, Lobo et al. present algorithms for allocating workers to machine groups in a Dual Resource Constrained (DRC) job shop so as to minimize Lmax , the maximum job lateness. Procedure LBSA delivers an effective lower bound on Lmax , while the heuristic delivers an allocation whose associated schedule has a (usually) near-optimal Lmax value. To evaluate an HSP-based allocation’s quality in a given DRC job shop, the authors first compute the gap between HSP’s associated Lmax value and ’s lower bound. Next they refer this gap to the distribution of a “quasi-optimality” gap that is generated as follows: (i) independent simulation replications of the given job shop are obtained by randomly sampling each job’s characteristics; and (ii) for each replication, the associated quasi-optimality gap is computed by enumerating all feasible allocations. Because step (ii) is computationally intractable in large-scale problems, this follow-up article formulates a revised step (ii) wherein each simulation invokes , an improved version of , to yield an approximation to the quasi-optimality gap. Based on comprehensive experimentation, it is concluded that the -based distribution did not differ significantly from its enumeration-based counterpart; and the revised evaluation method was computationally tractable in practice. Two examples illustrate the use of the revised method.