capacity and working time determination in a reservation system
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Capacity and Working Time Determination in a Reservation System

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 25

Capacity and Working Time Determination in a Reservation System - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 87 Views
  • Uploaded on

ANADOLU ÜNİVERSİTESİ Endüstri Mühendisliği Seminerleri, 12.10.2012. Capacity and Working Time Determination in a Reservation System. Deniz Türsel Eliiyi , Assoc. Prof. Dr. Izmir University of Economics, Department of Industrial Systems Engineering To appear in: Engineering Optimization.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Capacity and Working Time Determination in a Reservation System' - haviva-ross


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
capacity and working time determination in a reservation system

ANADOLU ÜNİVERSİTESİ

  • Endüstri Mühendisliği Seminerleri, 12.10.2012

Capacity and Working Time Determinationin a ReservationSystem

DenizTürselEliiyi,

Assoc. Prof. Dr.

Izmir University of Economics,

Department of Industrial Systems Engineering

To appear in: Engineering Optimization

outline
Outline
  • Preliminaries
  • Practical importance and motivation
  • Problem definition
  • Complexity results
  • An efficient heuristic algorithm
  • Computational results
  • Conclusion and Future work
fixed job scheduling

Job 3(w3)

Job 1(w1)

Job 2(w2)

r1

r2

d1

r3

d2

d3

Time

Fixed Job Scheduling
  • Assumptions
  • All parameters known
  • No more arrivals
  • A m/c can process at most one job at a time
  • A job can be processed by at most one machine at a time
  • All machines are eligible to process all jobs
  • Machines are available at all times.
  • n jobs
    • Ready time: rj
    • Deadline: dj
    • Processing time: pj= dj- rj
    • Weight: wj(k)
  • Pa :Set of available jobs in interval a.
  • Identical parallel machines
    • Cost : ck
slide5

Fixed Job SchedulingThe Operational Problem (OFJS)

  • Algorithm for the number maximizing OFJS problem (Bouzina and Emmons, 1996)
  • Algorithm for the weight maximizing OFJS problem (Bouzina and Emmons, 1996): Conversion to MCNF problem  O(mn log n)
slide7

Fixed Job SchedulingThe Tactical Problem (TFJS)

  • Fleet planning:
    • Dantzig and Fulkerson (1954)
    • Gertsbakh and Stern (1978)
  • Computer wiring:
    • Hashimoto and Stevens (1971):ck= c

The minimum number of machines required to carry out all jobs =The maximum job overlap of the jobs

    • Gupta et al. (1979)
    • Eliiyi (2004): O(n log n) algorithm for arbitrary ck
fjs np hard generalizations
FJS: NP-hard generalizations
  • Working Time:
  • Spread Time:
    • Sk: Start time of machine k
    • Fk: Finish time of machine k
  • Eligibility: Each machine is eligible to process only a subset of jobs.

job 3(w3)

job 1(w1)

M/c k

job 2(w2)

r1

d1

r2

d2

r3

d3

p1

p2

p3

S

T

practical importance
Practical Importance

Areas of use include all kinds of reservation systems:

  • Tactical capacity planning of aircraft maintenance personnel
  • Hotel reservation systems / Renting bungalows
  • Car rental
  • Textile workshops
  • Operating room scheduling in hospitals
  • Bus Driver Scheduling Problem
  • Earth-observing satellites
  • Automated manufacturing systems
previous work
Previous Work

Working Time Constraints:

  • Fischetti M., Martello S., Toth P., 1989 : Tactical
  • Eliiyi D.T., Azizoğlu M., 2009, 2011 : Operational

Spread Time Constraints:

  • Fischetti M., Martello S., Toth P., 1987 : Tactical
  • Eliiyi D.T., Azizoğlu M., 2006, 2011 : Operational

Eligibility Constraints:

  • Kroon L.G. et al. 1995 : Operational
  • Kroon L.G. et al. 1997 : Tactical
  • Kolen A.J.W., Kroon L.G., 1991 : Operational
  • Kolen A.J.W., Kroon L.G., 1992 : Tactical
  • Eliiyi D.T., Azizoğlu M., 2009 : Operational
  • Eliiyi D.T., Korkmaz A.G., Çiçek A.E., 2009 : Operational

Nice Surveys:

  • Kovalyov M.Y., Ng C.T., Cheng T.C.E., 2007, “Fixed interval scheduling: Models, applications, computational complexity and algorithms”, European Journal of Operational Research, 178, 331-342.
  • Kolen A.J.W., Lenstra J.K., Papadimitriou C.H., Spieksma F.C.R., 2007, “Interval scheduling: A survey”, Naval Research Logistics, 54, 530 – 543.
motivation
Motivation
  • Capacity planning of a reservation system directly affects total profit
  • Existing studies in literature use the tactical FJS for capacity planning:
    • Long term forecasts of job reservations necessary
    • Ignores cancellations or possible changes in job ready times and deadlines
    • Requires rescheduling
  • Studies handle operational and tactical problems separately
  • Integrated decision ofcapacity planning and scheduling
    • Significantly important in systems showing seasonal demand changes
    • Eliiyi (2010): An iterative approach thatuses the operational model is proposed for determining the best capacity expansion level ina sewing workshop
problem definition
Problem Definition
  • Three simultaneous decisions in a reservation environment:
    • the capacity level of the system
    • job-machine assignments
    • working time for eachmachine
  • Applications:
    • Multi-server data transfersystem where the servers have unit-time operating costs
    • Seasonal workforce paid on an hourly basis
    • Travel agency renting hotel rooms for its customers
  • Objective: Maximize the net profit while determiningthe number of servers and their respective working times as well as the processed job subset.
  • Working time: A decision variable
problem definition1
Problem Definition
  • n jobs
    • Ready time: rj
    • Deadline: dj
    • Processing time: pj= dj- rj
    • Weight: wj
  • m: upper bound (external or internal) on the number of identical parallel machines
    • Operating cost per unit time (or rental costs): ck
  • Pa :Set of available jobs in interval a.
computational complexity
Computational Complexity

USING

THEN:

Equivalent to FJS problem with generalweights, NP-hard in the strong sense (Eliiyi, Azizoglu, 2009)

where

polynomially solvable special cases
Polynomially Solvable Special Cases
  • Limited number of machines, identical operating costs:
    • Problem reduces to the operational FJS
    • Can be solved in O(mn log n) time by a MCNF formulation.
  • Single machine:
    • Problem reduces to the operational FJS with single machine
    • Can be solved in O(n) time by a shortest path fomulation.
a simple effective heuristic approach o n log n nm
A simple & effective heuristic approachO(n log n + nm)

(S0) Index the potential m machines in nondecreasing order of their ck. Index the jobs in nondecreasing order of their rj. Set ZLB = 0, XLB= , A = unassigned job set = {1,...,n}

(S1) For k = 1,..., m:

Formulate a shortest path problem for the kthmachine with |A| jobs, resulting in ZSP (k) = objective function value and XSP(k) = scheduled job set

If ZSP(k) ≥ 0 and XSP(k) then

ZLB = ZLB + ZSP(k), XLB = XLBXSP(k), update A

else

Go to (S2)

If A =  go to (S2)

(S2) Solution: ZLB , XLB

computational experiment
Computational Experiment
  • n = 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000
  • rj ~ U(0,200)
  • pj~ U(4,10)
  • Three levels for job weights:
    • wj = pj , j
    • wj~ U(4,10)
    • wj~ U(4,20)
  • Two levels for operating costs:
    • ck~ U{1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2}, ck ~ U{0.5, 0.625, 0.75, 0.875, 1}, k
  • 10 problem instances for each setting: 300 instances
  • PC with 4 GB Ram and 1.8 GHz, Windows 7
  • IBM ILOG CPLEX 12.1 solver for optimal solutions
observations
Observations
  • The algorithm provides very high quality solutions in practically no time, especially for large instances: An average 1.8% optimality gap is attained over all instances.
  • The optimality gap closes for larger instances, and the algorithm performs better than CPLEX for n = 2000.
  • CPLEX could not solve 40 of the instances to optimality in the 1200-second time limit, for some it could not even obtain an initial lower bound for the problem.
  • The optimal solution is obtained in 51 of the 300 instances, and for 34 instances the algorithm finds a better solution than CPLEX within the given time limit.
observations1
Observations
  • The algorithm favors solutions with more number of used machines and more jobs processed.
  • Applications may require high number of jobs with many machines, and the developed algorithm seems very promising in generating high quality solutions for very large problem instances.
  • The algorithm performs robustly in terms of solution time for different levels of parameters including weight and cost.
conclusion and future work
Conclusion and Future Work
  • A new strongly NP-hard problem in a reservation system where the jobs have fixedready times and deadlines:
    • The objective is to maximize the net profit from the processedjob subset while determining the capacity level and the working times of the machines.
  • A heuristic algorithm that performs excellently up to 2000 jobs in very small computation times
  • Potential research for related problems:
    • Problem with side constraints (spread time, eligibility)
    • Both fixed and operating costs for machines
ad