1 / 25

Capacity and Working Time Determination in a Reservation System

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.

haviva-ross
Download Presentation

Capacity and Working Time Determination in a Reservation System

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 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

  2. Outline • Preliminaries • Practical importance and motivation • Problem definition • Complexity results • An efficient heuristic algorithm • Computational results • Conclusion and Future work

  3. 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

  4. Fixed Job SchedulingThe Operational Problem (OFJS)

  5. 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)

  6. Fixed Job SchedulingThe Tactical Problem (TFJS)

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. Mathematical Model

  15. Computational Complexity USING THEN: Equivalent to FJS problem with generalweights, NP-hard in the strong sense (Eliiyi, Azizoglu, 2009) where

  16. 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.

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. Results c

  20. Results c

  21. Results c

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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

  25. Thank you...

More Related