Int. J.

Production Economics 66 (2000) 53}57

Solvable cases of permutation #owshop scheduling

with dominating machines
S. Xiang , G. Tang
, T.C.E. Cheng*
Department of Economics, Anhui College of Architectural Industry, Hefei, Anhui 230022, People's Republic of China

Department of Management, Shanghai Second Polytechnic University, Shanghai 200041, People's Republic of China
Ozce of the Vice-President (Research & Postgraduate Studies), The Hong Kong Polytechnic, University Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Received 25 June 1998; accepted 22 July 1999

Abstract
In this paper we study the permutation #owshop scheduling problem with an increasing and decreasing series of
dominating machines. The objective is to minimize one of the "ve regular performance criteria, namely, total weighted
completion time, maximum lateness, maximum tardiness, number of tardy jobs and makespan. We establish that these
"ve cases are solvable by presenting a polymonial-time solution algorithm for each case.  2000 Elsevier Science B.V.
All rights reserved.
Keywords: Scheduling; Permutation #owshop; Dominating machines

1. Introduction
It is common to observe that in many manufacturing plants, the production facilities are arranged
in series through which the jobs are processed.
Often, the jobs have to be processed by each of the
serial facilities in the same order. Such a production
plant con"guration is referred to as a #owshop. If
there are technological or other constraints that
demand the jobs to go through the facilities in the
same order, the environment is called a permutation #owshop.
A permutation #owshop scheduling problem can
be stated as follows. There are n jobs J , J ,2, J
 
L
to be processed successively on m machines
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 852-2766-5215; fax: 852-23562682.
E-mail address: mscheng@polyu.edu.hk (T.C.E. Cheng)

M , M ,2, M in that order. Each job can be



K
processed on no more than one machine at any
time, while each machine can handle only one job
and the processing of a job may not be interrupted.
Moreover, we assume that the same job order is
chosen on each machine. Hence, the set of feasible
solutions is given by the set S of all permutations of
(1, 2,2, n).
We de"ne the following notation:
p
GH
d
H
w
H
C
H

" processing time of job J on machine M ;

H
G
" due date of job J ;
H
" weight of job J ;
H
" completion time of job J in a given perH
mutation;
" max+C !d "j"1,2, n,, maximum late 
H
H
ness of a given permutation;
" max+0, ,, maximum tardiness of


a given permutation;

0925-5273/00/$ - see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 5 - 5 2 7 3 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 0 6 - 1

54

S. Xiang et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 53}57

C " max+C "j"1,2, n,, makespan of a given


H
permutation;
; " 1 if C 'd and 0 otherwise;
H
H
H
s
" (s(1), s(2),2, s(n)), a permutation of
(1, 2,2, n);
s
" (s(j), s(1), s(2),2, s(j!1), s(j#1),2, s(n)),
H
the s(j) forward-shift permutation of
s"(s(1), s(2),2, s(n));
S
" the set of all permutations of (1, 2,2, n);
c(s) " the objective function value for s"(s(1),
s(2),2, s(n)).

the reader is referred to Refs. [1}4,6,7]. Using the

three-"eld notation for problem classi"cation,
a permutation #owshop with an increasing}decreasing and a decreasing}increasing series of
dominating machines to minimize a performance
criterion c is denoted as F"idm}ddm"c and
F"ddm}idm"c, respectively. Adiri and Amit [2] solved F"idm}ddm" C , and Ho and Gupta [5] solH
ved F"idm"c and F"ddm"c, where c3+C , C ,

H
, ; ,. In this paper, we solve F"idm}ddm"c,

H
where c3+ w C , , , ; , C ,.
H H  
H 

De5nition 1. M is dominated by M , or M domP

I
I
inates M i!
P
max+p " j"1,2, n,,)min+p " j"1,2, n,.
PH
IH
In abbreviated notation, it is denoted as M 'M .
I
P

Observation. For a given permutation s"(s(1),

s(2),2, s(n)) for the problem F"idm}ddm"c, the
completion time C of job J , if jobs are proQH
QH
cessed at the earliest possible time, is as follows:

De5nition 2. The machines form an increasing

series of dominating machines (idm) i!
M (M (2(M .


K
De5nition 3. The machines form a decreasing series
of dominating machines (ddm) i!
M 'M '2'M .


K
De5nition 4. The machines form an increasing}decreasing series of dominating machines (idm}ddm)
i!
M (M (2(M '2'M ,


F
K
where 1)h)m.
De5nition 5. The machines form a decreasing}increasing series of dominating machines (ddm}idm)
i!
M 'M '2'M (2(M ,


F
K
where 1)h)m.
De5nition 6. Jobs are processed at the earliest possible time if any job is not allowed to wait between
two successive machines unless its predecessor job
has not "nished processing on the same machine.
For previous work on #owshop scheduling in an
environment of a series of dominating machines,

C "C #C #C ,

QH
QH
QH
QH

(1)

where
C " F\p
, the sum of processing times of
QH
G GQ
job J
on the "rst (h!1) machines,
Q
C " H p
, the sum of processing times of
QH
I FQI
the "rst j jobs on machine M ,
F
and
C " K
p , the sum of processing times of
QH
GF> GQH
job J on the last (m!h) machines.
QH

2. Problem F"idm}ddm" wj Cj
From (1), we have
L
c(s)" w C
QH QH
H
L
F\
L
H
" w p
# w p
#l ,
QH
GQ
QH
FQI

H
G
H
I
where the "rst item is only dependent on job J ,
Q
the second term is the weighted completion time of
all the jobs on machine M and is minimized by the
F
weighted shortest processing time (WSPT) ordering, and the last term l " L w K
p

H QH GF> GQH
" L w K
p is independent of permutaH H GF> GH
tion. Therefore, an optimal permutation can be
constructed as follows.

S. Xiang et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 53}57

Algorithm 1.
Step 1: Construct a WSPT ordering s"(s(1),
s(2),2, s(n)) of processing times p , j"1,2, n, of
FH
all the jobs on machine M . That is,
F
p
/w )p
/w )2)p
/w .
FQ Q
FQ Q
FQL QL
Step 2: Let s be the s(j) forward-shift permutation
H
of s, i.e.
s "(s(j), s(1),2, s(j!1), s(j#1),2, s(n)).
H
Calculate its objective function value c(s ).
H
Step 3: Let c(s H )"min+c(s )" j"1,2, n,. An optiH
H
mal solution is
s H "(s(jH), s(1),2, s(jH!1), s(jH#1),2, s(n)),
H
i.e. the s H forward-shift permutation of s.
H
Theorem 1. For the problem F"idm}ddm" w C ,
H H
Algorithm 1 generates an optimal solution.
Proof. For any feasible solution s"(s(1),
s(2),2, s(n)), let s(1)"s(k), where s(k) is the kth
element of s"(s(1), s(2),2, s(n)) obtained in Step
1 of Algorithm 1. From the Observation and using
the method of adjacent pairwise interchange [8],
we know c(s)*c(s )*c(s H ).
I
H
Algorithm 1 requires O(n) time to obtain an
optimal solution since the computational complexity of WSPT is O(n log n) and the computation of
c(s H ) needs O(n) time.
H
3. Problems F"idm}ddm"Lmax and F"idm}ddm"Tmax
Note that c(s)" or
in this case. For the


problem F"idm}ddm" , Ho and Gupta [4] pre 
sented an optimal solution algorithm. Algorithm
2 below solves the problem more simply.
Algorithm 2.
Step 1: Construct an earliest due date (EDD) ordering s"(s(1), s(2),2, s(n)) of due dates d , j"
H
1,2, n, of all the jobs. That is, d )d
Q
Q
)2)d .
QL

55

Step 2: Let s be the s(j) forward-shift permutation

H
of s, i.e.
s "(s(j), s(1),2, , s(j!1), s(j#1),2, s(n)).
H
Calculate its objective function value c(s ).
H
Step 3: Let c(s H )"min+c(s )"j"1,2, n,. An optiH
H
mal solution is
s H "(s(jH), s(1),2, s(jH!1), s(jH#1),2, s(n)),
H
i.e. the s(jH) forward-shift permutation of s.
Theorem 2. For the problems F"idm"
and

F"idm" , Algorithm 2 generates an optimal solu 
tion.
Proof. For any feasible solution s"(s(1),
s(2),2, s(n)), let s(1)"s(k), where s(k) is the kth
element of s"(s(1), s(2),2, s(n)) in Step 1 of Algorithm 2. From the observation (note h"m in
this case) and using the method of adjacent pairwise interchange, we know c(s)*c(s )*c(s H ).
I
H
Similarly, Algorithm 2 requires O(n) time to
obtain an optimal solution since the computational
complexity of EDD is O(n log n) and the computation of c(s H ) needs O(n) time.
H
Algorithm 3 below generates an optimal
solution to the problems F"idm}ddm"
and

F"idm}ddm" .

Algorithm 3.
Step 1: Let d "d ! K
p for j"1, 2, n.
H
H
IF> IH
Construct an EDD ordering s"(s(1), s(2),2, s(n))
of due dates d , j"1,2, n, of all the jobs. That is,
H
d )d )2)d .
Q
Q
QL
Step 2: Let s be the s(j) forward-shift permutation
H
of s, i.e.
s "(s(j), s(1),2, s(j!1), s(j#1),2, s(n)).
H
Calculate its objective function value c(s ).
H
Step 3: Let c(s H )"min+c(s )" j"1,2, n,. An optiH
H
mal solution is
s H "(s(jH), s(1),2, s(jH!1), s(jH#1),2, s(n)),
H
i.e. the s(jH) forward-shift permutation of s.

56

S. Xiang et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 53}57

Theorem 3. For the problems F"idm}ddm"

and

F"idm}ddm" , Algorithm 3 generates an optimal

solution.
Proof. By the Observation, we know that C is
QH
independent of permutation. The problems
F"idm}ddm"
and F"idm}ddm"
are equiva 

lent to the problems F"idm"
and F"idm"


with machines M ,2, M and `newa due dates

F
d ,2, d , respectively. The result follows from

F
Theorem 2 accordingly.
Algorithm 3 again requires O(n) time to obtain
an optimal solution.

4. Problem F"idm}ddm" Uj
Note that c(s)" L ; in this case. Using
H H
Moore's algorithm [9] n times in Algorithm 3 to
calculate objective function values, Algorithm 4 below generates an optimal solution for the problem
F"idm}ddm" ; .
H
Algorithm 4.
Step 1: Let d "d ! K
p for j"1,2, n.
H
H
IF> IH
Construct an EDD ordering s"(s(1), s(2),2, s(n))
of due dates d , j"1,2, n, of all the jobs. That is,
H
d )d )2)d .
Q
Q
QL
Step 2: Let s be the s(j) forward-shift permutation
H
of s, i.e.
s "(s(j), s(1),2, s(j!1), s(j#1),2, s(n)).
H
Calculate its objective function value c(s ) resulting
H
from "xing job J in the "rst position and using
QH
Moore's algorithm to calculate the minimum number of tardy jobs for the remaining (n!1) jobs,
together with job J if it is tardy.
QH
Step 3: Let c(s H )"min+c(s )" j"1,2, n,. An optiH
H
mal solution is
s H "(s(jH), s(1),2, s(jH!1), s(jH#1),2, s(n)),
H
i.e. the s(jH) forward-shift permutation of s.
Theorem 4. For the problem F"idm}ddm" ; ,
H
Algorithm 4 generates an optimal solution.

Proof. Same as Theorem 3.

Algorithm 4 also requires O(n) time to obtain an

optimal solution.

5. Problem F"idm}ddm"Cmax
By (1), we know that
c(s)"C "C

QL
F\
L
K
" p
# p
# p
.
(2)
GQ
FQI
GQL
G
I
GF>
Since the second term is independent of permutation, C
is minimized by placing in the "rst posi 
tion the job which minimizes the "rst term and
placing in the last position the job which minimizes
the third term. Algorithm 5 below generates an
optimal solution for the problem F"idm}ddm"C .

Algorithm 5.
Step 1: Let job J and job J satisfy the following
T
R
Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively:

F\
F\
p "min p " j"1,2, n ,
(3)
GT
GH
G
G
K
K
p "min p " j"1,2, n ,
(4)
GR
GH
GF>
GF>
Step 2: If job J and job J are di!erent, go to Step 3;
T
R
otherwise, job J and job J are the same job, i.e.
T
R
v"t, which is unique in satisfying Eqs. (3) and (4).
Let job J and job J satisfy the following equaTY
RY
tions, respectively:

F\
F\
p "min p " jOv and1)j)n ,
GTY
GH
G
G
K
K
p "min p " jOt and 1)j)n .
GRY
GH
GF>
GF>
If F\p # K
p ) F\p # K
p ,
G GTY
GF> GR
G GT
GF> GRY
set v"v and go to Step 3; otherwise, set t"t and
go to Step 3.
Step 3: An optimal solution is one in which jobs
J and J are placed in the "rst and last
T
R

S. Xiang et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 53}57

57

position, respectively, and the other jobs are placed

between them in any order.

Kong Polytechnic University under grant number

G-S201.

Theorem 5. For the problem F"idm}ddm"C ,


Algorithm 5 generates an optimal solution.

References

Proof. The result follows from (2) directly.

Algorithm 5 only needs O(n) time to obtain an
optimal solution.
6. Conclusions
We have studied the permutation #owshop
scheduling problem with an increasing and decreasing series of dominating machines to minimize
one of the "ve regular performance criteria. We
have shown that these cases are solvable and presented their solution algorithms.
Acknowledgements
G. Tang was partially supported by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China. T.C.E.
Cheng was partially supported by The Hong

[1] I. Adiri, N. Aizikowitz (Hefetz), Open-shop scheduling

problems with dominated machines, Naval Research
Logistics 26 (1989) 273}281.
[2] I. Adiri, N. Amit, Openshop and #owshop scheduling to
minimize the sum of completion times, Computers and
Operations Research 11 (3) (1984) 275}284.
[3] I. Adiri, D. Pohoryles, Flowshop/no-idle or no-wait scheduling to minimize the sum of completion times, Naval
Research Logistics Quarterly 29 (1982) 495}504.
[4] J.N.D. Gupta, M. Ikram, Optimal schedules for two special
structure #owshops, 1977, unpublished paper.
[5] J.C. Ho, J.N.D. Gupta, Flowshop scheduling with dominant machines, Computers and Operations Research 22 (2)
(1995) 237}246.
[6] C.I. Monma, A.H.G. Rinnooy Kan, A concise survey of
e$ciently solvable special cases of the permutation #owshop problem, RAIRO 17 (1983) 105}119.
[7] M. Pinedo, Scheduling: Theory, Algorithms, and Systems,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cli!s, NJ, 1995.
[8] K.R. Baker, Introduction to Sequencing and Scheduling,
Wiley, New York, 1974.
[9] J.M. Moore, An n job, one machine sequencing algorithm
for minimizing the number of late jobs, Management
Science 15 (1968) 102}109.