Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 191, Issue 1, pp 219–249 | Cite as

A sensitivity analysis to assess the completion time deviation for multi-purpose machines facing demand uncertainty



This paper addresses multi-purpose machine configuration in an uncertain context through sensitivity analysis. The so-called configuration is the machine’s ability to process products, and the uncertain context is modelled as a demand variation affecting the forecast demand. Given a configuration, this work aims at assessing the completion time deviation when the workshop demand is subject to perturbation. Such quantitative information can be used in a robustness approach for selecting the most appropriate configuration. To do so, the configuration impact on the completion time value that can be reached by solving the attached scheduling problem is first investigated. Then, the completion time deviation is written as a piecewise linear function of the magnitude of demand variation. The proposed approach, which is based on the solution of a set of linear programs, is illustrated through a detailed example. It is shown to be polynomial, and fast enough for addressing real-world instances. Finally, how to compare two configurations on the basis of completion time deviation in an uncertain context is demonstrated.


Sensitivity analysis Multi-purpose machines Linear programming Configuration Demand uncertainty 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akçali, E., Nemoto, K., & Uzsoy, R. (2001). Cycle-time improvements for photolithography process in semiconductor manufacturing. IEEE Transaction on Semiconductor Manufacturing, 14(1), 48–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aubry, A., Rossi, A., & Jacomino, M. (2008a). Minimizing setup costs for parallel multi-purpose machines under load-balancing constraint. European Journal of Operational Research, 187(3), 1115–1125. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aubry, A., Rossi, A., & Jacomino, M. (2008b). Sensitivity analysis for the configuration of a multi-purpose machines workshop. In International federation of automatic control, Seoul, South Korea. Available at Google Scholar
  4. Aubry, A., Rossi, A., & Jacomino, M. (2009). A generic off-line approach for dealing with uncertainty in optimisation. In Preprints of the 13th IFAC symposium on information control problems in manufacturing, Moscow, Russia, 3–5 June (pp. 1464–1469). Google Scholar
  5. Brucker, P., Jurisch, B., & Kramer, A. (1997). Complexity of scheduling problems with multi-purpose machines. Annals of Operational Research, 70, 57–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Billaut, J.-C., Moukrim, A., & Sanlaville, E. (2008). Flexibility and robustness in scheduling. London: ISTE Ltd, Wiley. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Espinouse, M.-L., Jacomino, M., & Rossi, A. (2008). The robustness of multi-purpose machines workshop configuration. In Flexibility and robustness in scheduling. London: ISTE Ltd, Wiley. Google Scholar
  8. Graham, R., Lawler, E., Lenstra, J., & Rinnooy Kan, A. (1979). Optimization and approximation in deterministic sequencing and scheduling: a survey. Annals of Discrete Mathematics, 5, 287–326. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kouvelis, P., & Yu, G. (1997). Robust discrete optimization and its applications. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  10. Kouvelis, P., Kurawarwala, A. A., & Gutiérrez, G. J. (1992). Algorithms for robust single and multiple period layout planning for manufacturing systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 63, 287–303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lawler, E., & Labetoulle, J. (1978). On preemptive scheduling of unrelated parallel processors by linear programming. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 25, 612–619. Google Scholar
  12. Leung, J., & Li, C.-L. (2008). Scheduling with processing set restrictions: a survey. International Journal of Production Economics, 116, 251–262. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nourine, L., & Raynaud, O. (1999). A fast algorithm for building lattices. Information Processing Letters, 71(5–6), 199–204. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Penz, B., Rapine, C., & Trystram, D. (2001). Sensitivity analysis of scheduling algorithms. European Journal of Operational Research, 134, 606–615. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Renegar, J. (1988). A polynomial-time algorithm, based on Newton’s method, for linear programming. Mathematical Programming, 40, 59–93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rossi, A. (2003). Ordonnancement en milieu incertain, mise en œuvre d’une démarche robuste. Ph.D. thesis, Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble, France. Google Scholar
  17. Snyder, L. V. (2006). Facility location under uncertainty: a review. IIE Transactions, 38(7), 547–564. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wright, S. (1997). Primal-dual interior-point methods. Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Yoon, H. J., & Lee, D. Y. (2004). Deadlock-free scheduling of photolithography equipment in semiconductor fabrication. IEEE Transaction on Semiconductor Manufacturing, 17(1), 42–54. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lab-STICCUniversité de Bretagne-SudLorientFrance
  2. 2.CRANNancy-UniversitéVandœuvre lès NancyFrance
  3. 3.G-SCOPINPGGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations