Journal of Scheduling

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 277–292 | Cite as

Predictive, Stochastic and Dynamic Extensions to Aversion Dynamics Scheduling

  • Gary W. BlackEmail author
  • Kenneth N. McKay
  • Sherri L. Messimer


Schedulers' decisions in real factories deal with perceived risks and impacts. They proactively anticipate and reactively mitigate risky events by altering what would be considered a normal schedule to minimize associated impacts. These risk mitigation concepts are called aversion dynamics (AD). Aversion dynamics describes the aversion that jobs exhibit to impacts resulting from risky events in dynamic and unstable production environments. The aversion manifests itself in either advancing or delaying the work to avoid the risky period. This paper extends the first AD heuristic, Averse-1, to capture additional real-world dynamics and to make the heuristic predictive (proactive) as to when the perceived risky event may happen. In particular, predictive and stochastic elements are incorporated within a dynamic job arrival framework to create an extended heuristic called Averse-2.

aversion dynamics adaptive heuristics rescheduling robust scheduling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. McKay, K. N., T. E. Morton, P. Ramnath, and J. Wang, “Aversion dynamics scheduling when the system changes,” J. Sched., 3, 71–88 (2000).Google Scholar
  2. McKay, K. N., Production Planning and Scheduling: A Model for Manufacturing Decisions Requiring Judgement, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Management Sciences, University of Waterloo, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. McKay, K. N., F. R. Safayeni, and J. A. Buzacott, “Common sense realities of planning and scheduling in printed circuit board production,” Int. J. Prod. Res., 33, 1587–1603 (1995).Google Scholar
  4. McKay, K. N., J. A. Buzacott, N. Charness, and F. R. Safayeni, “The scheduler's predictive expertise: An interdisciplinary perspective,” in G. I. Doukidis, and R. J. Paul (eds), Artificial Intelligence in Operational Research — Journal of the Operational Research Society, Macmillan Press, London, 1992, pp. 139–150.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, K. R. (ed.), Introduction to Sequencing and Scheduling, New York, John Wiley, 1974.Google Scholar
  6. Gittins, J. C., “Bandit processes and dynamic allocation indices,” J. R. Stat. Soc., Series B, 41(2), 148–177 (1979).Google Scholar
  7. Glazebrook, K. D., “Stochastic scheduling with order constraints,” Int. J. Sys. Sci., 7, 657–666 (1976).Google Scholar
  8. Glazebrook, K. D., “Scheduling stochastic jobs on a single machine subject to breakdowns,” Naval Logistics Quarterly, 31, 251–264 (1984).Google Scholar
  9. Wu, S. D. and R. H. Storer, “A Rescheduling Procedure for Manufacturing Systems Under Random Disruptions,” New Directions for Operations Research in Manufacturing Conference Proceedings, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 1991, pp. 292–306.Google Scholar
  10. Wu, S. D., R. H. Storer, and P. Chang, “One-Machine Rescheduling Heuristics With Efficiency and Stability as Criteria,” Comput. Oper. Res., 20(1), 1–14 (1993).Google Scholar
  11. O'Donovan, R., Predictable Scheduling and Aversion Dynamics for a Single Machine, Master's Thesis, Department of Industrial Engineering, Purdue University, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. O'Donovan, R., Uzsoy, R., and McKay, K. N., “Predictable scheduling of a single machine with breakdowns and sensitive Jobs,” Int. J. Prod. Res., 37(18), 4217–4233 (1999).Google Scholar
  13. Morton, T. E. and R. M. Rachamadugu, “Myopic heuristics for the single machine weighted tardiness problem,” Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-83-9, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1983.Google Scholar
  14. Morton, T. E. and P. Ramnath, “Guided forward search in tardiness scheduling of large one machine problems,” Working Paper 1992-52, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. Narayan, V., T. E. Morton, and P. Ramnath, “X-Dispatch Methods for Weighted Tardiness Job Shops,” Working Paper 1994-14, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. Morton, T. E., “Bottleneck dynamics-a heuristic scheduling framework,” Working Paper, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. Morton, T. E., V. Narayan, and P. Ramnath, “A tutorial on bottleneck dynamics: a heuristic scheduling methodology,” Prod. Oper. Manag., 4(2), 94–107 (1995).Google Scholar
  18. Morton, T. E. and D. W. Pentico, Heuristic Scheduling Systems, John Wiley, New York, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. Mehta, S. V. and R. Uzsoy, “Predictable scheduling to reduce effects of disruptions on production schedules,” INFORMS Conference Proceedings, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. Mehta, S. V. and R. Uzsoy, “Predictable scheduling of a job shop subject to breakdowns,” IEEE Trans. on Robotics and Automation, 14(3), 365–378 (1998).Google Scholar
  21. Mehta, S. V. and R. Uzsoy, “Predictable scheduling of a single machine subject to breakdowns,” Int. J. Comp.Integ. M., 12(1), 15–38 (1999).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary W. Black
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kenneth N. McKay
    • 2
  • Sherri L. Messimer
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Industrial & Manufacturing EngineeringTennessee Technological UniversityCookevilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Management SciencesUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  3. 3.Faculty of Industrial & Systems Engineering and Engineering ManagementUniversity of Alabama in HuntsvilleHuntsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations