Nondominated Schedules for a Job-Shop with Two Competing Users

  • A. Agnetis
  • P.B. Mirchandani
  • D. Pacciarelli
  • A. Pacifici


We consider the scenario where two users compete to perform their respective jobs on a common set of resources. The job for each user has a due-date and the cost function associated with the due-date is quasi-convex (i.e., it has a single local minimum). We characterize the set of nondominated schedules over which the users may negotiate and develop a polynomial algorithm to find this nondominated set.

scheduling negotiation coordination job shop nonregular objective function Pareto-optimality 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agnetis, A. and G. Oriolo (1995), “The Machine Duplication Problem in a Job Shop with Two Jobs, ” International Transactions on Operational Research, 2(1), 45–60.Google Scholar
  2. Akers, S.B. and J. Friedman (1955), “A Non-Numerical Approach to Production Scheduling Problems, ” Operations Research, 3(4), 429–442.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, K.R. and G.D. Scudder (1990), “Sequencing with Earliness and Lateness Penalties: A Review, ” Operations Research, 38, 22–36.Google Scholar
  4. Brewer, P.J. and R.P. Plott (1994), “A Binary Conflict Ascending Price Mechanism for Decentralized Allocation of the Right to Use Railroad Tracks, ” Working Paper, Division of Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  5. Brucker, P. (1988), “An Efficient Algorithm for the Job-Shop Problem with Two Jobs, ” Computing, 40, 353–359.Google Scholar
  6. Cai, X. and C.J. Goh (1994), “A Fast Heuristic for the Train Scheduling Problem, ” Computers and Operations Research, 21, 499–510.Google Scholar
  7. Carey, M. and D. Lockwood (1995), “A Model, Algorithms, and Strategy for Train Pathing, ” Journal of Operational Research Society, 46, 988–1005.Google Scholar
  8. French, S. (1982), Sequencing and Scheduling: An Introduction to the Mathematics of the Job Shop. Ellis Horwood Ltd., Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  9. Hall, N.G. and M.E. Posner (1991), “Earliness-Tardiness Scheduling Problems. I: Weighted Deviation of Completion Times about a Common Due Date, ” Operations Research, 5, 836–846.Google Scholar
  10. Hardgrave, W.W. and G.L. Nemhauser (1963), “A Geometric Model and a Graphical Algorithm for a Sequencing Problem, ” Operations Research, 11(6), 889–900.Google Scholar
  11. Kraay, D., P.T. Harker and B. Chen (1991), “Optimal Pacing of Trains in Freight Railroads: Model Formulation and Solution, ” Operations Research, 39, 82–99.Google Scholar
  12. McCabe, K.A., S.J. Rassenti and V.L. Smith (1990), “Experimental Research on Deregulating Natural Gas Pipeline and Electric Power Transmission Networks, ” Working Paper, Center for Law and Economic Studies, Columbia University School of Law.Google Scholar
  13. Raghavachari, M. (1988), “Scheduling Problems with Non-regular Penalty Functions-A Review, ” Opsearch, 25, 145–164.Google Scholar
  14. Rassenti, S.J., V.L. Smith and R.L. Bulfin (1982), “A Combinatorial Auction Mechanism for Airport Time Slot Allocation, ” Bell Journal of Economics, 402–415.Google Scholar
  15. Szwarc, W. (1960), “Solution of the Akers-Friedman Scheduling Problem, ” Operations Research, 8(6), 782–788.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Agnetis
    • 1
  • P.B. Mirchandani
    • 2
  • D. Pacciarelli
    • 3
  • A. Pacifici
    • 4
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell'InformazioneUniversità di SienaSienaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Systems and Industrial EngineeringThe University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Informatica e AutomazioneUniversità di Roma TreRomaItaly
  4. 4.Dipartimento di Informatica, Sistemi e ProduzioneUniversità di Roma “Tor Vergata”RomaItaly

Personalised recommendations