Advertisement

Energy Efficient Production Planning

A Joint Cognitive Systems Approach
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 397)

Abstract

The introduction of energy efficiency as a new goal into already complex production plans is a difficult challenge. Decision support systems can help with this problem but these systems are often resisted by end users who ultimately bear the responsibility for production outputs. This paper describes the design of a decision support tool that aims to increase the interpretability of decision support outputs. The concept of ‘grey box’ optimisation is introduced, where aspects of the optimisation engine are communicated to, and configurable by, the end user. A multi-objective optimisation algorithm is combined with an interactive visualisation to improve system observability and increase trust.

Keywords

visualisation optimisation energy efficiency manufacturing 

References

  1. 1.
    Carlsson, C., Turban, E.: Introduction: DSS: Directions for the next decade. Decision Support Systems 33(2), 105–110 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.D.: Joint cognitive systems: Foundations of cognitive systems engineering. Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christoffersen, K., Woods, D.: How to make automated systems team players. Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research 2(1), 12 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vicente, K.J.: Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work. Erlbaum and Associates, Mahwah (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lewis, C.: Using the ’thinking-aloud’ method in cognitive interface design, IBM Research Report RC 9265, 2/17/82 IBM T. J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY (1982)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shneiderman, B.: Computing Surveys, vol. 16(3) (1984)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Simon, H.A.: Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review 63(2), 129–138 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Martínez-Iranzo, M., Herrero, J.M., Sanchis, J., Blasco, X., García-Nieto, S.: Applied Pareto multi-objective optimization by stochastic solvers. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 22, 455–465 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6, 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    C.B., Beham, A., Heavey, C.: A comparative study of genetic algorithm components in simulation-based optimisation. In: Winter Simulation Conference 2008, pp. 1829–1837 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bierwirth, C., Mattfeld, D.C.: Production scheduling and rescheduling with genetic algorithms. Evolutionary Computation 7, 1–17 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marler, R.T., Arora, J.S.: Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 26(6), 369–395 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Intel Labs EuropeIntel IrelandLeixlipIreland
  2. 2.Irish Centre for Manufacturing ResearchCollinstown Ind. EstateLeixlipIreland
  3. 3.Tecnalia, Optima UnitParque Tecnológico de ÁlavaMiñanoSpain

Personalised recommendations