Aggregate Planning Through The Imprecise Goal Programming

Intl. Trans. in Op. Res.
19 (2012) 581597
DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-3995.2012.00844.x
INTERNATIONAL
TRANSACTIONS
IN OPERATIONAL
RESEARCH
Aggregate planning through the imprecise goal programming

model: integration of the managers preferences
Mouna Mezghania , Taicir Loukila and Belad Aounib
a
Logistique, Gestion Industrielle et de la Qualite, Institut Superieur de Gestion Industrielle de Sfax, Universite de Sfax,
Route MHarza, km 1.5 P.B. 954, 3018 Sfax, Tunisie
b
Decision Aid Research Group, School of Commerce and Administration, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario,
P3E 2C6, Canada
Email: mounamezghani@yahoo.ca [Mezghani]; Taicir.loukil@fsegs.rnu.tn [Loukil]; baouni@laurentian.ca [Aouni]
Received 30 December 2010; received in revised form 9 November 2011; accepted 8 January 2012
Abstract
Aggregate planning involves planning the best quantity to be produced during time periods in the mediumrange horizon at the lowest cost. Usually, the production manager seeks a plan that simultaneously optimizes
several incommensurable and conflicting objectives, such as total cost, level of inventories, level of customer
service, fluctuation in workforce, and utilization level of the physical facility and equipment. The goal programming (GP) model is one of the best known multi-objective programming models that considers simultaneously
several conflicting objectives to select the most satisfactory solution among a set of feasible solutions. In the
production planning problem, the goals and the technological parameters are naturally imprecise. Moreover,
the existing GP formulations developed in industrial engineering and aggregate production planning do not
explicitly incorporate the managers preferences. The aim of this paper is to develop a GP formulation within
an imprecise environment where the concept of satisfaction function will be utilized to explicitly introduce
the managers preferences into the aggregate planning model.
Keywords: aggregate production planning; imprecise goal programming; satisfaction functions
1. Introduction
The main objective of aggregate planning is to provide a manager with a production plan that
meets the production requirements at the lowest cost. The traditional aggregate planning analysis optimizes the size of the workforce, production rate, and inventory levels. This optimization
requires adjusting the production capacity of the company. A production plan should provide
the portion of demand that the company intends to meet, while not exceeding the production
capacity.
An aggregate plan considers the overall or aggregate level of the output and capacity that is
required to deliver such output. Dilworth (1989) considers two basic approaches to estimate the

C 2012 The Authors.
C 2012 International Federation of Operational Research Societies
International Transactions in Operational Research
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
582
M. Mezghani et al. / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 19 (2012) 581597
capacity that will be required to produce an aggregation or grouping of a companys products. These
are top-down and bottom-up approaches. The top-down approach to aggregate planning involves
development of the entire plan by working only at the highest level of consolidation. Under this
approach, the products are consolidated into an average product and then a single plan is developed
for this aggregated product. Once the aggregate plan is completed, it is disaggregated to allocate
capacity to individual product families and individual products. This is the most traditional approach and is frequently observed in the literature on aggregate planning. The top-down approach
encompasses two major categories: (a) methods that rely on subjective judgment to propose alternative arrangement of resources and to determine which plan is best and (b) methods that attempt
to mathematically model the costs and systematically seek the best plan. The second category can
be further subdivided into: (i) methods that mathematically seek the optimal solution of the cost
function to set the best plan and (ii) methods that perform a computer search for what appears to
be the lowest cost plan.
Linear programming (LP) is one of the widely used optimization techniques. The objective of
aggregate planning is to find a production plan that leads to the optimal use of the companys
resources. Several methods of aggregate planning have been proposed to express the cost of the
aggregate plan as a mathematical expression and to seek the plan that minimizes this cost. Naturally,
LP can be used if the cost of the resources behaves as a linear function of the amount of the resources
used by the aggregate plan. Hansemann and Hess (1960) used LP for production and employment
scheduling. The transportation form of LP has also been proposed to solve aggregate planning
problems (Bowman, 1956).
The linear decision rule (LDR) is another mathematical technique that is used in aggregate
production planning (APP). It contains linear equations that recommend the best production rate
and the best workforce size for the upcoming months, based on the forecast demand for the mediumrange planning horizon. The data used to develop and test the LDR are sometimes used to compare
the performance of other aggregate planning techniques. Both LP and the LDR require a specific
mathematical structure for the functions to be optimized. The mathematical complexity of the
problem increases when step functions and equations of a higher order than quadratic are involved.
The bottom-up approach, or subplan-consolidation approach, involves development of plans
for major products or product families at some lower level within the product line. These subplans are then summed up to arrive at the aggregate plan, which gives the overall output
and the capacity required to produce it. This approach has come to be more widely utilized,
as massive computing capability has become more economical and widely available in more
companies.
The earlier mathematical models used to solve aggregate planning problems are based on a singleobjective function, namely the total cost, to be minimized. However, in practice, the production
environment requires more than one objective. For example, frequent layoff and hiring not only
involves the direct cost of those activities, but they also have an impact on the workforce morale
that is hard to measure in monetary units. So, while it is desirable to have a low-cost production
plan, it is also desirable to have a production plan that has the lowest workforce variation. The
objectives that may be considered for aggregate planning are total cost of the plan, level of inventories, customer service, fluctuation in workforce, and utilization of the physical facility and
equipment. These objectives are conflicting and incommensurable. Goal programming (GP) is one
of the multi-objective mathematical programming models that can be applied to determine the

C 2012 The Authors.
583
best production plan. The GP model aggregates simultaneously several conflicting objectives for
choosing the most satisfactory solution within a set of feasible solutions (Aouni and Kettani, 2001).
Compared with the other techniques introduced earlier to handle APP, the GP model is a more
flexible technique that is relatively easy to understand and utilize. The GP has been applied in
industrial engineering and APP (Jaaskelainen, 1969; Lee and Jaaskelainen, 1971; Charnes et al.,
1976; Welam, 1976; Leung and Ng, 2007; Leung and Chan, 2009). However, these formulations
were developed to deal with deterministic and precise decision-making situations. Nevertheless,
in practice, the goals and technological parameters such as demand, available resources, and capacities are often imprecise or fuzzy. Zimmermann (1976) first introduced fuzzy set theory into
conventional LP problems. This study considered LP problems with a fuzzy goal and constraints.
Following the fuzzy decision-making method proposed by Bellman and Zadeh (1970) and using
linear membership functions, the above study confirmed the existence of an equivalent LP problem.
Thereafter, fuzzy mathematical programming has been utilized to solve APP problems. Lee (1993)
presented an interactive fuzzy LP (FLP) model to solve APP problems. Lees model considers
situations with soft constraints and a single-objective function for total cost. Tang et al. (2000)
solved the multiproduct APP problem with fuzzy demands and fuzzy capacities. For obtaining a
solution, the fuzzy model was converted into its crisp equivalent by using defuzzification of soft
equations according to the satisfaction of membership functions at a defined degree of truth. Dai
et al. (2003) proposed a FLP model for the single-objective APP problem in a manufacturing environment, where the workforce level and the demand are imprecise. A trapezoidal form of fuzzy
numbers is utilized and all membership functions are formulated with linear forms. Wang and Liang
(2004) developed a fuzzy multi-objective LP model for solving the multiproduct APP problem in
a fuzzy environment. The handled problem has the following three objectives: minimizing total
production costs, minimizing carrying and backordering costs, and minimizing rate of change in
labor levels; fuzzy aspiration levels were defined for each objective. Piecewise linear membership
functions are utilized to solve this problem. The model can yield an efficient compromise solution.
Jamalnia and Soukhakian (2009) proposed a hybrid fuzzy multi-objective non-LP model with different objective priorities for a multiproduct multiperiod APP problem in a fuzzy environment.
In the literature, we notice additional papers dealing with the APP problem, such as Gen et al.
(1992), Wang and Fung (2001), Wang and Liang (2005), Sakalli et al. (2010), and Baykasoglu and
Gocken (2010).
The developed formulations of the APP do not explicitly integrate the managers preferences. The
aim of this paper is to propose a GP formulation for the APP where the concept of satisfaction
functions will be used to elucidate the managers preferences and for modeling the imprecision
related to the goals associated with objectives and some technological parameters (right-hand sides
of the constraints).
In Section 2, we will outline the general formulation of the GP within an imprecise environment.
We will also present the concept of satisfaction functions as a tool for handling the managers
preferences within the imprecise GP model. We present in Section 3 the mathematical formulation
of our model for the APP problem, where the aspiration levels are considered as fuzzy values. In
Section 4, we will illustrate our formulation through the numerical example proposed by Dai et
al. (2003). The obtained results will be discussed in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 provides some
concluding remarks.

C 2012 The Authors.
584
2. General formulation of fuzzy goal programming (FGP) model

Zimmermann (1978) has developed the first fuzzy multi-objective programming formulation
through the concept of membership functions. Dhingra et al. (1992), Rao (1987), and Zimmermann (1978, 1988) have developed a linear approximation procedure for the nonlinear membership
functions. Since early 1980, fuzzy sets have been used in the GP model to represent imprecise and
fuzzy knowledge about some parameters and to represent a satisfaction degree of the decision maker
(DM) with respect to his/her preference structure (Narasimhan, 1980; Hannan, 1981a, 1981b; Ignizio, 1982; Tiwari et al. 1987; Wang and Fu, 1997). The FGP formulation proposed by Hannan
is simple and more efficient comparatively to the one proposed by Narasimhan. The FGP model
considers goals as fuzzy. This fuzziness is expressed through a triangular membership function
defined on the interval [0; 1]. The mathematical formulation of Hannan (1981a) model is as follows:
Maximize Z =
Subject to:
n
ai j x j /i i+ + i = gi /i
(for i = 1, 2, . . . , p),
j=1
+ i + i+ 1
(for i = 1, 2, . . . , p),
x X,
x j , , i
and
i+ 0
(for i = 1, 2, . . . , p and j = 1, 2, . . . , n),
where:
i : The constant of deviation of the aspiration levels gi .
ai j : Technological coefficients associated with goals.
X : The set of feasible solutions.
i+ , i : The positive and negative deviations associated with the objective i.
Chang (2007) has proposed linearization strategies to convert a binary FGP model into a standard
version formulation of the FGP. Despite the fact that the FGP model allows imprecision modeling of
the goals, this model seems to be rigid. Ignizio (1982) stresses the fact that Narasimhan and Hannans
formulations are limited to specific cases where the DM is supposed to have membership functions
of particular forms like the triangular one. The use of such triangular membership functions was
mainly criticized by Ignizio (1982) and Martel and Aouni (1998). These criticisms are related to
the fact that the triangular form of the membership functions does not reflect adequately the DMs
preferences and are not appropriate for modeling the goals fuzziness. Moreover, Martel and Aouni
(1998) mentioned that this type of functions has some bias to the central values of the objective
achievement levels. Wang and Fu (1997), Pal and Moitra (2003), and Chen and Tsai (2001) have
some concerns regarding the way to deal with the goals fuzziness through the triangular form of
the membership functions and indicate that in some applications, this type of functions leads to
no desired results. The GP model formulation proposed by Martel and Aouni (1998) explicitly

C 2012 The Authors.
585
Fig. 1. General form of the satisfaction function.
integrates the DMs preferences in an imprecise environment. Two limits are fixed for the goals: the
lower limit (gli ) and the upper limit(gui ). The fuzzy values (aspiration levels) specified by the DM
(g i ) can also be arbitrarily chosen from the interval (g i [gli , gui ]). This formulation is as follows:
Maximize Z =
xX
Subject to :
p

+ +

w+
i Fi (i ) + wi Fi (i )
i=1
n
ai j x j i+ + i = g i
for i = 1, . . . , p;
j=1
x X;

g i gli , gui
(for i = 1, . . . , p);
0 i+ iv+
(for i = 1, . . . , p);
0 i iv
(for i = 1, . . . , p),
where Fi (i ) are the satisfaction functions associated with positive and negative deviations (i+ , i )
as presented in Fig. 1, id is the indifference threshold, i0 is the null satisfaction threshold, iv+
and iv are the positive and negative veto thresholds, w+

i and wi are the importance coefficients
associated with positive and negative deviations, respectively.
The satisfaction function concept will be utilized for modeling the imprecision related to the goals
within the GP model where the managers preferences will be explicitly introduced in the aggregate
planning model.
3. Model formulation
In the APP problems, the input data or parameters, such as demand, available resources, and capacities, are generally imprecise because some information is incomplete or unobtainable or collecting
precise data is very difficult. Sometimes, the arrival of orders can be random; the information about

C 2012 The Authors.
586
available resources can be imprecise because of environmental factors, parameters such as machine
time and available labor time cannot have precise values. These imprecise parameters can be defined as random numbers with probability distribution, but, a great deal of knowledge about the
statistical distribution of the uncertain parameters is required. Thus, in practice, the utilization of
fuzzy numbers for imprecise parameters is more efficient and/or practical. The model that we will
propose assumes that a company produces N types of products to meet the market demand over a
planning horizon T. In this model, the market demand, maximum number of employees, and machine capacity are considered as imprecise over the planning horizon. The following two objectives
are to be considered in the APP: (a) minimize the total production costs (Z 1 ) and (b) minimize the
changes in the workforce level (Z 2 ). These objectives are fuzzy with imprecise aspiration levels. The
following notations are used:
Parameters
nt : Forecast demand of product n in period t.
D
CPnt : Production cost per unit of regular time for product n in period t.
COnt : Production cost per unit of overtime for product n in period t.
CSnt : Cost to subcontract one unit of product n for one period.
CInt+ : Inventory cost per unit for product n in period t.
CInt : Backorder cost per unit for product n in period t.
CHt : Cost to hire one employee in period t.
CFt : Cost to layoff one employee in period t.
int : Labor time per unit of product n in period t (man hour/unit).
rnt : Machine hours per unit of product n in period t (machine hour/unit).
t max : Maximum workforce available in period t.
W
Mt max : Maximum machine capacity available in period t (machine-hour).

a: Regular working hours per employee.
bt : Fraction of working hours available for overtime production.
Decision variables
Wt : Workforce level in period t.
Pnt : Regular time production of product n in period t.
Ont : Overtime production of product n in period t.
Snt : Subcontracted production of product n in period t.
Int+ : Inventory of product n at the beginning of period t.
Int : Backorder of product n at the beginning of period t.
Ht : Number of employees hired in period t.
Ft : Number of employees laid off in period t.
The analytical forms of the two objectives are as follows:
T
T

CPnt Pnt (regular time production cost) + N
Objective 1: minimize N
n=1
t=1
n=1
t=1 COnt Ont
T

N
T
+
+
(overtime production cost) + N
CS
S
(subcontracting
cost)
+
nt
nt
t=1
n=1
t=1 CInt Int
N T n=1
(inventory cost) + n=1 t=1 CInt Int (backordering cost).

C 2012 The Authors.
Objective 2: minimize
t=1
587
(Ht + Ft )(hiring and firing levels).
Subject to:
r Inventory level constraints

+
nt
Int1
Int1
+ Pnt + Ont + Snt Int+ + Int = D
(n = 1, . . . , N ) ,
(t = 1, . . . , T ) ,
(1)
r Workforce constraints
Wt = Wt1 + Ht Ft
t max
Wt W
N
(t = 1, . . . , T ) ,
(2)
(t = 1, . . . , T ) ,
int Pnt aWt
(3)
(t = 1, . . . , T ) ,
(4)
n=1
N
int Ont abtWt
(t = 1, . . . , T ) ,
(5)
n=1
r Machine capacity constraints

N

t max
rnt Pnt + Ont M
(t = 1, . . . , T ) ,
(6)
n=1
r Nonnegativity constraints
Wt , Pnt , Ont , Snt , Int+ , Int , Ht , Ft 0
(n = 1, 2, . . . , N ) ,
(t = 1, 2, . . . , T ) .
(7)
nt of product i in period t is imprecise. In practice, the forecasted demand

The forecasted demand D
cannot be obtained precisely in a dynamic market. The sum of regular and overtime production,
inventory levels, and subcontracting levels essentially should be equal to the market demand, as
in equation 1. Moreover, the maximum workforce available 3 and the maximum available machine
capacity 6 are imprecise. The formulation proposed by Martel and Aouni (1998) neglected the
integration of fuzzy information in the right-hand sides of the constraints and supposes that all
constraints are precise. But, in our APP model we have flexible constraints for which the right-hand
sides are imprecise and expressed through intervals. These constraints may be violated and can be
considered as goals. Constraints 1, 3, and 6 are flexible and constraints 2, 4, and 5 are considered
to be crisp.
The proposed mathematical model considers only one item (N = 1) during a horizon of T
periods. The objective is to elaborate an aggregate production plan where the managers preferences
are explicitly integrated in an imprecise environment. The concept of satisfaction functions will be

C 2012 The Authors.
588
used for modeling both the imprecise nature of the information and the managers preferences. The
mathematical model is as follows:
Z=
2
+
w+
i Fi
i+
T
T
T

+ + +

+

+ +
+
w j Fj j + w j Fj j +
w j Fj j +
w+j Fj+ +
j ,
i=1
j=1
j=1
j=1
Subject to:
T

CPt Pt + COt Ot + CSt St + CIt+ It+ + CIt It 1+ + 1 = Z 1 ,
t=1
T

Ht + Ft 2+ + 2 = Z 2 ,
t=1
+
It1
It1
+ Pt + Ot + St It+ + It+ +
j + j = Dt
t max
Wt j+ + j = W
(for j = 1, . . . , T ),
(for j = 1, . . . , T ),

rt Pt + Ot +
j + j = Mt max
(for j = 1, . . . , T ),
Wt = Wt1 + Ht Ft ,
it Pt aWt ,
it Ot abtWt ,
0 i+ iv+
(for i = 1, 2),
+
0 +
j jv
(for j = 1, . . . , T ),
0
j jv
(for j = 1, . . . , T ),
0 j+ +jv
(for j = 1, . . . , T ),
+
0 +
j jv
(for j = 1, . . . , T ),

C 2012 The Authors.
589
where:
( j = 1, . . . , T ) are the positive and negative deviations for the inventory level goal,
+
j and j
respectively.
j+ and j ( j = 1, . . . , T ) are the positive and negative deviations for the workforce goal, respec
tively.
( j = 1, . . . , T ) are the positive and negative deviations for the machine capacity goal,
+
j and j
respectively.
4. Model simulation
In this section, we illustrate the developed APP model through the same numerical example pre
sented by Dai et al. (2003). The objective function Zcorresponds
to the total costs, given by the
production costs and the changes in workforce levels costs. The maximum number of employees
and machine capacity are precise over the planning horizon. Table 1 summarizes the intervals for
the market demand. Other relevant data are as follows:
(1) The initial inventory (I0 ) is 0. The inventory carrying cost is $2 per unit per period and the
backorder cost is null. The subcontracting cost is $67 per unit.
(2) The initial workforce (W0 ) is 100 employees/day. The costs associated with the regular payroll,
hiring, and firing are $64, $30, and $40 per employee, respectively.
(3) The production cost is $20 per unit and 3 h of labor are needed for each unit. The regular time
per employee is 8 h/day.
(4) Overtime production is limited to no more than 30% of regular time production. The overtime
cost is $15/h.
(5) Regular capacity of the machines is as follows: 800, 700, 820, 650, 750, and 720 h. The fraction
of regular machine capacity available in overtime is ct = 0.5, 0.6, 0.5, 0.6, 0.4, and 0.4 for all
periods. The machine time is 2.5 machine h/unit.
In this case, the total cost is imprecise and the permissible limit is 83,00091,000. For modeling
the imprecise goals, we use two satisfaction functions types for interval goals: type II and type III
(Martel and Aouni, 1990). The shapes of these satisfaction functions are presented below.
Table 1
Imprecise intervals of the market demand (Dt , Dt )
Demand\period
Dt (lower limit)
Dt (upper limit)
1
2
3
4
5
6
250
285
400
260
250
200
300
375
500
340
350
340

C 2012 The Authors.
590
Fig. 2. Total production cost satisfaction function.
4.1. Satisfaction function for Z

The main objective for any manufacturing company is to minimize the total cost over the planning
horizon. So, we have a tendency toward the lower bound of the target interval ($83,000). The
preferences decrease as the values tend toward the upper bound ($91,000). We have utilized the
satisfaction functions with linear preference type (type III, Fig. 2). The managers satisfaction will
be higher with smaller values of the deviation from the goal. The satisfaction is decreasing when
deviations are within the following interval [0; 7,000]. Solutions with deviations greater than $8,000
will be rejected.
The satisfaction function F1+ (1+ ) can be written as follows:

F1+ (1+ )
f1 (1+ ) = 1 0.0001431+
if 0 1+ 7,000;
f2 (1+ ) = 0
if 7,000 1+ 8,000.
The equivalent representation of this function requires the introduction of two binary variables
11 and 12 . These variables are defined as follows:

11 =
1 if
0 1+ 7,000;
0 otherwise.

and
12 =
1 if
7,000 1+ 8,000;
0 otherwise.
Thus, the function can have the following equivalent form:

F1+ (1+ ) = 11 f1 (1+ ) + 12 f2 (1+ );
= 11 (1 0.0001431+ ) + (0)12
= 11 0.00014311 1+

C 2012 The Authors.
591
Fig. 3. Market demand satisfaction functions.
The objective is to maximize the satisfaction function F1+ (1+ ). The mathematical program can
be written as follows:
Maximize Z = 11 0.00014311 1+ ,
Subject to:
7,00012 1+ 0;
1+ 7,00011 8,00012 0;
(8)
11 + 12 = 1;
11 , 12 {0; 1}; 1+ 0,
t
4.2. Satisfaction function for D
The market demand of the products is considered imprecise and expressed through the intervals
[Dt , Dt ]. However, the manager cannot provide an exact value of the demand for each period. The
t can be any point within this interval. We have defined the value of this parameter
parameter D
as: Dt = Dt = (Dt + Dt )/2. Two types of satisfaction functions are used as shown in Fig. 3. The
satisfaction function thresholds for the positive and the negative deviations are available in Tables
2 and 3.
Table 2
Negative deviations
j0
jv
25
30
40
45
45
50
40
45
50
55
70
75

C 2012 The Authors.
592
Table 3
Positive deviations
jd
jv
1+
2+
3+
4+
5+
6+
25
30
40
45
45
50
40
45
50
55
70
75
According to these figures, the satisfaction is at its maximum when the deviation from the central
value of the demand interval for each period is within the interval [0, jd ]. The satisfaction function
drops to zero as soon as the positive deviation goes beyond the indifference threshold jd (Fig. 3)
and decreases for negative deviation in the following interval: [0, j0 ] (Fig. 3). If the positive and
negative deviations from the goals are within the interval [ jd , jv ], [ j0 , jv ], respectively. Hence
the manager is not satisfied but still he/she is willing to accept solutions. However, if the deviations
are larger than the veto threshold jv , then the solution will be rejected.
The satisfaction functions Fj (
j )( j = 1, 2, . . . , 6) can be written as follows:

if 0
f1 (
j ) = 1 1 j0
j j0 ;
Fj ( j ) =
if j0
f2 (
j )=0
j jv .
j3 and j4 . These variables are defined as follows:
1 if 0
1 if j0
j j0 ;
j jv ;
j3 =
and j4 =
0 otherwise.
0 otherwise.

Fj (
j ) = j3 f 1 ( j ) + j4 f 2 ( j ) = j3 1 j0 j3 j .
The satisfaction functions Fj+ ( +
j ) ( j = 1, 2, . . . , 6) can be written as follows:
+
if
0 +
f1 ( j ) = 1
j jd ;
+
+
Fj ( j ) =
if
jd +
f2 ( +
j )=0
j jv .
j5 and j6 . These variables are defined as follows:
1 if 0 +
1 if jd +
j jd ;
j jv ;
and j6 =
j5 =
0 otherwise.
0 otherwise.
+
+
Fj+ ( +
j ) = j5 f 1 ( j ) + j6 f 2 ( j ).

C 2012 The Authors.

+
+
The objective is to maximize Fj (
j ) and Fj ( j )
can be written as follows:

Maximize Z = j3 1 j0 j3
j + j5
593
( j = 1, 2, . . . , 6). The mathematical program
Subject to:
j0 j4
j 0
(for j = 1, 2, . . . , 6),
j j0 j3 jv j4 0
jd j6 +
j 0
(for j = 1, 2, . . . , 6),
(for j = 1, 2, . . . , 6),
(9)
+
j jd j5 jv j6 0
(for j = 1, 2, . . . , 6),
j3 + j4 + j5 + j6 = 1
(for j = 1, 2, . . . , 6)
j3 , j4 , j5 , j6 = {0; 1};
+
j , j 0
(for j = 1, 2, . . . , 6).
For the purpose of illustration, we have assumed that the two objectives have the same importance.
The objectives of the same category have the same weight (w j = 0.5/6 for j = 1, 2, . . . , 6). We have
considered the same constraints used by Dai et al. (2003); constraint (6) is replaced by rPt Mt
and rPt ct Mt . Because the developed model contains nonlinear terms 9 and 8, we have utilized
the linearization procedure developed by Oral and Kettani (1992). The software Lindo 6.1 is used
to solve the mathematical program.
5. Discussion of the results

The corresponding aggregate production plan is generated and the results are summarized in
Table 4. The global satisfaction level is 79%. As can be seen from Table 5, the best total cost
obtained by our model is $83,000 as compared to $87,114 obtained by Dai et al. (2003). The
satisfaction for this goal reached the level 100%.
According to the Figs 5 and 6, the production level is almost stationary and varies around the
average. Moreover, demand movement is seasonal and reaches a peak during the third period. The
production plan obtained by Dai et al. (2003) shows a big variation for workforce level to meet
the optimistic forecasted demand as presented by Fig. 4. Whereas, a minimum cost is obtained
with lower variation of the workforce level by using the proposed GP model and the satisfaction
function. It is obvious that the solution is very satisfactory.

C 2012 The Authors.
594
Fig. 4. Workforce level movement.

Table 4
Best production plan
Period
Regular time production

Overtime production
Inventory level
Subcontracted production
Workforce level
Employee hired
Employee layoff
280
0
5
0
105
5
0
280
0
5
0
105
0
0
280
115
0
0
105
0
0
260
40
0
0
102
0
3
272
0
0
0
102
0
0
270
0
0
0
102
0
0
Table 5
Results comparison
Production total cost
FLP
FGP
$87,114
$83,000
Fig. 5. Results of (Dai et al.) model.

C 2012 The Authors.
595
Fig. 6. Proposed FGP model results.
Table 6
Comparative results
Total demand
Total production
Overtime production
Inventory level
Subcontracted production
Employee hired
Employee layoff
FLP
FGP
1,848
1,616
187
29
45
9
8
1,861
1,642
219
5
5
3
Our model allows to satisfy more demand with lower variation of the workforce level with a
deterministic total cost objective $87,114. The comparative results are reported in Table 6.
6. Conclusion
To deal with imprecision and the fuzziness in APP, we have developed a GP model on the basis
of the concept of satisfaction functions. The proposed model integrates the managers preferences
where the goals and technological parameters are imprecise and expressed through intervals. This
model has been utilized to generate a production plan with higher satisfaction level for the numerical
example presented by Dai et al. (2003). A minimum total cost is obtained with lower variation of the
workforce level. One of the advantages of this formulation is its flexibility and it explicitly integrates
the managers preferences in an easy manner. The main shortage is that the obtained results depend
on the form of the satisfaction function used. Real data from companies can be used to validate the
proposed model. The manager should generate the appropriate objectives, input data, and type of
satisfaction functions on the basis of subjective judgment and/or historical resources. However, the
number of constraints and variables varies according to the practical APP application.

C 2012 The Authors.
596
References
Aouni, B., Kettani, O., 2001. Goal programming model: with glorious history and has promising future. European Journal
of Operational Research 133, 225231.
Baykasoglu, A., Gocken, T., 2010. Multi-objective aggregate production planning with fuzzy parameters. Advances in
Engineering Software 41, 11241131.
Bellman, R.E., Zadeh, L.A., 1970. Decision making in a fuzzy environment. Management Science 17,
141164.
Bowman, E.H., 1956. Production scheduling by the transportation method of linear programming. Operations Research
4, 1, 100103.
Chang, C.T., 2007. Binary fuzzy goal programming. European Journal of Operational Research 180, 2937.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Harrald, J., Karwan, K.R., Wallace, W.A., 1976. A goal interval programming model
for resource allocation in a marine environmental protection program. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 3, 347362.
Chen, L.H., Tsai, F.C., 2001. Fuzzy goal programming with different importance and priorities. European Journal of
Operational Research 133, 548556.
Dai, L., Fan, L., Sun, L., 2003. Aggregate production planning utilizing a fuzzy linear programming. Journal of Integrated
Design and Process Science 7(4), 8195.
Dhingra, A.K., Rao, S.S., Kumar, V., 1992. Nonlinear membership functions in multiobjective fuzzy optimization of
mechanical and structural systems. AIAA Journal 30(1), 251260.
Dilworth J., 1989. Production and Operations Management: Manufacturing and Nonmanufacturing. McGraw-Hill, Singapore.
Gen, M., Tsujimura, Y., Ida, K., 1992. Method for solving multi objective aggregate production planning problem with
fuzzy parameters. Computers and Industrial Engineering 23, 117120.
Hannan E.L., 1981a. On fuzzy goal programming. Decision Sciences 12, 522531.
Hannan E.L., 1981b. Some further comments on fuzzy priorities. Decision Sciences 12, 539541.
Hansemann, F., Hess, S.U., 1960. A linear programming approach to production and employment scheduling. Management Technology 1, 4654.
Ignizio J. P., 1982. On the (re)discovery of fuzzy goal programming. Decision Sciences 13, 331336.
Jaaskelainen V., 1969. A goal programming model of aggregate production planning. Swedish Journal of Economics 71,
2, 1529.
Jamalnia, A., Soukhakian, M.A.A., 2009. Hybrid fuzzy goal programming approach with different goal priorities to
aggregate production planning. Computers and Industrial Engineering 56, 4, 14741486.
Lee, S., Jaaskelainen, V., 1971. Goal programming: managements math model. Industrial Engineering 30
35.
Lee Y.Y., 1993. A fuzzy linear programming approach to aggregate production planning. Journal of the Chinese Institute
of Industrial Engineers 10, 2532.
Leung, S.C.H., Chan, S.S.W., 2009. A goal programming model for aggregate production planning with resource utilization
constraint. Computers and Industrial Engineering 56, 3, 10531064.
Leung, S.C.H., Ng, W.L., 2007. A goal programming model for production planning of perishable products with postponement. Computers and Industrial Engineering 53, 3, 531541.
Martel, J.M., Aouni, B., 1990. Incorporating the decision-makers preferences in the goal programming model. Journal
of Operational Research Society 41, 12, 11211132.
Martel, J.M., Aouni, B., 1998. Diverse imprecise goal programming model formulations. Journal of Global Optimization
12, 127138.
Narasimhan R., 1980. Goal programming in a fuzzy environment. Decision Sciences 11, 325336.
Oral, Mr., Kettani, O., 1992. A linearization procedure for quadratic and cubic mixed-integer problems. Operations
Research 40, 1, 109116.
Pal, B.B., Moitra, B.N., 2003. A goal programming procedure for solving problems with multiple fuzzy goals using
dynamic programming. European Journal of Operational Research 144, 480491.
Rao, S.S., 1987. Multi-objective optimization of fuzzy structural systems. International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering 24, 6, 11571171.

C 2012 The Authors.
597
Sakalli, U.S., Baykoc, O.F., Birgoren,

B, 2010. A possibilistic aggregate production planning model for brass casting
industry. Production Planning and Control 21, 3, 319338.
Tang, J., Wang, D., Fung, R.Y.K., 2000. Fuzzy formulation for multi-product aggregate production planning. Production
Planning and Control 11, 670676.
Tiwari, R.N., Dharmar S., Rao, J. R., 1987. Fuzzy goal programmingan additive model. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 24,
2734.
Wang, H.F., Fu, C.C., 1997. A generalization of fuzzy goal programming with preemptive structure. Computers Operational
Research 24, 9, 819828.
Wang, R.C., Fang, H.H., 2001. Aggregate production planning with multiple objectives in a fuzzy environment. European
Journal of Operational Research 133, 521536.
Wang, R.C., Liang, T.F., 2004. Application of fuzzy multi objective linear programming environment to aggregate
production planning. Computers and Industrial Engineering 46, 1, 1741.
Wang, R.C., Liang, T.F., 2005. Applying possibilistic linear programming to aggregate production planning. International
Journal of Production Economics 98, 328341.
Welam U. P., 1976. Comments on goal programming for aggregate planning. Management Science 22, 6, 708712.
Zimmermann H.J., 1976. Description and optimization of fuzzy systems. International Journal of General Systems 2, 4,
209215.
Zimmermann H.J., 1978. Fuzzy programming and linear programming with several objective functions. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 1, 4555.
Zimmermann H.J., 1988. Modelling flexibility, vagueness and uncertainty in operations research. Investigacion Operativa
1, 1, 734.

C 2012 The Authors.
Copyright of International Transactions in Operational Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Aggregate Planning Through The Imprecise Goal Programming

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aggregate Planning Through The Imprecise Goal Programming

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intl. Trans. in Op. Res.

Aggregate planning through the imprecise goal programming

M. Mezghani et al. / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 19 (2012) 581597

M. Mezghani et al. / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 19 (2012) 581597

M. Mezghani et al. / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 19 (2012) 581597

2. General formulation of fuzzy goal programming (FGP) model

(for i = 1, 2, . . . , p and j = 1, 2, . . . , n),

M. Mezghani et al. / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 19 (2012) 581597

Fig. 1. General form of the satisfaction function.

and iv are the positive and negative veto thresholds, w+

M. Mezghani et al. / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 19 (2012) 581597

Mt max : Maximum machine capacity available in period t (machine-hour).

M. Mezghani et al. / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 19 (2012) 581597

(Ht + Ft )(hiring and firing levels).

r Inventory level constraints

int Pnt aWt

int Ont abtWt

r Machine capacity constraints

nt of product i in period t is imprecise. In practice, the forecasted demand

M. Mezghani et al. / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 19 (2012) 581597

M. Mezghani et al. / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 19 (2012) 581597

M. Mezghani et al. / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 19 (2012) 581597

Fig. 2. Total production cost satisfaction function.

4.1. Satisfaction function for Z

Thus, the function can have the following equivalent form:

M. Mezghani et al. / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 19 (2012) 581597

Fig. 3. Market demand satisfaction functions.

M. Mezghani et al. / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 19 (2012) 581597

M. Mezghani et al. / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 19 (2012) 581597

( j = 1, 2, . . . , 6). The mathematical program

5. Discussion of the results

M. Mezghani et al. / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 19 (2012) 581597

Fig. 4. Workforce level movement.

Regular time production

Production total cost

Fig. 5. Results of (Dai et al.) model.

M. Mezghani et al. / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 19 (2012) 581597

Fig. 6. Proposed FGP model results.

M. Mezghani et al. / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 19 (2012) 581597

M. Mezghani et al. / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 19 (2012) 581597

Sakalli, U.S., Baykoc, O.F., Birgoren,

You might also like