Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
INTRODUCTION
After the II world war, the, Industrial world faced a depression and to solve the
various industrial problems. Industrialist tried the models, which were successful in
solving their problems. Industrialist learnt that the techniques of OR can conveniently
apply to solve industrial problems. Then onwards, various models of OR/GP have
been developed to solve industrial problems. In fact GP models are helpful to the
managers to solve various problems; they face in their day to day work. These models
are used to minimize the cost of production, increase the productivity and use the
available resources carefully and for healthy industrial growth.
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the goal programming (GP) and
distinguish the models, methods and applications in industry. In addition, the
relationship of GP within the fields of multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) will
be discussed. Specifically, this chapter seeks to introduce and describe different type
of GP models that will be used throughout this thesis. Over the past five decades,
multi-objective mathematical programming (MOMP) has been an active area of
research in the field of industry. This chapter will also introduce some definition of GP
related.
1.2
DEFINITIONS
Achievement Function: The function that serves to measure the achievement of the
minimization of unwanted goal deviation variables in the goal programming model.
Goal Function: A mathematical function that is to be achieved at a specified level
Trade-off: A trade-off (or tradeoff) is a situation that involves losing one quality or
aspect of something in return for gaining another quality or aspect. It often implies a
decision to be made with full comprehension of both the upside and downside of a
particular choice; the term is also used in an evolutionary context, in which case the
selection process acts as the "decision-maker".
decision
maker(s),
an
underlying
satisficing philosophy
is
assumed.
Goal
rational, but also suggests that he is the optimizer who strives to allocate scarce
resources in the most economic manner. It is assumed that he possesses knowledge of
relevant aspects of the decision environment, a stable system of preference, and ability
to analyze alternative courses of action. However, recent developments in the theory
of the firm have raised a question as to whether such assumptions regarding economic
man can be applied to the decision maker in any realistic sense. For an individual to be
perfectly rational in decision analysis, he must be capable of attaching a definite
preference to each possible outcome of the alternative courses of action. Furthermore,
he should be able to specify the exact outcomes by employing scientific analysis.
According to broad empirical investigation, however, there is no evidence that any one
individual is capable of performing such exact analysis for a complex decision
problem.
Today, effective and timely decisions are crucial for successful management of
organizations. The application of quantitative technique is, therefore, becoming more
useful. These techniques were found application to industries. In the present scenario,
the decision maker has to deal with vast data, number of alternatives and different
decision situations before taking any decision. At the same time, the rapid
diversification in industries is also adding to the complexity by making organizations
multi-objective type.
The main aim of decision making is measured by the degree of organizational
objectives achieved by the decision. Therefore, the organizational objectives provide
the foundation for decision making. Decisions are also constrained by environmental
factors such as government regulations, welfare of the public and long-run effects of
the decision on environmental conditions (i.e., pollution, quality of life, use of nonrenewable resources etc). In order to determine the best course of action, therefore, a
comprehensive analysis of multiple and often conflicting organizational objectives and
environmental factors must be undertaken. Indeed, the most difficult problem in
decision analysis is the treatment of multiple conflicting objectives Schubik [1964].
The issue becomes one of value trade-offs in the complex socio-economic structure of
conflicting structure of conflicting interests. Regardless of the type of problem on
hand, it is extremely difficult to answer questions such as what should be done now,
what can be deferred, what alternatives are to be explored, and what should be the
priority structure for the objectives?
Consequently, one of the most important and difficult aspects of any decision
problem is to achieve an equilibrium among multiple and conflicting interests and
objectives of various components of the organization. Many recent researches
concerning the future of the industrialized society have echoed the same theme. When
the society is based on enormous technological development and change, stability of
the system must be obtained by achieving a delicate balance among such multiple
objectives as industrial output, food production, pollution control, population growth,
and use of natural resources, international co-operation for economic stability, and
civil rights and equal opportunity provisions. There is obviously a need for continuous
research in the analysis of multiple conflicting objectives.
ecision maker is regarded
as one who attempts to achieve a set of objectives to the fullest possible extent in an
environment of conflicting interests, incomplete information, and limited resources as
studied by Simon [1956]. To handle multi-objective decision making a unique
programming
allows
decision
maker
to
incorporate
environmental,
organizational, and managerial consideration into model through goal levels and
priorities. Goal Programming, although far from a panacea, often represents a
substantial improvement in the modeling and analysis of the real life situation. The
10
the problem. The objective function is then to minimize the deviation from the stated
goals. The deviations represented by the objective function are given weights as
coefficients in accordance with priorities assigned to the various goals. The problem is
then solved using the linear programming model; hence sensitivity analysis is also
feasible.
1.4
11
12
[2012b] formulated an optimal model by using goal programming for rubber wood
door manufacturing factory in Tripura. Sen and Nandi [2012c] reviewed goal
programming and its application in plantation management. Sinha and Sen [2011]
made an attempt to formulate a strategic planning using the goal programming
approach to maximize production quantity to make tea, profit and demand and
minimize expenditure and processing time in different machines to Tea Industry of
Barak Valley of Assam in order to flourish the tea industries. Tamiz et al. [1996]
formulate an exploration of linear and goal programming models in the downstream
oil industry.
Leung and Chan [2009] developed a preemptive goal programming model for
aggregate production planning problem with different operational constraints. Sarma
[1995] studied lexicographic goal programming to solve a product mix problem in
large steel manufacturing unit.
Ghiani et al. [2003] proposed a mixed integer linear goal programming model
for allocation of production batches to subcontractors through fuzzy set theory in an
Italian textile company which resulted to outperform the hand-made solutions put to
use by the management so far. Lee et al. [1989] formulating industrial development
policies by a zero-one goal programming approach. Nja and Udofia [2009] formulated
the mixed integer goal programming model for flour producing companies. Pati et al.
[2008] formulated mixed integer goal programming model to assist in proper
management of the paper recycling logistics system. Silva da [2013] proposed multi-
13
choice mixed integer goal programming optimization for real problems in a sugar and
ethanol milling company.
Belmokaddem et al. [2009] proposed a model to minimize total production and
work force costs, carrying inventory costs and rates of changes in work force using
fuzzy goal programming approach with different importance and priorities to
aggregate production planning. Fazlollahtabar et al. [2013] formulated a fuzzy goal
programming for optimizing service industry market using virtual intelligent agent.
Mekidiche et al. [2013] applied weighted additive fuzzy goal programming approach
to aggregate production planning. Petrovic and Akoz [2008] proposed a fuzzy goal
programming model for solving the problem of loading and scheduling of a batch
processing machine. Yimmee and Phruksaphanrat [2011] proposed a fuzzy goal
programming model for aggregate production and logistics planning for increase profit
and reduce change of workforce level.
Kumar et al. [2004] applied a fuzzy mixed integer goal programming
technique for solving the vender selection problem with multiple objectives. Tsai et al.
[2008] formulated a fuzzy mixed integer multiple goal programming problem
approach with priority for channel allocation problem in steel industry. Mustafa
[1989] applied an integrated hierarchical programming approach for industrial
planning. Arthur and Lawrence [1982] proposed a multiple goal production and
logistics planning in a chemical and pharmaceutical company.
Lee and Shim [1986] established priorities for small business by interactive
goal programming on the microcomputer. An interactive sequential goal
14
1.5
composed of deviational variables only. In the formulation two types of variable are
used. They are decision variables and deviational variables. There are two categories
of constraints. They are structural or system constraints (strict as in traditional linear
programming) and goal constraints, which are expressions of the original functions
with target goals, set priorities and positive and negative deviational variables.
The goal programming model may be categorized in terms of how the goals
are of roughly comparable importance, goal programming is known as nonpreemptive. In cases of preemptive goals programming, the goals are assigned priority
15
levels. The goals are ranked from the most important (goal 1) to the least important
(goal m) and the objective function coefficient assigned for the (deviational) variable
representing goal is Pi. Rather they are convenient way of indicating that one goal is
important than the other. These coefficients indicate that the weight of goal 1 is much
larger about the value or cost of a goal or a sub goal, but often can determine its upper
or lower limits. The decision maker can determine the priority of the desired
attainment of each goal or sub goal and rank the priorities in an ordinal sequence.
Obviously, it is not possible to achieve every goal to the extent desired. Thus, with or
without goal programming, the decision maker attaches a certain priority to the
achievement of a particular goal. The true value of goal programming, therefore, is its
contribution to the solution of decision problems involving multiple and conflicting
1.5.1
Charnes and Cooper [1977] presented the general goal programming model
which can be expressed mathematically as:
m
i
(1)
i 1
aij x j
Goal constraints:
j 1
di
di
bi , for i 1,..., m
16
System constraints:
aij x j
bi , for i
m 1,..., m
j 1
with d i , d i , xj
where there are m goals, p system constraints and n decision variables
Z = objective function = Summation of all deviations
aij = the coefficient associated with variable j in the ith goal
xj = the jth decision variable
bi = the associated right hand side value
d i = negative deviational variable from the ith goal (underachievement)
di = positive deviational variable from the ith goal (overachievement).
17
Minimize
Goal
di
di
If goal is achieved
Minimize
both
under-
and
overachievement
1
2
di
and
aij x j bi
aij x j bi
j 1
j 1
ij
j 1
ij
j 1
18
1.5.2
>>> Pi+1
where
the P1 goal is so much more important than the P2 goal and P2 goal will never be
attempted until the P1 goal is achieved to the greatest extent possible. The priority
relationship implies that multiplication by n, however large it may be, cannot make the
lower-level goal as the higher goal (that is, Pi > Pi+1).
The model can be stated as:
m
i
i 1
(2)
19
Goal constraints:
aij x j
di
di
bi , for i 1,..., m
j 1
aij x j
System constraints:
bi , for i
m 1,..., m
j 1
1.5.3
(3)
i 1
Goal constraints:
aij x j
di
di
bi , for i 1,..., m
j 1
System constraints:
aij x j
j 1
bi , for i
m 1,..., m
20
ik
ik
(4)
i 1 k 1
Goal constraints:
aij x j
di
di
bi , for i 1,..., m
j 1
System constraints:
aij x j
bi , for i
m 1,..., m
j 1
21
1.5.4
[1976]. It uses to minimize the maximum unwanted deviation, rather than the sum of
deviations. For this reason Chebyshev goal programming is sometimes termed
Minmax goal programming. This utilizes the Chebyshev distancemetric, which
emphasizes justice and balance rather than ruthless optimization.
The preemptive lexicographic GP model in (2) and the non-preemptive
weighted GP model in (3) can view as the two extreme types of GP models in which
virtually all GP modeling are derived.
1.6
RELATIONSHIP OF GP TO MCDM
22
antially
described in a variety of publications including Romero [1991] and Ringuest [1992].
On the conceptual level the relationship of MCDM and GP can be seen in what
Zionts [1992] calls the four subareas that make up MCDM. These four subareas that
comprise MCDM are listed in Table 1.2. According to Zionts [1992] the subarea of
multiple criteria mathematical programming refers to solving primarily deterministic,
mathematical programming problems that have multiple objectives. Linear goal
programming is one of the many methodologies that are considered a significant
contributor to this subarea of MCDM. Indeed, Zoints and Wallenius [1976] suggest
that the development of GP was a beginning point for MCDM, particularly this
subarea. How can one distinguish a GP model from the other multiple criteria
mathematical programming models? In most cases, the MCDM models in this subarea
have decision variables in their objective function, while GP models do not.
MS/OR Subarea
Related GP topics
Negotiation Theory
23
1.7
One of the most promising techniques for multiple objective decision analysis
is goal programming. Goal programming is a powerful tool which draws upon the
highly developed and tested technique of linear programming, but provides a
simultaneous solution to a complex system of competing objectives. Goal
programming can handle decision problems having a single goal with multiple sub
goals. The technique was originally introduced by Charnes and Cooper [1961], and
further developed by Jaaskelainen [1969], Lee and Bird [1970], Lee [1972] and
Ignizio [1976]. Then many researchers such as Kwak and Schniederjans [1979, 1985],
Ignizio [1987, 1989], Hallefjord and Jornsten [1988], Reaves and Hedin [1993],
Hemaida and Kwak [1994], Bryson [1995], Easton and Rossin [1996] etc., surveyed,
case study and applications of goal programming and multiple criteria decision
making (MCDM) and concentrate his views for overview of techniques for solving
multiple objective mathematical programming problems. However, the classification
of MCDM methods given by Zanakis and Gupta [1985], Steuer [1986], Romero
[1986], Tamiz and Jones [1995] etc. is usual practice to differentiate methods based on
the classifications of the problem. MCDM is an extremely important discipline that
deals with decision making problem with multiple objectives. Often goals set by
management compete for scarce resources. Furthermore, these goals may be
incommensurable.
24
25
1.8
software (or computers) to help support the growth of this computationally dependent
methodology. The GP software required the availability of GP algorithms used to
generate the primary GP problem solutions. In addition, a collection of supporting
algorithms are also necessary to permit a post- solution analysis or secondary
consideration of the solutions obtained in the primary solution. Collectively, these
primary and secondary algorithms can be called GP solution methodologies.
The purpose of this chapter is to review all of the various types of GP solution
methodologies that have appeared in this thesis. This review includes the primary GP
algorithms and methodology used to generate linear GP, integer GP and nonlinear GP
solutions. In addition, secondary GP methodologies including duality and sensitivity
analysis used to obtain post-solution information will also be discussed.
1.8.1
26
1.8.1.1
27
Reference
Alp and Murray [1996], Arthur and Ravindran [1978], Reduced size algorithms
Bryson [1995], Kwak and Schniederjans [1982,
1985a], Leunge and Chan [2009], Leung and Ng
[2007], Pati et al. [2008], Schniederjans and Kwak
[1982], Sharma et al. [2010], Tamiz et al. [1996]
Freed and Glover [1981a, 1981b]
Used
as
discriminant
analysis
Charnes and Cooper [1977], Evans and Steuer [1973], Mathematical proofs for GP
Hwang et al. [1980], Larbani and Aouni [2011],
Romero [2001]
Schenkerman [1991]
Discussion on weighted GP
Bhargava et al. [2011], Kettani et al. [2004], Knoll and Weighted GP methodologies
Engelberg [1978], Kluyver [1979], Sherali [1982],
Shim and Siegel [1975], Spivey and Tamura [1970],
Steuer [1979], Widhelm [1981]
Arthur and Ravindran [1980], Charnes and Cooper Algorithms for both models
[1961], Dauer and Krueger [1977], Ignizio [1976
book, 1982 book, 1985c], Iserman [1982], Iziri [1965
book], Lee [1972 book], Schniederjans [1994 book]
28
Decomposition
methodologies
Akgul [1984], Alvord [1983], Baran et al. [2013], General discussion of issues
Clayton and Moore [1972], Gibbs [1973], Hindelang
[1973], Ignizio [1978, 1983a], Rifai [1994], Ruefli
[1971], Tamiz and Jones [1996, 1998]
1.8.1.2
29
1.8.1.3
According to Saber and Ravindran [1993] there are four major approaches to
nonlinear GP:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
30
nonlinear GP algorithms and methodology see (Ringuest and Gulledge [1982] and
Gupta and Sharma [1989]).
(2)
Direct search based nonlinear GP methods utilize some type of logical search
pattern or methods to obtain a solution that may or may not be the best satisfying
solution. The logic process is based on repeated attempts to improve a given solution
by evaluating its objective function and/or goal constraints. The basic search idea
originated with Box [1965], but was applied to GP by many others including Nanda et
al. [1988]. Hooke and Jeeves [1961] developed a single objective, continuous variable,
unconstrained optimization method that was later adopted for GP by Ignizio [1976]
and Hwang and Masud [1979].
(3)
nonlinear goal constraints or the objective function to determine the direction in which
the algorithm is to search for a solution and the amount of movement necessary to
achieve that solution. While gradient based methods are generally more efficient in
obtaining a solution, they may not be appropriate for GP models whose goal
constraints or objective function is nondifferentiable.
Lee [1985a], Lee and Olson [1985], and Olson and Swenseth [1987] all
developed a version of a gradient method for GP called the chance constraint method.
The chance constraint method allows parameters to be distributed along a probability
distribution. The introduction of the probability distribution is where this methodology
obtained its probabilistic or chance name. The use of the chance constraint method
requires the assumption that the technological coefficients are normally distributed.
31
methodology for example can be used to model and solve some classes of stochastic
GP problems. For a good review of the basics see Contini [1968].
(4)
32
1.8.1.4
There are at least four other algorithm based methodologies that are
extensively represented in GP literature:
(1) Interval GP
(2) Fractional GP
(3) Duality solution
(4) Fuzzy GP
Each of these other methodologies can and often are used with linear GP,
integer GP and nonlinear GP models. They also offer unique modeling features that
have distinguish them in their right.
(1) Interval GP: Interval GP allows parameters, particularly the right-hand-side goal
33
ijxj
(1)
du+ + du- = bu
(2)
aijxj
dl+ + dl- = bl
(3)
where the du+ and dl- are both minimized in the objective function and the other
deviation variables are free to permit some compromised value for the resulting righthand-side value. This method can be used to deal with a variety of formulation issues
that are used to criticize GP models, such as the inappropriateness of predetermined
goals or targets see Min and Storbeck [1991]. Vitoriano and Romero [1994] proposed
the extended interval goal programming.
34
Hannan [1977, 1981] and Soyster and Lev [1978]. Fractional GP is also an extension
of LP, called fractional LP see Martos [1964], Bitran and Novaes [1973].
(3) Duality Solution: It has been shown that GP models can be solved more
efficiently and without some computational problems by solving the dual formulation
of the GP model see Dauer and Krueger [1977], Ignizio [1985a]. This method is not
without its problems as observed by Crowder and Sposito [1987] and replied to by
Ignizio [1987]. An interesting extension of this method to sequential nonlinear GP can
be seen in El-Dash and Mohamed [1992].
(4) Fuzzy GP: Fuzzy GP is based on fuzzy set theory. Fuzzy sets are used to describe
imprecise goals. These goals are usually associated with objective functions and are
used to reflect both a weighting (with values from zero to one) and range of goal
achievement possibilities. The numerical relationship between the goal of profit and
utility in the profit occurrences. The relationship between the weighting and the profit
function can be linear or nonlinear. Most importantly, this methodology allows the
decision maker who cannot precisely define goals to at least express them using a
weighting structure that is not limited. This makes fuzzy programming an idea
approach when utility function type goals are to be used in the GP model.
Fazlollahtabar et al. [2013] proposed a fuzzy goal programming model for optimizing
service industry market by using virtual intelligent agent. Kumar et al. [2004]
approached a fuzzy goal programming for vendor selection problem in a supply chain.
Mekidiche et al. [2013] approached a weighted additive fuzzy goal programming to
35
1.8.2
1.8.2.1
Duality in GP
36
Other studies have extended duality analysis in GP. An iterative algorithm with
its dual formulation was discussed by Dauer and Krueger [1977]. Ben-Tal and
Teboulle [1986] added an even greater degree of complexity to the use of duality with
a stochastic, nonlinear GP model. As previously mentioned, dual formulations for GP
models have also been shown to enhance computational efficiency for solving GP
problems when compared to other standard algorithms see Dauer and Krueger [1977],
Ignizio [1985].
1.8.2.2
Sensitivity Analysis in GP
According to Ignizio ([1982], Chapter 19) there are seven types of changes that
can be implemented as a part of sensitivity analysis in GP:
1. Changes in the weighting at a priority level
2. Changes in the weighting of deviation variables within a priority level
3. Changes in the right-hand-side values
4. Changes in technologies coefficients
5. Changes in the number of goals
6. Changes in the number of decision variables
7. Reordering preemptive priorities
Most of these have been illustrated by application see in Lee [1972], Ignizio
[1982], Schniederjans [1984], all provide basic methodologies for undertaking these
seven types of sensitivity analysis in GP models.
37
1.8.3
38
Software
Publisher
System Features
AMPL
Ferncroft Village
Danvers, MA 01923
CPLEX Mixed
Integer Optm.
930Tahoe Blvd.
Incline Village,
NV89451
GAMS
Sensitivity Analysis
Ferncroft Village
Danvers, MA 01923
Extended LINDO
LINDO Systems
Analysis
Chicago, IL 60622
Extended GINO
HS/LP
LINDO Systems
Sensitivity
Chicago, IL 60622
Analysis
Sensitivity
NJ 07834
Analysis
39
Sensitivity
Analysis
View. CA 94043
MPSX-MIP/370
MS 936
Duality,
Neighborhood Rd.
Kingston, NY 12401
Solvers
P. O. Box 4288
Incline Village, NY
89450
XPRESS-MP
Resource Optim.,
1.9
40
and conditions. Most GP applications have thus far been limited to well-defined
deterministic problems. Furthermore, the primary analysis has been limited to the
identification of an optimal solution that optimizes goal attainment to the extent
possible within specified constraints. In order to develop goal programming as a
universal technique for modern decision analysis many refinements and further
research are necessary.
After the study of the literature, we have been able to identify a number of
models and solution techniques in goal programming that have been developed and
used in problem solving. These various models and techniques of goal programming
are identified on page 42.
1.10
CONCLUSION
Virtually all models developed for managerial decision analysis have neglected
the unique organizational environment, bureaucratic decision process, and multiple
conflicting natures of organizational objectives. In reality, however, these are
important factors that greatly influence the decision process. In this study, the goal
programming approach is discussed as a tool for the optimization of multiple
objectives while permitting an explicit consideration of the existing decision
environment.
In the nearly half century since its development, goal programming has
-objective
41