American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

January  2018, 14(1): 165-182. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2017041

Integrated order acceptance and scheduling decision making in product service supply chain with hard time windows constraints

 a. School of Economics and Business Administration, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China b. Research Center of Business Administration & Economic Development, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400030, China c. School of Management, Southwest University of Political Science & Law, Chongqing 401120, China

* Corresponding author: danbin@cqu.edu.cn (B Dan)

Received  January 2015 Revised  December 2016 Published  January 2018 Early access  April 2017

Fund Project: This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number: 71272086), the National Science and Technology supporting Program of China (Grant Number: 2015BAF05B01), and the Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China (20120191110042).

A product service supply chain (PSSC) supplies customers with product-service systems (PSS) consist of integrated products and services. The product manufacturing should match the service supply in the order delivery planning. For PSS orders are usually delivered under time window constraints, this paper is concerned with the integrated order acceptance and scheduling (OAS) decision of the PSSC. Defined the PSS orders by their revenues, product processing times, serving offering times and hard time window constraints, we formulate the OAS problem as a MILP model to optimize total revenue of PSSC and propose two effective value for big-M to solve the problem with small size optimally. The simulated annealing algorithm based on the priority rule of servable orders first (SOF-SA) and the dynamic acceptance and scheduling heuristic (DASH) algorithm are presented. The performance of the model and the two algorithms are proved through simulating instances with different order sizes. Computational tests show that the SOF-SA algorithm is more effective when used for small size problems while the DASH algorithm is more effective for problems with larger size; negotiating with customers to make reasonable delivery time windows should be beneficial to increasing total revenue and improving the decision efficiency.

Citation: Bin Dan, Huali Gao, Yang Zhang, Ru Liu, Songxuan Ma. Integrated order acceptance and scheduling decision making in product service supply chain with hard time windows constraints. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2018, 14 (1) : 165-182. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2017041
References:

show all references

References:
Graphical representation of the OAS problem in PSSC
The performance of MA
 $\tau$ $R$ $M=\sum_{i=1, ..., n} {(t_{pi} +t_{si} )}$ CPU(s) $\widehat{M_{ij} }=d_{li} +t_{sj}$ CPU(s) $n\text{=}10$ $n\text{=}12$ $n\text{=}10$ $n\text{=}12$ 0.1 0.2 19.45 684.96 19.55 675.23 0.1 0.4 1.28 104.66 1.19 103.99 0.1 0.6 0.36 24.52 0.34 24.75 0.2 0.2 2.45 149.15 2.30 126.21 0.2 0.4 0.41 11.61 0.39 11.5 0.2 0.6 0.13 0.07 0.28 0.07 0.3 0.2 1.20 4.57 1.19 4.08 0.3 0.4 1.97 0.16 1.91 0.23 0.3 0.6 0.06 0.54 0.06 0.54
 $\tau$ $R$ $M=\sum_{i=1, ..., n} {(t_{pi} +t_{si} )}$ CPU(s) $\widehat{M_{ij} }=d_{li} +t_{sj}$ CPU(s) $n\text{=}10$ $n\text{=}12$ $n\text{=}10$ $n\text{=}12$ 0.1 0.2 19.45 684.96 19.55 675.23 0.1 0.4 1.28 104.66 1.19 103.99 0.1 0.6 0.36 24.52 0.34 24.75 0.2 0.2 2.45 149.15 2.30 126.21 0.2 0.4 0.41 11.61 0.39 11.5 0.2 0.6 0.13 0.07 0.28 0.07 0.3 0.2 1.20 4.57 1.19 4.08 0.3 0.4 1.97 0.16 1.91 0.23 0.3 0.6 0.06 0.54 0.06 0.54
The algorithms' performance for $n = 10$
 $n$ $\tau$ $R$ GAP1(%) CPU(s) SOF-SA DASH SOF-SA DASH 10 0.1 0.2 13.7 16.2 31.63 3.15 10 0.1 0.4 7.1 9.5 20.32 1.21 10 0.1 0.6 14.4 15.8 13.87 0.89 10 0.2 0.2 16.6 19.1 43.57 0.75 10 0.2 0.4 21.4 23.6 24.33 0.67 10 0.2 0.6 15.5 22.7 15.21 0.62 10 0.3 0.2 18.2 19.1 50.92 0.56 10 0.3 0.4 7.2 15.8 28.69 0.53 10 0.3 0.6 20.6 23.4 24.36 0.27
 $n$ $\tau$ $R$ GAP1(%) CPU(s) SOF-SA DASH SOF-SA DASH 10 0.1 0.2 13.7 16.2 31.63 3.15 10 0.1 0.4 7.1 9.5 20.32 1.21 10 0.1 0.6 14.4 15.8 13.87 0.89 10 0.2 0.2 16.6 19.1 43.57 0.75 10 0.2 0.4 21.4 23.6 24.33 0.67 10 0.2 0.6 15.5 22.7 15.21 0.62 10 0.3 0.2 18.2 19.1 50.92 0.56 10 0.3 0.4 7.2 15.8 28.69 0.53 10 0.3 0.6 20.6 23.4 24.36 0.27
The algorithms' performance for $n = 20$
 $n$} $\tau$ $R$ GAP2(%) CPU(s) SOF-SA DASH SOF-SA DASH 20 0.1 0.2 5.8 11.0 97.04 3.76 20 0.1 0.4 11.7 19.1 45.73 1.61 20 0.1 0.6 9.2 14.4 39.97 1.45 20 0.2 0.2 11.9 12.3 120.38 1.32 20 0.2 0.4 5.0 8.8 52.67 1.19 20 0.2 0.6 9.4 12.1 46.89 0.96 20 0.3 0.2 7.4 13.0 168.42 0.88 20 0.3 0.4 12.2 15.6 38.54 0.73 20 0.3 0.6 9.1 13.5 37.45 0.65
 $n$} $\tau$ $R$ GAP2(%) CPU(s) SOF-SA DASH SOF-SA DASH 20 0.1 0.2 5.8 11.0 97.04 3.76 20 0.1 0.4 11.7 19.1 45.73 1.61 20 0.1 0.6 9.2 14.4 39.97 1.45 20 0.2 0.2 11.9 12.3 120.38 1.32 20 0.2 0.4 5.0 8.8 52.67 1.19 20 0.2 0.6 9.4 12.1 46.89 0.96 20 0.3 0.2 7.4 13.0 168.42 0.88 20 0.3 0.4 12.2 15.6 38.54 0.73 20 0.3 0.6 9.1 13.5 37.45 0.65
The algorithms' performance for $n = 50$
 $n$ $\tau$ $R$ GAP2(%) CPU(s) SOF-SA DASH SOF-SA DASH 50 0.1 0.2 9.5 15.8 735.14 10.68 50 0.1 0.4 17.0 20.4 530.87 5.49 50 0.1 0.6 20.9 21.3 521.22 5.31 50 0.2 0.2 12.6 15.0 822.36 5.16 50 0.2 0.4 16.2 17.7 579.54 4.88 50 0.2 0.6 17.1 19.0 566.97 4.79 50 0.3 0.2 18.4 22.6 899.53 4.45 50 0.3 0.4 22.7 26.5 620.28 4.15 50 0.3 0.6 15.3 15.8 619.99 3.65
 $n$ $\tau$ $R$ GAP2(%) CPU(s) SOF-SA DASH SOF-SA DASH 50 0.1 0.2 9.5 15.8 735.14 10.68 50 0.1 0.4 17.0 20.4 530.87 5.49 50 0.1 0.6 20.9 21.3 521.22 5.31 50 0.2 0.2 12.6 15.0 822.36 5.16 50 0.2 0.4 16.2 17.7 579.54 4.88 50 0.2 0.6 17.1 19.0 566.97 4.79 50 0.3 0.2 18.4 22.6 899.53 4.45 50 0.3 0.4 22.7 26.5 620.28 4.15 50 0.3 0.6 15.3 15.8 619.99 3.65
The algorithms' performance for $n = 100$
 $n$ $\tau$ $R$ GAP2(%) CPU(s) SOF-SA DASH SOF-SA DASH 100 0.1 0.2 25.8 19.2 1365.49 32.54 100 0.1 0.4 30.3 17.7 954.21 25.57 100 0.1 0.6 19.7 10.4 996.73 24.66 100 0.2 0.2 25.1 18.8 1681.32 23.09 100 0.2 0.4 27.9 26.1 1307.76 21.85 100 0.2 0.6 29.4 27.0 1178.54 21.73 100 0.3 0.2 32.0 19.9 1873.55 20.42 100 0.3 0.4 26.5 21.2 1054.27 19.81 100 0.3 0.6 35.2 25.5 1175.92 17.65
 $n$ $\tau$ $R$ GAP2(%) CPU(s) SOF-SA DASH SOF-SA DASH 100 0.1 0.2 25.8 19.2 1365.49 32.54 100 0.1 0.4 30.3 17.7 954.21 25.57 100 0.1 0.6 19.7 10.4 996.73 24.66 100 0.2 0.2 25.1 18.8 1681.32 23.09 100 0.2 0.4 27.9 26.1 1307.76 21.85 100 0.2 0.6 29.4 27.0 1178.54 21.73 100 0.3 0.2 32.0 19.9 1873.55 20.42 100 0.3 0.4 26.5 21.2 1054.27 19.81 100 0.3 0.6 35.2 25.5 1175.92 17.65
 [1] Xiaohui Ren, Daofang Chang, Jin Shen. Optimization of the product service supply chain under the influence of presale services. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021130 [2] Fei Cheng, Shanlin Yang, Ram Akella, Xiaoting Tang. An integrated approach for selection of service vendors in service supply chain. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2011, 7 (4) : 907-925. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2011.7.907 [3] Tinghai Ren, Kaifu Yuan, Dafei Wang, Nengmin Zeng. Effect of service quality on software sales and coordination mechanism in IT service supply chain. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021165 [4] Xuemei Zhang, Malin Song, Guangdong Liu. Service product pricing strategies based on time-sensitive customer choice behavior. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (1) : 297-312. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016018 [5] Ting Zhang, Shuhua Chang, Yan Dong, Jingyi Yue, Kok Lay Teo. Competitive strategies in the presence of consumers' expected service and product returns. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021108 [6] Weihua Liu, Xinran Shen, Di Wang, Jingkun Wang. Order allocation model in logistics service supply chain with demand updating and inequity aversion: A perspective of two option contracts comparison. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (6) : 3269-3295. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020118 [7] Suresh P. Sethi, Houmin Yan, Hanqin Zhang, Jing Zhou. Information Updated Supply Chain with Service-Level Constraints. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2005, 1 (4) : 513-531. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2005.1.513 [8] Lan Luo, Zhe Zhang, Yong Yin. Simulated annealing and genetic algorithm based method for a bi-level seru loading problem with worker assignment in seru production systems. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (2) : 779-803. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019134 [9] Qiang Lin, Ying Peng, Ying Hu. Supplier financing service decisions for a capital-constrained supply chain: Trade credit vs. combined credit financing. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020, 16 (4) : 1731-1752. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019026 [10] Jing Shi, Tiaojun Xiao. Service investment and consumer returns policy in a vendor-managed inventory supply chain. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2015, 11 (2) : 439-459. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2015.11.439 [11] Zonghong Cao, Jie Min. Selection and impact of decision mode of encroachment and retail service in a dual-channel supply chain. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020167 [12] Jun Tu, Zijiao Sun, Min Huang. Supply chain coordination considering e-tailer's promotion effort and logistics provider's service effort. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021062 [13] Dingzhong Feng, Xiaofeng Zhang, Ye Zhang. Collection decisions and coordination in a closed-loop supply chain under recovery price and service competition. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021117 [14] Chirantan Mondal, Bibhas C. Giri. Investigating a green supply chain with product recycling under retailer's fairness behavior. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021129 [15] Ming-Jong Yao, Tien-Cheng Hsu. An efficient search algorithm for obtaining the optimal replenishment strategies in multi-stage just-in-time supply chain systems. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2009, 5 (1) : 11-32. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2009.5.11 [16] Yukang He, Zhengwen He, Nengmin Wang. Tabu search and simulated annealing for resource-constrained multi-project scheduling to minimize maximal cash flow gap. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (5) : 2451-2474. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020077 [17] Jun Wu, Shouyang Wang, Wuyi Yue. Supply contract model with service level constraint. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2005, 1 (3) : 275-287. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2005.1.275 [18] Stefano Luzzatto, Marks Ruziboev. Young towers for product systems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2016, 36 (3) : 1465-1491. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2016.36.1465 [19] Nir Avni, Benjamin Weiss. Generating product systems. Journal of Modern Dynamics, 2010, 4 (2) : 257-270. doi: 10.3934/jmd.2010.4.257 [20] Fatemeh Kangi, Seyed Hamid Reza Pasandideh, Esmaeil Mehdizadeh, Hamed Soleimani. The optimization of a multi-period multi-product closed-loop supply chain network with cross-docking delivery strategy. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021118

2020 Impact Factor: 1.801