# 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  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] 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 [2] Jian Zhang, Tony T. Lee, Tong Ye, Liang Huang. An approximate mean queue length formula for queueing systems with varying service rate. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (1) : 185-204. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019106 [3] Buddhadev Pal, Pankaj Kumar. A family of multiply warped product semi-Riemannian Einstein metrics. Journal of Geometric Mechanics, 2020, 12 (4) : 553-562. doi: 10.3934/jgm.2020017 [4] Sushil Kumar Dey, Bibhas C. Giri. Coordination of a sustainable reverse supply chain with revenue sharing contract. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020165 [5] Mohammed Abdulrazaq Kahya, Suhaib Abduljabbar Altamir, Zakariya Yahya Algamal. Improving whale optimization algorithm for feature selection with a time-varying transfer function. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (1) : 87-98. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020017 [6] Cheng Peng, Zhaohui Tang, Weihua Gui, Qing Chen, Jing He. A bidirectional weighted boundary distance algorithm for time series similarity computation based on optimized sliding window size. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (1) : 205-220. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019107 [7] Awais Younus, Zoubia Dastgeer, Nudrat Ishaq, Abdul Ghaffar, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Devendra Kumar. On the observability of conformable linear time-invariant control systems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020444 [8] Chongyang Liu, Meijia Han, Zhaohua Gong, Kok Lay Teo. Robust parameter estimation for constrained time-delay systems with inexact measurements. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (1) : 317-337. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019113 [9] Youshan Tao, Michael Winkler. Critical mass for infinite-time blow-up in a haptotaxis system with nonlinear zero-order interaction. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2021, 41 (1) : 439-454. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020216 [10] Soniya Singh, Sumit Arora, Manil T. Mohan, Jaydev Dabas. Approximate controllability of second order impulsive systems with state-dependent delay in Banach spaces. Evolution Equations & Control Theory, 2020  doi: 10.3934/eect.2020103 [11] Xuefeng Zhang, Yingbo Zhang. Fault-tolerant control against actuator failures for uncertain singular fractional order systems. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (1) : 1-12. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020011 [12] Wolfgang Riedl, Robert Baier, Matthias Gerdts. Optimization-based subdivision algorithm for reachable sets. Journal of Computational Dynamics, 2021, 8 (1) : 99-130. doi: 10.3934/jcd.2021005 [13] Sören Bartels, Jakob Keck. Adaptive time stepping in elastoplasticity. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2021, 14 (1) : 71-88. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020323 [14] Emre Esentürk, Juan Velazquez. Large time behavior of exchange-driven growth. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2021, 41 (2) : 747-775. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020299 [15] Lingju Kong, Roger Nichols. On principal eigenvalues of biharmonic systems. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2021, 20 (1) : 1-15. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020254 [16] Manil T. Mohan. First order necessary conditions of optimality for the two dimensional tidal dynamics system. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2020  doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2020045 [17] Weisong Dong, Chang Li. Second order estimates for complex Hessian equations on Hermitian manifolds. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020377 [18] Jiahao Qiu, Jianjie Zhao. Maximal factors of order $d$ of dynamical cubespaces. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2021, 41 (2) : 601-620. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020278 [19] Gang Luo, Qingzhi Yang. The point-wise convergence of shifted symmetric higher order power method. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (1) : 357-368. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019115 [20] Lars Grüne, Matthias A. Müller, Christopher M. Kellett, Steven R. Weller. Strict dissipativity for discrete time discounted optimal control problems. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2020  doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2020046

2019 Impact Factor: 1.366