4thInternationalConferenceofFuzzyInformation&Engineering

1415October2010
ShomalUniversity,Amol,Iran

An interactive fuzzy goal programming approach for multi

product multi period production planning problem

Kaveh Taghizadeh
1,*
,Iraj Mahdavi
2
, Morteza Bagherpour
3
1,*
Department of Industrial Engineering, Mazandaran University of Science & Technology, zehdarkt@gmail.com
2
Department of Industrial Engineering, Mazandaran University of Science & Technology, irajarash@radiffmail.com
3
Department of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science & Technology, mortezabagherpour@gmail.com

Abstract
This study addresses an interactive multiple Fuzzy Goal Programming (FGP) approach for solving the Multi
Period Multi Product (MPMP) production planning problem in an imprecise environment. The proposed
model attempts to simultaneously minimize total production costs, rates of changes in labor levels, and
maximizing machine utilization, while considering individual production routes of parts, inventory levels,
labor levels, machine capacity, warehouse space, and the time value of money. Piecewise linear membership
functions are utilized to represent Decision Makers (DMs) overall satisfaction levels. A numerical example
demonstrates the feasibility of applying the proposed model to MPMP problem. Furthermore, the proposed
interactive approach facilitates the DM with a systematic framework of decision making process which
enables DM to modify the search direction to reach the most satisfactory results during solving process.

Keywords: Multi Period Multi Product production planning, Fuzzy goal programming, Piecewise linear
membership functions.


1. Introduction
MPMP production planning problem is a well known problem in production environment, which has
attracted considerable attention from both practitioners and academia [1]. MPMP production planning typically
encompasses a time horizon between 3 weeks to 3 months. From the planning point of view MPMP production
planning falls between medium decisions of medium-range planning and highly specific and detailed short-
range planning decisions. Planners in the process of MPMP planning conventionally make decisions regarding
production, inventory, and backorder volumes, regarding issues such as fluctuated market demand, available
inventory space, production capacity of machines, and available labor levels. While MPMP production planning
problem attempts to match production rates of individual product types with fluctuated demand of market,
Aggregate Production Planning (APP) considers the planning problem from an aggregated viewpoint, which
utilizes an aggregate production unit such as the average items or in term of weight, volume, production time,
and currency value to aggregate a family of similar products with small differences. Thus, both MPMP and APP
production planning problems share same concepts and notions.
Since Holt et al. [2] proposed the HMMS rule in 1955, researchers have developed numerous models to
help solving MPMP and APP problems each with their own pros and constraints, however, in real world MPMP
production planning problems input data or parameters such a demand, resources, and also objective values
cannot be expressed precisely due to incomplete or unobtainable information [3]. Fuzzy sets theory proposed by
Zadeh [4] in 1965 is a type of imprecision that has no well-defined boundaries for its description. Fuzzy sets
theory is highly applicable in the area where human judgments, evaluations, and decisions are important [5].
Inclusion of fuzzy sets theory and linear programming (LP) systems can results in reduction of information costs
and avoidance of unrealistic modeling [6].
K.Taghizadeh,I.Mahdavi

Zimmermann [7] first introduced fuzzy sets theory into conventional LP problems, considering fuzzy goal
and fuzzy constraints. Then in 1978 Zimmermann [8] applied the fuzzy sets theory to LP problems with several
objective functions, in this study Zimmermann transformed the Fuzzy Multi Objective Linear Programming
(FMOLP) model into a standard single objective LP model by utilizing min-operator. Narasimhan [9] illustrated
the application of fuzzy subsets concepts to goal programming in an imprecise environment. This research
first considers a FGP problem with multiple goals having equal weights associated with them. A solution
approach based on linear programming is developed. Next, the solution approach is extended to the case where
unequal fuzzy weights are associated with multiple goals. Hannan [10] utilized piecewise linear membership
functions to quantify fuzzy and imprecise aspirations of decision makers through in goal programming
problems. He also utilized fuzzy minimum operator to aggregate aspiration levels of different goals. Subsequent
research on FGP include [11]-[19].
Saad [20] categorized APP models into six categories namely: LP models, linear decision rule,
transportation method, management coefficient approach, search decision rule, and simulation. Bakir and Byrne
[21] suggested a stochastic LP model to deal with uncertainty of market demand over planning horizon in
conventional MPMP production planning model. Then, Byrne and Bakir [22] in 1999 discussed in real world
production systems consumption of resources has a complex behavior, thus analytical solutions of LP models
may not be feasible. They developed a hybrid simulation-analytical approach for solving MPMP problems. Kim
and Kim [23] showed that by introducing the actual workload of jobs in each simulation run and then passing
the information to the LP model the optimal solution would be achieved in less iteration comparing with Byrne
and Bakir [22] approach. Byrne and Hossain [24] extended models proposed in [22], [23] by considering unit
load notion and modification of resource requirements and constraints in the LP formulation. Considering Just in
Time concept as a main contribution of this research results in reduction of Work In Process (WIP) inventories
total flow time. Chen and Lio [25] discussed applying traditional single objective models to MPMP problems
may lead to complexity and impracticality of model in application.
Noori et al. [26] reported by converting MPMP production planning problem into a project network and
assigning recourses to activities and consequently leveling resource profiles may improve machine utilization.
Bagherpour et al. [27] implemented the earned value analysis as a project control mechanism, through the
MPMP problems. They suggested modeling of activities duration uncertainties by triangular fuzzy numbers,
they also utilized forecasting features of earned value analysis for predicting completion time of production of
individual products. Kazemi et al. [28] developed a robust optimization model for MPMP problem and
highlighted the superiority of robust optimization in comparison with stochastic optimization.
Many research have been dedicated to investigation of applying fuzzy set theory on APP production
planning problems. Rinks [29] utilized fuzzy logic and fuzzy linguistics in APP production planning problems.
In this regard he suggested a series of 40 relational assignment rules. Gen et al. [30] proposed a method for
solving multi objective APP problems with fuzzy parameters. In their approach they attempt to transform the
FMOLP model to a crisp MOLP and solve it through an interactive solution procedure. Wang and Fang [31]
introduced a novel approach for modeling of MPMP problems where demand and capacities are fuzzy and
imprecise. They considered minimization of total cost of quadratic production costs and linear inventory holding
costs as the objective of their proposed model. Wang and Fang [32] proposed a FMOLP model for APP multi
objective problem considering fuzzy product price, subcontracting price, work force level, production capacity,
and market demand. Moreover, an interactive solution procedure was developed to provide a compromise
solution. Dai et al. [33] presented a fuzzy linear programming approach for managing the uncertainties and
imprecise information involved in industrial APP applications. A mathematical model was developed for APP
practice with the fuzzy linear programming approach. They claimed that employment of the fuzzy linear
programming provide a great advantage in APP where, parameters of the stochastic factors involved in the
production planning are neither definitely reliable nor precise. Jamalnia and Soukhakian [34] developed a hybrid
goal programming approach with different goal priorities for multi objective APP problem. In their proposed
model products are produced in regular and overtime production shifts, they also considered the impact of
learning curve and product life cycle on the optimum production plan costs.
In this study a novel Nonlinear Fuzzy Goal Programming (NLFGP) model for MPMP production planning
problem is developed. The proposed model attempts to simultaneously satisfy goals which are defined to
An interactive fuzzy goal programming approach for multi product multi period production planning problem

minimize production costs, and rate of changes in work force levels between each tow periods, and to maximize
machine utilization. Pricewise linear member ship functions are introduced to cater the uncertainties and
vagueness of DMs aspiration levels and fuzzy linguistic variables are defined to represent DMs judgment
about priority and importance of different goals. Furthermore, a solving procedure is suggested to transform the
original NLFGP model into a standard single objective LP model which can be efficiently solved with simplex
method. Moreover, an interactive decision making procedure is suggested in which provides the DM with a
more flexible decision making framework. In this regard the DM can correct the search direction during solving
procedure based on his/her idea, judgments, and experiments. Moreover, a numerical example justifies the
feasibility of applying the proposed approach.
The reminder of this study is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the assumptions, notations, and
formulation of the proposed MPMP model. Section 3 is dedicated to defuzzification procedure which discusses
solving procedure. Section 4 provides a numerical example to investigate the feasibility of applying the
proposed procedure. Finally, conclusions and further recommendations are derived in section 5.
2. Problem formulation
In this section the original NLFGP is formulated for MPMP production planning problem. The considered
problem is stated based on the following assumptions:
- The production, inventory, backorder, subcontracting, hiring and dismissing costs are
proportionally related to the production rates, inventory, backorder, and subcontracting levels, and
rate of hiring and dismissing work force, respectively.
- All values of related unit cost coefficients in objective function and constraints are considered to be
deterministically known over planning horizon.
- Piecewise concave linear membership functions are introduced for aspiration levels of each goal
and objectives are defined using terms The total production costs should be less than , Rate of
changes in labor levels in each period should be equal to , and the percentage of machine
utilization should be more than .
- All decision variables related to production, inventory, backlogging, and subcontracting are
positive integer values and variables related to hiring and firing man-hour are real positive values.
- The forecasted demand for each product over a particular period is deterministically known. A
forecasted demand can be either satisfied or backordered.
- Different warehouse spaces are provided for finished goods and semi-produced-goods.

2.1. Notations
- Subscripts
N Number of products.
P
n
Number of processes of product type n.
T Number of periods.
J Number of machine centers.
G Number of goals.
n Index for product type (n=1, 2,..., N).
i Index for processes (i= 1, 2, , P
n
).
t, k Index for planning time period (t and k= 1, 2,, T).
j Index for machine center (j= 1, 2, , J).
g Index for goals (g= 1, 2, , G).

- Goals
K.Taghizadeh,I.Mahdavi

Z
1
Total product costs.
Z
2
Rate of changes in labor levels.
Z
3
Total machine utilization.
- Input parameters
D
nk
Forecasted demand for product type n in period k, (Units).
C
nit
Operation cost of ith process of product type n in period t, ($/Units).
Ec Escalation factor for operation costs, (%).
Cs
nit
Inventory carrying cost per unit of product type n which has completed its ith process in
period t, ($/Unit).
Es Escalation factor for inventory carrying costs, (%).
Cb
nt
Backorder cost of product type n in period t, ($/Unit).
Eb Escalation factor for backorder costs, (%).
Csu
nit
Subcontracting cost of ith process of product type n in period t, ($/Unit).
Esu Escalation factor for subcontracting costs, (%).
Ch
t
Cost of hiring man-hour in period t, ($/Man-hour).
Eh Escalation factor for costs of hiring workers, (%).
Cf
t
Cost of dismissing man-hour in period t, ($/Man-hour).
Ef Escalation factor for costs of dismissing workers, (%).
M
nij
Processing time of ith process of product type n on jth machine in period t, (Machine-
hour/Unit).
Mh
ni
Man-hour usage for processing ith process of product type n, (Man-hour/Unit).
Ws
ni
Warehouse space per unit of product type n which has completed its ith process, (ft
2
/Unit).
Mc
jt
Maximum available capacity of machine center j in period t, (Machine-hour).
Imax
t
Maximum inventory space available for finished products in period t, (ft
2
).
WIPmax
t
Maximum inventory space available for work-in-process inventories in period t, (ft
2
).
Lmax
t
Maximum man-hour available in period t, (Man-hour).
Smax
t
Maximum subcontracted volume available in period t, (Unit).
R An arbitrary large positive number.
- Decision variables
Q
nitt
The total production volume of the ith process of product type n in period t, (Unit).
Q
nitk
The quantity of product type n which has completed its ith process in period t and will be
stored to be used in period k; where k>t, (Unit).
tk nP
n
Q

The quantity of backordered demand of product n in period t that will be fulfilled in period k;
where k>t, (Unit).
Su
nit
Subcontracted volume for ith process of product type n in period t, (Unit).
H
t
Man-hour hired in period t, (Man-hour).
F
t
Man-hour dismissed in period t, (Man-hour).
Bc
nk
1 if demand of product type n is planned to be backordered in period k; =0 otherwise.
In
nk
1 if finished products of type n are planned to be stored in period k; =0 otherwise.
Bh
t
1 if new labors are hired in period t;=0 otherwise.

2.2. Objective functions
Generally there are many functional departments in a manufacturing environment that are involved in
production planning process; each of them has different expectation from production plan. Several objectives for
MPMP problem have been reported in literature including minimizing total cost/maximizing total profit,
minimizing variation in material and labor levels (quantitative objectives) and maximizing customer satisfaction
(qualitative objective) [3], [21], [35]. This study attempts to simultaneously net present value of production cost,
and changes in labor levels within periods as well as maximizing machine utilization.
- Minimize production costs
An interactive fuzzy goal programming approach for multi product multi period production planning problem

(1)
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
(1 ) ( ) (1 )
( ) (1 ) (1 )
(
n n
n
n
P P N T N T T
t t
nitt nit nitk nit
n i t n i t k t
P N T T N T
t t
nP tk nt nit nit
n k t k n i t
MinZ Q C Ec k t Q Cs Es
t k Q Cb Eb Su Csu Esu
= = = = = = = +
= = = + = = =
~ + + + +
+ + + +


1
(1 ) (1 ) ).
T
t t
t t t t
t
H Ch Eh F Cf Ef
=
+ + +

- Minimize changing rates of labors
(2)
{ }
2 2
( ) | .
t t
MaxZ Min f H F t T ~ e
- Maximize machine utilization
(3)
1 1 1 1
3
1 1
( )
.
n
P N T J
nitt nij
n i t j
J T
jt
j t
Q M
MaxZ
Mc
= = = =
= =

The Symbol ~ represents equivalency under fuzzy conditions and refers to the fuzzification of the
aspiration levels. In real-world MPMP applications, Equations (1)-(3) are often involved with variations in
DMs judgments. Thus, piecewise linear membership functions are introduced to embed DMs ideas, judgments,
and implicit knowledge within planning process.
Equation (1) demonstrates the net present value of production plan, in this regard the time value of each
cost category in each period is compared with first period. The first term in Equation (1) represents production
related costs which may encompass machine costs, raw material, etc. Inventory carrying costs expressed by the
second term involves holding periods of both semi-products and finished goods. Backlogging costs as the third
term takes into account the interval time between demand and fulfillment (shortage periods). Finally, the fourth
and fifth terms represent the cost associated with subcontracting and hiring/dismissing workforce respectively.
Equation (2) is dedicated to minimize rates of changes of labor levels between periods. In this regard,
2
f
represents the fuzzy membership function of changes of labor levels in each period and figure (1) illustrates its
typical shape. The membership function which is depicted in figure (1) assigns higher values to lower deviations
from zero. Equation (2) attempts to maximize the worst membership value of changes in labor levels over
planning horizon.



0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1500 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500
f
1
(
z
1
)
(H
t
F
t
)
Figure 1. A typical membership function for rat of changes in labor levels
K.Taghizadeh,I.Mahdavi

Equation (3) represents machine utilization which is calculated by dividing production time with total
available machinery time.
2.3. Constraints
- Machine center capacity constraints
(4)

1 1
, .
n
P N
nitt nij jt
n i
Q M Mc t j
= =
s

Equation (4) ensures total utilization of each machine in each period (left hand side) does not exceed the total
available capacity of machine center (right hand side).

- Material balance constraints
(5)
, 1, , , 1, , , 1,
1 1
2, , .
k T
nikk nik n i t k n i k t n i k
t t k
Q Su Q Q Su i n k

= = +
+ = + >

(6)

1 1 1 1
, .
n n n n n
k T T k
nP tk nP tk nP kt nP k nk nP kt
t t k t k t
Q Q Q Su D Q n k
= = + = + =
+ + = +

In a production system, materials in each period should be balanced from two respects: (1)
inventory/shortage and subcontracting levels should be equal to those from previous periods, production
quantity, and demand. (2) The total number of parts at each process is restricted to the total number of available
parts that have completed the previous processes beforehand. In this respect, Equation (5) is proposed here to
make sure that the total number of produced and subcontracted parts in each process does not exceed the total
production and inventory of the previous process (denoted by the first term in the right hand side), and the
number of parts stored for future periods (given by the second term in the right hand side), plus the
subcontracted parts of the previous process (given by the third term in the right hand side).
Similar explanation can be given for Equation (6), where the total produced and subcontracted parts and
inventory of the completed parts should be equal to the forecasted demand of each product and inventory level
for future periods. The market demand in right hand side of Equation 5 is often fuzzy/ imprecise due to the
uncertainty of demand, and supply of competitors in market.

(7)

1 1
0 , .
n n
T T
nP tk nP kt
t k t k
Q Q n k
= + = +
=

Equation (7) is presented here to prevent occurrence of both carrying inventories and planning backorder
for each finished products in any periods.

- Maximum inventory space constraints
(8)
n n
N k T
nP tk nP k
n 1 t 1 k k 1
Q Ws Imax k.
'
' = = = +
s

(9)

1
1 1 1 1
.
n
P N k T
nitk ni k
n i t k k
Q Ws WIPmax k

'
' = = = = +
s

Equation (8) and (9) are formulated to make sure the total inventory levels of finished and semi products do
not exceed the maximum available inventory space for finished and WIP goods.

- Workforce constraints
An interactive fuzzy goal programming approach for multi product multi period production planning problem

(10)

1 1
.
n
P N
nitt ni t
n i
Q Mh Lmax t
= =
s

(11)

, 1, 1
1 1 1 1
.
n n
P P N N
nitt ni ni t t ni t t
n i n i
Q Mh Q Mh H F t

= = = =
= +

Equation (10) limits productions required man-hour to maximum available man-hour. Equation (11)
attempts to balance labor levels between planning periods.

- Subcontracting constraints
(12)

1 1
.
n
P N
nit t
n i
Su Smax t
= =
s

Equation (12) restrict maximum subcontracting items, the maximum subcontracting level is usually
dictated by general managements and is based on subcontracting strategies.

2.4. Linearization
The proposed model is a nonlinear integer programming model because of the nonlinear terms in Equations
(2) and (4).some auxiliary variables and constraint are to be defined to linearize these nonlinear terms of the
model. Thus, the following new Equations are defined.

(13)

2
2
( ) .
t t
MaxZ
f H F t
=
s

(14)

1
, .
n
T
nk nP tk
t k
R Bc Q n k
= +
>

(15)

1
, .
n
T
nk nP kt
t k
R In Q n k
= +
>

(16)
nk nk
Bc I 1 n, k. + s

To linearize the proposed model, Equation (2) should be replaced with Equation (13), indeed, Equation (4)
should be substituted with Equations (14)-(15).

3. Defuzzification

3.1. Objective functions
Both fuzzy decision making concept of Bellman and Zadeh [5] and fuzzy goal programming method
presented by Hannan [10] are utilized to develop a procedure in order to transform the original FGP model to a
single objective LP model which can defiantly be solved by simplex method. In this regard, piecewise linear
membership functions are adopted to represent all fuzzy goals and minimum operator is used to aggregate all
fuzzy sets. Following steps demonstrate the procedure of converting the FGP to a LP model:
Step1. Specify the type of goal (inequality/equality) and degree of membership f
g
(z
g
) for several values for
each of the objective functions z
g
, g=1, 2,,G.
Step2. Draw the piecewise linear membership functions for each objective based on data acquired in the
first step.
K.Taghizadeh,I.Mahdavi

Step3. Break each goal of type equality (f

2
(Z
2
)) into left and right membership functions (f
2
-
(Z
2
), f
2
+
(Z
2
)) and
modify table of member ship function as Table(2).
















Step3. Assume
g g gr g gr
f ( z ) t z S = + to be linear function of each objectives segments
g ,r 1 g gr
X Z X

s s in which
gr
t , and
gr
S are the slope and y-intercept of the linear segment.
Step4. Calculate
g g
g ,P 1 g1 g ,P 1 g1
g ,e 1 ge
ge g g
t t S t
t t
, ,
2 2 2
+ +
+
+ +

= = = and convert the membership

function f
g
(z
g
) in to the following form:
.
(17)
g
P
g g ge g ge g g g
e 1
f ( z ) z X z g 1,2,...,G.
=
= + + =

now by expanding Equation (17), Equation (18) would be formulated as follow:

(18)

g g g
g
g
g2 g1 g3 g2
g g g g1 g g2
g,P 1 gP g ,P 1 g1
g gP g
g ,P 1 g1
t t t t
f ( z ) z X z X ...
2 2
t t t t
z X z
2 2
S S
g 1,2,
2
+ +
+
| | | |
=
| |
\ . \ .
+ | | | |
+ +
| |
| |
\ . \ .
+
=
g
...,G, e 1,2,...,P . =

where P
g
is the numbers of breakpoints of gth goal.
Step5. Introducing the non-negative divisional variables.
(19)
g ge ge ge g
z d d X g 1,2,...,G, e 1,2,...,P .
+
+ = = =
Equation (20) is derived from Equations (18), (19).
Step6. For objectives of type equality, add auxiliary variables and constraints (21).
Step7. By introducing the auxiliary variable , as a minimum operator, the proposed FGP model can be
converted to ordinary single objective LP model (Equation (22)).

Z
1
>X
10
X
10
X
11
X
12
. X
1p
X
1P+1
< X
1P+1

f
1
(z
1
) 0 0 q
11
q
12
. q
1p
q
1P+1
q
1P+1

Z
2
>X
20
X
20
X
21
X
22
X*
ij
X
1p
X
1P+1
<X
1p+1
f
2
(z
2
) 0 0 q
21
q
21
1 q
2p
0 0
Z
3
>X
30
X
30
X
31
X
32
. X
3p
X
3P+1
< X
3P+1

f
3
(z
3
) 0 0 q
31
q
32
. q
3p
q
3P+1
q
3P+1

Z
1
>X
10
X
10
X
11
X
12
. X
1p
X
1P+1
< X
1P+1

f
1
(z
1
) 0 0 q
11
q
12
. q
1p
q
1P+1
q
1P+1

Z
2
-
>X
-
20
X
-
20
X
-
21
X
-
22
. X
-
2,p/2
X
-
2,P/2+1
f
2
-
(z
2
) 0 0 q
-
21
q
-
22
. q
-
2,p/2
1
Z
2
+

>X
+
20
X
+
20
X
+
21
X
+
22
. X
+
2,p/2
X
+
2,P/2+1
f
2
+
(z
2
) 0 0 q
+
21
q
+
22
. q
+
2,p/2
1
Z
3
>X
30
X
30
X
31
X
32
. X
3p
X
3P+1
< X
3P+1

f
3
(z
3
) 0 0 q
31
q
32
. q
3p
q
3P+1
q
3P+1

Table 1. Membership function of f
g
(Z
g
)
Table 2. Modified membership function of f
g
(Z
g
)
Note:0 q
ij
1, q
ij
q
ij+1
i=1,2 j=1,2,,p
g
.
An interactive fuzzy goal programming approach for multi product multi period production planning problem

(20)

( ) ( )
( )
g g g
g g
g
g2 g1 g3 g2
g g g1 g1 g2 g2
g,P 1 gP g ,P 1 g1
gP gP g
g ,P 1 g1
t t t t
f ( z ) d d d d ...
2 2
t t t t
d d z
2 2
S S

2
+ +
+ +
+
+
| | | |
= + +
| |
\ . \ .
+ | | | |
+ + +
| |
| |
\ . \ .
+
g
g 1,2,...,G, e 1,2,...,P . = =


(21)
t t t
t t t
2 2 2 2 t
2 2 2 2
R Bh ( H F ) t.
R ( 1 Bh ) ( H F ) t.
f ( z ) f ( z ) R( 1 Bh )
f ( z ) f ( z ) R( 1
+
+
>
<
>
s +
t
2 2 2 2 t
2 2 2 2 t
Bh )
f ( z ) f ( z ) R( Bh )
f ( z ) f ( z ) R( Bh ).

>
s


(22)
g g
g g
g g
g ,P 1 gP
g 2 g1 g3 g 2
g1 g1 g 2 g 2 gP gP
g ,P 1 g1 g ,P 1 g1
g g
Max
t t
t t t t
s.t : ( d d ) ( d d ) ... ( d d )
2 2 2
t t S S
z g 1,3 e 1,2,..., P
2 2

+
+ + +
+ +
| | | | | |
s + + + +
|
| |
|
\ . \ .
\ .
+ + | |
+ = =
|
|
\ .
2 2 t
2 2 t
2 2 t
2 2 t
t t t
f ( z ) R( 1 Bh )
f ( z ) R( 1 Bh )
f ( z ) R( Bh )
f ( z ) R( Bh ).
R Bh ( H F )
+
+

>
s +
>
s
>
t t t
g ge ge ge
t.
R ( 1 Bh ) ( H F ) t.
z d d X g, e.
+

<
+ =
Eqs. (4)-(6),(8)-(12),(14)-(16)


3.2. Solving procedure
The block diagram of solving procedure is demonstrated in Figure (2) the proposed procedure enables the
DM to adjust search direction through each run until satisfactory results obtained.

4. An illustrative numerical example

4.1. Data description
In order to implement the proposed FGP model, a production system including three products is generated.
The system encompasses five machine centers and each product goes through four machine centers according to
K.Taghizadeh,I.Mahdavi

10

its own production sequence. Figure (3) depicts operational sequence including machine processing time for
each product. Tables (3)-(6) summarized problem parameters.














Product Process C
ni
Cs
ni
Csu
ni
Mh
ni
Ws
ni
Cb
n

1 1 100 145 180 1.0 1.5
2 120 235 185 1.2 2.3
3 125 255 400 1.4 1.8
4 135 265 500 1.0 1.9 65
2 1 150 115 130 2.6 1.8
2 150 235 200 0.8 2.6
3 150 255 185 2.5 2.0
4 165 265 200 1.8 2.5 34
3 1 145 115 195 1.1 1.7
2 160 235 185 2.3 2.7
3 150 255 400 0.9 2.5
4 140 265 500 0.8 3.0 81


Products Periods 1 2 3
1 105 110 155
2 110 100 90
3 75 50 55


MC Periods 1 2 3
1 2500 2500 2500
2 2500 2500 2500
3 2000 2000 2000
4 3000 3000 3000
5 2400 2400 2400
Product 1
Product 2
Product 3
Start
Figure 2. Interactive procedure of solving FGP
Yes
No
Formulate the original FGP
Acquire required data regarding objective
functions
Convert FMOLP into ordinary LP model
Solve the ordinary LP
Is the result
satisfactory?
End
Adjust objective functions break points
MC1

MC5
MC2

MC4
MC3
4
15
10
15
7 6
18
9
18
7
10
10
Figure 3. Machine order visit
Table 3. Production data
Table 4. Market demand
Table 5. Machine capacity
An interactive fuzzy goal programming approach for multi product multi period production planning problem

11

Other complementary information is given as follows:

- Escalation factors assumed to be 0.1.
- The initial available labor level in period 1 is 700 and maximum level of workforce in each period is
2000.
- Costs associated with hiring and dismissing man-hour are equal to 10($/man-hour).
- There is no initial inventory and no end inventory is required.
- The available space of finished products warehouse and WIP warehouse are equal to 200 and 100 ft
2
.
- Based on subcontracting strategy plan, the maximum allowable numbers of subcontracted items are
equal to 450, 200, and 200 in periods respectively.
4.2. Model implementation
Considering the aforementioned procedure, the proposed MPMP problem can be formulated as follows.
First the degree of membership functions for different values of goals should be specified by DM, as listed in
Table (6), Figure (1), (4), and (5) depict the corresponding shapes of goals .


z
1
>$710,917 $700,917 $ 690,000 $ 679,200 $ 669,400 $ 642,698 $ 630,000
f
1
(z
1
) 0 0 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.0
z
2
<-1000 -700 -450 0 400 900 1000
f
2
(z
2
) 0 0 0.7 1 0.85 0 0
z
3
< 0.644 0.645 0.648 0.652 0.657 0.662 0.665
f
3
(z
3
) 0 0 0.45 0.69 0.88 1.0 1.0





Consequently, by applying the auxiliary variable , which specifies the total satisfaction rate of DM, the
FGP model for MPMP problem can be converted to a single objective LP model. The complete LP model can be
formulated as follow:

6 6 6
11 11 12 12 13 13
5
1
2 t t
Max
S.t. 4.43116 10 ( d d ) 3.68481 10 ( d d ) 8.33156 10 ( d d )
2.01926 10 z 14.5443
f ( H F )
+ + +

s + + +
+
s
31 31 32 32 33 33
3
g ge ge ge
t
-45.87019579 (d d ) 10.6122449 ( d d ) 8.205390373 ( d d )
87.05256052 z 55.8533
z d d X
+ + +
+

s + + + +

+ = g 1,3, e =

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
64% 65% 65% 66% 66% 67% 67%
f
3
(
z
3
)
MachineUtilization(%)
Table 6. Piecewise linear membership functions
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
$620,000 $640,000 $660,000 $680,000 $700,000 $720,000
f
1
(
z
1
)
TotalCost($)
Figure 4. Piecewise linear member ship function (z
1
,f
1
(z
1
)) Figure 5. Piecewise linear member ship function (z
3
,f
3
(z
3
))
K.Taghizadeh,I.Mahdavi

12

t t t
t t t
H dh dh 400 t
-F df df 450
+
+
+ =
+ =
4
2 t t t t t t t
4
2 t t t t t t
t
f ( H F ) 6.625 10 ( dh dh ) 1.0375 ( H F ) 1.265 R( 1 bh ) t
f ( H F ) 6.625 10 ( dh dh ) 1.0375 ( H F ) 1.265 R( 1 bh
+
+

> + +
s + + +
t
3 3
2 t t t t t t t
3 3
2 t t t t t t t
) t
f ( H F ) 1.066667 10 ( df df ) 1.733333 10 ( H F ) 1.48 R( bh ) t
f ( H F ) 1.066667 10 ( df df ) 1.733333 10 ( H F ) 1.48 R( bh ) t
Eqs. (4)-(6),(8)-(12),(1
+
+

> + + +
s + + + +
4)-(16)

Finally the crisp single objective LP model is solved by LINGO

9.0 and optimum solution is

demonstrated in Table 7.

Total satisfactory
Degree
0.139
Production
cost
$695,558
The highest change
of labor level
818.2
Machine
utilization
0.646
Production
quantities
Q
1,1,1,1
=163,Q
1,2,1,1
=191, Q
1,3,1,1
=151, Q
1,4,1,1
=0, Q
2,1,1,1
=48, Q
2,2,1,1
=48, Q
2,3,1,1
=0, Q
2,4,1,1
=0, Q
3,1,1,1
=3, Q
3,2,1,1
=49,
Q
3,3,1,1
=49, Q
3,4,1,1
=0 ,Q
1,1,2,2
=116, Q
1,2,2,2
=116, Q
1,3,2,2
=104, Q
1,4,2,2
=0, Q
2,1,2,2
=74, Q
2,2,2,2
=74, Q
2,3,2,2
=50, Q
2,4,2,2
=1,
Q
3,1,2,2
=42, Q
3,2,2,2
=42, Q
3,3,2,2
=6, Q
3,4,2,2
=0, Q
1,1,3,3
=63, Q
1,2,3,3
=63, Q
1,3,3,3
=75, Q
1,4,3,3
=76, Q
2,1,3,3
=179, Q
2,2,3,3
=179,
Q
2,3,3,3
=0, Q
2,4,3,3
=172, Q
3,1,3,3
=86, Q
3,2,3,3
=89, Q
3,3,3,3
=125, Q
3,4,3,3
=120
Inventories Q
1,1,1,2
=0, Q
1,1,1,3
=0, Q
1,2,1,2
= 0, Q
1,2,1,3
=0, Q
1,3,1,2
=0, Q
1,3,1,3
=0, Q
1,4,1,2
=7, Q
1,4,1,3
=79, Q
2,1,1,2
=0, Q
2,1,1,3
=0, Q
2,2,1,2
= 0,
Q
2,2,1,3
=0, Q
2,3,1,2
=0, Q
2,3,1,3
=0, Q
2,4,1,2
=0, Q
2,4,1,3
=0, Q
3,1,1,2
=0, Q
3,1,1,3
=0, Q
3,2,1,2
= 0, Q
3,2,1,3
=0, Q
3,3,1,2
=0, Q
3,3,1,3
=0,
Q
3,4,1,2
=0, Q
3,4,1,3
=0, Q
1,1,2,3
=0, Q
1,2,2,3
=12, Q
1,3,2,3
= 1, Q
1,4,2,3
=0, Q
2,1,2,3
=0, Q
2,2,2,3
=3, Q
2,3,2,3
=0, Q
2,4,2,3
=0, Q
3,1,2,3
=0,
Q
3,2,2,3
=36, Q
3,3,2,3
= 0, Q
3,4,2,3
=18
Backorders Q
1,4,2,1
=0, Q
1,4,3,1
=0, Q
2,4,2,1
= 62, Q
2,4,3,1
=26, Q
3,4,2,1
=0, Q
3,4,3,1
=0, Q
1,4,3,2
=0, Q
2,4,3,2
=92, Q
3,4,3,2
=44,
Subcontracts SU
1,1,1
=28, SU
1,2,1
=0, SU
1,3,1
=40, SU
1,4,1
=191, SU
2,1,1
=0, SU
2,2,1
=0, SU
2,3,1
=48, SU
2,4,1
=48, SU
3,1,1
=46, SU
3,2,1
=0, SU
3,3,1
=0,
SU
3,4,1
=49, SU
1,1,2
=0, SU
1,2,2
=0, SU
1,3,2
=0, SU
1,4,2
=103, SU
2,1,2
=0, SU
2,2,2
=0, SU
2,3,2
=21, SU
2,4,2
=70, SU
3,1,2
=0, SU
3,2,2
=0,
SU
3,3,2
=0, SU
3,4,2
=6, SU
1,1,3
=0, SU
1,2,3
=0, SU
1,3,3
=0, SU
1,4,3
=0, SU
2,1,3
=0, SU
2,2,3
=0, SU
2,3,3
=182, SU
2,4,3
=10, SU
3,1,3
=3,
SU
3,2,3
=0, SU
3,3,3
=0, SU
3,4,3
=5
Labor hiring and
dismissing
H
1
=226.9, H
2
=0.5, H
3
=818.2, F
1
=0, F
2
=0, F
3
=0




Figure (6) depicts the trend of changes in objectives values where the model is solved as a single objective
model for each goal as well as results obtained from solving FGP model.
5. Conclusions
This study presents a novel FGP model for MPMP production planning model. The proposed model
attempts to simultanously minimize net present value of production costs, rates of changes in workforce level, as
well as maximizing machine utilization in regard to issues such as production capactiy, maximum inventory and
labor levels. The original NLFGP model is transformed to FLGP model by applying approprate linearization of
non-linear terms. Fuzzy piecewise linear membership functions have been introduced to cater impercision and
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
610000
620000
630000
640000
650000
660000
670000
680000
690000
700000
710000
cost
optimization
machine
utilization
optimization
labor
optimization
FGP
cost
laborchanges
machineutilization
Table 7. Optimum solution obtained from solving FGP
Figure 6. Objectives values regarding single objective optimization
An interactive fuzzy goal programming approach for multi product multi period production planning problem

13

vagueness of DMs aspiration levels. Furthermore, a novel procedure is developed to aggregation all fuzzy goals
and to convert the FLGP model to a single objective LP model. the proposed model has the capability of dealing
with goals of type equality and inequality. Moreover, a solving procidure is suggetsted to adjust search diraction
during solving process in order to assisit the DM to reach to the most satistfactory results. Finally, a numerical
example demonstrates the feseability of applying the proposed procedure.
The proposed model and solving procedure is still open for incorporation other features in future research.
Some guldlines for future researchs can be outlined as follow:
- Considering the MPMP problem with fuzzy parametes and constraints and developing appropriate
solving procedures.
- Application of metahuristic approachs to solve the proposed model for real-sized problems.
- Aplication of solving procedures to deal with non-concave membership functions.
References
[1] Shi, Y., Hasse, C., "Optimal trade-offs of aggregate production planning with multiple objective
and multi-capacity demand levels", International Journal of Operations and Quantitative
Management,Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 127-143, 1996.
[2] Holt, C.C., Modigliani, F., Simon, H.A., "Linear decision rule for production and employment
scheduling", Management Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-30, 1955.
[3] Wang, R.C., Liang, T.F., "Application of fuzzy multi-objective linear programming to aggregate
production planning", Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 46, NO. 1, pp. 17-41, 2004.
[4] Zadeh, L.A., "Fuzzy sets", Information and Control, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 338-353, 1965.
[5] Bellman, R.E., Zadeh, L.A., "Decision making in a fuzzy environment", Management Science, Vol.
17, No. 4, pp. 141-164, 1970.
[6] Wang, R.C., Fang, H.H., "Aggregate production planning with multiple objectives in a fuzzy
environment", European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 133, No. 3, pp. 521-536, 2001.
[7] Zimmermann, H.J., "Description and optimization of fuzzy sets", International Journal of General
Systems, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 209-215, 1976.
[8] Zimmermann, H.J., "Fuzzy programming and linear programming with several objective
functions", Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 45-55, 1978.
[9] Narasimhan, R., "Goal programming in a fuzzy environment", Decision Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 2,
pp. 325-336, 1980.
[10] Hannan, E.L., "Linear programming with multiple fuzzy goals", Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 6,
No. 3, pp. 235-248, 1981.
[11] Leberling, H., "On finding compromise solutions in multi criteria problems using the fuzzy min-
operator", Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 105-118, 1981.
[12] Luhandjula, M.K., "Compensatory operations in fuzzy programming with multiple objectives",
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 245-252, 1982.
[13] Chen, L.H., Tsai, F.C., "Fuzzy goal programming with difference importance and priorities",
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 133, No. 3, pp. 548-556, 2001.
[14] Chanas, S., Kuchta, D., "Fuzzy goal programming one notation many meanings", Control and
Cybernetics, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 871-890, 2002.
[15] Hashemi, S.M., Ghatee, M., Hashemi, B "Fuzzy goal programming: Complementary slackness
conditions and computational schemes", Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 179, No. 2, pp.
506-522, 2006.
[16] Yaghoubi, M.A., Tamiz, M., "A method for solving fuzzy goal programming problems based on
MINMAX approach", European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 177, No. 3, pp. 1580-1590,
2007.
K.Taghizadeh,I.Mahdavi

14

[17] Hop, N.V., "Fuzzy stochastic goal programming problems", European Journal of Operational
Research, Vol. 176, No. 1, pp. 77-86, 2007.
[18] Chang, C.T., "Binary fuzzy goal programming", European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.
180, No. 1, pp. 29-37, 2007.
[19] Hu, C.F., Teng, C.T., Li, S.Y., "A fuzzy goal programming approach to multi-objective
optimization problem with priorities", European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 176, No. 3, pp.
1319-1333, 2007.
[20] Saad, G., "An overview of production planning model: Structure classification and empirical
assessment", International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 105-114, 1982.
[21] Bakir, M., Byrne, D., "Stochastic linear optimization of an MPMP production planning model ",
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 87-96, 1998.
[22] Byrne, D., Bakir, M., "Production planning using a hybrid simulation-analytical approach",
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 305-311, 1999.
[23] Kim, B., Kim, S., "Extended model for a hybrid production planning approach", International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 73, No. 2, pp. 165-173, 2001.
[24] Byrne, M.D., Hossain, M.M., "Production planning: An improved hybrid approach", International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 93, No. 94, pp. 225-229, 2005.
[25] Chen, Y.K., Lio, H.C., "An investigation on selection of simplified aggregate production planning
strategies using MADM approaches", International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41, No. 14,
pp. 3359-3374, 2003.
[26] Noori, S., Bagherpour, M., Zorriasatine, F., Makui, A., Parkin, R., "A new project scheduling
approach for improving multi-product multi-period production planning", Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 222, No. 11,
pp. 1517-1527, 2008.
[27] Bagherpour, M., Zareei, A., Noori, S., Heydari, M., "Designing a control mechanism using earned
value analysis: an application to production environment", International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, (doi: 0.1007/s00170-009-2406-z).
[28] Kazemi Zanjani, M., Nourelfath, M., Ait-Kadi, D., "Robust production planning in a
manufacturing environment with random yield: Acase in sawmill production planning", European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 201, No. 3, pp. 882-891, 2010.
[29] Rinks, D.B., "The performance of fuzzy algorithm models for aggregate planning and different
cost structure", North-Holland: Amesterdom, 1982.
[30] Gen, M., Tsujimura, Y., Ida, K., "Method for solving multi objective aggregate production
planning problem with fuzzy parameters", Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 1-4,
pp. 117-120, 1992.
[31] Wnag, R.C., Fang, H.H., "Aggregate production planning in a fuzzy environment", International
Journal of Industrial Engineering/Theory, Applications and Practice, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 5-14, 2000.
[32] Wnag, R.C., Fang, H.H., "Aggregate production planning with multiple objectives in a fuzzy
environment", European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 133, No. 3, pp. 521-536, 2001.
[33] Dai, L., Tsai, F.C., "aggregate production planning utilizing a fuzzy linear programming", Journal
of Integrated Design and Process Science, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 81-95, 2003.
[34] Jamalnia, A., Soukhakian, M.A., "A hybrid fuzzy goal programming approach with different goal
priorities to aggregate production planning", Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 56, No. 4, pp.
1474-1486, 2009.