2010 Management and Control of Production Logistics

University of Coimbra, Portugal

September 8-10, 2010

A new formulation for a variant of the Capacitated Lot Sizing and Scheduling
Problem with Sequence Dependent setup costs and times: Single machine, multiple
products and periods
I. Chaieb Memmi*, S. Hammami*

* ESTI, 45 Rue des Entrepreneurs, Charguia II, 2035 Tunis Carthage, Tunisia
(Tel: 216-71-941-579; e-mail: memmi_i@yahoo.fr, sondeshammami@yahoo.fr )

Abstract: We present in this paper a new formulation of the Capacitated Lot sizing and Scheduling
Problem with Sequence Dependent set up cost and times (CLSPSD) problem, well known as an NP-Hard
problem. We formulate the problem as a non linear model and use it to modify a lot sizing problem
described in literature and applied to a real-life problem of a Canadian paper maker where the paper
machine represents the bottleneck resource and consequently requires an efficient production planning
approach optimizing resource utilization and minimizing production, setup and inventory costs. In these
previous works, the dependency of the costs and times with the production sequences is not thoroughly
dealt with. We prove that by really treating the problem of determining the production sequences, we
handle to considerably reduce the supply chain total cost. This cost includes production costs, inventory
holding costs, start up and setup costs. The reduction in the total cost varies from 6 to 52% when setup
costs vary from 20% to 200% of inventory holding costs.

some other researches having dealt with the lot sizing

1. INTRODUCTION
A supply chain consists of all parties involved, directly or
indirectly, in fulfilling a customer request. The supply chain
includes not only the manufacturer and suppliers, but also
transporters, warehouses, retailers, and even customers
themselves. Within each organization, such as manufacturer,
the supply chain includes all functions involved in receiving
and filling a customer request.
To encounter the fierce competitions encompassed in today’s
global market, companies have to well manage their supply
chains. A proper management of supply chain systems leads
to significantly increase profit and reduce operation costs. A
wide variety of models for production planning and inventory
management are offered in the literature. Lot sizing problems
over a planning horizon make plans that minimize cost while
satisfying forecasted external demands. These problems are
classified in (Jans and Degraeve, 2004) into two classes:
- The continuous time-scale, constant demand and
infinite time horizon lot sizing problems. The
famous Economic Order Quantity model (EOQ) and
the Economic Lot Scheduling Problem (ELSP)
belong to this category;
- The discrete time scale, dynamic demand and finite
time horizon lot sizing models. In general, we refer
to this type of planning as dynamic lot sizing.
We are interested in this paper to the second category of lot
sizing problems. A second classification of Lot Sizing
Models is provided in (Jans and Degraeve, 2007), see
Table 1. This classification will be discussed section 2 where
problems with set up costs dependent on sequences are
described. In section three, we describe a real-life problem of
a Canadian paper maker where the paper machine represents
the bottleneck resource and consequently requires an efficient
production planning approach, optimizing resource utilization
and minimizing production, setup and inventory costs. This
problem has already been treated in (Bouchriha et al., 2007)
and we aim to study the profits in total cost that offer the
relaxation of some assumptions; in fact, we no more impose
that a predetermined production sequence must be
maintained, or that all the types of products must be
manufactured at each production period. Consequently, we
change the model described by the authors in a Capacitated
Lot sizing and Scheduling Problem with Sequence
Dependent set up cost and times, and evaluate the benefits of
this model on the total cost considered.
The forth section presents results and simulations whereas the
last one concludes our work and offers some perspectives.
Table 1. Lot Sizing Models
The single item uncapacitated lot
sizing problem (ULS)
Lot Sizing The Capacitated Lot Sizing Problem
Models (CLSP)
Small bucket models
Multi-Level Lot Sizing
2. LITERATURE REVIEW

978-3-902661-81-4/10/$20.00 © 2010 IFAC 83 10.3182/20100908-3-PT-3007.00019

MCPL 2010
Coimbra, Portugal, Sept 8-10, 2010
Let us define in what follows the variants of lot sizing
problems mentioned in Table 1.
The single item uncapacitated lot sizing problem (ULS): In
its simplest form, the dynamic lot sizing problem tries to find
a production plan that minimizes the total costs of
production, set up and inventory for one item over a multi-
period horizon. This plan has to satisfy deterministic demand.
The capacitated multi-item lot sizing problem (CLSP) is a
typical example of a large bucket model, where many
different items can be produced on the same machine in one
time period. The production capacity of this machine is
limited.
Small bucket models differ from the large bucket ones by an
assumption made, which imposes that, during each time
period; at most one type of item can be produced on the same
machine. This is the case for the Continuous Set Up Lot
Sizing Problem (CSLP).
The Proportional Lot Sizing and Scheduling Problem (PLSP)
relaxes the restriction of allowing production for only one
product in each time period. Nevertheless, in the PLSP, at
most two different items can be produced in each time period.
There is still at most one set up in each period, but the set up
from the previous period can be carried over to the next
period. The Discrete Lot Sizing and Scheduling Problem
(DLSP) differs from the CSLP in that a discrete production
policy is assumed, implying that an item must be produced at
full capacity.
In a Multi-level Lot Sizing problem, the production planning
is not only done at the final level for the finished product, but
also for the components and subassemblies needed to make
this finished product. Production at one level leads to demand
for components at a lower level, and at the highest level,
production is triggered by market demand.
In addition to this set of models described in (Jans and
Degraeve, 2007), authors in (Salomon et al., 1997), consider
another type of lot sizing problems, called the Discrete Lot
sizing and Scheduling Problem with Sequence Dependent set
up cost and times (DLSPSD). So, as it is underlined in the
designation of this lot sizing problem type, setup costs and
times depend on the production sequences retained. To solve
this problem, and based on a transformation of the DLSPSD
into a Travelling Salesman Problem with Time Windows, an
exact solution procedure is developed. The sensitivity of the
proposed approach’s performance is analysed for different
problem characteristics: problem dimension, inventory
holding costs, set-up times and production capacity
utilization. Even if the set-up times are not explicitly taken
into account in the definition of production capacity
utilization, the authors have investigated the relationship
between this capacity and the average CPU-time of their
algorithm.
The authors, in (Haase and Kimms, 2000), deal with lot
sizing and scheduling for a single-stage, single-machine
production systems where set up costs and times are sequence
dependent. They formulate a large-bucket mixed integer
programming which is based on the set of efficient
84
sequences. From this set and in each period, the best
sequence is retained regard to its cost and whether or not each
item’s inventory is empty. Well, even if the tailor-made
enumeration method of the branch-and-bound type solves
problem instances optimally, the important number of
assumptions hindrances applying this method in more general
cases. In fact, the authors assume that:
- if the production of an item starts in a period then
the inventory of the item must be empty at the end
of the previous period,
- the set up is preserved between two adjacent
periods, this means that we must first produce the
item i at period t if this item is the last one produced
in period (t-1),
- for each item, at most one lot will be produced in a
period.
Due to this last assumption, we could no more optimize the
quantities to produce from each item. In fact, optimizing
these quantities may imply to produce the quantities
demanded over two periods, in only the first period.
In (Kovács et al., 2009), the authors develop an approach
partly based on the work of (Haase and Kimms, 2000). They
address the capacitated lot-sizing and scheduling problem
with sequence-dependent setup times and costs (CLSPSD).
They show that the complexity of this large-bucket lot-sizing
problem originates from the series of implicit sequencing
problems that have to be solved for the items produced in
each time period. Consequently, they develop an efficient
algorithm in order to determine during pre-processing all
item sequences that could appear in an optimal solution. A
novel MIP formulation of CLSPSD that relies on a compact
representation of those sequences by using item-related
binary variables is introduced. According to authors, the
model developed allows solving in reasonable time instances
where the product of the number of items and number of time
periods is at most 60–70.
As in (Haase and Kimms, 2000), and both using MIP
techniques, exact optimisation approaches to CLSPSD have
been suggested by (Gupta and Magnusson, 2005). The
authors define a MIP that simultaneously makes the lot-
sizing, and all sequencing decisions within time periods. The
developed approach allows finding optimal solutions only for
very small instances (three items and three time periods). For
larger problems, a heuristic procedure is proposed in the
same paper. The authors recommend using this procedure
when there are many more products than there are planning
periods. From a practical point of view, the procedure
comforts firms which need to solve the problem repeatedly
for a few periods at a time.
In (Bouchriha et al., 2007), a real case study is presented. The
authors discuss a specific lot sizing problem and different
scenarios where a predetermined production sequence has to
be maintained, all types of products have to be produced in
each production period, etc. The production is planned under
a cyclic manner. For this, a new approach is proposed to first
compute the cycle time by assuming constant demand, then,
MCPL 2010
Coimbra, Portugal, Sept 8-10, 2010
lot sizes are determined for each product within each cycle in
order to satisfy demand. When comparing the different
scenarios analysed: fixing a cycle for all products, or the
quantity to produce in each cycle, etc., the authors show that
the scenario fixing each of the cycle and the quantities is the
most expansive. The other scenarios aren’t considerably
different in terms of potential gains. Among theses scenarios,
the last one is the less constrained, in fact, all the products
types have not to be produced in each period, besides, the
production sequences have not to be prefixed. Even though
these assumptions are removed, this scenario does not
rigorously illustrate the CLSPSD problem, we’ll explain
more in detail this point of view when describing the
mathematical model developed by the authors.
We aim in this paper to continue the works presented in
(Bouchriha et al., 2007) and specifically the last scenario
described. We then modify the lot sizing problem on a
Capacitated Lot sizing and Scheduling Problem with
Sequence Dependent set up cost and times, and consider the
single machine variant of this problem, multiple products,
multiple periods and dynamic demands. Our objective is to
really focus on set up costs and times depending on
production sequences. The model we develop determines in
each production period, the lot sizes and the production
sequences. These sequences have not to be respected from
one period to another. Moreover, we are not obliged to
produce all types of products in each period. The set of items
to produce in each period will be dependent on the
optimization of the production batches and different costs.
To recap, we simultaneously try to find, at each period of the
planning horizon, the finished products quantities to
manufacture and the production sequences to adopt. Finding
these production sequences lead us to deal simultaneously
with two planning levels: tactical and operational.
3. MATHEMATICAL MODEL
3.1 Initial Mathematical model
The model described in (Bouchriha et al., 2007) and noted
Model (1), determines optimum production batch size and
setup for each planning period that minimizes the total
inventory, setup and production costs for all products over
the entire planning period. Model (1) is a mixed integer
program described, using notations in Tables 2 and 3, as
follows:
Model (1):
Min ∑ ∑ (hit . I it + bit . Qit + K it . ρ it )
T n
(1)
t =1 i =1
Subject to:
Qit + I it −1 = I it + d it i = 1,..., n, t = 1,..., T (1.1)
n
∑ ( k it ρ it + ait Qit ) = C t t = 1,..., T (1.2)
i =1
qit . ρ it ≤ Qit ≤ M . ρ it i = 1,..., n, t = 1,..., T (1.3)
85
I i0 = K i = 1,..., n (1.4)
I it ≥ SS i = K i = 1,..., n t = 1,..., T (1.5)
ρ it ∈ {0,1} i = 1,..., n t = 1,..., T (1.6)
Qit ≥ 0, I it ≥ 0 i = 1,..., n t = 1,..., T (1.7)
The constraints include material balance (1.1), production
output capacity of machine (1.2) and constraints requiring
setup in periods in which production occurs, constraints (1.3)
and (1.6). Constraint (1.4) implies that an initial inventory
must be fixed in the planning problem. The authors define
this parameter according to the average of the demand.
Constraints (1.5) imply that, at the end of each period, the
stock level must be at least equal to the safety stock level.
Backorders are not allowed, (1.7).
Here, we need to underline that constraints (1.3) impose that
a minimum quantity has to be produced if a setup occurs.
From this Model, we’ll omit in the subsequent paragraph the
terms Kit.ρit, from the objective function, keep constraints
(1.1), (1.2), (1.4), (1.5), (1.7) and modify constraints (1.3)
and (1.6). Our objective is to introduce setup costs incurred
each time we switch from one item’s type to the next.
Table 2. Model (1) Parameters
T Period index (t∈{1, …, T})
IP Set of products to be manufactured on the machine
(IP⊂{1, …, n})
i Product index, i∈IP
hit Inventory holding cost for product i ($/ton per
period), i∈IP
bit Unit production cost ($/ton), i∈IP
Kit Setup cost for product I ($), i∈IP
M A very large number
qit Minimum quantity to produce when a setup occurs
(ton)
dit Demand of item i that corresponds to period t
(ton), i∈IP
kit Setup time for item i at period t (hour), i∈IP
ait Unit of capacity consumption of item i at period t
(hour/ton), i∈IP
Ct Production capacity per period (hour machine)
SSi Safety stock for product i (ton), i∈IP
Ii0 Stock level at the end of the first period (ton),
i∈IP, It is a constant (K)
Table 3. Model (1) Decision variables
ρit Binary variables that corresponds to 1 if the
product is manufactured at period t and 0
otherwise, i∈IP
Qit The quantity of product i to produce ate period t
(ton), i∈IP
Iit Stock level of product I at the end of the period t
(ton), i∈IP
MCPL 2010
Coimbra, Portugal, Sept 8-10, 2010

3.2 Mathematical model for the setup period (t+1) verifies ∑ xl i t +1 = 0 what means only one
i

Taking into account setup costs within production periods product is manufactured after product l, at the period (t+1).
and between period t and period (t+1) involves combining the
following Model to the Model (1) described previously. The Table 4. Model (2) Parameters
notations used here are explained in Tables 4 and 5.
csi Start up costs of product i, i∈IP
⎛n n ⎞ T −1 n n
Min∑ ⎜ ∑ ∑ cijt . xijt ⎟ + ∑ ⎛⎜ ∑ ∑ cklt . y klt ⎞⎟
T cij Setup costs incurred when manufacturing item j
(2)
t =1 ⎝ i =1 j =1, j ≠i ⎠ t =1 ⎝ k =1 l =1,k ≠l ⎠ after item i ($), i, j∈IP
ckl Has the same signification that cij, it is used here
Subject to: just to underline the fact that this setup cost is
incurred between two distinguished periods ($), k,
zit ≤ Qit ∀i ∀t (2.1)
l∈IP
Qit ≤ zit .M ∀i ∀t (2.2)
0 ≤ Posit ≤ ∑ zit ∀i ∀t (2.3)
Table 5. Model (2) Decision variables
i

Posit ≤ zit .M ∀i ∀t (2.4) xijt Binary variables that correspond to 1 if the product
j is manufactured immediately after product i at
zit ≤ Posit .M ∀i ∀t (2.5)
period t and 0 otherwise, i, j∈IP, t∈{1, …, T}
zit + z jt ≤ 1 + Pos jt − Posit ∀i ∀j ≠ i ∀t (2.6) yklt Binary variables that correspond to 1 if product k
is the last product of the production sequence in
1 − xijt ≤ z jt − zit + ( Pos jt − Posit ) − 1 ∀i ∀j ≠ i ∀t (2.7) period t and l the first product of the production
sequence in period t+1, and 0 otherwise, k, l∈IP,
( z kt + zl t +1 + (1 − ∑ xkit ) + (1 − ∑ xil t +1) − 3) ≤ y klt .M (t∈{1, …, T})
i i
(2.8)
∀k , l ∈ {1,.., n}, l ≠ k , ∀t = 1,..., T − 1
zit Binary variables that correspond to 1 if product i is
manufactured in period t and 0 otherwise, i∈IP,
Qit ≥ 0, I it ≥ 0 ∀i, ∀t (2.9) (t∈{1, …, T})
z it ∈ {0,1},
Posit Integer variables that indicate the position of
Posit ∈ IN , ∀i ∀t (2.10)
product i in the production sequence, at period t,
xijt ∈ {0,1}, ∀i ∀j ≠ i ∀t (2.11) i∈IP, (t∈{1, …, T})
si Binary variable that correspond to 1 if product i is
y klt ∈ {0,1}, ∀k ∀l ≠ k ∀t = 1,..., T − 1 (2.12)
the first product manufactured in period 1 and 0
Constraints (2.1) and (2.2) indicate that if we manufacture otherwise, i∈IP
product i in period t then variables zit equal 1, thus, if
amounts Qit are strictly positive then zit equal 1. Relation
between variables zit and Posit are determined by constraints As we can see in Model (2), due to the absolute values, the
(2.3), (2.4) and (2.5). While constraints (2.4) and (2.5) affect mathematical model is a mixed integer non linear program.
0 to Posit when product i isn’t manufactured at period t, i.e. Solving this model with a commercial solver like LINGO
when zit equal 0, constraint (2.3) determine their domains of may give local optimum solutions.
variation. These domains are delimited by 0 and the number
of products manufactured at period t, i.e. the sum of zit. 2.3 CLSPSD mathematical model
Constraints (2.6) avoid attributing the same position in the
production sequence to two different items. In fact, if we The CLSPSD problem is finally formulated as follows:
manufacture products i and j at period t, i.e. if zit and zjt equal
1, then (Posjt-Posit) is necessary greater than 1 or lower than Model (3):
(-1). Constraints (2.7) attribute the value 1 to variables xijt
when products i and j are manufactured at period t (zit and zjt ⎛n ⎞
⎜ ∑ csi . si + ⎟
equal 1) and item’s j position succeeds item’s i position in the ⎜ i=1 ⎟
production sequence, what means product j is manufactured ⎜T ⎛n ⎟
⎞
Min⎜ ∑ ⎜ ∑ (hit . I it + bit . Qit ) + ∑ ∑ cijt . xijt ⎟ + ⎟
n n
immediately after product i (Posjt-Posit=1). Finally constraints (3)
(2.8) imply that if product k has the last position in the ⎜ t =1 ⎝ i=1 i =1 j =1, j ≠i ⎠ ⎟
production sequence at period t and product l has the first ⎜ T −1⎛ n n ⎞ ⎟
position in the production sequence at period (t+1) then the ⎜ + ∑ ⎜ ∑ ∑ cklt . y klt ⎟ ⎟
binary variable yklt equals 1. The last product of the ⎝ t =1 ⎝ k =1 l =1,k ≠l ⎠ ⎠
production sequence at period t verifies ∑ xkit = 0 what Subject to:
i
means no product is manufactured after product k, at the (1.1), (1.2), (1.4), (1.5), and (1.7), (2.1) to (2.12). We have to
period t. The first product of the production sequence at note that in constraints (1.2), variables ρit are substituted by
zit.

86
MCPL 2010
Coimbra, Portugal, Sept 8-10, 2010
And:
si ≤ zi1 ∀i (3.1)
( zi1 + (1 − ∑ xki1) − 1) ≤ si .M ∀i (3.2)
i not very important, we prefer producing just the needed
si ∈ {0,1}, ∀i (3.3)
In the objective function, the first term corresponds to start up
costs, the second to inventory costs, the third to productions
costs, the forth to setup costs within production periods and
the last to setup costs between periods.
Constraints (3.1) assign the value 0 to si if product i is not
produced in the first period and constraints (3.2) assign the
value 1 to si if product i is manufactured in the first period
(zi1=1), and this product is the first product manufactured at
this period, this means that no product precedes i, so
∑ xki1 = 0 .
k
To solve this non linear Integer problem, including O(n2T)
variables and O(n2T) constraints, we use the commercial
solver LINGO version 12.0.
4. RESULTS
In this section, we focus on two points; first, we compare our
results with those published in (Bouchriha et al., 2007),
secondly, we analyse the sensitivity of these results to two
parameters: inventory costs and setup costs.
4.1 Comparison with the initial model (1)
In this paragraph and in order to compare our results to those
described in (Bouchriha et al., 2007), we use the illustrative
example given Table 6.
Table 6. The illustrative example
T 2
IP 3
dit Random number that belongs to the interval
[10,200]
Ii0 Random number that belongs to the interval [0,40]
SSi Random number that belongs to the interval
[0,100]
Ct 100 000 hours
bit Random number that belongs to the interval [1,10]
hit Random number that belongs to the interval [1,10]
cij and Random number that belongs to intervals defined
ckl proportionally to the intervals of hit.
Kit Random number that belongs to intervals defined
proportionally to the intervals of hit.
qit Random number that belongs to the interval
[50,150]
ait Random number that belongs to the interval
[10,20]
kit Random number that belongs to the interval [1,5]
M 109
Here, we analyse two scenarios: important holding costs and
low holding costs. Before, we should explain our interest to
87
these costs. If we observe Model 1, we can obviously notice
that when setup costs are more important than holding costs,
we’ll prefer producing in few periods and stocking important
amounts of products. On the contrary, when setup costs are
quantities of products in each production period in order to
hold small amounts in stocks.
When solving Model 1, we obtain the quantities to produce
and to have in stocks in each production period, and the set of
products to manufacture in each period. However, these sets
of products aren’t scheduled and this is due to the fact that
the problem of setup costs and times depending on sequences
isn’t really dealt with. In our model, we have considered this
dependency and we aim by analyzing these two following
scenarios to demonstrate how the problem of simultaneously
scheduling production and determining lot sizes can modify
the amounts of products to plan each period, so the
scheduling problem can stage-manage the planning problem.
Scenario 1: setup costs = 20% holding costs
Scenario 2: setup costs = 200% holding costs
Since the holding costs are unitary, we have estimated total
holding costs by multiplying the random variables chosen
from the interval [1,10] (Tale 6) by the average demand.
Choosing the average demand is due to the fact that in one
hand, we have no idea about the average level of stocks; in
the other hand the average demand can comfort the two
opposite scenarios: important unitary holding costs, low
unitary holding costs. In fact, when the inventory holding
costs aren’t important, we have tendency to increase the
amounts stocked; in opposite, if the holding costs are
important we try to reduce as possible the amounts stocked.
The obtained results are given Table 7. If we observe
Scenario 2, for Model 1, the way of thinking is, since the
holding costs are not very important, we have to produce, if
the machine’s capacity allows, all the needed amounts of
products and if it is possible, one product type per period (in
our example, we have only two periods, this is why P1 and
P2 are produced on the same period). Well, by solving
simultaneously the lot sizing problem and the scheduling
problem, we obtain different production sequences that lead
to a decrease in the total cost of the supply chain.
It is the same for scenario 1 where setup costs are not very
important, and so we can produce, at each period all the
products’ types; this is well illustrated in Model 1. In fact, we
produce two types of products in period 1 and three in period
2. Our Model proves that simultaneously solving the lot
sizing and scheduling problems don’t systematically lead to
the Model’s 1 conclusion. In fact, by producing three types of
products on period 1 and only one on period 2 we can divide
by two the supply chain total cost.
The same reasoning can be applied to study production costs
versus setup costs.
MCPL 2010
Coimbra, Portugal, Sept 8-10, 2010

Table 7. Results of the illustrative example 4.2 Analysis of the model’s sensitivity
Model 1 Model 4 In this paragraph, we want to compare our results with those
Scenario
1 of Model 1 when varying the setup costs from 20% to 200%
1st period (P1,P2) P3-P2-P1/ of the holding costs. Fig.1 shows that, in all cases, we
- Qit (105 P1,100 P2) (1 P3,265 P2,205 P1) manage to significantly reduce the total cost. This reduction
- Iit (5 P1,40 P2,10 P3) (105 P1,205 P2,11 P3) varies from 6 to 52%. Reducing these costs can be better
2nd period (P1,P2,P3) P3 illustrated when we consider more production periods. As in
- Qit (100 P1,165 P2,150 P3) 24 P3 (Haase and Kimms, 2000) and from a practical point of view,
- Iit (5 P1,5 P2,130 P3) (5 P1,5 P2,5 P3) our model comforts more firms aiming to solve the CLSPSD
problem repeatedly for few periods at a time.
Total cost 5102 $ 2432 $
12000
Scenario
2 10000
1st period (P1,P2) P2-P1/
8000
- Qit (205 P1,265 P2) (65 P2,105 P1)
- Iit (105 P1,205 P2,10 P3) (5 P1,5 P2,10 P3) 6000

nd 4000
2 period (P3) P1-P2-P3
- Qit (105 P3) (100 P1,200 P2,25 P3) 2000
- Iit (5 P1,5 P2,130 P3) (5 P1,5 P2,5 P3)
0

20%

40%

60%

80%
Total cost 8568 $ 5653 $

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

200%
Total cost for CLSPLD Model
Total Cost for Model I

We have to underline that computational times for all the

simulations we have done are about 1 second. Fig. 1. Comparison of total costs when varying the
percentage Setup costs/Holding costs

5. CONCLUSIONS efficient rescheduling opportunities. International

Journal of Production Economics, 66, 159-169.
In this paper, we have dealt with the Capacitated Lot sizing Jans, R. and Z. Degraeve (2007). Meta-heuristics for dynamic
and Scheduling Problem with Sequence Dependent set up lot sizing: A review and comparison of solution
cost and times. The problem we have treated is characterized approaches. European Journal of Operational
by one machine, a dynamic and deterministic demand,
multiple product types and few production periods. We
Research, 177, 1855-1875.
formulate the problem as a non linear mixed integer model Kovács, A., K.N. Browna and A. Tarim (2009). An efficient
and compare our results with those described in (Bouchriha et MIP model for the capacitated lot sizing and scheduling
al., 2007). Even though the optimal solution was not found, problem with sequence dependent setups.
using the solutions provided by the solver LINGO during the International Journal of Production
solution process, we manage to reduce the supply chain total Economics, 118, 282-291.
cost, this cost includes production costs, inventory holding Salomon, M., M.M. Salomon, L.N. Van Wassenhove, Y.D.
costs, start and set up costs. This reduction can significantly Dumas and S. Dauzere-Peres (1997). Solving the
be amplified when we increase the number of production discrete lot sizing and scheduling with sequence
periods. In future works we’ll make use of Meta heuristics in dependent setup costs and setup times using the
order to treat a problem with an important number of product Travelling Salesman Problem with time windows.
types and production periods. European Journal of Operational Research,
100, 494-513.
REFERENCES
Bouchriha, H., M. Ouhimmou and S. D’Amours (2007). Lot
sizing problem on a paper machine under a cyclic
production approach. International Journal of
Production Economics, 105, 318-328.
Gupta, D. and T. Magnusson (2005). The capacitated lot
sizing and scheduling problem with sequence dependent
setup costs and setup times. Computers &
Operations Research, 32, 727-747.
Haase K. and A. Kimms (2000). Lot sizing and scheduling
with sequence-dependent setup costs and times and

88