The choice of dispatching rules in a shop using internally set due-dates with quoted leadtime and tardiness costs

International Journal of Production Research

Volumn 38, Issue 7, 2000, Pages 1641-1655

  Philipoom, Patrick R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION; COSTS; FUNCTIONS; MANUFACTURE; OPTIMIZATION; PLANNING; PROCESSING; PRODUCTION; SCHEDULING;

TARDINESS COSTS;

DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS;

EID: 0034630792     PISSN: 00207543     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/002075400188771     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Baker, K.R., 1974, Introduction to Sequencing and Scheduling (New York: Wiley).
2. Baker, K.R., and Bertrand, J.W.M., 1981. A Comparison of Due-Date Selection Rules, IIE Transactions, 13, 123-131.
3. Blackstone, J.H., Phillips, D.T., and Hogg, G.L., 1982, A state-of-the-art survey of dispatching rules for manufacturing job shop operations, International Journal of Production Research, 20, 27-45.
4. Bookbinder, J.H., and Noor, A.I., 1985, Setting job-shop due-dates with service-level constraints, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36, 1017-1026.
5. Conway, R.W., 1965, Priority dispatching and job lateness in a job shop, Journal of Industrial Engineering, 16, 228-237.
6. Duenyas, I., 1995, Single facility due date setting with multiple customer classes, Management Science, 4, 608-619.
7. Eilon, S., and Chowdhury, I.G., 1976, Due-date in job shop scheduling, International Journal of Production Research, 14, 223-238.
8. Hill, T., 1991, Production/Operations Management, Text and Cases (New York: Prentice Hall).
9. Melnyk, S.A., Ragatz, G.L., and Fredendall, L., 1991, Load smoothing by the planning and order review/release systems: a simulation experiment, Journal of Operations Management, 10, 512-523.
10. Neter, J., Wasserman, W., and Whitmore, G.A., 1993, Applied Statistics, 4th edn (Boston: Allyn and Bacon).
11. Panwalker, S.S., and Iskander, W., 1977, A survey of dispatching rules, Operations Research, 25, 45-61.
12. Philipoom, P.R., Rees, L.P., and Wiegmann, L., 1994, Using neural networks to determine internally-set due-date assignments for shop scheduling, Decision Sciences, 25, 825-851.
13. Philipoom, P.R., Weigmann, L., and Rees, L.P., 1997, Cost-based due-date assignment with the use of classical and neural-network approaches, Naval Research Logistics, 44, 21-46.
14. Pritsker, A.A.B., Sigal, C.E., and Hammesfahr, R.D.J., 1994, SLAM II: Network Models for Decision Support (Princeton, NJ: The Scientific Press).
15. Ragatz, G.L., and Mabert, V.A., 1984, A simulation analysis of due date assignment rules. Journal of Operations Management, 5, 27-39.
16. Ragatz, G.L., and Mabert, V.A., 1988, An evaluation of order release mechanisms in a job-shop environment. Decision Sciences, 19, 167-189.
17. SAS Institute Inc., 1985, SAS User's Guide.' Statistics, Version 5 Edition (Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.).
18. Schrage, L., 1991, LINDO User's Manual (San Francisco, CA: The Scientific Press).
19. Stalk, G., 1988, Time-the next source of competitive advantage, Harvard Business Review, 4, 41-51.
20. Weeks, J.K., 1979, A simulation study of predictable due-dates, Management Science, 25, 363-373.
21. Weeks, J.K., and Fryer, J.S., 1976, A simulation study of operating policies in a hypothetical dual-constrained job shop, Management Science, 22, 1362-1371.
22. Wein, L., and OU, O., 1991, The impact of processing time knowledge on dynamic job-shop scheduling, Management Science, 37, 1002-1014.
23. Welch, P.D., 1981, On the Problem of the Initial Transient in Steady-State Simulation (Yorktown Heights, NY: IBM Watson Research Center); 1983, The statistical analysis of simulation results. The Computer Performance Modeling Handbook, edited by S.S. Lavenberg (New York: Academic Press), pp. 268-328.
24. Welch, P.D., 1981, On the Problem of the Initial Transient in Steady-State Simulation (Yorktown Heights, NY: IBM Watson Research Center); 1983, The statistical analysis of simulation results. The Computer Performance Modeling Handbook, edited by S.S. Lavenberg (New York: Academic Press), pp. 268-328.