The classification of FMS scheduling problems

J. LIUt and B. L. MacCARTHYS

This paper proposes a classification scheme for scheduling problems in flexible

manufacturing systems (FMSs) based on an analysis and discussion of scheduling
decisions in an FMS. The classification scheme attempts for the frst time to
identify and describe all the major factors which affect the modelling of, and the
solution to, FMS scheduling problems. It provides a systematic framework for the
description and the analysis of FMS scheduling problems and for the develop-
ment, evaluation and comparison of FMS scheduling approaches. Examples are
given to demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed scheme.

1. Introduction
Flexibility is a major consideration in the design of manufacturing systems.
Flexible manufacturing systems (FMSs) have been developed over the last two
decades to help manufacturing industry move towards the goal of flexibility. An
F M S comprises three principal elements: computer controlled machine tools; a n
automated transport system and a computer control system. An F M S combines high
levels of flexibility with high productivity and low levels of work-in-process inventory.
It may also allow unsupervised production. In order to achieve these desirable
benefits the control system must be capable of exercising intelligent supervisory
management. Scheduling is at the heart of the control system of an FMS. The
development of effective and efficient F M S scheduling strategies remains an impor-
tant and active research area.
However, unlike classical scheduling research, a common language of commu-
nication for FMS scheduling research has not been properly defined. For conven-
tional machine shop scheduling problems, a classification scheme was developed and
has been serving as a systematic framework in classical scheduling theory. Although it
is limited in describing real scheduling problems, within this framework the type of
problems addressed in a research work can be stated concisely. Different methods can
be evaluated and compared for the same type of problems. For F M S scheduling, such
a framework has not been developed. Each research paper addresses a specific FMS
scheduling environment. When a new model or method is developed, its scope is often
not clear. Comparison of different methods is also difficult. In order to analyse and
compare scheduling strategies in F M S and develop more effective and efficient
approaches, it is necessary to have a sound framework within which to define
precisely a specific problem type from the wide range of problems which can occur.
This paper presents a comprehensive classification for F M S scheduling problems
which allows the specification and identification of problem types and problem
instances. It utilizes a classification scheme for F M S configurations recently described

Revision received June 1995.

tDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, The Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
tDepartment of Manufacturing Engineering and Operations Management, The University
of Nottingham, University Park, Ncttingham NG7 2RD, UK.
0020-7543196 S12.00 0 1996 Taylor 5 Francis Lld
648 J. Liu and B. L. MacCarthy

by MacCarthy and Liu (1993). Unlike the scheme for classical machine shops, it
provides a comprehensive description of real F M S scheduling problems because it
takes into account all the significant factors which impact on scheduling decisions.
The paper first discusses terminology and clarifies a number of terms relevant to
FMS scheduling. The nature of scheduling decisions in FMS is then described. This
background discussion provides the basis to identify the major elements affecting
FMS scheduling problems. Finally, a classification scheme using five descriptors is
developed and explained using examples.

2. Clarification of terms and concepts

For a sound and valid classification scheme it is necessary to be precise about the
meaning of terms used. In particular those terms which are used in different ways and
which are potentially ambiguous need discussion and clarification. The following
definitions and clarifications used in the paper are noted:

2.1. Operations and jobs

An operation is defined here as the processing over a continuous time period of a
part (workpiece) on a machine. The transportation of part(s) from one machine to
another in an F M S is referred to as a transport operation. A job is defined here as the
collection of all the operations needed to complete the processing of a part. The terms
job and part may often be used interchangeably as there is usually a one-to-one
correspondence between them.

2.2. Scheduling, sequencing and dispatching

These terms are often used interchangeably and therefore may cause confusion.
In the context of this work scheduling encompasses all the decisions related to the
allocation of resources to operations over the time domain. The nature of these
decisions will be discussed later. Disparching is defined here as either the process or
decision of determining the next operation for a resource when the resource becomes
free and determining the next destination of a part when its current operation has
finished. Dispatching is therefore an elementary method of scheduling. Sequencing is
the decision determining the order in which operations are performed on machines.
For many classical single machine scheduling problems, a sequence determines a
schedule and thus scheduling and sequencing are often used as synonyms. However,
this is not necessarily true in other environments and indeed is untrue in some single
machine cases. For example, when minimizing both earliness and tardiness on a single
machine, scheduling and sequencing are not synonymous as idle times may be present
in the schedule. With routeing flexibility, scheduling and sequencing in F M S
environments are clearly different. Sequencing is only one aspect of scheduling.

2.3. Machine set up, tool changing, loading and part routeing
These concepts are closely related and the following discussion clarifies the view
taken here:
Machine set up is defined here as the process or decision of assigning tools on a
machine, in order to perform the next operation(s), from its initial state o r a working
state arising from a previous operation. A working state for a machine here means a
state under which it can perform certain operations, i.e. tool setting has been
completed for these operations.
Tool chunging has a similar meaning but often implies the change from one
 Classifying FMS scheduling problems 649

working state to another rather than from an initial state of the machine. Two types
of tool changing may be identified in FMS. The first type is choosing the next working
tool from a tool magazine. This is usually done automatically and takes very little
time. This type of tool changing will not be considered here. The second type is
changing the set up of the tool magazine. This type of tool changing has the same
meaning as machine set up. Sometimes it is not necessary to change all the tools in a
tool magazine because some of the tools on the magazine for previous operation(s)
may also be needed by the next operation(s). The time needed for changing may
therefore depend on the number of tools to be changed, i.e., the operation(s) which
will be performed next on the machine. In this case the set up times are said to be
sequence-dependent.
Machine loading is defined here as the process or decision of allocating tools to
machines before the start of a production period with the assumption that the
loaded tools will stay on the machine during the production period. This decision
must consider which operations may be performed on each machine during the
period. Therefore, machine loading also includes the allocation of operations to
machines.
Part routeing is defined here as the process of determining the machines on which
each operation for a part is to be performed, i.e. determining the route or sequence of
machines for each part passing through the system. Machine loading decisions may
result in a unique machine for each operation. It may also result in a situation in
which one operation can be performed optionally on two o r more machines, i.e., all
the tools required for the operation are assigned on each of these machines.
I t can be seen that all the above concepts are concerned with two types of
decisions-assignment of tools and allocation of operations. These two decisions
are inter-dependent. Loading considers both of them. Machine set u p o r tool
changing concentrates on the tool assignment decision either made before the start
of the production period o r during this period, assuming the allocation of
operations is known in advance. Part routeing concentrates o n the operation
allocation decisions, leaving the tool changing decision t o be made later o r
assuming tools are already assigned to the machines.

2.4. Completion time

Job completion times are important variables in scheduling problems since
commonly used performance measures are usually functions of them. However,
with consideration of storage and transport constraints, when a part finishes an
operation o n a machine it may have to wait o n the machine because the machine for
its next operation is not available and there is no vacancy for it in storage butfers or no
material handling device is available to transport it from the current machine to the
next. Therefore completion times need to be redefined. The completion rime for a n
operation of a part on a machine is defined here as the time when the part starts to
leave the machine after having finished the operation (processing). For example, when
a part finishes an operation on a particular machine, it may stay on the machine
because the transportation system is busy. It can be moved to another place only
when a transport device becomes available. According to the above definition the
completion time of the operation of the part on that machine is the time when the part
starts to leave (be moved away from) the machine, not the time when processing
finishes. The completion time of the last operation of a part is defined here as the
completion time of the part or the completion time of the job.
650 J . Liu nnd B. L. MacCar/hy

3. Factors affecting scheduling in FMS

Scheduling is the allocation of resources over time to perform tasks (Baker 1974).
This is a well known and very general definition. In classical scheduling environments
only one resource type is considered (the machines) and the basic scheduling problem
reduces to deciding- the allocation of this resource type
. . to process the jobs. The FMS
environment is different in many respects from the classical machine shop. Many
of the assumptions for basic in classical scheduling theory d o n i t appl;
in FMS scheduling. Table I compares these two scheduling environments. The
items noted in the first column of Table 1 relate to most b a s s classical scheduling
problems. Work has been done to advance the basic theory, particularly with respect
to sequence dependent set up times, but also with flexible process plans for variable
routeing and multiple resource type problems.
In order to develop a structured classification system for F M S scheduling
problems, the following questions need to be addressed in the new environment:
(I) The decisions which need to be made in F M S scheduling problems.
(2) The way FMS scheduling decisions are made.
(3) The factors which affect the decisions and how they are made.
Scheduling in flexible manufacturing systems should include the following three
aspects in order to exploit system flexibility potential:
0 machine set up o r tool changing
part routeing
operation sequencing
The discussion in •˜ 2 has described the relationship between the first two aspects.
Decisions on these two aspects must be made so as to achieve some scheduling
objectives, e.g., maximizing machine utilization. However, before the sequencing
decision is made it is impossible to measure precisely the performance of these two
decisions. The sequencing decision, on the other hand, cannot be made without the
specification of part routeing at the same time or in advance. Therefore, all the three
aspects are closely related to each other. These interconnections of decisions and
additional resource constraints make the scheduling problem in FMS more complex
than that in conventional machine shops.
Different scheduling strategies may be adopted which reflect either an emphasis on

In classical environment In FMS environment

The route for each job
though the machine shop
is fixed.
Set up times are independent
and may be included in
operation times.
Machines are considered as
the only type of constrained
resources.
Flexible routeing: a machine may perform different
types of operations. As a result, a part may have
several optional routes through the system.
Sequence-dependent set ups: different operations need
-different sets of tools. The time and cost for changing
tools between operations on a machine are sequence-
dependent.
More resource types: in addition to machines,
constraints of transport devices, storage buffers and
tool changing devices, etc., need also to be considered.

Table I. Comparison of classical and FMS scheduling environments.

 Classifying FMS scheduling problenzs 65 1

achieving better global optimality o r on reducing complexity. When global optimality

is emphasized it is desirable to consider all the three scheduling decisions and their
interactions concurrently. When a reduction in complexity is emphasized, however,
the following decomposition strategies are often considered (e.g. Shanker and Tzen
1985, Nakamura and Shingu 1987).
0 Loading then sequencing: the loading step assigns operations and tools to
machines and solves the sequencing step in a manner similar to the conven-
tional job shop problem.
0 Routeing then sequencing: the operations are assigned to machine:; such that
for each machine all the operations assigned to it can be performed. on it with
appropriate tools. The sequencing decisions are then made with consideration
of machine set up times between operations.
Factors arising from three aspects (the system itself, job requirements and
management objectives) may affect the scheduling decisions in FMS. Five major
factors are identified and noted below.
0 System type
0 Capacity constraints
0 Job characteristics
0 Production management environment
0 Performance measures

4. Attributes for a classification scheme for FMS scheduling problems

The factors noted in •˜ 3 characterize the FMS scheduling problem and provide the
basis for a comprehensive and practical classification scheme. The following sub-
sections discuss each factor in detail.

4.2. Systenl type

Many different FMS configurations exist and there is considerable confusion
concerning the definition of particular types of FMS. The definition of a flexible
manufacturing cell in particular has resulted in numerous and sometimes conflicting
definitions. MacCarthy and Liu (1993) have addressed these issues in detail and have
presented a new classification scheme for FMS configurations based on their
operational characteristics. A hierarchical framework is presented which includes
four types of systems: a single flexible machine (SFM), a flexible manufacturing cell
(FMC), a multi-machine flexible manufacturing system (MMFMS) and a multi-cell
flexible manufacturing system (MCFMS). In order to avoid repetition, it is not
intended to review the basis for this framework here but the definitions are provided
below for completeness.
A jlexible manufacturing system (FMS) is a production system capable of
producing a variety of part types, which consists of C N C o r N C machine tools
connected by an automated material handling system. The operation of the whole
system is under computer control.
A singleflexible macl~ine(SFM) is a computer controlled production unit which
consists of a single C N C o r N C machine with tool changing capability, a material
handling device and a part storage buffer.
A flexible manufacturing cell (FMC) is a type of FMS consisting of a group of
SFMs sharing one common material handling device.
652 J . Liu and B. L. MacCarthy

A multi-machineflexible manufacturing system (MMFMS) is a type of F M S which

consists of a number of SFMs connected by a n automated material handling system
which includes two o r more material handling devices or is otherwise capable of
visiting and serving two o r more machines a t a time.
A multi-cellflexible manufacturing system (MCFMS) is a type of F M S which
consists of a number of FMCs, and possibly a number of SFMs if necessary, all
connected by a n automated material handling system.
The first definition is for FMS in general. It is sufficiently broad to incorporate all
systems which contain the three key elements noted. The definitions take into account
machine configuration and layout. The four specific types SFM, FMC, M M F M S and
MCFMS are consistent with the general definition. These definitions have proved
effective in identifying the key characteristics of F M S systems and will be used in the
classification of FMS scheduling problems addressed in this paper.
4.2. Capacity coristraints
These indicate the constraint level of the capacity of resources in the system which
may affect the scheduling policy. Apart from the machines the resources which should
be considered include material handling devices, tool changing devices, storage
buffers, pallets and fixtures. The approach which is proposed here is to divide
constraints into three levels: zero capacity, limited capacity and infinite capacity.
For some resources only one o r two levels may apply. For example, as the major
resource in the system, the constraint of machines can only have one level-limited
numbers. In contrast, all three levels may apply to the constraint of a storage buffer.
Zero capacity means that there is no buffer a t that place in the system. Limited
capacity indicates that the buffer can only accommodate a restricted number of parts
a t any one time. When the buffer size is large enough such that no delay will be caused
by the waiting of a part for a place in the buffer, then infinite capacity may be
assumed. Among the three levels of constraints, zero capacity is more restrictive than
limited capacity and limited capacity is more restrictive than infinite capacity. When
the capacity of a resource is assumed to be infinite the constraint of this resource can
be removed from consideration. Intuitively, the more restrictive the resource con-
straints are, the more difficult it is to find a schedule.
4.3. Job characteristics
These describe the level of job complexity and the level of job routeing flexibility.
Here job complexity is defined as the number of operations required for a job. Job
routeing flexibility is measured by the number of machines which can perform an
operation. For each of these two aspects two levels can be distinguished. The two
levels for job complexity are 'only one operation for each job' or otherwise. The two
levels for job routeing flexibility are 'only one machine for each operation' o r
otherwise.
These distinctions are necessary in considering F M S scheduling problems. When
there are two o r more operations for a job the following constraints must be
considered in the scheduling problem: operations of a job cannot be performed at
the same time and they must be performed in a specific order as required. When
there is only one operation this type of constraint need not be considered. Similarly,
when there is only one machine for each operation the routeing decisions need not
be considered since the routes for the jobs are fixed. When there are two or more
optional machines for some operations routeing decisions must be considered in the
scheduling problem. This factor accounts for material flow in the system.
 CIass$ying FMS scl~edulingproblems 653

4.4. Production management environnient

This represents the policies of the higher production management functions which
affect the scheduling activity. It is an important and very difficult issue and needs
careful consideration. In this paper we recommend that a t least the following
categories should be considered.
(1) Whether orders are handled periodically or continuously.
(2) Whether there are due date requests.
(3) Whether orders are 'one part per type' o r 'more than one part per type'
(4) Whether there are ratio and batch size requests for part types.
Items (1) and (2) affect how the scheduling problem may be addressed (dynami-
cally o r statically) and what performance measure may be used. In (3), 'one part per
type' means that every part required is of a different type and must be considered
individually. It can also mean that, although more parts are required for each part
type, all the parts of the same type must be handled as a complete lot and must be
processed, stored and transported together.
When more than one part is required for each part type there may be ratio
requests for the part types, e.g., for assembly purposes. There may also be batch size
requests for handling and storage convenience. In this case the batch size requests
should be considered as constraints on the scheduling decisions. Otherwise, batch size
will be decided (considering storage, handling, and machine set up) as part of the
scheduling problem.

4.5. Scheduling criteria

These are determined by the overall production planning objective of the system.
Three kinds of objectives are usually considered in scheduling (Baker 1974). These
objectives and commonly used measures of schedule performance associated with
them are listed below:
0 High resource utilization: makespan (or maximum completion time) C,,,.
0 Quick response to needs: mean completion time C, mean flow time F, or mean
waiting time W.
0 Close conformance to due dates: mean tardiness T', maximum tardiness T,,,,
and number of tardy jobs NT.

5. The classification scheme

Taking into account all the aspects discussed in the previous two sections a
classification scheme of FMS scheduling problems can now be proposed using five
descriptors as shown below:

type
FMS /
constraints
Capacity
/ Job
description
/
Production
environment
Scheduling
criteria
The first four descriptors describe the relevant aspects of the system and the
environment. The last descriptor indicates the scheduling objective. For brevity these
descriptors may be written as A/B/C/D/E. Possible values for each of these descrip-
tors are discussed below.
'A' indicates the type of system to be scheduled. Valid types are SFM, FMC,
MMFMS, MCFMS.
'B' indicates types of resource constraints involved in the scheduling decision and
654 J . Liu and B. L. MacCarfhy

the constraint levels of these resources. The constraint level of a resource type can be
noted using the combination of the level name and the resource name, e.g., 'limited:
pallets'. Therefore this descriptor can be presented as a collection of such combina-
tions. When infinite capacity is assumed for a type of resource it will not appear in the
description because it does not set constraints for the scheduling problem. For
consistency the following abbreviations may be useful.
Constraint levels:
0: zero capacity lim: limited capacity
Resource types:
M: machines HD: material handling devices
SB: storage buffers T D : tool changing devices
PL: pallets FX: fixtures
'C' describes the complexity and the routeing flexibility of jobs. The following
abbreviations may be used.
JCI: only one operation for each job
JC+: two o r more operations for some o r all jobs
RFI: only one machine for each operation
RF+: two o r more machines for some or all operations
'D' indicates the requests from a higher production management level. The
following abbreviation may be used.
dd: there are due date requests
pr: orders are handled periodically
cn: orders are handled continuously
Ipt: one part per type
+pt: more than one part per type
rr: there are ratio requests
bs: there are batch size requests
'E' indicates the scheduling criterion. Possible values include: mean completion
time (c),
makespan (C,,,), and maximum tardiness (T,,,), etc.
This classification scheme attempts for the first time to identify and describe all the
major factors which affect the modelling of, and the solution to, F M S scheduling
problems. Different modelling frameworks and solution approaches can be devel-
oped, evaluated and compared within this scheme.

6 . Examples
Two recent problems chosen from the literature are described below using the
framework proposed in this chapter and classified using the proposed classification
scheme.
(I) Lee and lwata (1991) describe in detail an F M S scheduling problem. It can be
stated clearly as follows using the classification attributes introduced in this
paper.
FMS Type: FMC
Capacity constraints: machines limited number (4)
MHS l AGV
storage infinite
 Classifying FMS scheduling problems

pallets limited number

tool handling devices infinite
Job description: more operations for a job
one machine for each operation
Production environment: orders handled periodically
one part per type
Scheduling criteria: makespan.
Using the proposed classification scheme this problem can be classified as

(2) Mukhopadhyay et al. (1991) describe another problem in detail. It can also be
easily stated with our classification attributes:
FMS Type: MMFMS
Capacity machines limited number (4)
constraints: MHS limited number of devices (2 AGVs)
storage limited capacity
tool drum limited capacity
pallets limited number
Job description: more operations for a job
more machines for an operation
Production more than one part per type
environment: product mix given
lot-size given
orders handled continuously
Scheduling criteria: mean flow time.
Using the proposed classification scheme this problem can be classified as

Within the comprehensive framework presented here, FMS scheduling problems

tackled in the literature may be specified concisely and unambiguously. Researchers
can identify differences andsimilarities with new problems whiih they may face and
the relevance and validity of the solution approaches proposed in the literature may
be evaluated critically.
The intention in developing the scheme has been to identify the most significant
factors which affect FMS scheduling decisions. The apparent complexity of the
scheme and its notation is merely a reflection of the difficulties and complexities
inherent in FMS scheduling. Irrespective of the use of the precise notation we have
proposed, we believe that it is essential that researchers identify their FMS scheduling
problems more clearly. In doing so, it is essential that at least the five attributes
we have identified-system type, system capacity constraints, job description,
production management environment and scheduling criteria-be clearly and
unambiguously described.
The limitations of the notation for classical machine shop scheduling in describing
real production environments have been noted in the introduction. The scheme
developed here for the classification of FMS scheduling problems does not suffer from
656 The classification of FMS scheduling problems

these limitations. It is much more comprehensive and takes into account all the major
factors which may impact on a real FMS scheduling environment. For this reason we
believe it has significant potential in the analysis and design of real FMS control
systems.

7. Conclusions
In this paper we have proposed a classification scheme for FMS scheduling
problems based on the analysis and discussion of the scheduling decisions in FMS and
the factors related to these decisions. This classification scheme provides a systematic
framework for description and analysis of FMS scheduling problems and for
development, evaluation and comparison of FMS scheduling approaches. The
usefulness of the scheme has been demonstrated through examples. The authors
intend to present shortly the results of research in important classes of FMS
scheduling problems, particularly for FMC and MMFMS environment. The nature
of the problems will be described within the framework proposed here. The generali-
zation of the solution approaches will also be discussed within the context of this
classification scheme.
The approach proposed here does not attempt to be fully comprehensive but does
address the major scheduling problems in a wide range of real systems.

References
BAKER, K. R., 1974, lnrroduction ro Sequencing and Scheduling (New York: Wiley).
LEE,Y. H., and IWATA, K., 1991, Part ordering through simulation-optimization in an FMS.
Inrernarional Journal of Producrion Research, 7 , 1309-1323.
LIU,J., 1993, A general structured approach to scheduling problems in flexible manufacturing
systems. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham, UK.
MACCARTHY, B. L., and LIU,J., 1993, A new classification scheme for flexible manufacturing
systems. Inrernarional Journal of Production Research, 31, 229-309.
MUKHOPAOHYAY, S. K., MAITI,B., and GARG,S., 1991. Heuristic solution to the scheduling
problems in flexible manufacturing systems. Internarional Journal of Production
Researc/~,10, 2003-2024.
NAKAMURA, N., and SHINGU, T., 1987, Scheduling of flexible manufacturing systems. In Toward
the Facrory of rlte Future, H.-J. ~ u l l i n ~ e r , a nH.
d J. Warnecke (eds), bp. 147-152.
SHANKER, K., and TZEN,Y. J., 1985, A loading and dispatching problem in a random flexible
manufacturing system. Inrernarional Journal of Production Research, 23, 579-595.