Abstract
This paper investigates a claim that the 1988 Stafford mixed-integer linear programming model for the flowshop with permutation schedules contained a set of redundant constraints that could be eliminated without loss of model feasibility. This claim is shown to be incorrect mathematically and through the use of a counterexample problem. Eight additional problems were solved to confirm these findings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Stafford EF (1988). On the development of a mixed-integer linear programming model for the flowshop sequencing problem. J Opl Res Soc 39: 1163–1174.
Liao CK (1993). Minimizing the number of machine idle intervals with minimum makespan in a flowshop. J Opl Res Soc 44: 817–824.
Wagner HM (1959). An integer linear-programming model for machine scheduling. Nav Res Log Q 6: 131–140.
Conway RW, Maxwell WL and Miller LW (1967). Theory of Scheduling. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.
Baker KR (1974). Introduction to Sequencing and Scheduling. Wiley: New York.
International Business Machines (1979). Mathematical Programming System Extended/370 Program Reference Manual. IBM Corporation: Paris, France.
Stafford EF and Tseng FT (2002). Two models for a family of flowshop sequencing problems. Eur J Opl Res 142: 282–293.
Tseng FT and Stafford EF (2001). Two MILP models for the N × M SDST flowshop sequencing problem. Int J Prod Res 28: 1817–1830.
LINDO Systems, Inc. (1999). LINDO Users Manual. LINDO Systems Inc.: Chicago.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stafford, E., Tseng, F. On ‘redundant’ constraints in Stafford's MILP model for the flowshop problem. J Oper Res Soc 54, 1102–1105 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601615
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601615