4.3 Article

Cross-Trained Worker Assignment Problem in Cellular Manufacturing System Using Swarm Intelligence Metaheuristics

期刊

MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS IN ENGINEERING
卷 2018, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2018/4302062

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71501132, 71701079, 71371127]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2016A030310067, 2018A030310567]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2016M602528]
  4. 2016 Tencent Rhinoceros Birds, Scientific Research Foundation for Young Teachers of Shenzhen University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cross-trained worker assignment has become increasingly important for manufacturing efficiency and flexibility in cellular manufacturing system because of the recent increase in labor cost. Researchers mainly focused on assigning skilled workers to tasks for favorable capacity or cost. However, few of them have recognized the need for skill level enhancement through cross-training to avoid excessive training, especially for workload balance across multiple cells. This study presents a new mathematical programming model aimed at minimum training and maximum workload balance with economical labor utilization, to address the worker assignment problem with a cross-training plan spanning multiple cells. The model considers the trade-off between training expenditure and workload balance to achieve a more flexible solution based on decision-maker's preference. Considering the computational complexity of the problem, the classical swarm intelligence optimizers, i.e., particle swarm optimization (PSO) and artificial bee colony (ABC), are implemented to search the problem landscape. To improve the optimization performance, a superior tracking ABC with an augmented information sharing strategy is designed to address the problem. Ten benchmark problems are employed for numerical experiments. The results indicate the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed models as well as the developed algorithms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据