2003 Society for Design and Process Science

Printed in the United States of America

AGGREGATE PRODUCTION PLANNING UTILIZING A

FUZZY LINEAR PROGRAMMING

L. Dai
Industrial Systems Engineering, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, S4S 0A2, Canada.

L. Fan
Computer Science, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, S4S 0A2, Canada.

L. Sun
Industrial Systems Engineering, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, S4S 0A2, Canada.

Uncertainties and imprecise information regarding customer demands, production, inventory, and
MRP are very common in performing aggregate production-planning (APP) for the manufacturing
in real world. This study presents a fuzzy linear programming approach for managing the
uncertainties and imprecise information involved in industrial APP applications. Detailed
discussions are given to the establishment of the Fuzzy Linear Programming approach with
converting the fuzzy constraints of uncertain and imprecise items into deterministic equivalents. A
mathematical model is developed for APP practice with the Fuzzy Linear Programming approach.
For numerically performing an aggregate production planning with the Fuzzy Linear
Programming developed, a computer simulation for an actual aggregate production-planning is
presented. It is demonstrated in the study, the employment of the Fuzzy Linear Programming
provides a great advantage in APP of manufacturing, if the parameters of the stochastic factors
involved in the production planning are neither definitely reliable nor precise. The present study
shows that the interrelated effects of the customer service level and facility capacity on the
effectiveness and efficiency of aggregate production-planning is significant and should be taken
into account in performing an aggregate production-planning

Keywords: aggregate production-planning, fuzzy linear programming, manufacturing.

1. Introduction
One of the major decision making problems facing operations managers, or decision-makers in the
manufacturing industry is the aggregate production-planning (APP) problem. The research in APP area
mainly dealt with workforce size, inventory levels, and production rates. The literatures in this field do
offer a number of quantitative methods that can be used to perform aggregate production plans for a
firm (Tang et al., 2000, Hsieh and Wu, 2000, Silva Filho, 1999, Wang and Fang, 2001, Kaufmann and
Gupta, 1998). However, despite increasing of analytical tools and the substantial economic benefits to
be derived from using them, reports of successful application remain scarce. In reality, researchers
often ignore two factors: the customer service level and the facility capacity. In fact, these two factors
do affect managers’ decisions when they develop aggregate production planning. An extensive search
of the literature reveals that no previous investigation has systematically taken these two factors into
account with the purpose of improving total system costs, using a linear programming approach.

Transactions of the SDPS SEPTEMBER 2003, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 81-95

 If the parameters of the stochastic factor are neither definitely reliable nor precise, then the use of
fuzzy set theory is a better selection.

2. Establishment of the fuzzy linear programming approach

2.1. Formulate the fuzzy LP problem
A single objective fuzzy linear programming model is defined as follows:
Minimize C T x
subject to ( Ax ) i ≅ bi , for i = 1, 2, …, p (1)
( Ax) j ≤ b j , for j = p + 1, …, q (2)
~
( Ax ) m ≤ b m , for m = q + 1, …, s (3)
x≥0
where x is an n-dimensional vector. The problem indicates there is a single objective that is to be
minimized. q is the number of fuzzy constraints, and s-q is the crisp constraints. Constraint (1) is a
fuzzy equality constraint; constraint (2) is a fuzzy inequality constraint; and constraint (3) is a crisp
constraint.

2.2. Transform fuzzy LP into conventional LP

A trapezoidal form of fuzzy numbers (Kaufmann and Gupta, 1998) is utilized in this research and
all membership functions are formulated with linear forms. Triangular form and fuzzy interval are
regarded as the special trapezoidal forms.
(a) Membership function for inequality constraints
The membership function can be formulated on the basis of the concepts of possibility distribution
and/or preference. It is assumed that the decision-maker gives the goal b j and the tolerance b j for
those resources on which the decision-maker has a pre-designed preference level in mind. The
membership function of the fuzzy constraint (2) is a non-increasing continuous linear membership
function as illustrated in Figure 1. The corresponding membership function is defined as follows:
⎧1, if ( Ax) j ≤ b j
⎪
⎪ ( Ax) j − b j
µ b~ = ⎨1 − , if b j < (Ax) j ≤ b j + b j (4)
j
⎪ bj
⎪0, if ( Ax) j > b j + b j
⎩
By the use of a λ -level cut, if let µ~b ≥ λ = (1 − r ) , then equation (4) can be set, and the constraint
j
becomes
( Ax ) j ≤ b j + b j r (5)

where r ∈ [0,1] is a parameter of variation. Constraint (5) is equivalent to Chanas’ (Chanas, 1983) and
Carlsson’s (Carlsson and Pekka, 1986) parametric programming formulation. Thus, fuzzy linear
constraints in equation (2) are transformed into conventional linear ones.
(b) Convert the equality constraints to Chanas’ formulation (Chanas, 1983)
The fuzzy equality constraint (1) can be transformed into the following two constraints using the
method of parametric programming with upper bounded variables.

Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science SEPTEMBER 2002, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 82
 2
( Ax) i = bi + bi r − s i (6)
2 1
si ≤ bi − bi + (bi + bi ) r (7)

where fuzzy resource bi is a fuzzy number having the trapezoidal form as shown in Figure 2. This
transformation makes it possible to generate a set of solutions incorporating the whole range of
~
possible values ( bi 1 − b i r , bi 2 + bi r ) for fuzzy parameter bi .

µ b~ j

1.0

0
bj bj + bj ( Ax) j

Fig. 1 Membership function for jth fuzzy constraint

µ ~
A

1.0

0
a1 − a
1
a1 a2 a2 + a

Fig. 2 A trapezoidal fuzzy number

Transactions of the SDPS SEPTEMBER 2003, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 83

2.3. Determine the range of a fuzzy goal
In practice, it is difficult for decision makers to provide a meaningful fuzzy goal range. However, a
set of solutions can be expressed explicitly as an analytical function of the r-values. Therefore, a set of
solution values, including objective function value, decision variables, and r-values, are presented to
the decision maker. He/she can either terminate the process by selecting one satisfying alternative or
choose a satisfactory fuzzy goal interval to continue the procedure.

2.4. Reformulate and solve the FLP

(a) find the membership function of a fuzzy goal G~
If the objective function is to minimize Z = C T x , the final optimal solution will exist at x * ( r ) to
minimize the objective function and simultaneously fulfill the constraints at least to the degree of 1- r.
If the decision maker specifies that the fuzzy goal range will be in [Z1 ,Z2], the membership function
µG~ of the fuzzy objective function is defined as (Chanas, 1983):

⎧1, T *
if C x ( r ) ≤ Z
1

⎪
⎪ C x(r ) − Z (8)
T
µ ~ ( x ( r )) = ⎨1 −
* 1 T * 2
2 1
, if Z ≤ C x ( r ) ≤ Z
G
⎪ Z −Z
⎪0, T *
if C x ( r ) ≥ Z
1
⎩
Equation (8) must be greater than the satisfaction level λ = 1 − r , therefore, it can be expressed as:
T 1 2
C x ≤ Z + (Z − Z )r
1
(9)
(b) Reformulate the FLP
Equation (9) is added to the transformed constraints set, the problem becomes to minimize r or
maximize λ and subject to the new constraints set of equations (6) and (7). The model can then be
defined as:
Min r
Subject to: C T x ≤ Z 1 + ( Z 2 − Z 1 )r
2
( Ax )i + si = bi + bi r

si ≤ bi − bi + (b i + bi ) r ,
2 1
for i = 1, 2, …, p
( Ax ) j ≤ b j + b j r , for j = p + 1 , …, q
( Ax ) m ≤ b m , for m = q + 1, …, s
x, s i , r ≥ 0
or,
Max λ
Subject to: C x ≤ Z + ( Z − Z )(1 − λ )
T 1 2 1

( Ax )i + si = bi + bi (1 − λ )
2

s i ≤ b i − b i + (b i + b i )(1 − λ ) ,
2 1
for i = 1, 2, …, p
( Ax) j ≤ b j + b j (1 − λ ), for j = p + 1 , …, q
( Ax ) m ≤ b m , for m = q + 1, …, s
x, s i , r ≥ 0
(c) Find the optimal solution (Bellman and Zadeh, 1970)

Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science SEPTEMBER 2002, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 84
 Given that the fuzzy objective and fuzzy constraints are fuzzy sets µ G~ and µ C~ respectively, a set of
decision space (possible alternatives) can be formed by the intersection of µ G~ and µ C~ . If one wants to
~
find the optimal solution, the best x ∈ X = { x Ax ≤ b , x ≥ 0} must be found to simultaneously satisfy both
the objective and the corresponding constraints. A formula of maximizing decision can be defined as:

Max µ D~ ( x ) = Max [ µ G~ ( x ) ∧ µ C~ ( x ) ].

The decision maker may either terminate the decision process by accepting the production fuzzy
constraints or continue the process to modify (a) the goal range, (b) the membership function of the
goal and/or the parameters in the constraints, or (c) the model formulation.

3. The mathematical model of the specified flp problem

3.1. Problem definition
Given that the goal, demands and resources are imprecise in a manufacturing environment, find the
best compromise aggregate production plans over a planning horizon T, with employment of a fuzzy
linear programming approach.

3.2. Basic assumptions of the FLP model

In order to construct an FLP model for the problem defined above, the following assumptions are
introduced:
(1) Demand of the product in each period t (a time segment of the total period T) is imprecise as
shown by the trapezoidal fuzzy numbers.
(2) Some available resources in the future are imprecise as shown by the trapezoidal fuzzy numbers.
(3) The quantity of the product includes that of regular-time production, overtime production,
production due to hiring more employees, and subcontracting to meet the demands. In this
regard, the penalties from backorder or lost order are assumed to be negligible.
(4) Initial inventory is about the inventory level required for initiating an order.
(5) The decision maker knows the initial workforce level for the production.
(6) Finished product can be shipped immediately so that no finished inventory costs incur.
(7) There exists no setup cost if successive orders are being processed.
(8) Inventory storage space is large enough to store the finished goods in processes.
(9) There exists a reliable work force pool. The new employees are assumed to be fully productive
as are the old employees, when they begin to work.
(10) Subcontractor quantities can be satisfied in any period.

3.3. Problem formulation

Notations used for the formulation can be found from Table 1. A mixed strategy is applied to the
aggregate production planning under fuzzy environment.
The single objective APP model is defined in detail as the following:
T
 = ∑ [C ( P + P ) + C ( aP ) + C W
MinZ (10)
pt rt ot ot ot rt t
t =1
+ Cit I t + C st S t + C ht H t + Clt Lt ]

Subject to:
Wt = Wt-1+Ht – Lt t=1, 2, …, T (11)

Transactions of the SDPS SEPTEMBER 2003, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 85

 Wt ≤ w
~
tmax t=1, 2, …, T (12)
aPrt ≤ δWt t = 1, 2, …, T (13)

aPot ≤ δβ t Wt t = 1, 2,…, T (14)

H t Lt = 0 , t = 1, 2, …, T (15)

bPrt ≤ Mt t =1, 2, …, T (16)

bPot ≤ γ t M t t = 1, 2, …, T (17)

bPrt ≥ M t min t=1, 2, …, T (18)

~
I t = I t −1 + Prt + Pot + S t − Dt

t = 1, 2, …, T (19)
Prt + Pot + I t −1 + S t ≥ Dt min

t = 1, 2, …, T (20)
Prt , Pot , Wt , I t , S t , H t , Lt ≥ 0

t = 1, 2, …, T (21)
The proposed fuzzy linear programming model for the single objective aggregate production-
planning problem differs from the traditional linear programming model in having a fuzzy goal, a fuzzy
workforce level, (E.q. 12), allowed in each period, and fuzzy demands, (E.q. 19). Where ~ denotes the
fuzzified version of the variable. Equation (20) implies that the total available product quantity should
be equal to or greater than the minimum demand, in period t. This will avoid the penalty of backlogs.

4. Computer simulation of an actual app utilizing fuzzy LP

In order to verify the model, a numerical example is studied. The parameters used are as follows:
(1) In this paper, the demands considered involve uncertainty and imprecision as it commonly exist
in actual manufacturing industries. It is assumed that there is a six-period (monthly base)
planning horizon with fuzzy demands of (275, 25, 275, 0), (330, 45, 330, 0), (450, 20, 450, 50),
(300, 40, 300, 20), (300, 0, 300, 50), (270, 0, 270, 70) units. It is assumed that the tread of future
demand is optimistic in periods 1 and 2. For instance, the decision maker has the highest
satisfaction level at demand levels 275 and 330, and the lowest satisfaction level at demand 250
and 285 for period 1 and 2 respectively. The decision-maker also feels that the demands in time
periods 5 and 6 are pessimistic, and the demands in periods 3 and 4 are between the pessimistic
and optimistic. The minimum demands are 250, 285, 430, 260, 300, and 270 units
correspondently.
(2) The production cost other than labor cost is $20 per unit. 3 hours of labor are needed for each
unit produced. The regular labor force works eight hours a day.
(3) The initial workforce is 100 workers. The maximum number of workers allowed is (90, 0, 90,
10), (100, 0, 100, 15) for periods 1 and 2, (120, 0, 120, 30) for periods 3 to 6. The costs
associated with the regular payroll, hiring, and firing are $64, $30, and $40 per worker per day
respectively.

Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science SEPTEMBER 2002, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 86
(4) Overtime production is limited to no more than 30% of regular time production. The overtime
charge is based on $15 per worker per hour.
(5) The initial inventory ( I 0 ) is 0, the inventory carrying cost is $2 per unit per period. The
subcontracting cost is $67 per unit.
(6) Regular time machining capacity Mt= 800, 700, 820, 650, 750, and 720 machine- hours; fraction
of regular machine (facility) capacity available for use in overtime γ t = 0.5, 0.6, 0.5, 0.6, 0.4, and
0.4, in periods 1 to 6, respectively. For every period, the lower bound on the utilization of
machine capacity Mtmin is 400 machine-hours. And machine time for the product is 2.5 machine-
hours per unit.
The numerical solution procedure is as follows:

4.1. APP model formulation

The model is:
~ 6
M i n Z = ∑ {20( Prt + Pot ) + 64Wt + 15(3Pot ) + 2 I t + 67 St + 30 H t + 40 Lt }
t =1

or
~
M i n Z= ∑6 {20 Prt + 65 Pot + 64Wt + +2 I t + 67 St + 30 H t + 40 Lt } (22)
t =1

Subject to:
W1 = W0 + H 1 − L1 (23)
W2 = W1 + H 2 − L2 (24)
W3 = W2 + H 3 − L3 (25)
W4 = W3 + H 4 − L4 (26)
W 5 = W 4 + H 5 − L5 (27)
W6 = W5 + H 6 − L6 (28)
~
W1 ≤ 9 0 (29)
~
W2 ≤ 10 0 (30)
~
W3 ≤ 12 0 (31)
~
W4 ≤ 12 0 (32)
~
W5 ≤ 12 0 (33)
~
W6 ≤ 12 0 (34)
3 Pr 1 ≤ 8W1 (35)
3 Pr 2 ≤ 8W2 (36)
3 Pr 3 ≤ 8W3 (37)
3 Pr 4 ≤ 8W4 (38)
3 Po1 ≤ 2.4W1 (39)
3 Po 2 ≤ 2.4W2 (40)
3 Po 3 ≤ 2.4W3 (41)
3 Po 4 ≤ 2.4W4 (42)
3 Po 5 ≤ 2.4W5 (43)

Transactions of the SDPS SEPTEMBER 2003, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 87

 3 Po6 ≤ 2.4W6 (44)
~
I 1 = I 0 + Pr 1 + Po1 + S 1 − 27 5 (45)
~
I 2 = I 1 + Pr 2 + Po 2 + S 2 − 33 0 (46)
~
I 3 = I 2 + Pr 3 + Po 3 + S 3 − 45 0 (47)
~
I 4 = I 3 + Pr 4 + Po 4 + S 4 − 30 0 (48)
~
I 5 = I 4 + Pr 5 + Po 5 + S 5 − 30 0 (49)
~
I 6 = I 5 + Pr 6 + Po6 + S 6 − 27 0 (50)
2.5 Pr 1 ≤ 800 (51)
2.5 Pr 2 ≤ 700 (52)
2.5 Pr 3 ≤ 820 (53)
2.5 Pr 4 ≤ 650 (54)
2.5 Pr 5 ≤ 750 (55)
2.5 Pr 6 ≤ 720 (56)
2.5 Po1 ≤ 400 (57)
2.5 Po 2 ≤ 420 (58)
2.5 Po 3 ≤ 410 (59)
2.5 Po 4 ≤ 390 (60)
2.5 Po 5 ≤ 300 (61)
2.5 Po6 ≤ 288 (62)
I 0 + Pr 1 + Po1 + S 1 ≥ 250 (63)
I 1 + Pr 2 + Po 2 + S 2 ≥ 285 (64)
I 2 + Pr 3 + Po 3 + S 3 ≥ 430 (65)
I 3 + Pr 4 + Po 4 + S 4 ≥ 260 (66)
I 4 + Pr 5 + Po 5 + S 5 ≥ 300 (67)
I 5 + Pr 6 + Po6 + S 6 ≥ 270 (68)
2.5 Prt ≥ 400 t = 1, 2, …, 6 (69)
Prt , Pot ,Wt , I t , St , H t , Lt ≥ 0 t = 1,2, …, 6 (70)

4.2. Transform FLP to conventional LP

~
Fuzzy numbers represent the fuzzy parameters. For example, the fuzzy numbers W1 max (90, 0, 90,
~ ~ ~
10), D1 (275, 25, 275, 0), and D3 (450, 20, 450, 50) are shown in Figure 3. The figure of W1 max (90, 0,
90, 10) shows that the preference of the workforce level in period 1, being less than or equal to 90, is 1.
~
The membership function is a monotonically decreasing function of parameter W1 max . The membership
functions of the forecasted demand in period 1 and 3 are in the forms of a monotonically increasing
function and a triangular shape respectively.
(a) Construct the membership functions for inequality constraints
The membership function of workforce level in period 1 can be represented as follows:

Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science SEPTEMBER 2002, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 88
 ⎧1, if W1 ≤ 90
⎪
⎪ W1 − 90
µ W~ = ⎨1 − , if 90 ≤ W1 ≤ 100
1 mzs
⎪ 10
⎪⎩0 , if W1 ≥ 100

The membership function above can be converted to the following equation:

W1 ≤ 90 + 10 r (71)
This equation demonstrates that a decision maker has the highest degree of satisfaction λ = 1 − r = 1
if the workforce level in period 1 is equal to or below 90. Equations (30) – (34) are transformed (from
FLP forms to conventional LP forms) as follows:
W2 ≤ 100 + 15 r (72)
W3 ≤ 120 + 30 r (73)
W4 ≤ 120 + 30 r (74)
W5 ≤ 120 + 30 r (75)
W6 ≤ 120 + 30 r (76)
(b) Change equality constraints to Chanas’ formulation
According to the discussion about equality constraints in (Chanas, 1983), the equations (45) – (50)
can be converted to the following forms:

I 0 − I 1 + Pr 1 + Po1 + S 1 + x1 = 275 (77)

x1 ≤ 275 − 275 + ( 25 + 0 )r = 25 r (78)
I 1 − I 2 + Pr 2 + Po 2 + S 2 + x 2 = 330 (79)
x 2 ≤ 45r (80)
I 2 − I 3 + Pr 3 + Po 3 + S 3 + x 3 = 450 + 50 r (81)
x 3 ≤ 70 r (82)
I 3 − I 4 + Pr 4 + Po 4 + S 4 + x 4 = 300 + 20 r (83)
x 4 ≤ 60 r (84)
I 4 − I 5 + Pr 5 + Po 5 + S 5 + x5 = 300 + 50 r (85)
x 5 ≤ 50 r (86)
I 5 − I 6 + Pr 6 + Po6 + S 6 + x6 = 270 + 70 r (87)
x6 ≤ 70 r (88)
As can be seen from the translations above, equation (45) is transformed to equations (77) and (78)
which imply that the demand in period 1 is less than or equal to 275 with the maximum total deviation
equal to x1 = 25 .
(c) Find a set of possible production plans
With the manipulations discussed above, a linear programming problem with a crisp objective
function (22) subject to constraints (23) – (28), (35) – (44), (51) – (88) is thus readily available for the
solution that can be obtained by running the software MATLAB. Eleven sets of feasible production
plans are generated by replacing r values ranging from 0 to 1 with an increment r = 0.1. The results
and parameter values corresponding to the production plans are obtained and listed in Table 2 and
Table 3.

Transactions of the SDPS SEPTEMBER 2003, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 89

 As it can be seen from Table 2, the total system costs associated with eleven production plans are
between $83168 and $93186. For λ = ( 1 − r ) = 1 , the decision maker has the highest satisfaction level in
the fuzzy resources utilized. The results obtained indicate that each fuzzy parameter has achieved the
maximum satisfaction level in the decision maker’s mind. The production plan is to produce more by
using overtime production, hiring fewer people, and establishing a lower inventory level to meet the
optimistic forecasted demands and not exceed the resources to be used in this aspiration level. On the
other hand, the decision maker should hire more people to produce more through regular time
production and build up inventory during the optimistic periods when a lower aspiration level is
presented. If the decision maker likes to have a risk free (highest aspiration level) production plan
during pessimistic periods, the plan is to hire more people and produce more using regular time
production.

µW~
1 max

1.0

0 100 W1max
90

µ D~
1

1.0

0
250 270 D1
µ D~
3

1.0

0
430 450 500 D3

Fig. 3 Fuzzy numbers W1max , D1 , and D 3 .

(d) Decision maker determines the range of a fuzzy goal

Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science SEPTEMBER 2002, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 90
 It should be noted that the decision maker does not have a precise idea about the total system costs
before an accurate planning is performed. The decision maker may also not be certain for a specific
production plan with a hundred percent satisfaction. Under this situation, the additional information
obtained from the eleven sets of feasible production plan will assist the decision maker to choose a
fuzzy goal range. The extreme function values are the costs of $83168 and $93186, from which the
decision-maker can choose any possible goal range. The decision maker looks at the numbers
associated with a set of production plans, then chooses the goal range in [$83000, $90000], which
means that Z 1 = $83000 is the goal with the tolerance of Z 2 − Z 1 = $7000.
(e) Reformulate and solve the FLP
The membership function of the fuzzy goal is:
⎧1, C T x* ( r ) ≤ 83000
⎪
⎪ C x ( r ) − 83000
T *
µ G~ ( x* ( r )) = ⎨1 − , 83000 ≤ C T x* ( r ) ≤ 90000
⎪ 90000 − 83000
⎪0 , C T x* ( r ) ≥ 9000
⎩

Since the grade of satisfaction must be greater than λ = 1 − r , the equation above can be expressed
as:
C T x* ( r ) ≤ 83000 + 7000 r (89)
Equation (89) is added into the transformed constraint set. Solving the LP formulation for the APP
problem then becomes to minimize r or equivalently maximize λ subject to the new constraint set.
The corresponding aggregate production plan with LP is performed and the results are tabulated in
Table 4. As can be seen from the table 4, the optimal total system cost obtained by solving the LP
problem is $87114 and the r value is 0.5933, or λ = 1- r = 0.4067.
The fuzzy decision thus made is based on the intersection of the fuzzy goal and fuzzy constraints.
This decision is depicted in Figure 4. The decision making process can be terminated if the decision
maker accepts the compromise production plan. Otherwise, the decision maker can modify the goal
range, the membership functions related to the goal and/or parameters in constraints, or the model
itself. For example, he/she can choose the goal range in [$83000, $88000], and with the same
procedure, solve the FLP problem. The corresponding optimal total cost is then $86301, r-value is
0.6737, or λ equals 0.3263. Accordingly, the aggregate production plan can also be obtained. The
decision maker may carry out these procedures repeatedly until a satisfying production plan is reached.

Transactions of the SDPS SEPTEMBER 2003, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 91

 µ D~

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7 C G
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3 D
0.2
0.1
00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Fig. 4 Fuzzy decisions for the APP problem

5. Conclusions
To response to the imprecise and uncertainties in aggregate production planning, fuzzy set theory
can be employed as a mathematical tool and a fuzzy linear programming approach can be utilized for
modeling the APP of manufacturing industry. The numerical simulations presented in this paper show
a fuzzy linear programming approach provides powerful tools to the administration or the decision
makers of a manufacturing industry in developing the aggregate production plans with optimal results
and higher satisfaction

6. References
Bellman, R. and Zadeh, L. “Decision-making in a Fuzzy Environment”, Management Science, No.17, pp.141-
164, 1970.
Carlsson, C. and Pekka, K. “A Parametric Approach to Fuzzy Linear Programming”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
No.20, pp.17-30, 1986.
Chanas, S. “The Use of Parametric Programming in Fuzzy Linear Programming”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems.
No. 11, pp.243-251, 1983.
Hsieh, S. and Wu, M., “Demand and Cost Forecast Error Sensitivity Analyses in Aggregate Production
Planning by Possibillistic Linear Programming Models”, Journal of Intellligent Manufacturing 11, No.4, 355-364,
2000.
Kaufmann, A. and Gupta, M. Fuzzy Mathematical Models in Engineering and Management Science, North
Holland, New York, 1998.
Silva Filho, O.S., “An Aggregate Production Planning Model with Demand Under Uncertainty”, Production
Planning and Control, Vol.10, No.8, 745, 1999.
Tang, J., Wang, D. and Fung, R. “Fuzzy Formulation for Multi-product Aggregate Production Planning,”
Production Planning and Control 11, No.7, 670-676, 2000. Libraries: 46
Wang, R. and Fang, H., “Aggregate Production Planning with Multiple Objectives in a Fuzzy Environment”,
European Journal of Operational Research. Vol.133, No.3, 521-537, 2001.

Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science SEPTEMBER 2002, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 92
7. Appendix (Tables)

Table 1 Notations used for the formulation

Decision variables
Prt = regular time production in period t (units) St = subcontractor quantity in period t (units)
Pot = overtime production in period t (units) H t = worker hired in period t (man-day)
Wt = workforce level in period t (man-day) Lt = worker layoff in period t (man-day)
I t = inventory level in period t (units)

Parameters and constants

C pt = production cost excluding labor cost in period W~t max = maximum workforce available in period t
t ($/unit) (man-day)
Cot = overtime labor cost in period t ($/man-hour) M t min = lower bound on the utilization of machine
capacity in period t (machine-hour)
Crt = labor cost in period t ($/man-day) M t = regular time machining capacity in period t
(machine-hour)
Cit = inventory carrying cost in period t ($/unit- Dt min = minimum demand in period t (units)
period)
~
C st = subcontracting cost in period t ($/unit) Dt = forecast demand in period t (units)
C ht = cost to hire one worker in period t ($/man- I bst = buffer stock to cover the rush orders in period
day) t
Clt = cost to layoff one worker in period t ($/man- δ = regular working hours per worker per day
day) (man-hour/man-day)
a = conversion factor in hours of labor per unit of β t = fraction of working hours available for
production overtime production
b = machine time for the product (machine- γ t = fraction of regular machine (facility) capacity
hour/unit) available for use in overtime in period t

Table 2 Total system costs with different r values

r value Z value r value Z value

1.0 $83168 0.4 $88984
0.9 $84148 0.3 $90091

0.8 $85126 0.2 $91032

0.7 $86126 0.1 $92109

0.6 $87049 0 $93186

0.5 $87972

Transactions of the SDPS SEPTEMBER 2003, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 93

Table 3 Aggregate production plans under different r values
r item 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
Pr1 267 264 261 259 256 253 251 248 245 243 240
Pr 2 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 279 275 271 267
Pr 3 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 279 275 271 267
Pr 4 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260
Pr 5 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270
Pr 6 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270
Po1 0 0 0 0 4 9 14 20 25 30 35
Po 2 31 37 44 51 55 59 61 64 68 70 73
Po3 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 82 81 80
Po 4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
P05 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Po 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W1 100 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90
W2 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 103 102 100
W3 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 103 102 100
W4 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
W5 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
W6 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
I1 17 12 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I2 43 39 36 33 32 31 29 26 22 16 10
I3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S3 23 29 34 39 42 44 49 55 67 80 94
S4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 11 11 10
H3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
L2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 0 0
L5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science SEPTEMBER 2002, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 94
 L6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 4 Optimal production plan for the FLP example

r = 0.5933 ( λ = 0.4067) Z = $87114
Inventory
Production level Subcontract Workforce level
level
Pr 1 = 256 Po1 = 4 I1 = 0 S1 = 0 W1 = 96 H1 = 0 L1 = 4

Pr 2 = 280 Po 2 = 53 I 2 = 29 S2 = 0 W2 = 105 H2 = 9 L2 = 0

Pr 3 = 280 Po 3 = 84 I3 = 0 S 3 = 45 W3 = 105 H3 = 0 L3 = 0

Pr 4 = 260 Po 4 = 16 I4 = 0 S4 = 0 W4 = 101 H4 = 0 L4 = 4

Pr 5 = 270 Po 5 = 30 I5 = 0 S5 = 0 W5 = 101 H5 = 0 L5 = 0

Pr 6 = 270 PO6 = 0 I6 = 0 S6 = 0 W6 = 101 H6 = 0 L6 = 0

Transactions of the SDPS SEPTEMBER 2003, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 95