PREPRINT SUBMITTED TO ARXIV 1 Robust Order Scheduling in

arX

iv:1

702.

0015

9v1

[cs.

AI]

1 F

eb 2

017

PREPRINT SUBMITTED TO ARXIV 1

Robust Order Scheduling in the Fashion Industry: AMulti-Objective Optimization Approach

Wei Du, Yang Tang, Sunney Yung Sun Leung, Le Tong,Athanasios V. Vasilakos, and Feng Qian

Abstract—In the fashion industry, order scheduling focuses onthe assignment of production orders to appropriate productionlines. In reality, before a new order can be put into production,a series of activities known as pre-production events need tobe completed. In addition, in real production process, owingto various uncertainties, the daily production quantity of eachorder is not always as expected. In this research, by consideringthe pre-production events and the uncertainties in the dailyproduction quantity, robust order scheduling problems in thefashion industry are investigated with the aid of a multi-objectiveevolutionary algorithm (MOEA) called nondominated sortingadaptive differential evolution (NSJADE). The experimentalresults illustrate that it is of paramount importance to considerpre-production events in order scheduling problems in the fashionindustry. We also unveil that the existence of the uncertainties inthe daily production quantity heavily affects the order scheduling.

Index Terms—Order scheduling, pre-production events, robustmulti-objective optimization, robust multi-objective evolutionaryalgorithms.

I. I NTRODUCTION

Order scheduling is a key decision-making problem insupply chain management of manufacturing industry, andplays an important role in rational resource allocation andutilization, which makes the companies more competitive inthe global market [1, 2]. As a typical representative of labor-intensive industries, the fashion industry is characterized byshort product life cycles, volatile customer demands, risinglabor costs, tremendous product varieties, and long supplyprocesses [3]. Therefore, more attention needs to be paid tofashion order scheduling problems.

For the past few decades, order scheduling problems inthe fashion industry have been widely investigated [4–6]. Inthese researches, it is assumed that all the orders are readyfor production when the production process begins. However,in real-world apparel production, a whole series of activitiesneed to be carried out before an order can be put intoproduction. And these activities are known as pre-productionevents. In the fashion industry, pre-production events include

W. Du, Y. Tang and F. Qian are with the Key Laboratory of AdvancedControl and Optimization for Chemical Processes, Ministryof Education, EastChina University of Science and Technology, Shanghai 200237, China (e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected], [email protected];[email protected]).

S. Y. S. Leung and L. Tong are with the Institute of Textile andClothing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong,China (e-mail:[email protected]; [email protected]).

A. V. Vasilakos is with the Department of Computer Science, Electrical andSpace Engineering, Lulea University of Technology, Lulea 97187, Sweden (e-mail: [email protected]).

order fabric, order trims, sample approval, issue markers,andso on [7]. Multiple parties, e.g., suppliers, manufacturers, andcustomers, need to collaborate with each other to complete apre-production event. And negotiations among them are time-consuming and uncertain, which results in the late completionof some pre-production events and the delay of producing therelated order [8]. In addition, industrial data concerningthepre-production process are difficult to collect. Therefore, pre-production events have been largely overlooked in the orderscheduling research of the fashion industry, which makes thefirst incentive of this paper.

In recent years, as a powerful optimization tool [9, 10],evolutionary algorithms (EAs) have been introduced to solvethe order scheduling problems in the fashion industry [6,11]. In the studies above, when the schedules were madebefore the real production, it was assumed that the dailyproduction quantity of each order was fixed. However, inmost real-world manufacturing environments of the fashionindustry, order scheduling is an ongoing reactive process inwhich the occurrence of various unexpected disruptions areusually inevitable [12]. These disruptions consist of machinebreakdown, operator absenteeism, and so on. Therefore, thedaily production quantity of each order is not always asexpected in the production process. As a result, the pre-established order schedules are shifted very often after theproduction starts. However, a frequent modification of orderschedules will increase labor and time cost, which may reduceproduction efficiency and fail to complete the orders beforetheir delivery dates. Therefore, the second incentive of thispaper originates from considering robust order schedules,which are not sensitive to the variation of the daily productionquantity during the process of the real production.

For the past decade and more, robust optimization hasgained increasing attention, and has been incorporated intothe framework of single-objective evolutionary optimization[13, 14]. In the context of multi-objective optimization, Deband Gupta [15] did some pioneering works by suggesting twodifferent ways of introducing robustness in multi-objectiveoptimization. Up to now, the integration of robust multi-objective optimization and MOEA has been gradually appliedto deal with a variety of applications, such as the weldedbeam design problem [15] and the controllability of complexneuronal networks [16]. Therefore, in searching for a candidatefor robust order schedules in the fashion industry, robustMOEA can be selected as a promising one.

Based on the above discussion, in this paper, robust orderscheduling is presented via introducing robust multi-objective

http://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00159v1


optimization into order scheduling problems in the fashionindustry. In addition, the pre-production events in apparelmanufacturing are also taken into account and the orderscheduling problem is modelled as a multi-objective optimiza-tion problem. A MOEA called nondominated sorting adaptivedifferential evolution (NSJADE) is utilized to search the orderschedules in the fashion industry that achieve the followingthree objectives: 1) the schedules can minimize the total pre-production event clashes of all orders; 2) the schedules canminimize the total tardiness of all orders; 3) the schedulesare not sensitive to variation of the daily production quantityduring the process of real production. The contributions ofthispaper are mainly threefold: 1) to the best of our knowledge,it is the first attempt in which the pre-production events areconsidered for the order scheduling research in the fashionindustry; 2) robust order schedules are obtained with the aid ofrobust multi-objective optimization combined with NSJADE;3) compared with the results obtained by adaptive differentialevolution (JADE) and NSJADE without uncertainty, it isrevealed that the pre-production events and the existence ofthe uncertainties in the daily production quantity heavilyaffectthe order scheduling.

II. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION ANDFORMULATION

In this section, the problem of robust order scheduling isdescribed in detail. The settings of the notations and thevariables considered in the problem are on the basis of abusiness software called Fast React [17], which is specificallyfor the fashion industry.

NOMENCLATURE

Production line-related notationsm the number of production linesPi the ith production line (1 ≤ i ≤ m)Ep,il efficiency of production linePi for producing order of

type Tl

Cminsi capacity minutes per day of production linePi

Production order-related notationsn the number of production ordersOj the jth production order (1 ≤ j ≤ n)Rj product type of orderOj

Qj quantity of orderOj

Sminsj standard minutes per piece for orderOj

Aday,j scheduled starting date of orderOj

Fday,j scheduled finishing date of orderOj

Dday,j due date of orderOj

Cday,j present conservative starting date of orderOj

Nj the number of the pre-production events of orderOj

Fjk offset days of thekth pre-production event of orderOj (1 ≤ k ≤ Nj)

Xjk indicates if thekth pre-production event of orderOj

is finished on daySday, Xjk = 1; otherwise,Xjk = 0(1 ≤ k ≤ Nj).

Eo,j efficiency of producing orderOj

Ptime,j production time of orderOj

Ntime,j time needed to reach the next efficiency level for orderOj

Stime,j time spent on orderOj on the current efficiency levelQjd quantity of orderOj completed on thedth day of

processingOj (1 ≤ d ≤ Fday,j− Aday,j)Qsum,jd total quantity of orderOj completed from the first day

till the dth day of processingOj (1 ≤ d ≤ Fday,j −Aday,j)

q the number of sub-orders of orderOj

Ojr the rth sub-order of orderOj (1 ≤ r ≤ q)αj split percentage of orderOj

Other notationsSday the day when making the order schedulePday the day when the production beginsp the number of product typesTl the lth product type (1 ≤ l ≤ p)fl(·) a function indicating the learning curve of product

type Tl

Ul consecutive days of producing order of typeTl

β uncertainty factor of daily production quantity

A. Problem Description

The robust order scheduling problem in the fashion industryconsidersm production lines andn production orders, andnorders are assigned to appropriate lines for production. Anillustration is displayed in Fig. 1. In Fig. 1, the order barrepresents the duration of producing the related order.

O1 O5

On-1 O2

O3

O6 On On-2

P1

P2

Pm

Fig. 1. An illustration of the robust order scheduling problem in the fashionindustry.

1) Description of Production Line:The production linesconsist of a number of different machines so that a garmentcan start at the top of the line in its cut state and come off theline once completed. On a production line, the machines areresponsible for cutting, embroidery, printing, sewing, pressingand packing, respectively; and sewing is the most time-consuming process. Since we focus on the impact of pre-production events and the uncertainties in the daily productionquantity on the fashion order scheduling, to simplify theproblem, we only consider the sewing process during theproduction in this paper, instead of all the processes. In thisresearch, production lines are product-specific lines, whichmeans that the line’s efficiency is lower than its peak whenthere is a mismatch of product to production line.

An example is provided in Table I to better illustrate theproduction lines. In Table I, the second and third columnsshow thatP1 is blouse-specific line andP2 is jacket-specificline; if a mismatch of product to production line occurs, theefficiencyEp,12 andEp,21 will reduce to 80%. The last columngives the value of “capacity minutes per day” of each line:Cmins

1 = 6720 andCmins2 = 6240.


TABLE IIAN EXAMPLE OF THE DESCRIPTION OF2 PRODUCTION ORDERS.

ProductionOrder

ProductType Quantity

Present ConservativeStarting Date (when Sday=-14) Due Date

Standard MinutesPer Piece

O1 Skirts 870 6 10 14.20O2 Blouses 800 0 11 18.20

TABLE IAN EXAMPLE OF THE DESCRIPTION OF2 PRODUCTION LINES. PRODUCT

TYPE OF BLOUSES IS MARKED AST1, PRODUCT TYPE OF JACKETS IS

MARKED AS T2.

ProductionLine

Efficiency forBlouses (%)

Efficiency forJackets (%)

Capacity(mins/day)

P1 100 80 6720P2 80 100 6240

2) Description of Production Order:Each order has fiveattributes, and an example of 2 production orders is given inTable II. For convenience, the day when the production beginsPday is set as day 0 in this paper. “Present conservative startingdate” denotes the earliest safe starting date of this order’sproduction, which is determined by its pre-production eventswhich have not been finished on the daySday. More detailsof this attribute will be explained in Section II-B. “Due date”shows when the order needs to be completed and delivered tocustomers. The attribute “standard minutes per piece” is usedto represent the workload of the sewing process of each order.In this research, orders can be split intoq sub-orders, with thepurpose of realizing flexible production; the split percentageis denoted byαj = [αj1, αj2, ..., αj(q−1)]

T .

3) Description of Other Notations:When a new type ofproduct is introduced into production, it takes a period oftime for the operators on the production line to get familiarwith the production of this type of product. As time goes on,the efficiency of the production line improves day by day asthe operators become more familiar with the product and anynew manufacturing techniques or skills required. The increaseof the efficiency during this period of time is illustrated by“ learning curve” ( fl(·)), which is specific according to differenttypes of the product (see Fig. 2). The uncertainties in the dailyproduction quantity are taken into account in this paper, andrepresented byβ.

5 10 15 20

day

40

60

80

100

effic

iency (

%)

Fig. 2. An illustration of the learning curve when producingthe order oftype Tl .

In the following, the problem formulation is separated intotwo parts, in which the critical variables concerning pre-production events and the uncertainties in the daily productionquantity are explained in detail, respectively.

B. Variables Regarding Pre-Production Events

In the robust order scheduling problems, four variablesare related to the launch and the termination of orderOj ’sproduction. They are present conservative starting date oforderOj (Cday,j), due date of orderOj (Dday,j), scheduled startingdate of orderOj (Aday,j), and scheduled finishing date of orderOj (Fday,j). Among them,Dday,j is one of the attributes oforder Oj , and Aday,j and Fday,j of Oj can be obtained whenthe schedule is made. ForCday,j, the value is determined byOj ’s pre-production events which have not been finished onthe daySday. In the following, the process of calculatingCday,j

is introduced in detail.

TABLE IIIT IMETABLE OF THE PRE-PRODUCTION EVENTS AND THE UPDATEDPROGRESS OF THE PRE-PRODUCTION EVENTS OF ORDEROj WHEN

Sday = −14. THE UNFINISHED PRE-PRODUCTION EVENTS ARE

HIGHLIGHTED IN GREY BACKGROUND.

Event Name OffsetDays

Event Name OffsetDays

PO Receive -60 PO Receive -60Order Fabric -55 Order Fabric -55Order Trims -40 Order Trims -40Lab Dip Submit -35 Lab Dip Submit -35Lab Dip Approval -20 Lab Dip Approval -20Sample Approval -15 Sample Approval -15Fabric Receipt -10 Fabric Receipt -10Issue Markers -7 Issue Markers -7Trims Receipt -7 Trims Receipt -7Factory PP Meeting -7 Factory PP Meeting -7

For each order, a whole series of activities need to beaccomplished before the order can be put into production,and these events are called pre-production events. Accordingto pre-production events, we can set up a timetable, whichcontains the name of events and the number of working daysbefore the start by which each event needs to be finished. Anillustration is displayed in the left half of Table III. Someofthe events are closely linked, like “Lab Dip Submit” and “LabDip Approval”, and the only requirement to begin “Lab DipApproval” is that “Lab Dip Submit” must be finished.

As it gets closer to the start of the production, the progressof the pre-production events will be updated. The righthalf of Table III shows the updated progress of the pre-production events of orderOj when the schedule is made14 days before the production, i.e.,Sday = −14. Theunfinished pre-production events ofOj are highlighted in greybackground. And the earliest safe starting date of producingOj is determined by the unfinished pre-production event withthe largest offset days, e.g., “Sample Approval” in Table III.In this case, the earliest safe starting date of producingOj

should be−14 + | − 15| = 1, sinceSday = −14. The methodof calculatingCday,j is concluded below.


For order Oj , assume thatkth pre-production event isnot completed and has the largest value of|Fjk|, that is,|Fjk| = max(|Fjk| · Xjk), where1 ≤ k ≤ Nj . Therefore, orderOj ’s present conservative starting dateCday,j is calculated asfollows:

Cday,j =

Pday+ |Fjk| − (Pday− Sday), if |Fjk| > Pday− Sday,

Pday, otherwise.(1)

To sum up, the introduction of pre-production eventsinfluences the order’s present conservative starting date,whichmainly depends on the order’s pre-production events whichhave not been finished on the day when making the orderschedule.

Remark1. In this research, pre-production events are inte-grated in the scheduling as one of the objective functions.We didn’t consider pre-production events as individual tasks,which was the research paradigm mentioned in other prepa-ration action-related works [18, 19]. The reasons can besummarized as follows: 1) In the manufacturing environmentof the fashion industry, production is closely related to pre-production events, and an order cannot be put into productionuntil its pre-production events are all completed; 2) In aschedule, pre-production events influence the starting dateof an order, while production determines the finishing dateof this order. In addition, the negotiations among multipleparties to fulfill an order’s pre-production events are time-consuming and uncertain, which means some events cannotbe completed as originally planned. Therefore, a dynamicadjustment of the schedules can be made in terms of the real-time updating information of pre-production events, whichisa prominent advantage of integrating pre-production events inthe order scheduling. Furthermore, in Section IV-B, we willdiscuss the difference between integrating and not integratingpre-production events in the scheduling. The experimentalresults will show that pre-production events are closely linkedwith the production, and have an important impact on thescheduling problems in the fashion industry.

C. Variables Regarding the Uncertainties in the Daily Pro-duction Quantity

In a schedule, when orderOj is assigned to production linePi , Oj ’s scheduled finishing dateFday,j can be computed interms of its scheduled starting dateAday,j and its productiontime Ptime,j. In this research, the uncertainties in the dailyproduction quantity are taken into consideration, hence thecalculation ofPtime,j is related toβ, which is the uncertaintyfactor of daily production quantity.

Fday,j indicates the date when the production of orderOj iscompleted, which is planned in the order schedule made onthe daySday. If order Oj is not split into sub-orders during theproduction,Fday,j is the date when the production ofOj ends:

Fday,j = Aday,j+ Ptime,j. (2)

If orderOj is split intoq sub-orders,Fday,j represents the endingdate of producing sub-orderOjr (1 ≤ r ≤ q) in the schedule,

Algorithm 1 Calculation of Fday,j ()1: Begin2: /* Qsum,jd is the total quantity of orderOj completed from the first day till the

dth day of processingOj

3: /* Qj is the quantity ofOj

4: /* Ep,il is the efficiency of production linePi for producing order of typeTl

5: /* Sminsj is the standard minutes per piece for orderOj

6: /* β is the uncertainty factor of daily production quantity7: /* rand(a, b) uniformly generates a random number belonging to the interval

(a, b)8: d = 1, Qsum,jd = 09: while Qsum,jd < Qj do10: Eo,j = fl(Ul)

11: Qjd =Ntime,j·Ep,il·Eo,j

Sminsi

· (1 + rand(−β, β))

12: Qsum,jd = Qsum,jd+ Qjd

13: d = d + 1, Ul = Ul + 1, Ntime,j = Cminsi

14: end while15: Ptime,j = d − 116: Fday,j = Aday,j + Ptime,j

17: End

whereOjr is the last sub-order to be finished among all theqsub-orders:

Fday,j = Aday,jr + Ptime,jr . (3)

In the following, we will explain how to calculate theproduction time of an order. The calculation process is thesame no matter whether the order is split. Therefore, wetake orderOj as an example, which is not split during theproduction. Assume that orderOj is of typeTl and processedon production linePi , and here we have the procedure tocalculatePtime,j.

First, determine the efficiency of producing orderOj : Eo,j

and the time needed to reach the next efficiency level for orderOj : Ntime,j. There are two circumstances:

1) If Oj is not the first order processed on production linePi , we assume that the order processed right beforeOj isorder Oj (1 ≤ j ≤ n). If Oj is of the same type asOj ,the consecutive days of producing order of typeTl : Ul cankeep accumulating instead of re-initialization. ThenEo,j canbe computed according toEo,j = fl(Ul). Ntime,j can be obtainedby the following equation:

Ntime,j = Cminsi − Stime,j , (4)

where Stime,j is the time spent on orderOj on its currentefficiency level.

2) If Oj is not the first order processed on production linePi and Oj is of the different type fromOj , or Oj is the firstorder processed on production linePi , Ul is re-initialized as1, andEo,j can be obtained according toEo,j = fl(Ul). Ntime,j

is initialized asCminsi .

Second, after having the values ofEo,j and Ntime,j, we cancalculate the value ofFday,j according to Algorithm 1. InAlgorithm 1, Line 11 shows how to calculate the quantity ofOj

completed on thedth day of processingOj , which reflects theimpact of considering the uncertainties in the daily productionquantity. The while loop terminates when the total quantityof order Oj completed from the first day till thedth day ofprocessingOj reaches the quantity ofOj . Finally, Ptime,j andFday,j can be obtained.

In a word, the uncertainties in the daily production quantityaffect the total processing time of the order, and hence has animpact on the order’s scheduled finishing date.


D. Objective Functions

The investigated order scheduling problem aims at makingrobust order schedules in the fashion industry, in whichthe pre-production events and the uncertainties in the dailyproduction quantity are both considered. In a schedule, if anorder is assigned to be processed on a day before the presentconservative starting date, we say that a pre-production eventclash occurs; if the order is scheduled to be completed afterits due date, we say that there is tardiness for delivering thisorder. Therefore, we have two objectives for the robust orderscheduling problems: 1) minimizing the total tardiness of allorders; 2) minimizing the total pre-production event clashes ofall orders. In the following, these two objectives are introducedin detail.

The first objective is to minimize the total tardiness of allorders, which is described as follows:

f1 =

n∑

j=1

h(DDj − FDj), (5)

whereDDj andFDj are due date and scheduled finishing dateof orderOj , respectively.h(·) is defined as follows:

h(x) =

0, if x ≥ 0,−x, otherwise.

(6)

The second objective is to minimize the total pre-productionevent clashes of all orders, which is expressed as follows:

f2 =

n∑

j=1

h(ADj − CDj), (7)

where ADj and CDj are scheduled starting date and presentconservative starting date of orderOj , respectively. These twoobjectives determine the assignment of all the orders on theproduction lines, and they conflict with each other, whichmeans the solution leading to a smallerf1 (less total tardiness)can cause a largerf2 (more total pre-production event clashes).Therefore, the robust order scheduling problem in the fashionindustry can be modelled as a multi-objective optimizationproblem.

Remark 2. In apparel manufacturing, the production startsas planned even if some pre-production events of individualorders have not been completed, which is realized by movingthe orders with unfinished pre-production events to the laterstage of the production, and arranging the orders of whichthe pre-production events are all finished to be produced atfirst. Fashion order scheduling problems depend much on theprogress of the orders’ pre-production events. It is quite oftenthat some events of individual orders may fail to be finishedas planned since the negotiation process is full of uncertainty.On the basis of our experience in the fashion industry, theschedules are made a period of time preceding the production,and we keep modifying these schedules according to thedynamic updating information of the pre-production eventsas production approaching. It is worth mentioning that theintention of this paper is to provide the planners with earlywarnings of the orders with unfinished pre-production events.And by means of evolutionary algorithms, the schedules canbe promptly and intelligently updated.

III. ROBUST MULTI -OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION FOR

ORDER SCHEDULING PROBLEMS IN THE FASHION

INDUSTRY

In this section, the concept of robust multi-objective op-timization is first provided. Then a nondominated sortingadaptive differential evolution (NSJADE)-based optimizationprocess is proposed to obtain the robust order schedules inthe fashion industry.

A. Robust Multi-Objective Optimization

As stated in [15], robustness is introduced in multi-objectiveoptimization by means of optimizing the mean effectiveobjective functions instead of optimizing the original objec-tive functions. Hence the robust multi-objective optimizationproblem can be formulated as follows:

Problem: A solution x∗ is called a multi-objective robustsolution, if it is the global feasible Pareto-optimal solution tothe following multi-objective minimization problem (definedwith respect to aδ-neighborhood of a solutionx):

minimize (feff1 (x), feff

2 (x), ..., feffM (x)), x ∈ Ω, (8)

wherefeffi (x) is defined as follows:

feffi (x) =

1

|Bδ(x)|

∫

y∈Bδ(x)fi(y)dy, (9)

Bδ(x) is a δ-neighborhood of a solutionx, |Bδ(x)| is thehypervolume of the neighborhood;Ω is the feasible decisionspace,x = [x1, x2, ..., xD]T is a decision vector, andD isthe dimension size, representing the number of the decisionvariables involved in the problem;feff

1 (x), feff2 (x), ..., feff

M (x)are M mean effective objective functions for optimization.An illustration of robust solutions is given in Fig. S.1 in thesupplementary file.

For the robust order scheduling problem in the fashionindustry, we setM = 2. And fi(i = 1, 2) is provided inEqs. (5) and (7), hence the objectives of the problem in thispaper are transformed into:feff

1 andfeff2 . For the calculation of

feffi , a practical way is to generate a finite set ofH solutions

in a randomly or structured manner, which are selected arounda δ-neighborhoodBδ(x) of a solutionx in the decision space;then the value of the mean effective objective functionfeff

i

can be calculated by averaging the function values of theH

neighboring solutions.

B. NSJADE-Based Optimization Process

NSJADE is developed based on two EAs: nondominatedsorting genetic algorithm-II (NSGA-II) [20] and adaptivedifferential evolution (JADE) [21], which aims to combine theadvantages of these two EAs. In this research, NSJADE servesas the optimization tool in the optimization process, and theflowchart of NSJADE is provided in Fig. 3. In the optimizationprocess, there are three important issues we need to elaborate:encoding scheme, population initialization, and evaluation ofthe population.Encoding schemeandpopulation initializationare related to the first box (marked by∗) of the flowchart inFig. 3, evaluation of the populationis related to the secondand eighth boxes (marked by∗) of the flowchart in Fig. 3.


Fig. 3. Flowchart of the proposed NSJADE.

1) Encoding Scheme:The first step of the optimizationprocess is to encode potential order scheduling solutions intoindividuals. In this research, a feasible solution needs tobeable to determine the assignment of each production orderto a proper production line. In addition, an individual shouldreflect the split information of each order, and the sequenceofthe orders on the same production line. Hence, each individualconsists of three parts: the assignment of each production orderto the production line, the split information of each order,and the sequence of the orders on the same production line.Since this research focuses on the impact of pre-productionevents and the uncertainties in the daily production quantityon the fashion order scheduling, to simplify the problem, weassume that during the production process, each order can bedivided into at most two sub-orders. Therefore, the length ofan individual is four times the number of the orders:D = 4n.Fig. 4 illustrates the encoding of the individual. In Part A,every two bits represent the production lines to which the sub-orders of an order are assigned; and the length of Part A is2n. In Part B, each single bit denotes the split percentage ofevery order; the length of Part B isn. Part C assigns the labelto each order, which determines the sequence of the orders onthe same production line; the length of Part C is alson.

Fig. 4. Encoding of the individual.

Remark3. We assume that each order can be divided into atmost 2 sub-orders, hence the dimension size of the individualD equals4n. If we assume that an order can be split intoq

sub-orders (q > 2), thenD = qn + (q − 1)n + n = 2qn.As the value ofq increases, which leads to the increase ofD, more individuals and generations are needed for NSJADE

to search for the optimal schedules. WhenD increasesto vastly more than 100 [22], in order to have efficientperformance, evolutionary algorithms specially designedforhigh-dimensional optimization problems are required. On theother hand, it is worth pointing out that learning curve is one ofthe factors that affect the efficiency of apparel manufacturing.If an order is split into fewer sub-orders, the quantity ofeach sub-order will increase, which means the operator willrepeat the production process of this product for more times,and hence improves the production efficiency. In addition, theincrease in the number of sub-orders will raise the likelihoodthat the neighbouring orders on the same production lines areof different product types, which then lowers the productionefficiency and increases the production time of the orders.Therefore, it is not often to split an order into many sub-ordersin apparel manufacturing.

2) Population Initialization: For the initialization of PartA, uniform random integers in the range[1,m] are assignedto each dimension of Part A, wherem is the number of theproduction line. It is worth noting that if certain lines cannotabsolutely accept one type of product (the efficiency is 0 forthis type of product), then related modifications should bemade when initializing Part A. For example, if order 1 cannotbe processed on linePm (1 ≤ m ≤ m), then the first two bitsof the encoding will be initialized in the range[1, m)

⋃

(m,m].Part B shows the split percentage of each order. To simplifythe optimization process, each bit of Part B is selected from[0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8] in a uniformly random way. For initializingPart C, each bit is assigned with a uniform random integerin the range[1, n], wheren is the number of the productionorder.

3) Evaluation of the Population:After the populationinitialization, the fitness valuefeff

i (i = 1, 2) of each individualneeds to be evaluated. To calculatefeff

i , H neighbouring pointswill be selected around the individual within a predefinedrange. As illustrated in Section II,β is set as the uncertaintyfactor of daily production quantityQjd. The detailed evaluationprocess of each individual is explained as follows, whichinvolves six steps:

Step 1. Split the orders according to the split percentage inPart B of the individual’s encoding if the orders arescheduled to be processed on different productionlines in terms of Part A.

Step 2. According to Part A of the individual’s encoding,assign the orders or sub-orders to the production lines.

Step 3. Based on Part C of the individual’s encoding, deter-mine the sequence of the orders assigned to the sameproduction line.

Step 4. GenerateH neighbouring points of the individual,and for each neighbouring point, the daily productionquantity Qjd can be calculated according to Line 11in Algorithm 1.

Step 5. Calculate the fitness valuefi(i = 1, 2) of eachneighbouring point with Eqs. (5) and (7).

Step 6. Average the fitness values ofH neighbouring points,and the fitness valuefeff

i (i = 1, 2) of the individualcan be obtained.


0 200 400 600 800

Generation

0

10

20

30

40A

ve

rag

e O

bje

ctive

Va

lue

(a)

0 2 4 6

f1

0

2

4

6

8

f2

Sday = −3

Sday = −7

Sday = −14

(b)

Fig. 5. The illustration of the significance of considering pre-productionevents. (a) The evolution of the average objective value of 30 runs for theorder scheduling problem optimized by JADE when pre-production eventsare not considered; (b) The PFs obtained by NSJADE whenSday = −3,Sday = −7, andSday = −14, respectively.

After initializing the population, several operations, e.g.,fast nondominated sorting, crowding-distance assignment, mu-tation, crossover, and selection, are carried out. Becauseofthe page limit, the details of these operations are providedinSection S.I in the supplementary file.

IV. EXPERIMENTS AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

A. Experimental Information

Because of the page length limit, the experimental setup,including the information of the test data, the productionorders and the production lines, is given in Section S.II inthe supplementary file.

The parameters of NSJADE are set as the same as that inJADE [21]. It should be mentioned that in this paper, we do notuse the maximum number of function evaluations (MAXFES)to control the termination of NSJADE. The reason is thatMAX FES relies on the value ofH , which is the number ofthe neighbouring points of an individual. In order to simplycontrol the termination of NSJADE, we utilize the maximumnumber of generationsGmax as the stopping criterion; andGmax = D · ξ, where D is the dimension size, andξ is apredefined parameter, which controls the evolution generationsof the algorithm. The value ofξ is set as 10 according to theanalysis in Section S.III in the supplementary file. It is noticedthat a differential evolution (DE) algorithm is employed asthesearch engine of NSJADE; and the population size of DE isrecommended as5 · D [23]. Therefore, the population sizein this paper isNP = 400, since the dimension size of theproblem investigated is 80. In the experiments, the number ofthe neighbouring points is set asH = 5, and the uncertaintyfactor of daily production quantity is set asβ = 0.2. NSJADEis conducted for 30 runs for eliminating discrepancy, and thePFs are sorted out from the solutions obtained after 30 runs.

B. Significance of Considering Pre-Production Events

One of the contributions of this research is to consider pre-production events when making the order schedules in thefashion industry. In this subsection, two groups of experimentswill be conducted to show the significance of including pre-production events.

In the first group of experiments, no pre-production eventsare taken into consideration, which means that all the orders

are ready for production after the production begins. Theproblem is transformed into a single-objective optimizationproblem, and the only objective is to minimize the total tar-diness of all orders. A single-objective evolutionary algorithmJADE [21] is utilized to search the optimal solution for orderschedules. We provide the evolution of the average objectivevalue of 30 runs for the problem optimized by JADE whenpre-production events are not considered in Fig. 5(a). FromFig. 5(a), it shows that the average objective value drops to0within 800 generations, which means that the schedule withno tardiness can be achieved easily.

In the second group of experiments, pre-production eventsare taken into consideration when making the schedule. In real-world production, based on the progress of the orders’ pre-production events, planners make or update order schedulesat regular intervals before the production begins. Here, wemake the schedules 3 days, 7 days, and 14 days before theproduction begins, i.e.,Sday = −3, Sday = −7, and Sday =−14. The problem is optimized by our proposed NSJADEand the PFs are provided in Fig. 5(b). The results illustratethat the schedule with no pre-production event clashes andno tardiness cannot be obtained when pre-production eventsare included in the order scheduling. Therefore, it can beconcluded that pre-production events have a big impact onthe order scheduling problems in the fashion industry, whichshould not be neglected in the research of order scheduling.

Remark 4. In multi-objective optimization, the ideal solu-tion denotes an array of the lower bound of all objectivefunctions (for minimization problems) [24]. For the orderscheduling problem in this paper, the ideal solution is[0, 0],which means the total tardiness of all orders is 0, andthe total pre-production event clashes of all orders are also0. However, in real-world production, multiple parties, e.g.,suppliers, manufacturers and customers, need to collaboratewith each other to complete a pre-production event. Andnegotiations among them are time-consuming and uncertain.In addition, some events are closely linked, which meansthe only requirement to begin an event is that another eventmust be finished. Therefore, when making the schedules, thetotal pre-production event clashes of all orders mostly exist.If we hope that the total clashes become 0, we need topostpone the starting date of certain orders when making theschedule. However, the late starting date of an order mightdefer its finishing date, which means the tardiness happens.So minimizing the total tardiness of all orders and minimizingthe total pre-production event clashes of all orders are twoconflicting objectives of the order scheduling problem in thispaper. By means of NSJADE, a set of schedules which balancethese two objectives can be provided.

Remark5. It is worth mentioning that the PFs obtained byNSJADE whenSday = −3, Sday = −7, and Sday = −14are different. This is because the progress of the orders’ pre-production events will keep updating when the production isapproaching, which then influences the present conservativestarting dateCday,j of each order. According to Eq. (7),Cday,j

is involved in the second objective; therefore, the PFs obtainedby NSJADE may be in different shapes whenSday is distinct.


0 2 4 6 8

f1 or f1eff

0

2

4

6

8

f2orf2eff

non-robust

robust

(a) Sday = −3

0 1 2 3

f1 or f1eff

0

1

2

3

f2orf2eff

non-robust

robust

(b) Sday = −7

0 2 4 6 8

f1 or f1eff

0

2

4

6

8

f2orf2eff

non-robust

robust

(c) Sday = −14

Fig. 6. Comparisons of the PFs of non-robust and robust orderschedulesobtained by NSJADE. (a)Sday = −3; (b) Sday = −7; (c) Sday = −14.

From Fig. 6, it can be noticed that the robust PF forSday = −7offers the best result when compared with those forSday = −3andSday = −14; and the higher flexibility (i.e.,Sday = −14) inthe time schedule does not increase the chance for less clashes,which is also caused by the present conservative starting dateCday,j of each order. By taking a look atO1, O2, O3, O7,O9, O11, O12 andO17 in Table S.1 in the supplementary file,we find thatCday,j for Sday = −14 (i.e., 6 or 11) is largerthan that forSday = −3 (i.e., 0) andSday = −7 (i.e., 0). Thismeans these orders can only be arranged on the 6th or 11thday after the production begins whenSday = −14, and we cansay more restrictions are put on scheduling these orders, whichalso explains why the higher flexibility in the time scheduledoes not decrease the clashes.

C. Comparison of Non-Robust and Robust Order Schedulesby NSJADE

In this subsection, we will compare the non-robust androbust order schedules obtained in the experiments, whichaims at illustrating the significance of introducing robustmulti-objective optimization into order scheduling problems in thefashion industry. The results are provided in Fig. 6.

From Fig. 6, it can be observed that the schedules obtainedachieve a balance between the two objectives, i.e., minimizingthe total tardiness of all orders and minimizing the total pre-production event clashes of all orders. The results unveilthat when the daily production quantity is not fixed, whichmeans the uncertainty is considered, the PFs shown in Fig.6 are different from that of the cases without uncertainty.The differences appear due to the uncertain daily productionquantity during the production. In robust schedules, the dailyproduction quantity of each order is allowed to vary withina certain range, and we can say that the robust schedules(represented by blue triangles in Fig. 6) are less sensitivetothe variation of each order’s daily production quantity. Asaresult, robust order schedules can be shifted less often afterthe production starts than non-robust ones, which saves laborcost and enhances the production efficiency. In addition, basedon the robust order schedules obtained by NSJADE, planners

can pay close attention to the unfinished pre-production eventsas early as possible.

In the following, we randomly take two of the Paretosolutions obtained in a non-robust scenario as an example, andinvestigate how the solutions will be affected when uncertaintyis considered. In detail, a solution A ((f1, f2) = (1, 5) in theobjective space) and a solution B ((f1, f2) = (5, 0) in theobjective space) are selected from the PF by NSJADE withoutuncertainty in Fig. 6(c). The schedules represented by solutionA and solution B are marked as schedule SA and schedule SB.To save space, we only list the details of schedule SA in TableIV; the details of schedule SB are provided in Table S.3 inthe supplementary file. The figures in the parentheses denotethe specific order size after order split.

TABLE IVTHE DETAILS OF THE ORDER ASSIGNMENTS ON6 PRODUCTION LINES IN

SCHEDULESA.

ProductionLine No. Order Assignments

1O6(400), O5(600), O10(312), O2(420), O1(348),

O9(800), O20(2400), O13(240)

2O4(500), O10(468), O18(320), O2(280), O1(522),

O3(320), O17(800), O20(600)

3O5(400), O15(600), O7(480), O3(480), O14(2000),

O11(200), O13(160)4 O6(600), O15(400), O7(320), O18(480)5 O16(300), O12(400), O8(510), O11(800), O19(420)6 O16(200), O12(600), O8(340), O19(280)

In schedule SA, three orders have the pre-production eventclashes or delay in delivery:O7 starts 1 day earlier beforeall the pre-production events are ready, and finishes 1 daylater than its due date;O12 and O16 start 3 days and 1day earlier before all the pre-production events are ready,respectively. When uncertainty is introduced into schedule SA,we calculate the updated objective values[feff

1 , feff2 ], and get

[feff1 , feff

2 ] = [4, 5]. Three more orders (i.e.,O2, O17 andO19)encounter the delay in delivery besidesO7, which leads to theincrease of the first objective. Similarly, when uncertainty isintroduced into schedule SB, we get[feff

1 , feff2 ] = [6, 0]. One

more order (i.e.,O7) encounters the delay in delivery besidesO9 andO12, which leads to the increase of the first objective.It can be observed that uncertainty has a big impact on theschedules, and it is meaningful to consider uncertainty in theorder scheduling problem.

D. Effect ofβ on Robust Order Scheduling

In this subsection, we will study the impact of the un-certainty factorβ on robust order scheduling.β is set asβ = [0.2, 0.3], and the results are displayed in Fig. 7. FromFig. 7, it can be observed that asβ increases, the shift in thePF moves away from the original PF, i.e., uncertainty is notconsidered. This phenomenon is natural, since the increaseofβ brings more uncertainties in the daily production quantityof each order, which then causes more differences from theoriginal PF.

E. Effect ofH on Robust Order Scheduling

As described in Section III-A,H neighbouring solutionsare selected to compute the mean effective objective function


0 5 10

f1 or f1eff

0

5

10

f2orf2eff

non-robust

β = 0.2

β = 0.3

(a) Sday = −3

0 1 2 3 4

f1 or f1eff

0

1

2

3

f2orf2eff

non-robust

β = 0.2

β = 0.3

(b) Sday = −7

0 2 4 6 8

f1 or f1eff

0

2

4

6

8

f2orf2eff

non-robust

β = 0.2

β = 0.3

(c) Sday = −14

Fig. 7. Comparisons of the PFs obtained by NSJADE with different β. (a)Sday = −3; (b) Sday = −7; (c) Sday = −14.

0 5 10

f1 or f1eff

0

5

10

f2orf2eff

non-robust

H = 5

H = 15

(a) Sday = −3

0 1 2 3 4

f1 or f1eff

0

1

2

3

f2orf2eff

non-robust

H = 5

H = 15

(b) Sday = −7

0 2 4 6 8

f1 or f1eff

0

2

4

6

8

f2orf2eff

non-robust

H = 5

H = 15

(c) Sday = −14

Fig. 8. Comparisons of the PFs obtained by NSJADE under differentH. (a)Sday = −3; (b) Sday = −7; (c) Sday = −14.

feffi . Intuitively, if more neighbouring solutions are chosen, the

objective values will be closer to the true average values. Inthe previous experiments of this section, the value ofH is setas 5. Here, we depict the effect of using different values ofH

on robust order scheduling problems in Fig. 8. From Fig. 8, itcan be observed that despite having a smaller computationaltime, the mean effective front using a smallH overestimatesthe true robust front. However, compared withH = 15, themean effective front withH = 5 can also achieve a satisfactoryapproximation. In applications, users can choose the values ofH according to practical situations.

F. Comparison with Existing MOEAs

In order to show the superiority of NSJADE, we compareit with two existing MOEAs: NSGA-II [20] and NSCDE[25]. The results are given in Fig. 9. In this paper, thecomputational resource is limited (i.e., 800 generations)foreach algorithm. Therefore, we need to select the algorithmthat is powerful enough to obtain the solutions with betterconvergence performance with limited computational resource.It can be observed from Fig. 9 that in a fixed period

0 5 10 15

f1eff

0

5

10

15

f2eff

NSGA-II

NSCDE

NSJADE

(a) Sday = −3

0 5 10

f1eff

0

5

10

f2eff

NSGA-II

NSCDE

NSJADE

(b) Sday = −7

0 20 40

f1eff

0

5

10

15

f2eff

NSGA-II

NSCDE

NSJADE

(c) Sday = −14

Fig. 9. Comparisons of the PFs obtained by NSGA-II, NSCDE, and NSJADE.(a) Sday = −3; (b) Sday = −7; (c) Sday = −14.

of searching, the solutions obtained by NSJADE have thebest convergence performance among the three MOEAs;and we give the credit to the powerful search engine ofNSJADE: JADE. Furthermore, since boundary points are oneof the most important components in a PF, in Table V, werecord the mean values of the boundary points of the PFobtained in each run of 30 runs for these three algorithms.The nondominated boundary points are highlighted in graybackground. According to the results in Table V, it can befigured out that, 1) all the boundary points in the PF obtainedby NSJADE are nondomindated; 2) only half of the boundarypoints in the PF obtained by NSCDE are nondominated; 3) andnone of the boundary points in the PF obtained by NSGA-IIare nondominated, which also means that NSJADE offers thebest results when compared with NSGA-II and NSCDE.

TABLE VCOMPARISON OF THE MEAN VALUES(MEAN±STD) OF THE BOUNDARY

POINTS OF THEPF OBTAINED IN EACH RUN OF 30 RUNS BY NSGA-II,NSCDE,AND NSJADE. THE NONDOMINATED BOUNDARY POINTS ARE

HIGHLIGHTED IN GRAY BACKGROUND.

Sday = −3boundary point 1 boundary point 2feff1

feff2

feff1

feff2

NSGA-II 8.3±4.4 12.4±4.2 23.2±5.3 0.2±0.5NSCDE 0.7±0.7 14.5±4.2 17.3±3.2 0.0±0.0NSJADE 0.9±1.3 10.8±2.6 12.5±2.3 0.0±0.0


feff2

feff1

feff2



feff2

feff1

feff2


The experiments were carried out on a PC with Intelr

CoreTM i7 Processor 3.60GHz CPU and 8GB RAM. Theprocessing time of each generation is 2 seconds, and ittakes around 26.67 minutes each run for generating robustorder schedules. It is worth mentioning that order schedulingis performed before the production, which can be regarded


as an off-line scheduling. In addition, if high-performancecomputers and parallel computing are introduced to makethe schedules in the factory, the scheduling time will furtherreduce. Meanwhile, intelligent order scheduling requireslessmanpower and fewer resources, which also saves the cost andincreases the efficiency.

V. CONCLUSION

This paper has tackled the robust order scheduling problemsin the fashion industry, which is a significant componentof flexible and intelligent supply chain management. Pre-production events in apparel manufacturing are taken intoaccount for the first time, hence the order scheduling problemis modelled as a multi-objective optimization problem. Inaddition, in this paper, the daily production quantity of eachorder is assumed to be uncertain according to most real-worldmanufacturing environment of the fashion industry, whichmakes the problem into a robust multi-objective optimizationproblem. And NSJADE is utilized to search the robust orderschedules.

A set of experiments have been carried out. The observa-tions from the experiments show that pre-production eventsgreatly influence the arrangements of the orders in the fashionindustry. Moreover, it can be observed that the uncertaintyinthe daily production quantity of each order has a paramountimpact on the order scheduling. The corresponding robustPFs are also provided under various settings of parametersincluding the uncertainty factorβ and the number of theneighbouring solutionsH . It is found that robust orderschedules can be shifted less often after the production startsthan non-robust ones, which saves labor cost and enhances theproduction efficiency. Meanwhile, with the help of robust orderschedules, planners can pay close attention to the unfinishedpre-production events as early as possible, negotiate earlierwith the customers who place the orders about the delay indelivery, or arrange operators to work extra hours for theseorders.

REFERENCES

[1] H. K. Chan and F. T. Chan, “Early order completion contract approachto minimize the impact of demand uncertainty on supply chains,” IEEETransactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 48–58, 2006.

[2] J. Branke, S. Nguyen, C. Pickardt, and M. Zhang, “Automated designof production scheduling heuristics: A review,”IEEE Transactions onEvolutionary Computation, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 110–124, 2016.

[3] A. Sen, “The US fashion industry: a supply chain review,” InternationalJournal of Production Economics, vol. 114, no. 2, pp. 571–593, 2008.

[4] Z.-L. Chen and G. Pundoor, “Order assignment and scheduling in asupply chain,”Operations Research, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 555–572, 2006.

[5] Z. Guo, W. K. Wong, Z. Li, and P. Ren, “Modeling and paretooptimization of multi-objective order scheduling problems in productionplanning,”Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 972–986, 2013.

[6] W.-K. Wong, Z. Guo, and S. Leung, “Intelligent multi-objectivedecision-making model with RFID technology for productionplanning,”International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 147, pp. 647–658,2014.

[7] T. Hines and M. Bruce,Fashion marketing. Routledge, 2007.[8] Are you in control of your pre-production process?

http://icm.fastreact.com/assets/casestudies/pdfs/ManagementBrief Ref- Fast React Evolve ManagementBrief Critical Path 2015.pdf,2015.

[9] A. E. Eiben and J. Smith, “From evolutionary computationto theevolution of things,”Nature, vol. 521, no. 7553, pp. 476–482, 2015.

[10] W. Du, S. Y. S. Leung, Y. Tang, and A. V. Vasilakos, “Differentialevolution with event-triggered impulsive control,”IEEE Transactionson Cybernetics, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 244–257, 2017.

[11] Z. Guo, W. K. Wong, and S. Leung, “A hybrid intelligent model fororder allocation planning in make-to-order manufacturing,” Applied SoftComputing, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1376–1390, 2013.

[12] D. Ouelhadj and S. Petrovic, “A survey of dynamic scheduling inmanufacturing systems,”Journal of Scheduling, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 417–431, 2009.

[13] Y. Jin and B. Sendhoff, “Trade-off between performanceand robustness:an evolutionary multiobjective approach,” inEvolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization, pp. 237–251, Springer, 2003.

[14] Y. Jin and J. Branke, “Evolutionary optimization in uncertainenvironments-a survey,”IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computa-tion, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 303–317, 2005.

[15] K. Deb and H. Gupta, “Introducing robustness in multi-objectiveoptimization,” Evolutionary Computation, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 463–494,2006.

[16] Y. Tang, H. Gao, W. Du, J. Lu, A. Vasilakos, and J. Kurths,“Robust multiobjective controllability of complex neuronal networks,”IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics,vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 778–791, 2016.

[17] Fast React. http://www.fastreact.com/, 2015.[18] P. D. Berger, A. Gerstenfeld, and A. Z. Zeng, “How many suppliers are

best? A decision-analysis approach,”Omega, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 9–15,2004.

[19] T. Sawik, “Joint supplier selection and scheduling of customer ordersunder disruption risks: Single vs. dual sourcing,”Omega, vol. 43, pp. 83–95, 2014.

[20] K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan, “A fast and elitistmultiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II,”IEEE Transactions onEvolutionary Computation, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 182–197, 2002.

[21] J. Zhang and A. C. Sanderson, “JADE: adaptive differential evolutionwith optional external archive,”IEEE Transactions on EvolutionaryComputation, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 945–958, 2009.

[22] R. Cheng and Y. Jin, “A competitive swarm optimizer for large scaleoptimization,” IEEE transactions on cybernetics, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 191–204, 2015.

[23] S. Das and P. N. Suganthan, “Differential evolution: a survey of the state-of-the-art,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 15,no. 1, pp. 4–31, 2011.

[24] K. Deb, Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms.Chichester, U.K.: Wiley, 2001.

[25] Y. Tang, H. Gao, and J. Kurths, “Multiobjective identification ofcontrolling areas in neuronal networks,”IEEE/ACM Transactions onComputational Biology and Bioinformatics, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 708–720,2013.

http://icm.fastreact.com/assets/case_studies/pdfs/Management_Brief_Ref-_Fast_React_Evolve_Management_Brief_Critical_Path_2015.pdf

http://www.fastreact.com/


SUPPLEMENTARY FILE

SECTION CAPTIONS

• Section S.IThe Other Operations• Section S.II Experimental Setup• Section S.III The Effect ofξ on Search Performance

TABLE CAPTIONS

• Table S.1The details of the 20 production orders collectfrom Fast React.

• Table S.2The details of the 6 production lines collectedfrom Fast React.

• Table S.3 The details of the order assignments on 6production lines in schedule SB.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

• Fig. S.1An illustration of robust solutions from decisionspace to objective space. Solution A is more robustto perturbations in variable than solution B when twoobjectivesf1 andf2 are optimized.

• Fig. S.2 The learning curves of producing differentproducts. (a) Leaning curve of producing skirts and pants;(b) Learning curve of producing blouses; (c) Learningcurve of producing jackets.

• Fig. S.3 The Pareto fronts sorted out from the solutionsobtained after 30 runs by NSJADE whenξ = [5, 10, 15].


S.I THE OTHER OPERATIONS

A. Fast Nondominated Sorting and Crowding-Distance As-signment

In our proposed NSJADE, we keep the fast nondominatedsorting and crowding-distance assignment, which are twoeffective mechanisms presented in NSGA-II [20]. After evalu-ating the population, a fast nondominated sorting approachisemployed to sort the population into different nondominationlevels with a lower computational complexity compared tothe traditional approach. For each individual, the averagedistance of two individuals on either side of this individualis calculated along each of the objectives, and the distanceis called crowding distance. When two individuals are in thesame nondomination level, the individual with a larger valueof crowding distance is preferred. For more details of thesetwo mechanisms, one can refer to [20].

B. Mutation and Crossover

In the developed NSJADE, adaptive differential evolution(JADE) is elected as the search engine instead of the non-adaptive genetic algorithm for promoting both explorationandexploitation abilities of the population. Therefore, the mutationand crossover strategies of JADE are adopted in NSJADE. Onecan refer to [21] for the details of the mutation and crossoverstrategies.

C. Selection

In a single evolution, after each individual in the parentpopulation goes through the mutation and crossover, a newgeneration needs to be selected from the combined parentand the offspring population. It is assumed that the parentpopulation containsNP individuals; therefore, after a singleevolution, there are2NP individuals (each parent generatesone offspring) in the candidate pool. Sort the populationinto different nondomination levels by means of the fastnondominated sorting approach, and calculate the crowdingdistance of each individual. The individual with the lowernondomination level and the larger crowding distance ispreferred. By following this principle,NP individuals arechosen from the candidate pool as the population of a newgeneration.

S.II EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

In this section, we introduce the experimental setup in detail,including the information of the test data, the productionorders, and the production lines.

A. Test Data Information

The test data used for the following experiments aregathered from a business software called Fast React [17].Fast React is a production planning software for the fashionindustry, which considers practical factors in real-worldpro-duction, like pre-production events, learning effect, etc. AndFast React has been used by global fashion brands, high streetretailers and prominent worldwide manufacturers involvedin

the real business ranging from carpet, cloth and lace weavers toshoe manufacturers, clothing companies and so on. Fast Reactprovides a lot of industrial data collected from their customers,and the data include different types of orders and productionlines as well as the information of the orders’ pre-productionevents. Therefore, these data are utilized as the test data in ourresearch.

Although Fast React simulates the real production in thefashion industry, it does not consider various uncertainties thatexist in the real-world manufacturing. In addition, plannersare required to manually place the orders on the productionlines in Fast React, which is not intelligent. In this research,uncertainties in the daily production quantity are taken intoconsideration; and robust order schedules can be intelligentlyobtained by using our proposed NSJADE.

B. Production Order Information

Each production order has five attributes: product type,quantity, present conservative starting date, due date, and stan-dard minutes per piece of this order. The detailed descriptionsof each attribute can be found in Section II-A. There are totalfour categories of orders: skirts, blouses, pants and jackets.The learning curves of producing these four types of productsare collected from Fast React [17] and provided in Fig. S.2in the supplementary file. A total of 20 orders are collectedfor the following experiments. The details of these orders aregiven in Table S.1 in the supplementary file.

C. Production Line Information

As in Fast React [17], there are total 6 production linesconsidered in the experiments. These production lines areproduct-specific lines, which means that the line’s efficiency islower than its peak value when there is a mismatch of productto production line. The details of the production lines are listedin Table S.2 in the supplementary file.

S.III THE EFFECT OFξ ON SEARCH PERFORMANCE

The parameterξ is to balance the search accuracy andthe computational complexity of NSJADE. A largeξ isapt to enhance the search accuracy and result in a heavycomputational complexity; a smallξ is able to reduce thecomputational burdens and may bring about unsatisfactorysearch performance. Therefore, an appropriate tuning ofξ

must be carried out. In this subsection, a set of tests areconducted to select a properξ for the order scheduling problemstudied in this paper. We make the order schedule 3 daysbefore the production begins, i.e.,Sday = −3, and uncertaintyis not considered.ξ is set as[5, 10, 15]. The Pareto fronts(PFs) obtained by NSJADE with three different values ofξ areprovided in Fig. S.3. It can be observed that the PFs overlapcompletely whenξ = 10 and ξ = 15, and the solutions onthese two PFs dominate the solutions on the PF whenξ = 5.As a result, in order to achieve a balance between searchaccuracy and computational complexity, we selectξ = 10 forNSJADE in this paper.


TABLE S.1THE DETAILS OF THE20 PRODUCTION ORDERS COLLECT FROMFAST REACT.

ProductionOrder No.

ProductType Quantity

Present ConservativeStarting Date (Sday=-3, -7, -14) Due Date

Standard MinutesPer Piece

1 Skirts 870 0, 0, 6 10 14.202 Skirts 700 0, 0, 6 7 18.203 Blouses 800 0, 0, 6 11 18.204 Skirts 500 0, 3, 0 9 18.205 Skirts 1000 0, 0, 0 11 16.706 Skirts 1000 7, 3, 0 10 16.707 Blouses 800 0, 0, 6 7 32.208 Jackets 850 12, 8, 1 15 54.609 Skirts 800 0, 0, 6 10 16.7010 Pants 780 12, 8, 1 15 34.0011 Blouses 1000 0, 0, 11 15 15.0012 Jackets 1000 0, 0, 6 8 53.7813 Skirts 400 22, 18, 11 24 26.5014 Blouses 2000 0, 13, 6 15 12.6015 Blouses 1000 4, 0, 0 11 12.6016 Jackets 500 12, 8, 1 18 44.1017 Skirts 800 0, 0, 11 15 20.5518 Skirts 800 0, 0, 0 19 20.5519 Jackets 700 0, 18, 11 20 44.1020 Blouses 3000 17, 13, 6 19 12.60

TABLE S.2THE DETAILS OF THE6 PRODUCTION LINES COLLECTED FROMFAST REACT.

ProductionLine No.

Efficiency forSkirts/Pants (%)

Efficiency forBlouses (%)

Efficiency forJackets (%)

Capacity(mins/day)

1 100 80 80 67202 100 80 80 67203 80 100 80 62404 80 100 80 62405 80 80 100 67206 80 80 100 6720

TABLE S.3THE DETAILS OF THE ORDER ASSIGNMENTS ON6 PRODUCTION LINES IN SCHEDULESB.

ProductionLine No. Order Assignments

1O5(800), O18(640), O2(560), O1(870), O9(800),

O17(800)

2O6(400), O10(624), O2(140), O3(320), O14(800),

O11(1000), O13(400)

3O5(200), O6(600), O15(400), O7(320), O14(1200),

O20(1200)

4O18(160), O10(156), O15(600), O7(480), O3(480),

O20(1800)5 O4(300), O16(200), O12(600), O8(170)6 O4(200), O16(300), O12(400), O8(680), O19(700)


(a) (b)

Fig. S.1. An illustration of robust solutions from decisionspace to objective space. Solution A is more robust to perturbations in variable than solution Bwhen two objectivesf1 andf2 are optimized.

5 10 15 20

day

20

40

60

80

100

effic

iency (

%)

(a)

5 10 15 20

day

40

60

80

100

eff

icie

ncy (

%)

(b)

5 10 15 20

day

20

40

60

80

100

effic

iency (

%)

(c)

Fig. S.2. The learning curves of producing different products. (a) Leaning curve of producing skirts and pants; (b) Learning curve of producing blouses; (c)Learning curve of producing jackets.

0 5 10

f1

0

2

4

6

8

f2

ξ = 5

ξ = 10

ξ = 15

Fig. S.3. The Pareto fronts sorted out from the solutions obtained after 30 runs by NSJADE whenξ = [5, 10, 15].

Documents

PREPRINT SUBMITTED TO ARXIV 1 Robust Order Scheduling in