<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
 <record>
  <leader>     caa a22        4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">445838736</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="003">CHVBK</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20180317145337.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="007">cr unu---uuuuu</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">170323e20111001xx      s     000 0 eng  </controlfield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">10.1007/s10951-010-0208-7</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">doi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">(NATIONALLICENCE)springer-10.1007/s10951-010-0208-7</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1="0" ind2="2">
   <subfield code="a">A bicriteria approach to minimize the total weighted number oftardy jobs with convex controllable processing times andassignable due dates</subfield>
   <subfield code="h">[Elektronische Daten]</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">[Dvir Shabtay, George Steiner]</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">We study a single-machine scheduling problem in a flexible framework where both job processing times and due dates are decision variables to be determined by the scheduler. The model can also be applied for quoting delivery times when some parts of the jobs may be outsourced. We analyze the problem for two due date assignment methods and a convex resource consumption function. For each due date assignment method, we provide a bicriteria analysis where the first criterion is to minimize the total weighted number of tardy jobs plus due date assignment cost, and the second criterion is to minimize total weighted resource consumption. We consider four different models for treating the two criteria. Although the problem of minimizing a single integrated objective function can be solved in polynomial time, we prove that the three bicriteria models are $\mathcal{NP}$-hard for both due date assignment methods. We also present special cases, which frequently occur in practice, and in which all four models are polynomially solvable.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 2010</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Bicriteria scheduling</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Due date assignment</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Convex controllable processing times</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Resource allocation</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Shabtay</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Dvir</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Steiner</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">George</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Operations Management Area, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="t">Journal of Scheduling</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">Springer US; http://www.springer-ny.com</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">14/5(2011-10-01), 455-469</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">1094-6136</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">14:5&lt;455</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">2011</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">14</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">10951</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10951-010-0208-7</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="908" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="D">1</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">research-article</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">jats</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">856</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">40</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10951-010-0208-7</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">700</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">1-</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">Shabtay</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Dvir</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">700</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">1-</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">Steiner</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">George</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Operations Management Area, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">773</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">0-</subfield>
   <subfield code="t">Journal of Scheduling</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">Springer US; http://www.springer-ny.com</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">14/5(2011-10-01), 455-469</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">1094-6136</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">14:5&lt;455</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">2011</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">14</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">10951</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="900" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Metadata rights reserved</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">Springer special CC-BY-NC licence</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="898" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">BK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">XK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">XK010000</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="949" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="F">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">NL-springer</subfield>
  </datafield>
 </record>
</collection>
