scholarly works

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://repository.ui.edu.ng/handle/123456789/473

Browse

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Application and comparison of three multiobjective linear programming methods
    (International Knowledge Sharing Platform(IISTE), 2011) Adeyeye, A. D; Charles-Owaba, O. E.
    A biobjective production planning problem was modelled using the Compromise Constraint Biobjective LP (CCBLP) method, the traditional Weighted-sum Scalarization (WSS) and Non-preemptive Goal Programming (NGP) approaches. Various preference indices were used to explore the tradeoff options and the L1 distance metric was used to determine the best compromise solution and the appropriate preference indices. The solution of CCBLP was the closest to the ideal solution with L1 metric of 0.326 and corresponding preference indices of W1 = 0.25, W2 = 0.75. Comparison of the results showed that the CCBLP is more sensitive to changes in preference indices than the WSS and NGP methods and hence it is more useful in helping the decision maker to make intelligent tradeoff decisions
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A bicriteria model for production planning in a toothpaste factory
    (International Knowledge Sharing Platform(IISTE), 2012) Adeyeye, A. D; Charles-Owaba, O. E.
    This paper presents a bicriteria formulation of the material allocation to production facilities problem. The system under consideration is a toothpaste factory. Two objectives of the factory were identified, namely; (i) Minimization of the total sum of processing costs (ii) Maximization of the capacity utilization of production facilities. Linear Combination of Objective Functions (LCOF) method was used to solve the problem for the situation where the objectives were of equal importance. The solutions were compared to that of goal programming (GP) and they were found to be identical. The least utilized production facility was processing plant 1 with utilization of 20.32% followed by filling machine 1 with utilization of 43.85%. All the other production facilities were operated at 100% capacity. For LCOF, one problem was solved to obtain the solution while in the case of GP three problems were solved. LCOF is superior to GP in terms of simplicity and time savings.