INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 8, ISSUE 10, OCTOBER 2019 ISSN 2277-8616

Goal Programming Through Bakery Production

Puligilla Prashanth Kumar

Abstract: An appropriate constructive planning is a key condition to a production system success which considers the real world resource limitations
such as budget, time and labour. This study is under taken to develop a goal-programming model in order to optimize the daily production of a small-
scale industry. The weighted pre-emptive priority goal programming has become one of the most widely used of the approaches for multi-objective
mathematical programming in Operations Research. This paper demonstrates a weighted pre-emptive priority goal programming procedure for
modelling and solving for considered five bakery products and priority wise optimized the product resources.

Key: small-scale industry, goal programing, software.

————————————————————

Introduction Review of the Literature

Decision-making problems in mathematical models are due
to conflicts of resources and incompleteness of available
information. In realistic situations, decision-making
problems require considering multiple objectives on one
side and various types of uncertainties on the other side
and there exists a different method to handle different
uncertainties [1]. These decision-making problems apply on
production management; the administrators get the good
optimization solutions. Most of the production managers
take the decisions based on the total input used in the
production and output progress. This method of decision-
making is always biased, i.e., brings about reduction in the
accuracy of forecasting for the future, such as price
fluctuation and shortage of raw materials or available
resources of the company [2]. Sometimes, production
companies are facing with problems of how to utilize the
available resources in order to maximize profit. In this
situation the problem of decision-making based on the use
of limited resource is the one of the major factor, such kind
of situations dynamically handles the goal programming
model, which is now one of the most powerful multi
objective oriented programing model that all decision
makers must apply before achieving effective decision by
the limited resources and various goal constraints. Goal
Programming was first addressed by Charnes and
Cooper [3], an d Tamiz et al. [4] provided an up to date
review on Goal Programming, it can describe the activities
of individual goals. Goal Programming is a mathematical
technique and a variation of Linear Programming. Goal
Programming is an approach that is capable to handle the
decision-making problems having multiple conflicting goals
and the objective function of a Goal Programming model
composed by non-homogeneous units of measurement,
and includes only the deviational variables (d‾ and d+) that
are complementary to each other.
The decision-makers goals maybe ranked based on priority.
Goals of equal priority maybe weighted differently in order
of quantifiable assigned values. Therefore, the objective of
Goal Programming is to minimize the summation of
deviational variables (i.e. the desired goal levels), subject to
a set of goals and systems constraints [5].
————————————————
 Dr. Puligilla Prashanth Kumar, Department of Mathematics,
Engineering College, Hyderabad, Telangana,
E-mail: prashanthkumar@aceec.ac.in
Furthermore, it is significant to review the existing
literatures; which are related to the topic. A Production
planning is a complex task that needs support among
several functional units in any business organization. The
production planning problems involves objectives as to
either maximize profit or minimize cost and is formulated to
a single-objective function in linear programming. But in real
life there are multiple objectives involved with imprecise
target values [6]. In order to design an efficient production
planning system, a good understanding of the environment
in terms of customers, products and manufacturing
processes is a must [7]. In this prospective a goal
programming model is a suitable method to apply in
production management problems. Stephen C.H. Leung et
al. [8] apply a goal programming model for production
planning of perishable products with postponement, in this
a pre-emptive goal programming model used and
developed aggregate production planning for perishable
products. Balogun et al. [9] reported that, the problem in
production sectors is the problem of management that
many companies are faced with decision relating to the use
of limited resources such as manpower, raw materials,
capital etc. In this perspective, many researchers like,
Ukamaka Cynthia Orumie [10] presented a survey of
current methods for LGP and limitation of LGP in general.
Also Goal Programming models helpful to the medium size
business schemes. Nasruddin Hassan [11] goal
programming model is found to be useful for small and
medium enterprises to gauge their profits based on their
labour, machine use and raw materials requirements. Of
course, in this [12] study further extended with regard to the
flavour varieties of the products such as chocolate,
strawberry and vanilla and to other SMEs with their own
unique constraints in accordance to their required goals
peculiar to their trade [13]. The research is aimed at
deciding how limited resources, raw materials would be
allocated to obtain the maximum contribution to profit and
determining the products that contribute to such profit.
Model
The Goal programming (GP) problems has two types of
constraints: Goal constraint and System or Structural
constraint. Goal constraint is simply the original function
with set of priorities/goals including positive/negative
deviational variables. System constraint is strictly the
ACE traditional linear programming function without the negative-
India. positive deviational variables. Achievement Function
measures the extent to which minimization of unwanted
goal deviational variables have been achieve. The multiple
3722
IJSTR©2019
www.ijstr.org
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 8, ISSUE 10, OCTOBER 2019 ISSN 2277-8616

phased simplex algorithm employed in solving GP. Thus, the objective function of preemptive GP specified as.
Aspiration level referred to target level, positive deviation is m


 
overachievement of aspiration or target, negative deviation m in z  p i ( d i  d i ) ; i= 1 , 2 , 3 , ..., m
is underachievement of aspiration or target. Feasible region i 1

is a set of solutions that fall in the decision space where all Subject to the constraint functions of equations (2), (3), and
constraints are duly satisfied. non-negativity restriction of (4). The second type of GP is
weighted one in that preferential weighted goal
The general GP model [11] considered as follows. programming; it is used when the decision maker is
m interested in the direct comparison of the goals. This is

 
(1) m in z  ( d i  d i ) ; i= 1 , 2 , 3 , ..., m done by attaching weight to each of the deviational
i 1 variables as follows.
st m


   
n m in z  w i d i  w i d i ; i = 1 ,2 ,...,m
 
(2)  ci, j y j  d i
d i
 A i ; j= 1 , 2 ,..,n i 1

j 1 Subject to the constraint functions of equations (2), (3), and

 
 non-negativity restriction of (4). Where: w i and w i are the
n
relative weights attached to positive and negative deviation
(3)  c i , j y j  A i ; i= m + 1 , ..., m + p
variables and they must be non-negative constants. These
j 1
 weights are any real number or integers of which the
greater the weight the greater the importance assigned to
 
(4) y j , d i , d i  0 minimize the deviation variable. The difference between the
general GP model and the preemptive GP model is
It is important to note that: preemptive priority factor. The difference between the
Equation (1) is referred to objective function, which is the general GP model and the preferential weighted GP model
summation of all deviational variables. Equations (2) and is the arbitrary weights assigned to the deviation variables.
(3) are called goal and system constraint functions; and In this paper, it is suggested that both the preemptive and
they are both referred to linear constrain function and weighted GP models can be mathematically combined
Equation (4) is non-negativity constraint. together as follows
 m is the number of goals, m n
 
m in z =  
 
 p = number of structural constraints p i ( w i ,k d i  w i ,k d i );
 n = number of decision variables. i 1 k 1
 z = the objective function expressed as the
 
summation of all the deviational variables. i = 1 ,2 ,...,m a n d w i , k , w i , k  0
 y j = the jth decision variables. Subject to the constraint functions of equations (2), (3), and
 c i , j = the coefficient of the jth decision variables in non-negativity restriction of (4). Therefore, the procedures
for achieving goals are either Minimize the
the ith goal. underachievement or Minimize the overachievement or
 
 d i , d i are amount of deviation below and above both.
aspiration level respectively. Also called
underachievement and overachievement variables. Methods and Materials
Therefore, in typical GP model, there are two The proposed approach based on the pre-emptive priory
variables: decision and deviational. weighted goal programming. In this technique, determine
the preferential priorities and appropriate weights of the
 A i is the aspiration level
goal. The objective of this study is to develop a PPWGP
model to a real life production situation for a small-scale
The Goal Programming model is two types of sub models, industry. The data is collected from Iyyangar bakeries and
Lexicographic (preemptive priority) goal programming pastries industry in Hyderabad, Telangana, India. Due to
model and weighted goal programming model. The the high demand of products and the selling price of bakery
preemptive priority factors are ranked according to priority products being relatively affordable and the bakery shop
given to a goal. In essence, preemptive GP is used when needs to optimize its production planning in order to
there is clear priority ordering of the desired goals compete with other bakeries in Hyderabad. The
optimization goals are maximizing its daily sale profit in ₹
The preemptive factors (p’s) relationship follows: 4500, minimizing overtime, maximizing the utility of
p 1    p 2    p i    p i  1    ...    p m machines and also minimizing the ingredients constrained
goal in this way the five products will reach maximum of
given quantity. The summery of the data as shown in bellow
This indicates that the first priority/goal is much more tables.
important than the second goal, the second than the third,
the trend continues until the last one. Therefore, one must s.no Item No of Units per day Profit per unit
achieve the first goal completely before considering the 1 BREAD 200 5
second goal. 2 CUP CAKE 150 7
3 PUF 150 5
3723
IJSTR©2019
www.ijstr.org
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 8, ISSUE 10, OCTOBER 2019 ISSN 2277-8616

4 EGG TOAST 250 8  

x i  0 , i= 1 ...5 , d  0, d  0 , j= 1 ...1 4
5 CREEM ROLL 100 6 j j

Table 1: The Units and Profit for the products

The priorities are used here are called pre-emptive priority
Major Ingredients for Each Product for One Unit in factors; in the goal programming algorithm that follows it is
Grams assumed that the priority ranking is absolute i.e., P1 goals
are more important than P2 goals and P2 goal will not be
INGREDI EG
CRE achieved until P1 goal have been achieved; same is true for
ENTS PU G AVAILABI P3, P4 and P5 goals according to their weights.
S. BRE CUP EM
FOR F TO LITY PER
N AD CAKE( ROL
EACH (X ST DAY/GRA
O (X1) X2) L Results and discussions:
PRODUC 3) (X4 MS
(X5)
T ) The Pre-emptive priority waited goal programing, solved by
12.2 POM QM for windows software. The output shown in the
1 FLOUR 10.6 3.2 7.8 3.6 6000
2 table 3, based on it is clear that priority 1, 2 and 3 are
3.17 2.8
2 SUGAR
7
4.766
1
4.8 4.81 3500 achieved and priority 4 not achieved. The solution
1.58 suggested that the Bakery shop should produce 62 (
3 SALT 0.06 0.8 2.0 0.85 2500  
8 d 5  6 0 ) units of cupcake per day and 215 ( d 7  3 5 .2 9 )
0.66
4 EAST 1.166 1.5 1.5 1.5 2000 units of egg toast per day the remaining items are same
6
2.77 quantity in order to optimize their production. Conversely,
5 EGG 8.333 5.5 8.5 4.5 4000
7 the priority 3, packing overtime goal and machine utilization
1.66  
6 BUTTER
6
4.766 2.5 5.5 3.5 3000 goal are satisfied since ( d 2  0 d 3  0 ) but priority 4 is
TIME REQUIRED PRODUCING EACH PRODUCT IN MINUTS 
1.2 not achieved by 170 units ( d 1 3  1 7 0 .0 9 ) , it means that
7 PACKING 0.75 1.5 1.5 0.75 900
5 increase egg ingredient by 170.09 grams.
8 MACHINE 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 700
Table 2: The Ingredients and product stage
Conclusion:
The pre-emptive priority waited goal programing is useful to
The Goal Programming model
     
find the solutions for small-scale industry problems, by the
M in z  p1 ( 5 d 4  4 d 5  3 d 6  2 d 7  d 8 )  p 2 d 1 customer satisfaction, using this method, can increase or
decrees the product quantity, so that, it increases the total
        profit of given industry. Further, this study can extend to
 p 3 ( d 2  d 3 )  p 4 ( d 9  d 10  d 11  d 12  d 13  d 14 )
other small-scale industry problems.
Soft goals
 
5 x 1  7 x 2  5 x 3  8 x 4  6 x 5  d 1  d 1  4 5 0 0 ( p r o f it g o a l)
 
0 .7 5 x 1  1 .5 x 2  1 .5 x 3  1 .2 5 x 4  0 .7 5 x 5  d 2  d 2  9 0 0 ( p a c k in g g o aDecision
l) variable analysis Value
 
1 .5 x 1  1 .5 x 2  1 .0 x 3  0 .5 x 4  0 .5 x 5  d 3  d 3  7 0 0 ( m a c h in e g o a l)
  X1 200
x 1  d 4  d 4  2 0 0 ( B r e a d g o a l)
X2 61.76
 
x 2  d 5  d 5  1 5 0 ( c a k e g o a l) X3 150
  X4 214.71
x 3  d 6  d 6  1 5 0 ( p u f g o a l)
X5 100
 
x 4  d 7  d 7  2 5 0 ( e g g to a s t g o a l) Priority analysis Nonachievement
 
Priority 1 0
x 5  d 8  d 8  1 0 0 ( c r e a m r o ll g o a l)
Priority 2 0
Priority 3 0
Hard goals
 
Priority 4 170.09
1 2 .2 2 x 1  1 0 .6 x 2  3 .2 x 3  7 .8 x 4  3 .6 x 5  d 9  d 9  6 0 0 0 ( f lo u r c o n s tr a in t )
Constraint Analysis RHS d+ (row i) d- (row i)
 
3 .1 7 7 x 1  4 .7 6 6 2 x 2  2 .8 1 x 3  4 .8 x 4  4 .8 1 x 5  d 1 0  d 1 0  3 5 0 0 ( s u g aGoal/Cnstrnt
r c o n s tr a in1t) 4500 0 0
Goal/Cnstrnt 2 900 0 88.97
 
1 .5 8 8 x 1  0 .0 6 x 2  0 .8 x 3  2 .0 x 4  0 .8 5 x 5  d 1 1  d 1 1  2 5 0 0 ( s a lt c o n sGoal/Cnstrnt
tr a in t ) 3 700 0 0
 
0 .6 6 6 x 1  1 .1 6 6 x 2  1 .5 x 3  1 .5 x 4  1 .5 x 5  d 1 2  d 1 2  2 0 0 0 ( e a s t c o n Goal/Cnstrnt
s tr a in t) 4 200 0 0
Goal/Cnstrnt 5 150 0 88.24
 
2 .7 7 7 x 1  8 .3 3 3 x 2  5 .5 x 3  8 .5 x 4  4 .5 x 5  d 1 3  d 1 3  4 0 0 0 ( e g g c o nGoal/Cnstrnt
s tr in t) 6 150 0 0
 
1 .6 6 6 x 1  4 .7 6 6 x 2  2 .5 x 3  5 .5 x 4  3 .5 x 5  d 1 4  d 1 4  3 0 0 0 ( b u tte r c oGoal/Cnstrnt
n s tr in t) 7 250 0 35.29
Goal/Cnstrnt 8 100 0 0
Goal/Cnstrnt 9 6000 0 386.59

3724
IJSTR©2019
www.ijstr.org
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 8, ISSUE 10, OCTOBER 2019 ISSN 2277-8616

Goal/Cnstrnt 10 3500 0 637.14 [13] Charnes A, & Cooper W.W, ―Goal programming
Goal/Cnstrnt 11 2500 0 1544.28 and multiple objective optimizations‖, European
Journal of Operational Research. 1(1); 39-54,
Goal/Cnstrnt 12 2000 0 1097.72
(1977).
Goal/Cnstrnt 13 4000 170.09 0
Goal/Cnstrnt 14 3000 0 466.55

Table 3: pom qm for windows summery of analysis data

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to thank The Chairman and Principal of
ACE Engineering College, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.

References
[1] KananK. Patro, et al. ―Computation of a multi-
choice goal programming problem‖, Applied
Mathematics and Computation 271 (2015) 489–
501.
[2] Akpan, N. P, et al. ―Application of Linear
Programming for Optimal Use of Raw Materials in
Bakery‖, ijmsi, Volume 4 Issue 8 , 2016, PP-51-57.
[3] A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper, ―Management
Models and Industrial Applications of
Linear Programming‖, vol. 1, John Wiley &
Sons, 1961.
[4] M. Tamiz, D. Jones, E. El-Darzi, ―A review of
goal programming and its applications‖,
Ann. Oper. Res. 58 (1) (1995) 39–53.
[5] P. Prashanth Kumar, et al. ―An Optimization
Techniques on the Managerial Decision Making,
International Journal of Mechanical and Production
Engineering Research and Development‖, Vol. 8,
Issue 6, 507-516 (2018).
[6] A.K. Bhargava, et al. (2015). ―Fuzzy Goal
Programming Techniques for Production Planning
in Industry‖, International Journal of Computer
Applications Technology and Research Volume 4–
Issue 2, 92 - 96,
[7] Olhager J, and Wikner J, (2000). ―Production
planning and control tools‖, Production Planning
and Control, 11(3), 210–222.
[8] Stephen C.H, Leung, et al. (2007). ―A goal
programming model for production planning of
perishable products with postponement‖,
Computers & Industrial Engineering 53 531–541.
[9] Balogun, O.S, et al. ―Use of linear programming for
optimal production in a production line in Coca-
Cola bottling company‖, International Journal of
Engineering Research and application Vol. 2,
(2012).
[10] Ukamaka Cynthia Orumie, Daniel Ebong, ―A
Glorious Literature on Linear Goal Programming
Algorithms‖, American Journal of Operations
Research, 2014, 4, 59-71.
[11] Nasruddin Hassan, et al. ―A Goal Programming
Model for Bakery Production‖, Advances in
Environmental Biology, 7(1): 187-190, 2013.
[12] Dinesh Kumar, and Sridher K, ―Multi objectives
operations decisions by using goal programming
for a small scale enterprise‖, International Journal
of Research in Engineering & Technology, Vol. 4,
Issue 8, Aug 2016, 7-12.

3725
IJSTR©2019
www.ijstr.org