GOAL PROGRAMMING

Dr. Muhammad Shafiq

Industrial Engineering and Management,

University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.
1
CONTENTS
 Introduction
 GOAL PROGRAMMING MODEL FORMULATION
1. LINEAR PROGRAMMING vs GOAL PROGRAMMING (SINGLE GOAL)
2. Equally ranked multiple goals
3. Equally ranked multiple goals
4. Ranking goals with priority levels

 SOLVING GOAL PROGRAMMING MODELS

1. Solving goal programming problems graphically
2. Modified simplex method for
goal programming

2
 GOAL PROGRAMMING
 Firms often have more than one goal
 They may want to achieve several, sometimes contradictory, goals
 In linear and integer programming methods the objective function
is measured in one dimension only
 It is not possible for LP to have multiple goals unless they are all
measured in the same units, and this is a highly unusual situation
 An important technique that has been developed to supplement LP
is called goal programming

 Goal programming approach establishes a specific numeric goal

for each of the objective and then attempts to achieve each goal
sequentially up to a satisfactory level rather than an optimal level.

3
GOAL PROGRAMMING
 Goal programming is used to solve linear
programs with multiple objectives, with each
objective viewed as a "goal".
 In goal programming, di+ and di- , deviation
variables, are the amounts a targeted goal i is
overachieved or underachieved, respectively.
 The goals themselves are added to the
constraint set with di+ and di- acting as the
surplus and slack variables.
GOAL PROGRAMMING
 One approach to goal programming is to satisfy goals in
a priority sequence. Second-priority goals are pursued
without reducing the first-priority goals, etc.
 For each priority level, the objective function is to
minimize the (weighted) sum of the goal deviations.
 Previous "optimal" achievements of goals are added to
the constraint set so that they are not degraded while
trying to achieve lesser priority goals.
GOAL PROGRAMMING Vs LINEAR
PROGRAMMING

 Multiple goals (instead of one goal)

 Deviational variables minimized (instead of
maximizing profit or minimizing cost of LP)
 “Satisficing” (instead of optimizing)
 Deviational variables are real (& replace Slack &
Surplus variables)

6
 GOAL PROGRAMMING
MODEL FORMULATION
(WITH EXAMPLES)

7
 1. LINEAR PROGRAMMING Vs GOAL
PROGRAMMING (SINGLE GOAL)
The Company produces two products popular with home renovators, old-fashioned chandeliers and ceiling
fans Both the chandeliers and fans require a two-step production process involving wiring and assembly It
takes about 2 hours to wire each chandelier and 3 hours to wire a ceiling fan Final assembly of the
chandeliers and fans requires 6 and 5 hours respectively The production capability is such that only 12
hours of wiring time and 30 hours of assembly time are available Each chandelier produced nets the firm $7
and each fan $6.
 Harrison is moving to a new location and feels that maximizing profit is not a realistic objective
 Management sets a profit level of $30 that would be satisfactory during this period
 The goal programming problem is to find the production mix that achieves this goal as closely as
possible given the production time constraints

 We can now state the Harrison Electric problem as a single-goal

programming model
Minimize under or overachievement of profit target = d1– + d1+
subject to $7X1 + $6X2 + d1– – d1+ = $30 (profit goal constraint)
2X1 + 3X2 ≤ 12 (wiring hours)
6X1 + 5X2 ≤ 30 (assembly hours)
X1, X2, d1–, d1+ ≥ 0
8
 2. EQUALLY RANKED MULTIPLE GOALS
A manufacturing firm produces two types of products: A & B. The units
profit from product A is Rs. 100 and that of product B is Rs. 50. The
goal of the firm is to earn a total profit of exactly Rs. 700 in the next
week. Also, wants to achieve a sales volume for product A and B close
to 5 and 4, respectively. Formulate this problem as a Goal programming
model.
MODEL FORMULATION:
Let X1 and X2 be the number of units of products ‘A’
and ‘B’ produced, respectively.
The constraints of the problem can be stated as:
100X1 + 50X2 = 700 (Profit target goal)
X1 ≤ 5 (Sales target Goal)
X2 ≤ 4 (Sales target Goal)
9
2. EQUALLY RANKED MULTIPLE GOALS

GP MODEL FORMULATION:

The problem can now be formulated as GP model as follows:

Minimization Z = d1– + d1+ + d2– + d3–
Subject to:
100X1 + 50X2 + d1– – d1+ = 700 (Profit target goal)
X1 + d2– = 5 (Sales target Goal)
X2 + d3– = 4 (Sales target Goal)
X1, X2, d1+, d2–, d3– ≥ 0

10
 3. EQUALLY RANKED MULTIPLE GOALS

Now Harrison’s management wants to achieve several goals of equal in

priority
 Goal 1: to produce a profit of $30 if possible during the production
period
 Goal 2: to fully utilize the available wiring department hours
 Goal 3: to avoid overtime in the assembly department
 Goal 4: to meet a contract requirement to produce at least seven
ceiling fans
The deviational variables are
d1– = underachievement of the profit target
d1+ = overachievement of the profit target
d2– = idle time in the wiring department (underutilization)
d2+ = overtime in the wiring department (overutilization)

11
3. EQUALLY RANKED MULTIPLE GOALS

d3– = idle time in the assembly department (underutilization)

d3+ = overtime in the assembly department (overutilization)
d4– = underachievement of the ceiling fan goal
d4+ = overachievement of the ceiling fan goal
Minimize total deviation = d1– + d2– + d3+ + d4–
subject to 7X1 + 6X2 + d1– – d1+ = 30 (profit constraint)
2X1 + 3X2 + d2– – d2+ = 12 (wiring hours)
6X1 + 5X2 + d3– – d3+ = 30 (assembly hours)
X2 + d4– – d4+ = 7 (ceiling fan constraint)
All Xi, di variables ≥ 0
 Because management is unconcerned about d1+, d2+, d3–, and d4+ these may
be omitted from the objective function
 The new objective function and constraints are

12
 4. RANKING GOALS WITH PRIORITY LEVELS

A key idea in goal programming is that one goal is more important

than another. Priorities are assigned to each deviational variable.
 Harrison Electric has set the following priorities for their four goals
GOAL PRIORITY
Reach a profit as much above $30 as possible P1
Fully use wiring department hours available P2
Avoid assembly department overtime P3
Produce at least seven ceiling fans P4

Minimize total deviation = P1d1– + P2d2– + P3d3+ + P4d4–

 The constraints remain identical to the previous ones
Priority 1 is infinitely more important than Priority 2, which is infinitely more important than the
next goal, and so on.

13
PROCEDURE TO FORMULATE GP MODEL

1. Identify the goals and constraints based on the availability of resources

(or constraints) that may restrict achievement of the goals (targets).
2. Determine the priority to be associated with each goal in such a way that
goals with priority level p1 are most important, those with priority level P1
are next most important, and so on.
3. Define the decision variables.
4. Formulate the constraints in the same manner as formulated in LP model.
5. For each constraint, develop a equation by adding deviational variables d-i
and d+i . These variables indicate the possible deviations blow or above
the target value (right-hand side of each constraint).
6. Write the objective function in terms of minimizing a prioritized function
of the deviational variables.

14
 GENERAL GP MODEL
 With “m” goals, the general
goal linear programming
model may be stated as:

 “Z” is the sum of the deviations from all desired goals.

 The Wi are non-negative constants representing the relative weight to be assigned to
the deviational variables d-i , d+i within a priority level.
 The Pi is the priority level assigned to each relevant goal in rank order (i.e. P1 > P2
,…,>Pn ). The aii are constants.
Two types of constraints may be formulated for a GP problem:
1. System constraints that may influence but are not directly related to
goals, and
2. Goal constraints that are directly related to goals.
15
 SOLVING GOAL
PROGRAMMING MODEL
(WITH EXAMPLES)

16
1. SOLVING GOAL PROGRAMMING
PROBLEMS GRAPHICALLY
 We can analyze goal programming problems
graphically
 We must be aware of three characteristics of goal
programming problems
1. Goal programming models are all minimization
problems
2. There is no single objective, but multiple goals to be
attained
3. The deviation from the high-priority goal must be
minimized to the greatest extent possible before the
next-highest-priority goal is considered

17
 1. SOLVING GOAL PROGRAMMING
PROBLEMS GRAPHICALLY
 Recall the Harrison Electric goal programming model

Minimize total deviation = P1d1– + P2d2– + P3d3+ + P4d4–

subject to 7X1 + 6X2 + d1– – d1+ = 30 (profit )

2X1 + 3X2 + d2– – d2+ = 12 (wiring )
6X1 + 5X2 + d3– – d3+ = 30 (assembly )
X2 + d4– – d4+ = 7 (ceiling fans)
All Xi, di variables ≥ 0 (nonnegativity)
where
X1 = number of chandeliers produced
X2 = number of ceiling fans produced
 1. SOLVING GOAL PROGRAMMING
PROBLEMS GRAPHICALLY

 To solve this we graph one ANALYSIS OF THE

constraint at a time starting
X2
FIRST GOAL
with the constraint with the 7– Minimize Z = P1d1–
highest-priority deviational
6–
variables
 In this case we start with the 5–
profit constraint as it has the
variable d1– with a priority of 4–
P1
3–
 Note that in graphing this d1+
constraint the deviational 2–
variables are ignored
d1–
 To minimize d1– the feasible 1– 7X1 + 6X2 = 30
area is the shaded region
0– | | | | | |

1 2 3 4 5 6 X1
 1. SOLVING GOAL PROGRAMMING
PROBLEMS GRAPHICALLY
 The next graph is of the ANALYSIS OF FIRST
second priority goal of X2 AND SECOND GOALS
minimizing d2–
7– Minimize Z = P1d1– + P2d2–
 The region below the
constraint line 2X1 + 3X2 = 12 6–
represents the values for d2–
while the region above the line 5– d1+
stands for d2+
4–
 To avoid underutilizing wiring
department hours the area
3–
below the line is eliminated 2X1 + 3X2 = 12
 This goal must be attained 2–
within the feasible region d2+
already defined by satisfying 1–
7X1 + 6X2 = 30
the first goal d2–
0– | | | | | |

1 2 3 4 5 6 X1
 1. SOLVING GOAL PROGRAMMING
PROBLEMS GRAPHICALLY
 The third goal is to avoid ANALYSIS OF ALL FOUR
overtime in the assembly
department X2 PRIORITY GOALS
d4+
 We want d3+ to be as close 7– X2 = 7
to zero as possible d4–
 This goal can be obtained 6 –A Minimize Z = P1d1– + P2d2– + P3d3– + P4d4–
 Any point inside the feasible d3+
region bounded by the first 5 –D
three constraints will meet d3–
the three most critical goals 4–
 The fourth constraint seeks d1+
3–
to minimize d4– d2+ 6X1 + 5X2 = 30
 To do this requires 2–
C
eliminating the area below B
2X1 + 3X2 = 12
the constraint line X2 = 7
1–
which is not possible given 7X1 + 6X2 = 30
the previous, higher priority,
0– | | | | | |
constraints 1 2 3 4 5 6 X1
 1. SOLVING GOAL PROGRAMMING
PROBLEMS GRAPHICALLY
 The optimal solution must satisfy the first three goals and
come as close as possible to satisfying the fourth goal
 This would be point A on the graph with coordinates of X1 =
0 and X2 = 6
 Substituting into the constraints we find
d1– = $0 d1+ = $6
d2– = 0 hours d2+ = 6 hours
d3– = 0 hours d3+ = 0 hours
d4– = 1 ceiling fan d4+ = 0 ceiling fans
 A profit of $36 was achieved exceeding the goal
 2. MODIFIED SIMPLEX METHOD FOR
GOAL PROGRAMMING
 The modified simplex method can be used to solve problems
with more than two real variables
 Recall the Harrison Electric model

Minimize = P1d1– + P2d2– + P3d3+ + P4d4–

subject to 7X1 + 6X2 + d1– – d1+ = 30
2X1 + 3X2 + d2– – d2+ = 12
6X1 + 5X2 + d3– – d3+ = 30
X2 + d4– – d4+ = 7
All Xi, di variables ≥ 0
2. MODIFIED SIMPLEX METHOD FOR
GOAL PROGRAMMING
Cj 0 0 P1 P2 0 P4 0 0 P3 0
SOLUTION
MIX X1 X2 d1– d2 – d3– d4– d1+ d2 + d3+ d4+ QUANTITY
P1 d1– 7 6 1 0 0 0 –1 0 0 0 30
P2 d2– 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 –1 0 0 12
0 d3– 6 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 –1 0 30
P4 d4– 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 –1 7
Zj P4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 –1 7
P3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P2 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 –1 0 0 12
P1 7 6 1 0 0 0 –1 0 0 0 30
Cj – Zj P4 0 –1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
P3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
P2 –2 –3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
P1 –7 –6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Pivot column

Initial goal programming tableau

2. MODIFIED SIMPLEX METHOD FOR
GOAL PROGRAMMING
There are four features of the modified simplex tableau that
differ from earlier simplex tableaus
1. The variables in the problem are listed at the top, with the
decision variables (X1 and X2) first, then the negative
deviational variables and, finally, the positive deviational
variables. The priority level of each variable is assigned on
the very top row.

2. The negative deviational variables for each constraint

provide the initial basic solution. This is analogous to the
use of slack variables in the earlier simplex tableaus. The
priority level of each variable in the current solution mix is
entered in the Cj column.
 2. MODIFIED SIMPLEX METHOD FOR
GOAL PROGRAMMING
3. There is a separate Xj and Cj – Zj row for each of the Pi priorities because
different units of measurement are used for each goal. The bottom row
of the tableau contains the highest ranked (P1) goal, the next row has the
P2 goal, and so forth. The rows are computed exactly as in the regular
simplex method, but they are done for each priority level.

4. In selecting the variable to enter the solution mix, we start with the
highest-priority row, P1, and select the most negative Cj – Zj value in it. If
there was no negative number for P1, we would move on to priority P2’s
Cj – Zj row and select the largest negative number there. A negative Cj –
Zj that has a positive number in the P row underneath it, however, is
ignored. This means that deviations from a more important goal (one in a
lower row) would be increased if that variable were brought into the
solution.
 2. MODIFIED SIMPLEX METHOD FOR
GOAL PROGRAMMING

 We move towards the optimal solution just as with the

regular minimization simplex method

 We find the pivot row by dividing the quantity values by their

corresponding pivot column (X1) values and picking the one
with the smallest positive ratio

 In this case, d1– leaves the basis and is replaced by X1

 We continue this process until an optimal solution is reached

2. MODIFIED SIMPLEX METHOD FOR
GOAL PROGRAMMING
Second goal programming tableau
Cj 0 0 P1 P2 0 P4 0 0 P3 0
SOLUTION
MIX X1 X2 d1– d2 – d3– d4– d1+ d2 + d3+ d4+ QUANTITY
0 X1 1 6/7 1/7 0 0 0 –1/7 0 0 0 30/7
P2 d2– 0 9/7 –2/7 1 0 0 2/7 –1 0 0 24/7
0 d3– 0 –1/7 –6/7 0 1 0 6/7 0 –1 0 30/7
P4 d4– 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 –1 7
Zj P4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 –1 7
P3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P2 0 9/7 –2/7 1 0 0 2/7 –1 0 0 24/7
P1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cj – Zj P4 0 –1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
P3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
P2 0 –9/7 2/7 0 0 0 –2/7 1 0 0
P1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pivot column
2. MODIFIED SIMPLEX METHOD FOR
GOAL PROGRAMMING
Final solution to Harrison Electric's goal program
Cj 0 0 P1 P2 0 P4 0 0 P3 0
SOLUTION
MIX X1 X2 d1– d2 – d3– d4– d1+ d2 + d3+ d4+ QUANTITY
0 d2+ 8/5 0 0 –1 3/5 0 0 1 –3/5 0 6
0 X2 6/5 1 0 0 1/5 0 0 0 –1/5 0 6
0 d1+ 1/5 0 –1 0 6/5 0 1 0 –6/5 0 6
P4 d4– –6/5 0 0 0 –1/5 1 0 0 1/5 –1 1
Zj P4 –6/5 0 0 0 –1/5 1 0 0 1/5 –1 1
P3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Cj – Zj P4 6/5 0 0 0 1/5 0 0 0 –1/5 1
P3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
P2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
P1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 2. MODIFIED SIMPLEX METHOD FOR
GOAL PROGRAMMING
 In the final solution the first three goals have been fully
achieved with no negative entries in their Cj – Zj rows
 A negative value appears in the d3+ column in the priority 4
row indicating this goal has not been fully attained
 But the positive number in the d3+ at the P3 priority level
(shaded cell) tells us that if we try to force d3+ into the
solution mix, it will be at the expense of the P3 goal which has
already been satisfied
 The final solution is
X1 = 0 chandeliers produced
X2 = 6 ceiling fans produced
d1+ = $6 over the profit goal
d2+ = 6 wiring hours over the minimum set
d4– = 1 fewer fan than desired
3. GP EXAMPLE
Conceptual Products is a computer company that
produces the CP400, CP500, and CP600 computers.
Many of the components used in the three computer
models are produced in abundant supply by the
company. However, the memory modules, external
hard drives, and cases are bought from suppliers.
The CP400 model uses two memory modules and
no external hard drive, the CP500 uses one memory
module and one external hard drive, and the CP600
uses two memory modules and one external hard
drive . All three models use the same case.
GP EXAMPLE

Suppliers can provide Conceptual Products with

1000 memory modules, 500 external hard drives, and
600 cases on a weekly basis. It takes one hour to
manufacture a CP400 and its profit is $200; it takes
one and one-half hours to manufacture a CP500 and
its profit is $500; and it takes two hours to manufacture
a CP600 and its profit is $900.
GP EXAMPLE
The company has four goals:

Priority 1: Meet a state contract of 200 CP400

machines weekly. (Goal 1)
Priority 2: Make at least 500 total computers
weekly. (Goal 2)
Priority 3: Make at least $250,000 profit
weekly. (Goal 3)
Priority 3: Use no more than 400 man-hours
per week. (Goal 4)
Each $1000 underachieved from its profit goal is five
times as important as an extra man-hour.
GP EXAMPLE
Variables
x1 = number of CP400 computers produced weekly
x2 = number of CP500 computers produced weekly
x3 = number of CP600 computers produced weekly
di- = amount the right hand side of goal i is deficient
di+ = amount the right hand side of goal i is exceeded
Functional Constraints
Availability of memory modules: 2x1 + x2 + x3 < 1000
Availability of external hard drives: x2 + x3 < 500
Availability of cases: x1 + x2 + x3 < 600
GP EXAMPLE
Goals
(1) 200 CP400 computers weekly:
x1 + d1- - d1+ = 200
(2) 500 total computers weekly:
x1 + x2 + x3 + d2- - d2+ = 500
(3) $250(in thousands) profit:
.2x1 + .5x2 + .9x3 + d3- - d3+ = 250
(4) 400 total man-hours weekly:
x1 + 1.5x2 + 2x3 + d4- - d4+ = 400
Non-negativity:
x1, x2, x3, di-, di+ > 0 for all i
GP EXAMPLE
Objective Functions

Priority 1: Minimize the number of CP400 under

200 units: Min d1-
Priority 2: Minimize the number under 500
computers produced weekly: Min d2-
Priority 3: Minimize the amount under $250,000
earned weekly: Min 5d3-
Priority 3: Minimize the man-hours over 400 used
weekly: Min d4+
GP EXAMPLE

Priority 1 Formulation
Min d1-
s.t. 2x1 +x2 +x3 < 1000
+x2 +x3 < 500
x1 +x2 +x3 < 600
x1 +d1- -d1+ = 200
x1 +x2 +x3 +d2- -d2+ = 500
.2x1+ .5x2 +.9x3 +d3- -d3+ = 250
x1+1.5x2 +2x3 +d4- -d4+ = 400
x1, x2, x3, d1-, d1+, d2-, d2+, d3-, d3+, d4-, d4+ > 0
GP EXAMPLE
Computer Solution (First LP)
Objective Function Value = 0.000
Variable Value Reduced Cost
x1 200.000 0.000
x2 0.000 0.000
x3 233.333 0.000
d1- 0.000 1.000
d1+ 0.000 0.000
d2- 66.667 0.000
d2+ 0.000 0.000
d3- 0.000 0.000
d3+ 0.000 0.000
d4- 0.000 0.000
d4+ 266.667 0.000
GP EXAMPLE
Priority 2 Formulation
Min d2-
( include the previous 7 constraints,
i.e. 3 functional constraints and 4 goal
constraints )
( add the constraint: d1- = 0 )
GP EXAMPLE
Computer Solution (Second LP)
Objective Function Value = 0.000
Variable Value Reduced Cost
x1 285.714 0.000
x2 0.000 0.000
x3 214.286 0.000
d1- 0.000 0.000
d1+ 85.714 0.000
d2- 0.000 1.000
d2+ 0.000 0.000
d3- 0.000 0.000
d3+ 0.000 0.000
d4- 0.000 0.000
d4+ 314.286 0.000
GP EXAMPLE
Priority 3 Formulation
Min 5d3- + d4+
( include the previous 8 constraints
i.e. 3 functional constraints and 4 goal
constraints and d1- = 0 )

( add the constraint: d2- = 0 )

GP EXAMPLE
Computer Solution (Third LP)
Objective Function Value = 314.286
Variable Value Reduced Cost
x1 285.714 0.000
x2 0.000 0.071
x3 214.286 0.000
d1- 0.000 0.000
d1+ 85.714 0.000
d2- 0.000 0.000
d2+ 0.000 0.714
d3- 0.000 3.571
d3+ 0.000 1.429
d4- 0.000 1.000
d4+ 314.286 0.000
GP EXAMPLE
Final Solution

Thus the optimal recommendation is to produce

285.714 CP400 computers, 0 CP500 computers, and
weekly and 214.286 CP600 computers weekly.
All goals will be met except goal 4. 314.286 extra
man-hours or a total of 714.286man-hours will be used.
 ANY QUESTION??

44