GOAL PROGRAMMING

(Week 5)

GOAL PROGRAMMING
It is an extension of Linear Programming that
enables the planner to come as close as possible to
satisfying various goals and constraints.
It allows the decision maker, at least in a heuristic
sense, to incorporate his or her preference system
in dealing with multiple conflicting goals.
GP is sometimes considered to be an attempt to put
into a mathematical programming context, the
concept of satisfying.
Coined by Herbert Simon, it communicates the idea
that individuals often do not seek optimal solutions,
but rather solutions that are good enough or
close enough.

In many applications, the planner has more than one

objective. The presence of multiple objectives is
frequently referred to as the problem of combining
apples and oranges.
Consider a corporate planner whose long-range
goals are to:
1. Maximize discounted profits
2. Maximize market share at the end of the
planning period
3. Maximize existing physical capital at the end
of the planning period

These goals are not commensurate (i.e., they cannot

be directly combined or compared).
It is also clear that the goals are conflicting (i.e.,
there are trade-offs in the sense that sacrificing the
requirements on any one goal will tend to produce
greater returns on the others.
These models, although not applied as often in
practice as some of the other models (such as linear
programming, forecasting, inventory control, etc.),
have been found to be especially useful on problems
in the public sector.

Goal Programming Example

An Example # 1:
Beaver Creek Pottery Company:
Maximize Z = $40x1 + 50x2
subject to:
1x1 + 2x2 40 hours of labor
4x1 + 3x2 120 pounds of clay
x1, x2 0
Where: x1 = number of bowls produced
x2 = number of mugs produced

Adding objectives (goals) in order of importance, the

company:
Does not want to use fewer than 40 hours of labor
per
day.
Would like to achieve a satisfactory profit level of
$1,600 per day.
Prefers not to keep more than 120 pounds of clay on
hand each day.
Would like to minimize the amount of overtime.

Goal Programming
Goal Constraint Requirements
All goal constraints are equalities that include deviational
variables d- and d+.
A positive deviational variable (d+) is the amount by which a
goal level is exceeded.
A negative deviation variable (d-) is the amount by which a
goal level is underachieved.
At least one or both deviational variables in a goal
constraint must equal zero.
The objective function in a goal programming model seeks
to minimize the deviation from the respective goals in the
order of the goal priorities.

Goal Programming Model Formulation

Goal Constraints
Labor goal:
x1 + 2x2 + d1- - d1+ = 40

(hours/day)

Profit goal:
40x1 + 50 x2 + d2 - - d2 + = 1,600 ($/day)
Material goal:
4x1 + 3x2 + d3 - - d3 + = 120

(lbs of clay/day)

Labor goals constraint (priority 1 - less than 40 hours labor;

priority 4 - minimum overtime):
Minimize P1d1-, P4d1+
Add profit goal constraint (priority 2 - achieve profit of $1,600):
Minimize P1d1-, P2d2-, P4d1+
Add material goal constraint (priority 3 - avoid keeping more
than 120 pounds of clay on hand):
Minimize P1d1-, P2d2-, P3d3+, P4d1+

Complete Goal Programming Model:

Minimize P1d1-, P2d2-, P3d3+, P4d4+
subject to:
x1 + 2x2 + d1- - d1+ = 40

(labor)

40x1 + 50 x2 + d2 - - d2 + = 1,600

(profit)

4x1 + 3x2 + d3 - - d3 + = 120

(clay)

x1, x2, d1 -, d1 +, d2 -, d2 +, d3 -, d3 + 0

Goal Programming
Alternative Forms of Goal Constraints
Changing fourth-priority goal limits overtime to 10 hours
instead of minimizing overtime:
d1- + d4 - - d4+ = 10
minimize P1d1 -, P2d2 -, P3d3 +, P4d4 +
Addition of a fifth-priority goal- important to achieve the
goal for mugs:
x1 + d5 - = 30 bowls
x2 + d6 - = 20 mugs
minimize P1d1 -, P2d2 -, P3d3 +, P4d4 +, 4P5d5 - + 5P5d6 -

Complete Model with Added New Goals:

Minimize P1d1-, P2d2-, P3d3+, P4d4+, 4P5d5- + 5P5d6subject to:
x1 + 2x2 + d1- - d1+ = 40
40x1 + 50x2 + d2- - d2+ = 1,600
4x1 + 3x2 + d3- - d3+ = 120
d1+ + d4- - d4+ = 10
x1 + d5- = 30
x2 + d6- = 20
x1, x2, d1-, d1+, d2-, d2+, d3-, d3+, d4-, d4+, d5-, d6- 0

Goal Programming
Graphical Interpretation

Minimize P1d1-, P2d2-, P3d3+, P4d1+

subject to:
x1 + 2x2 + d1- - d1+ = 40
40x1 + 50 x2 + d2 - - d2 + = 1,600
4x1 + 3x2 + d3 - - d3 + = 120
x1, x2, d1 -, d1 +, d2 -, d2 +, d3 -, d3 + 0

Figure: Goal Constraints

Minimize P1d1-, P2d2-, P3d3+, P4d1+

subject to:
x1 + 2x2 + d1- - d1+ = 40
40x1 + 50 x2 + d2 - - d2 + = 1,600
4x1 + 3x2 + d3 - - d3 + = 120
x1, x2, d1 -, d1 +, d2 -, d2 +, d3 -, d3 + 0

Figure: The First-Priority Goal: Minimize

Minimize P1d1-, P2d2-, P3d3+, P4d1+

subject to:
x1 + 2x2 + d1- - d1+ = 40
40x1 + 50 x2 + d2 - - d2 + = 1,600
4x1 + 3x2 + d3 - - d3 + = 120
x1, x2, d1 -, d1 +, d2 -, d2 +, d3 -, d3 + 0

Figure: The Second-Priority Goal: Minimize

Minimize P1d1-, P2d2-, P3d3+, P4d1+

subject to:
x1 + 2x2 + d1- - d1+ = 40
40x1 + 50 x2 + d2 - - d2 + = 1,600
4x1 + 3x2 + d3 - - d3 + = 120
x1, x2, d1 -, d1 +, d2 -, d2 +, d3 -, d3 + 0

Figure: The Third-Priority Goal: Minimize

Minimize P1d1-, P2d2-, P3d3+, P4d1+

subject to:
x1 + 2x2 + d1- - d1+ = 40
40x1 + 50 x2 + d2 - - d2 + = 1,600
4x1 + 3x2 + d3 - - d3 + = 120
x1, x2, d1 -, d1 +, d2 -, d2 +, d3 -, d3 + 0

Figure: The Fourth-Priority Goal: Minimize

Goal programming solutions do not always achieve all goals

and they are not optimal, they achieve the best or most
satisfactory solution possible.
Minimize P1d1-, P2d2-, P3d3+, P4d1+
subject to:
x1 + 2x2 + d1- - d1+ = 40
40x1 + 50 x2 + d2 - - d2 + = 1,600
4x1 + 3x2 + d3 - - d3 + = 120
x1, x2, d1 -, d1 +, d2 -, d2 +, d3 -, d3 + 0
Solution:

x1 = 15 bowls
x2 = 20 mugs
d1- = 15 hours

Goal Programming
Computer Solution Using Excel

Exhibit: 1

Exhibit: 2

Exhibit: 3

Goal Programming
Solution for Altered Problem Using Excel
Minimize P1d1-, P2d2-, P3d3+, P4d4+, 4P5d5- + 5P5d6subject to:
x1 + 2x2 + d1- - d1+ = 40
40x1 + 50x2 + d2- - d2+ = 1,600
4x1 + 3x2 + d3- - d3+ = 120
d1+ + d4- - d4+ = 10
x1 + d5- = 30
x2 + d6- = 20
x1, x2, d1-, d1+, d2-, d2+, d3-, d3+, d4-, d4+, d5-, d6- 0

Exhibit: 4

Exhibit: 5

Exhibit: 6

Exhibit: 7

Exhibit: 8

An Example # 2
Suppose we have an educational program design
model with decision variables x1 and x2, where
x1 is the hours of classroom work
x2 is the hours of laboratory work
Assume the following constraint on total program
hours:
x1 + x2 < 100 (total program hours)
Two Kinds of Constraints In the goal programming
approach, there are two kinds of constraints:
1. System constraints (so-called hard
constraints) that cannot be violated.
2. Goal constraints (so-called soft constraints)
that may be violated if necessary.

Now, suppose that each hour of classroom work

involves
12 minutes of small-group experience and
19 minutes of individual problem solving
Each hour of laboratory work involves
29 minutes of small-group experience and
11 minutes of individual problem solving
The total program time is at most 6,000 minutes
(100 hr * 60 min/hr).
There are two goals: Each student should spend as
close as possible to
of the maximum program time working in
small groups and
/3 of the time on problem solving.

These conditions are:

12x1 + 29x2 ~
= 1500 (small-group experience)
19x1 + 11x2 ~
= 2000 (individual problem solving)
Where ~
= means that the left-hand side is desired to
be as close as possible to the right-hand side.
In order to satisfy the system constraint, at least one
of the two goals will be violated.
To implement the goal programming approach, the
small-group experience condition is rewritten as the
goal constraint:
12x1 + 29x2 + u1 v1 = 1500 (u1 > 0, v1 > 0)
Where u1 = the amount by which total small-group
experience falls short of 1500
v1 = the amount by which total small-group
experience exceeds 1500

Deviation Variables Variables u1 and v1 are called

deviation variables since they measure the amount
by which the value produced by the solution
deviates from the goal.
Note that by definition, we want either u1 or v1 (or
both) to be zero because it is impossible to
simultaneously exceed and fall short of 1500.
In order to make 12x1 + 29x2 as close as possible to
1500, it suffices to make the sum u1 - v1 small.
The individual problem-solving condition is written
as the goal constraint:
19x1 + 11x2 + u2 v2 = 2000 (u2 > 0, v2 > 0)
As before, the sum of u2 + v2 should be small.

The complete (illustrative) model is:

Min u1 + v1 + u2 + v2
s.t. x1 + x2 < 100 (total program hours)
12x1 + 29x2 + u1 v1 = 1500 (small-group experience)
19x1 + 11x2 + u2 v2 = 2000 (problem solving)
x1, x2 , u1, v1, u2, v2 > 0
Note: Both u1 and v1 cant be 0
Now this is an ordinary LP model and can be easily
solved in Excel. The optimal decision variables will
satisfy the system constraint (total program hours).

Solver will guarantee that either u1 or v1 (or both) will

be zero, and thus these variables automatically
satisfy this desired condition.
The same statement holds for u2 and v2 and in
general for any pair of deviation variables.
Note that the objective function is the sum of the
deviation variables.
This choice of an objective function indicates that
there is no preference among the various deviations
from the stated goals.

For example, any of the following three decisions is

acceptable:
1. A decision that overachieves the group
experience goal by 5 minutes and hits the
problem-solving goal exactly,
2. A decision that hits the group experience goal
exactly and underachieves the problemsolving goal by 5 minutes, and
3. A decision that underachieves each goal by
2.5 minutes.

There is no preference among the following three

solutions because each of these yields the same
value (i.e., 5) for the objective function.
(1) u1 = 0
v1 = 5
u2 = 0
v2 = 0

(2) u1 = 0
v1 = 0
u2 = 5
v2 = 0

(3) u1 = 2.5
v1 = 0
u2 = 2.5
v2 = 0

Weighting the Deviation Variables Differences in

units alone could produce a preference among the
deviation variables.
One way of expressing a preference among the
various goals is to assign different coefficients
(weights) to the deviation variables in the objective
function.
In the program-planning example, one might select
Min 10u1 + 2v1 + 20u2 + v2
as the objective function. Since v2 (overachievement of problem solving) has the smallest
coefficient, the program designers would rather
have v2 positive than any of the other deviation
variables (positive v2 is penalized the least).

With this objective function it is better to be 9

minutes over the problem-solving goal than to
underachieve by 1 minute the small-groupexperience goal.
To see this, note that for any solution in which
u1 > 1, decreasing u1 by 1 and increasing v2 by 9
would yield a smaller value for the objective
function.

Goal Interval Constraints Another type of goal

constraint is called a goal interval constraint.
Such a constraint restricts the goal to a range or
interval rather than a specific numerical value.
Suppose, for example, that in the previous
illustration the designers were indifferent among
programs for which
1800 < [minutes of individual problem solving] < 2100

i.e., 1800 < 19x1 + 11x2 < 2100

In this situation the interval goal is captured with
two goal constraints:
19x1 + 11x2 v1 < 2100 (v1 > 0)
19x1 + 11x2 + u1 > 1800 (u1 > 0)

When the terms u1 and v1 are included in the

objective function, the LP code will attempt to
minimize them.
Summary of the Use of Goal Constraints Each goal
constraint consists of a left-hand side, say
gi(x1, , xn), and a right-hand side, bi.
Goal constraints are written by using nonnegative
deviation variables ui, vi.
At optimality at least one of the pair ui, vi will always
be zero.
ui represents underachievement; vi represents
overachievement.
Whenever ui is used it is added to gi(x1, , xn).
Whenever vi is used it is subtracted from
gi(x1, , xn).

Only deviation variables appear in the objective

function, and the objective is always to minimize.
The decision variables xi, i = 1, , n do not appear in
the objective.
Four types of goals have been discussed:
1. Target. Make gi(x1, , xn) as close as possible
as possible to bi. To do this write the goal
constraint as
gi(x1, , xn) + ui - vi = bi

(ui > 0, vi > 0)

2. Minimize Underachievement. To do this, write

gi(x1, , xn) + ui - vi = bi
(ui > 0, vi > 0)
and in the objective, minimize ui, the underachievement.
vi does not appear in the objective function
and it is only in this constraint, hence, the
constraint can be equivalently written as
gi(x1, , xn) + ui > bi
(ui > 0)
If the optimal ui is positive, this constraint will
be active, for otherwise ui* could be made
smaller.
If ui*>0 then, since vi* must equal zero, it must
be true that gi(x1, , xn) + ui* = bi .

3. Minimize Overachievement. To do this, write

gi(x1, , xn) + ui - vi = bi
(ui > 0, vi > 0)
and in the objective, minimize vi, the overachievement.
ui does not appear in the objective function,
the constraint can be equivalently written as
gi(x1, , xn) - vi < bi

(vi > 0)

If the optimal vi is positive, this constraint will

be active. The argument is analogous to that
in item 2.

4. Goal Interval Constraint. In this instance, the

goal is to come as close as possible to
satisfying
ai < gi(x1, , xn) < bi
In order to write this as a goal, first stretch
out the interval by writing
ai - ui < gi(x1, , xn) < bi + vi (ui > 0, vi > 0)
which is equivalent to the two constraints
gi(x1, , xn) + ui > ai

gi(x1, , xn) + ui - v^i + ai (ui > 0, v^i > 0)

gi(x1, , xn) - ui > bi

gi(x1, , xn) + u^i - vi + bi (u^i > 0, vi > 0)

The objective function ui + vi is minimized.

^
Variables ui and v^i are merely surplus and

slack, respectively.

ABSOLUTE PRIORITIES
In some cases, managers do not wish to express
their preferences among various goals in terms of
weighted deviation variables, for the process of
assigning weights may seem too arbitrary or
subjective.
In such cases, it may be more acceptable to state
preferences in terms of absolute priorities (as
opposed to weights) to a set of goals.
This approach requires that goals be satisfied in a
specific order. Therefore, the model is solved in
stages as a sequence of models.