GOAL PROGRAMMING: AN

INTRODUCTION
 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. 2
 GOAL PROGRAMMING: AN
INTRODUCTION (Cont…)
 GP; Channes and Cooper (1961); Suggested a method for solving an infeasible LP
problem arising from various conflicting resource constraints (Goals).
 Examples of Multiple Conflicting Goals are:
i. Maximize Profit and increase wages paid to employees
ii. Upgrade product quality and reduce product cost

 Ijiri (1965) developed the concept of preemptive priority factors, assigning different
priority levels to incommensurable goals and different weights to the goals at the same
priority level.

 In GP, instead of trying to minimize or maximize the objective function directly, as in

case of an LP, the deviations from established goals within given set of constraints are
minimized.

 In GP, Slack and Surplus variables are known as Deviational Variables (di– and di+)
(means UNDERACHIEVEMENT & OVERACHIEVEMENT); These deviations from each
goal or sub-goal.

 These deviational variables represent the extent to which target goals are not
achieved. The objective function then becomes the minimization of a sum of these
deviations, based on the relative importance within the preemptive structure assigned
3
to each deviation.
 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)

4
 GOAL PROGRAMMING MODEL FORMULATION:
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 5
 GOAL PROGRAMMING MODEL FORMULATION:
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)

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)
6
X1, X2, d1+, d2–, d3– ≥ 0
 GOAL PROGRAMMING MODEL FORMULATION:
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)  Because management is
d3– = idle time in the assembly department (underutilization) unconcerned about d1+, d2+, d3–,
+
d3 = overtime in the assembly department (overutilization)
and d4
+ these may be omitted

from the objective function

d4– = underachievement of the ceiling fan goal
d4+ = overachievement of the ceiling fan goal  The new objective function and
constraints are
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 7
GOAL PROGRAMMING MODEL FORMULATION: 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. 8
 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.
9
 GENERAL GP MODEL
 With “m” goals, the general goal linear programming model may be
stated as:

Where,
 “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.
Remark: two types of constraints may be formulated for a GP problem:
a) System constraints that may influence but are not directly related to goals, and
b) Goal constraints that are directly related to goals.
10
 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

11
 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 + d 4 – – d 4 + = 7 (ceiling fans)
All Xi, di variables ≥ 0 (nonnegativity)
where
X1 = number of chandeliers produced
X2 = number of ceiling fans produced
 SOLVING GOAL PROGRAMMING
PROBLEMS GRAPHICALLY
 ANALYSIS OF THE
 To solve this we graph one
FIRST GOAL
X2
constraint at a time starting
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
 Note that in graphing this 3– d 1+
constraint the deviational
2–
variables are ignored
 To minimize d1– the feasible 1– d1– 7X1 + 6X2 = 30
area is the shaded region
0– | | | | | |

1 2 3 4 5 6X
1
 SOLVING GOAL PROGRAMMING
PROBLEMS GRAPHICALLY
 The next graph is of the  ANALYSIS OF FIRST
X2
second priority goal of AND SECOND GOALS
minimizing d2– 7–

 The region below the Minimize Z = P1d1– + P2d2–

6–
constraint line 2X1 + 3X2 = 12
represents the values for d2– 5– d1+
while the region above the line
stands for d2+ 4–
 To avoid underutilizing wiring
department hours the area 3–
2X1 + 3X2 = 12
below the line is eliminated
2–
 This goal must be attained d2+
within the feasible region 1–
already defined by satisfying 7X1 + 6X2 = 30
d2–
the first goal 0– | | | | | |

1 2 3 4 5 6X
1
 SOLVING GOAL PROGRAMMING
PROBLEMS GRAPHICALLY
 The third goal is to avoid  ANALYSIS OF ALL FOUR
overtime in the assembly
department X2 PRIORITY GOALS
d 4+
 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 C
2–
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 6X
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

 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
 MODIFIED SIMPLEX METHOD FOR
GOAL PROGRAMMING
 Initial 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
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
 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.

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.
 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

 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
 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
 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