Manufacturing as a Service in Industry 4.0: A Multi-Objective Optimization Approach

  • Gabriel H. A. MedeirosEmail author
  • Qiushi Cao
  • Cecilia Zanni-Merk
  • Ahmed Samet
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 193)


The unexpected failure of machines or tools has a direct impact on production availability. This gives rise to risks in terms of product quality, profitability, and competitiveness. In order to improve the availability of the companies’ own production facilities without having to rely on cost-intensive reserve machines or other means of minimizing downtime, it is also necessary, beyond planning the production smartly, to be able to outsource the production if required (for example, when a stoppage is inevitable). For this purpose, an intelligent machine broker needs to be implemented, which will coordinate the needs of a network of companies working together and the available machinery at a given time. This paper proposes to use a multi-objective optimization approach to manufacturing as a service, to be able to propose the group of the most convenient available machines in the network to the user companies that are confronted to unforeseen stoppages in their production, allowing them, therefore, to outsource that part of the production to other company in the same network.


Manufacturing as a service Multi-objective optimization algorithms Predictive maintenance Industry 4.0 



This work has received funding from INTERREG Upper Rhine (European Regional Development Fund) and the Ministries for Research of Baden-Wurttemberg, Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) and from the Grand Est French Region in the framework of the Science Offensive Upper Rhine HALFBACK project.


  1. 1.
    Barbucha, D., Czarnowski, I., Jedrzejowicz, P., Ratajczak-Ropel, E., Wierzbowska, I.: JABAT middleware as a tool for solving optimization problems. In: Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence II, pp. 181–195, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bassi, M., Cursi, E.S.D., Pagnacco, E., Ellaia, R.: Statistics of the Pareto front in multi-objective Optimization under Uncertainties. Latin Am. J. Solids and Struct. 15(11) (2018)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Catania, C., Zanni-Merk, C., de Beuvron, F.: Ontologies to lead knowledge intensive evolutionary algorithms. Int. J. Knowl. Syst. Sci., IGI Global 7(1), 78–100 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Czyzżak, P., Jaszkiewicz, A.: Pareto simulated annealing–a metaheuristic technique for multiple-objective combinatorial optimization. J. Multi-Criteria Dec. Anal. 7(1), 34–47 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. Trans. Evol. Comp 6(2), 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geilen, M., Basten, T.: A calculator for Pareto points. In the Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe, pp. 1–6 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giraldez, R., Aguilar-Ruiz, J.S., Riquelme, J.C.: Knowledge-based fast evaluation for evolutionary learning. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C (Appl. Rev.) 35(2), 254–261 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halfback Website: Halfback Project Description. [ONLINE] (2017) Accessed 27 Dec 2019
  9. 9.
    Jafari, S., Bozorg-Haddad, O., Chu, X.: Cuckoo optimization algorithm (COA). In Advanced Optimization by Nature-Inspired Algorithms, pp. 39–49. Springer, Singapore (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    James F.A.: Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. In Readings in Qualitative Reasoning About Physical Systems, pp. 361–372. Elsevier (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lermer, M., Frey, S., Reich, C.: Machine learning in cloud environments considering external information. IMMM 2016: Valencia, Spain (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nobahari, H., Nikusokhan, M., Siarry, P.: A MOGSA based on non-dominated sorting. Int. J. Swarm Intell. Res. 3, 32–49Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Pirim, H., Eksioglu, B., Bayraktar, E.: Tabu Search: a comparative study, pp. 1–27, INTECH Open Access Publisher (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rothlauf, F.: Binary representations of integers and the performance of selectorecombinative genetic algorithms. In: International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, pp. 99–108. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Yusoff, Y., Ngadiman, M.S., Zain, A.M.: Overview of NSGA-II for optimizing machining process parameters. Procedia Eng. 15, 3978–3983 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zames, G., Ajlouni, N.M., Ajlouni, N.M., Ajlouni, N.M., Holland, J.H., Hills, W.D., Goldberg, D.E.: Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning. Inf. Technol. J. 3(1), 301–302 (1981)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zitzler, E., Deb, K., Thiele, L.: Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: empirical results. Evol. Comput. 8(2), 173–195 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zitzler, E., Laumanns, M., Thiele, L.: SPEA2: Improving the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm. TIK-report 103 (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhou, A., Qu, B.Y., Li, H., Zhao, S.Z., Suganthan, P.N., Zhang, Q.: Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a survey of the state of the art. Swarm Evolut. Comput. 1(1), 32–49 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriel H. A. Medeiros
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Qiushi Cao
    • 2
  • Cecilia Zanni-Merk
    • 2
  • Ahmed Samet
    • 3
  1. 1.Universidade Federal do CearáFortalezaBrazil
  2. 2.Normandie Université, INSA Rouen, LITISRouenFrance
  3. 3.ICUBE/SDC Team (UMR CNRS 7357)-Pole API BP 10413IllkirchFrance

Personalised recommendations