Cost‐based due‐date assignment with the use of classical and neural‐network approaches

Traditional methods of due‐date assignment presented in the literature and used in practice generally assume cost‐of‐earliness and cost‐of‐tardiness functions that may bear little resemblance to true costs. For example, practitioners using ordinary least‐squares (OLS) regression implicitly minimize a quadratic cost function symmetric about the due date, thereby assigning equal second‐order costs to early completion and tardy behavior. In this article the consequences of such assumptions are pointed out, and a cost‐based assignment scheme is suggested whereby the cost of early completion may differ in form and/or degree from the cost of tardiness. Two classical approaches (OLS regression and mathematical programming) as well as a neural‐network methodology for solving this problem are developed and compared on three hypothetical shops using simulation techniques. It is found for the cases considered that: (a) implicitly ignoring cost‐based assignments can be very costly; (b) simpler regression‐based rules cited in the literature are very poor cost performers; (c) if the earliness and tardiness cost functions are both linear, linear programming and neural networks are the methodologies of choice; and (d) if the form of the earliness cost function differs from that of the tardiness cost function, neural networks are statistically superior performers. Finally, it is noted that neural networks can be used for a wide range of cost functions, whereas the other methodologies are significantly more restricted. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.