## 7 Conclusions
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Instance (F/J/M)** & **Makespan** & **Best Known (by [13])** & **Time (s)** \\ \hline Ta001\_4 (4 (4/20/5)\) & 489\({}^{*}\) & 489 & 6.1 \\ Ta002\_4 (4 (20/5)\) & 489\({}^{*}\) & 489 & 27.6 \\ Ta003\_4 (4 (20/5)\) & 440\({}^{*}\) & 440 & 2.5 \\ Ta004\_4 (4 (20/5)\) & 517\({}^{*}\) & 517 & 39.3 \\ Ta005\_4 (4 (20/5)\) & 485\({}^{*}\) & 485 & 6.7 \\ Ta006\_4 (4 (20/5)\) & 478\({}^{*}\) & 478 & 2.4 \\ Ta007\_4 (4 (20/5)\) & 469\({}^{*}\) & 469 & 5.3 \\ Ta008\_4 (4 (20/5)\) & 482\({}^{*}\) & 482 & 8.2 \\ Ta009\_4 (4 (20/5)\) & 475\({}^{*}\) & 475 & 6.7 \\ Ta010\_4 (4 (20/10)\) & 429\({}^{*}\) & 429 & 3.0 \\ Ta011\_4 (4 (20/10)\) & 780\({}^{*}\) & 780 & 6.1 \\ Ta012\_4 (4 (20/10)\) & 830\({}^{*}\) & 830 & 41.6 \\ Ta013\_4 (4 (20/10)\) & 752\({}^{*}\) & 752 & 3.6 \\ Ta014\_4 (4 (20/10)\) & 680\({}^{*}\) & 680 & 17.9 \\ Ta015\_4 (4 (20/10)\) & 717\({}^{*}\) & 717 & 4.2 \\ Ta016\_4 (4 (20/10)\) & 688\({}^{*}\) & 688 & 8.9 \\ Ta017\_4 (4 (20/10)\) & 743\({}^{*}\) & 743 & 4.6 \\ Ta018\_4 (4 (20/10)\) & 762\({}^{*}\) & 762 & 10.3 \\ Ta019\_4 (4 (20/10)\) & 755\({}^{*}\) & 755 & 6.5 \\ Ta020\_4 (4 (20/20)\) & 802\({}^{*}\) & 802 & 7.2 \\ Ta021\_4 (4 (20/20)\) & 1361\({}^{*}\) & 1361 & 21.1 \\ Ta022\_4 (4 (20/20)\) & 1293\({}^{*}\) & 1293 & 15.9 \\ Ta023\_4 (4 (20/20)\) & 1397\({}^{*}\) & 1397 & 20.2 \\ Ta024\_4 (4 (20/20)\) & 1348\({}^{*}\) & 1348 & 8.8 \\ Ta025\_4 (4 (20/20)\) & 1368\({}^{*}\) & 1368 & 31.5 \\ Ta026\_4 (4 (20/20)\) & 1354\({}^{*}\) & 1354 & 17.9 \\ Ta027\_4 (4 (20/20)\) & 1360\({}^{*}\) & 1360 & 47.5 \\ Ta028\_4 (4 (20/20)\) & 1315\({}^{*}\) & 1315 & 18.5 \\ Ta029\_4 (4 (20/20)\) & 1362\({}^{*}\) & 1362 & 26.7 \\ Ta030\_4 (4 (20/20)\) & 1296\({}^{*}\) & 1296 & 13.6 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results for the problem instances 1–30 of the large dataset for 4 factories (\({}^{*}\) indicates optimality). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Instance (F/J/M)** & **Makespan** & **Best Known (by [13])** & **Time (s)** \\ \hline Ta001\_6 (6/20/5) & 407\({}^{*}\) & 407 & 3.1 \\ Ta002\_6 (6/20/5) & 403\({}^{*}\) & 403 & 22.6 \\ Ta003\_6 (6/20/5) & 369\({}^{*}\) & 369 & 1.6 \\ Ta004\_6 (6/20/5) & 432\({}^{*}\) & 432 & 15.5 \\ Ta005\_6 (6/20/5) & 404\({}^{*}\) & 404 & 2.6 \\ Ta006\_6 (6/20/5) & 402\({}^{*}\) & 402 & 1.9 \\ Ta007\_6 (6/20/5) & 430\({}^{*}\) & 430 & 1.4 \\ Ta008\_6 (6/20/5) & 408\({}^{*}\) & 408 & 2.6 \\ Ta009\_6 (6/20/5) & 396\({}^{*}\) & 396 & 2.6 \\ Ta101\_6 (6/20/5) & 365\({}^{*}\) & 365 & 1.6 \\ Ta011\_6 (6/20/10) & 693\({}^{*}\) & 693 & 3.3 \\ Ta012\_6 (6/20/10) & 730\({}^{*}\) & 730 & 3.6 \\ Ta103\_6 (6/20/10) & 673\({}^{*}\) & 673 & 3.1 \\ Ta104\_6 (6/20/10) & 603\({}^{*}\) & 603 & 6.3 \\ Ta015\_6 (6/20/10) & 650\({}^{*}\) & 650 & 4.4 \\ Ta016\_6 (6/20/10) & 613\({}^{*}\) & 613 & 6.7 \\ Ta017\_6 (6/20/10) & 671\({}^{*}\) & 671 & 2.8 \\ Ta018\_6 (6/20/10) & 692\({}^{*}\) & 692 & 3.0 \\ Ta019\_6 (6/20/10) & 702\({}^{*}\) & 702 & 2.7 \\ Ta021\_6 (6/20/10) & 722\({}^{*}\) & 722 & 3.2 \\ Ta021\_6 (6/20/20) & 1257\({}^{*}\) & 1257 & 7.1 \\ Ta022\_6 (6/20/20) & 1191\({}^{*}\) & 1191 & 7.1 \\ Ta023\_6 (6/20/20) & 1320\({}^{*}\) & 1320 & 6.4 \\ Ta024\_6 (6/20/20) & 1257\({}^{*}\) & 1257 & 6.8 \\ Ta025\_6 (6/20/20) & 1280\({}^{*}\) & 1280 & 7.7 \\ Ta026\_6 (6/20/20) & 1256\({}^{*}\) & 1256 & 7.0 \\ Ta027\_6 (6/20/20) & 1250\({}^{*}\) & 1250 & 10.5 \\ Ta028\_6 (6/20/20) & 1232\({}^{*}\) & 1232 & 8.1 \\ Ta029\_6 (6/20/20) & 1257\({}^{*}\) & 1257 & 17.4 \\ Ta030\_6 (6/20/20) & 1197\({}^{*}\) & 1197 & 7.5 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Results for the problem instances 1–30 of the large dataset for 6 factories (\({}^{*}\) indicates optimality).