## 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\_3 (3/20/5) & 575\({}^{*}\) & 575 & 20.0 \\ Ta002\_3 (3/20/5) & 578\({}^{*}\) & 578 & 60.5 \\ Ta003\_3 (3/20/5) & 505\({}^{*}\) & 505 & 6.7 \\ Ta004\_3 (3/20/5) & 602\({}^{*}\) & 602 & 48.1 \\ Ta005\_3 (3/20/5) & 563\({}^{*}\) & 563 & 11.2 \\ Ta006\_3 (3/20/5) & 552\({}^{*}\) & 552 & 4.2 \\ Ta007\_3 (3/20/5) & 545\({}^{*}\) & 545 & 11.2 \\ Ta008\_3 (3/20/5) & 557\({}^{*}\) & 557 & 9.6 \\ Ta009\_3 (3/20/5) & 552\({}^{*}\) & 552 & 13.0 \\ Ta010\_3 (3/20/5) & 501\({}^{*}\) & 501 & 4.3 \\ Ta011\_3 (3/20/10) & 871\({}^{*}\) & 871 & 17.1 \\ Ta012\_3 (3/20/10) & 922\({}^{*}\) & 922 & 69.6 \\ Ta013\_3 (3/20/10) & 834\({}^{*}\) & 834 & 14.4 \\ Ta014\_3 (3/20/10) & 758\({}^{*}\) & 758 & 64.1 \\ Ta015\_3 (3/20/10) & 798\({}^{*}\) & 798 & 7.8 \\ Ta016\_3 (3/20/10) & 767\({}^{*}\) & 767 & 31.4 \\ Ta017\_3 (3/20/10) & 820\({}^{*}\) & 820 & 8.6 \\ Ta018\_3 (3/20/10) & 851\({}^{*}\) & 851 & 38.7 \\ Ta019\_3 (3/20/10) & 840\({}^{*}\) & 840 & 26.2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Results for the problem instances 1–30 of the large dataset for 3 factories (\({}^{*}\) indicates optimality). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Instance (F/J/M)** & **LB** & **Makespan** & **Best Known (by [13])** & **Time (s)** \\ \hline Ta001\_2 (2/20/5) & 746 & 746\({}^{*}\) & 746 & 161.7 \\ Ta002\_2 (2/20/5) & 768 & 768\({}^{*}\) & 768 & 35.1 \\ Ta003\_2 (2/20/5) & 645 & 645\({}^{*}\) & 645 & 33.7 \\ Ta004\_2 (2/20/5) & 765 & 765\({}^{*}\) & 765 & 183.3 \\ Ta005\_2 (2/20/5) & 730 & 730\({}^{*}\) & 730 & 143.6 \\ Ta006\_2 (2/20/5) & 705 & 705\({}^{*}\) & 705 & 17.0 \\ Ta007\_2 (2/20/5) & 706 & 706\({}^{*}\) & 706 & 62.3 \\ Ta008\_2 (2/20/5) & 709 & 709\({}^{*}\) & 709 & 45.0 \\ Ta009\_2 (2/20/5) & 719 & 719\({}^{*}\) & 719 & 44.1 \\ Ta010\_2 (2/20/5) & 645 & 645\({}^{*}\) & 645 & 33.6 \\ Ta011\_2 (2/20/10) & 1049 & 1049\({}^{*}\) & 1049 & 218.3 \\ Ta012\_2 (2/20/10) & 927 & 1117\({}^{*}\) & 1117 & 300.0 \\ Ta013\_2 (2/20/10) & 854 & 1001\({}^{+}\) & 1001 & 300.0 \\ Ta014\_2 (2/20/10) & 789 & 911\({}^{+}\) & 911 & 300.0 \\ Ta015\_2 (2/20/10) & 959 & 959\({}^{*}\) & 959 & 160.3 \\ Ta016\_2 (2/20/10) & 796 & 925\({}^{+}\) & 925 & 300.0 \\ Ta017\_2 (2/20/10) & 989 & 989\({}^{*}\) & 989 & 114.1 \\ Ta018\_2 (2/20/10) & 846 & 1025\({}^{+}\) & 1025 & 300.0 \\ Ta019\_2 (2/20/10) & 878 & 1023\({}^{+}\) & 1023 & 300.0 \\ Ta020\_2 (2/20/10) & 882 & 1073\({}^{+}\) & 1073 & 300.0 \\ Ta021\_2 (2/20/20) & 1404 & 1674\({}^{+}\) & 1674 & 300.0 \\ Ta022\_2 (2/20/20) & 1336 & 1566\({}^{+}\) & 1566 & 300.0 \\ Ta023\_2 (2/20/20) & 1478 & 1720\({}^{+}\) & 1720 & 300.0 \\ Ta024\_2 (2/20/20) & 1420 & 1634\({}^{+}\) & 1634 & 300.0 \\ Ta025\_2 (2/20/20) & 1441 & 1694\({}^{+}\) & 1694 & 300.0 \\ Ta026\_2 (2/20/20) & 1417 & 1654\({}^{+}\) & 1654 & 300.0 \\ Ta027\_2 (2/20/20) & 1417 & 1671\({}^{+}\) & 1671 & 300.0 \\ Ta028\_2 (2/20/20) & 1393 & 1610\({}^{+}\) & 1610 & 300.0 \\ Ta029\_2 (2/20/20) & 1409 & 1663\({}^{+}\) & 1663 & 300.0 \\ Ta030\_2 (2/20/20) & 1377 & 1602\({}^{+}\) & 1602 & 300.0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Results for the problem instances 1–30 of the large dataset for 2 factories (\({}^{*}\) indicates optimality, \({}^{+}\) indicates equality with the best known solution).