## 6 Discussion and Results
### Evolution of Proposed HMFO with Practical Instances  
After proving the effectiveness of the proposed HMFO with practical instances in Table 8. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm is tested on different problems of practical instances with the aim to minimize makespan and energy consumption, maximizing machine utilization and reliability. Table 8 describes the optimal process plans chosen for each job in all the instances. Out of the various alternative process plans, only one process plan per job is chosen depending upon the score value. The lower the score value, the better the process plan. Thus, whichever process plan gives the lowest score value, that process plan is selected. For example, in instance 6, the process plans selected for the jobs 1-6 are 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, and 1, respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Case**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Process Plans Selected**} \\ \cline{2-11}  & **Jobs** & **Machines** & **J1** & **J2** & **J3** & **J4** & **J5** & **J6** & **J7** & **J8** \\ \hline Instance1 & 6 & 6 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & - & - \\ Instance2 & 6 & 6 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & - & - \\ Instance3 & 6 & 8 & 3 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 4 & - & - \\ Instance4 & 8 & 8 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 3 \\ Instance5 & 8 & 8 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 \\ Instance6 & 6 & 12 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 1 & - & - \\ Instance7 & 6 & 12 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 3 & 2 & 2 & - & - \\ Instance8 & 6 & 12 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & - & - \\ Instance9 & 6 & 12 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & - & - \\ Instance10 & 6 & 12 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 3 & 2 & 1 & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Optimal process plans selected for each job for all practical instances 1–10. Table 9 shows the optimal values of makespan and energy consumption for all different problem instances (1-10) of HMFO and NSGA-II. These are the Pareto optimal values obtained by the simultaneous optimization of all the objectives. For example, in instance1, for proposed HMFO, the Pareto optimal value of makespan is 30, and energy consumption is 8906 and with NSGA-II the values of makespan and energy consumption as 43 and 9083, respectively. For instance6, for proposed HMFO, the value of makespan is 986, and energy consumption is 15,553. With NSGA-II, we obtained the values of makespan and energy consumption as 1083 and 17,694, respectively. To validate the performance of the proposed algorithm, 10 different instances were considered, and their considered objectives makespan and energy consumption values are shown in Table 9. In Table 9, clear observation indicates Pareto optimal values of makespan and energy consumption values are dependent on the number of jobs and machines. Interestingly makespan and energy consumption values for instance 3, i.e., six jobs and eight machines (6 \(\times\) 8) case is more when compared to instances other instances 1, 2, i.e., six jobs, six machine cases (6 \(\times\) 6), and instances 4 and 5, i.e., eight jobs, eight machine case (8 \(\times\) 8). A similar trend is also shown in the literature for 6 \(\times\) 8 cases for makespan and energy consumption values. In almost all instances, the makespan and energy consumption values of HMFO are lesser and far better than those given by NSGA-II. Thus, upon comparing both the algorithms we can conclude that the optimum values are attained in the case of HMFO, which proves the effectiveness of the proposed multi-objective evolutionary algorithm. For instances 6-10, even though there are equal instances of jobs and machines, the makespan and energy consumption values are different and depend only on the operations and types of machines used. For a better portrayal of the optimized HMFO algorithm's results, Gantt charts have been utilized for all 10 instances.