## 6 Discussion and Results
### Evolution of Proposed HMFO with Practical Instances
For better understanding, Gantt charts for instances 1-5 are shown separately in Figure 10, and Gantt charts for instances 6-10 are shown separately in Figure 11. Here, Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the maximum completion time for the problem with respect to instances 1-5 and instances 6-10, respectively. The X-axis of the Gantt chart indicates the average time of completion of the job (makespan), and the Y-axis denotes the machines. As stipulated in Figure 10, it is clearly observable that the makespan for all the five instances is 30, 27, 179, 42, and 50, respectively, which replicates the results that are previously mentioned in Table 9. In Figure 11, it is clearly observable that the makespan for all the five instances is 986, 1179, 1026, 669, and 814, respectively, which replicates the results that are previously mentioned in Table 9.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multirow{2}{*}{**Jobs**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Machines**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Proposed HMFO**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**NSGA-II**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & **Makespan** & **Energy Consumption** & **Makespan** & **Energy Consumption** \\ \hline Instance 1 & 6 & 6 & 30 & 8906 & 35 & 9083 \\ Instance 2 & 6 & 6 & 27 & 8325 & 38 & 8700 \\ Instance 3 & 6 & 8 & 179 & 39,658 & 187 & 44,920 \\ Instance 4 & 8 & 8 & 42 & 13,089 & 50 & 14,040 \\ Instance 5 & 8 & 8 & 50 & 10,129 & 62 & 11,189 \\ Instance6 & 6 &In addition to comparing the performance of both the algorithms, i.e., HMFO and NSGA-II, a comparative study of the machine utilization rate of different machines for all the 10 instances is illustrated in Figures 12 and 13. It can be inferred from Figure 12 that in all instances 1-5, machine utilization rates are far better for the results that are obtained with HMFO when compared with results that are obtained with NSGA II. In Figure 13 for instance 6 in case of HMFO, machine 6 has the maximum utilization rate, and machine 9 has the minimum utilization rate. In case of NSGA-II, machine 6 has the highest, and machine 12 has the least utilization rate. In addition, it is evident from the bar graph that in the case of HMFO, machine 8 and machine 12 have zero utilization rate. This means that these machines are not at all utilized in the manufacturing process and in the case of NSGA-II, all the machines are completely utilized. Since our objective is the maximization of the service utilization rate, the machines that are not utilized can be completely removed from  
Figure 11: Gantt chart showing the make span of instances from 6–10. Figure 10: Gantt chart showing the makespan of instances from 1–5. being ignored and can be removed from the workspace. Since HMFO reduces the initial cost involved in installing the machines by eliminating the machines, we can conclude that HMFO gives the optimum results of the machine utilization rates. Figure 12: Utilization rate of different machines of instance 1–5. Figure 13: Utilization rate of different machines of instance 6–10. In Table 9, the energy consumption values for all instances are plotted and shown in the Figure 14. It can be inferred that energy consumption values for all 10 instances are lower for HMFO when compared to NSGA II. Figure 15 articulates the reliability of the jobs/services provided by the selected enterprise with respect to each instance. In Figure 15, it can be inferred that for all five instances, there is not much change in the reliability. In all the instances, i.e., instances 1-10, job 3 has the highest reliability, which means machines performing job 3 have the highest probability of surviving their expected lifetime. Job 4 has the least reliability, which indicates that machines processing job 4 fail at a very early stage and cannot survive at least half of their intended lifetime. Hence, the machines involved in the manufacture of job 4 need to be improved/changed.