Theory of Scheduling¶
Conway, R. W., Maxwell, & Miller, L. W. (1967). Theory of Scheduling. Addison-Wesley.
Cited by¶
3 citations across 3 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Queueing
- T4: Queueing Discipline Has Fairness and Psychological Consequences:
This sourceClassic treatment of single-machine sequencing showing shortest-processing-time minimizes mean flow time while starving long jobs, and the fairness/mean-wait trade-offs across FIFO, SPT/SJF, and priority disciplines.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Conway et al. note fair play motivates first-come, first-served and compare disciplines on mean flow-time, but say nothing about customers' psychological reactions to waiting.
“An inherent sense of fair play has elevated the “first-come, first-served” solution of sequencing problems to an eminence out of all proportion to its basic virtue.”
- T4: Queueing Discipline Has Fairness and Psychological Consequences:
- Scheduling
- Every scheduling articulation, in the foundational vocabulary of Conway, Maxwell, and Miller (1967), specifies (1) the work units — jobs, tasks, processes, requests, operations, surgeries, classes, flights — with attributes such as arrival time, duration, resource requirements, precedence, priority, and deadline; (2) the resources — CPUs, machines, operators, rooms, vehicles, network links — with capacity, availability windows, and setup / changeover constraints; (3) the policy — FCFS, SJF, round-robin, priority, EDF, rate- monotonic, fair-share, weighted fair queueing, Gantt-chart / list scheduling, branch-and-bound, metaheuristics (genetic algorithms, simulated annealing, tabu search); and (4) the objective — minimize makespan, flow time, lateness, or tardiness; maximize throughput or utilization; guarantee response time or deadline; provide fairness among contenders.
This sourceFoundational unified treatment of sequencing problems across machine, network, and queuing settings; demonstrates the cross-domain reach of order-determination as a structural problem.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Conway et al. define jobs, machines, ready-time, due-date, processing-time and flow-time/lateness/tardiness measures; most listed policies and the modern methods are not in this 1967 book.
“These have been the average or the maximum of the values of completion-time , flow-time , lateness , or tardiness.”
- Every scheduling articulation, in the foundational vocabulary of Conway, Maxwell, and Miller (1967), specifies (1) the work units — jobs, tasks, processes, requests, operations, surgeries, classes, flights — with attributes such as arrival time, duration, resource requirements, precedence, priority, and deadline; (2) the resources — CPUs, machines, operators, rooms, vehicles, network links — with capacity, availability windows, and setup / changeover constraints; (3) the policy — FCFS, SJF, round-robin, priority, EDF, rate- monotonic, fair-share, weighted fair queueing, Gantt-chart / list scheduling, branch-and-bound, metaheuristics (genetic algorithms, simulated annealing, tabu search); and (4) the objective — minimize makespan, flow time, lateness, or tardiness; maximize throughput or utilization; guarantee response time or deadline; provide fairness among contenders.
- Sequencing
- This principle spans biology (DNA sequencing, developmental cascades, signaling pathways), operations research (critical-path scheduling, job shop sequencing, resource-leveling), curriculum design (prerequisite ordering, scaffolding, spiral curricula), surgery (operative sequence, anatomical access, patient safety), software deployment (migration sequencing, rolling releases, dependency resolution), policy reform (liberalization sequencing, IMF conditionality debates, vaccination roll-out), narrative (story arcs, reveal timing, dramatic structure), and music (composition, movement order, harmonic progression), with the broad unifying treatment going back to Conway, Maxwell, and Miller (1967).
This sourceFoundational unified treatment of sequencing problems across machine, network, and queuing settings; demonstrates the cross-domain reach of order-determination as a structural problem.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Conway et al. do treat sequencing as one structural problem across manufacturing, transport, services and computing, but not biology, curricula, surgery, music or policy.
“Our basic thesis is that, regardless of the character of the particular tasks to be ordered, there is a fundamental similarity to the”
- This principle spans biology (DNA sequencing, developmental cascades, signaling pathways), operations research (critical-path scheduling, job shop sequencing, resource-leveling), curriculum design (prerequisite ordering, scaffolding, spiral curricula), surgery (operative sequence, anatomical access, patient safety), software deployment (migration sequencing, rolling releases, dependency resolution), policy reform (liberalization sequencing, IMF conditionality debates, vaccination roll-out), narrative (story arcs, reveal timing, dramatic structure), and music (composition, movement order, harmonic progression), with the broad unifying treatment going back to Conway, Maxwell, and Miller (1967).
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 3 of 3 citations: 3 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:4dc0971940c0 · see in the full table