Skip to main content
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2021 Oct 1;192:3281–3290. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.09.101

Modeling Employee Flexible Work Scheduling As A Classification Problem

Fred N Kiwanuka 1, Louay Karadsheh 1, Ja’far alqatawna 1, Anang Hudaya Muhamad Amin 1
PMCID: PMC8528668  PMID: 34697561

Abstract

Many organizations have adapted flexible working arrangements during COVID19 pandemic because of restrictions on the number of employees required on site at any time. Unfortunately, current employee scheduling methods are more suited for compressed working arrangements. The problem of automating compressed employee scheduling has been studied by many researchers and is widely adopted by many organizations in an attempt to achieve high quality scheduling. During process of employee scheduling many constraints may have to be considered and may require negotiating a large dimension of constraints like in flexible working. These constraints make scheduling a challenging task in these working arrangements. Most scheduling algorithms are modeled as constraint optimization problems and suited for compressed work but for flexible working with large constraint dimensions, achieving accurate scheduling is even more challenging. In this research, we propose a machine learning approach that takes advantage of mining user-defined constraints or soft constraints and transform employee scheduling into a classification problem. We propose automatically extracting employee personal schedules like calendars in order to extract their availability. We then show how to use the extracted knowledge in a multi-label classification approach in order to generate a schedule for faculty staff in a University that supports flexible working. We show that the results of this approach are comparable to that of a constraint satisfaction and optimization method that is commonly used in literature. Results show that our approach achieved accuracy of 93.1% of satisfying constraints as compared to 92.7% of a common constraint programming approach.

Keywords: Employee Scheduling, Constraint Programming, Data mining, Machine Learning

References

  • 1.Boutell M.R., Luo J., Shen X., Brown C.M. Learning multi-label scene classification. Pattern Recognition. 2004;37:1757–1771. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Burke E.K., Petrovic S. Recent research directions in automated timetabling. European Journal of Operational Research. 2002;140:266–280. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bürgy R., Michon-Lacaze H., Desaulniers G. Employee scheduling with short demand perturbations and extensible shifts. Omega. 2019;89:177–192. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Deng L., Yu D. Vol. 7. Foundations and Trends in Signal Processing; 2014. (Deep Learning: Methods and Applications). [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Glover F., McMillan C. The general employee scheduling problem. an integration of ms and ai. Computers and Operations Research. 1986;13:563–573. Applications of Integer Programming. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.C.B.L.M.A. Hegewisch O.T. Flexible working in europe: The evidence and the implications. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2010;7:61–78. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kletzander L., Musliu N. Solving the general employee scheduling problem. Computers and Operations Research. 2020;113:104794. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Maimon O., Rokach L. Data mining and knowledge discovery handbook. IFAC-PapersOnLine. 2005;48:800–805. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Morton D.P., Popova E. A bayesian stochastic programming approach to an employee scheduling problem. IIE Transactions. 2004:36. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Nieuwenhuis R., Oliveras A., Tinelli C. Solving sat and sat modulo theories: From an abstract davis–putnam–logemann–loveland procedure to dpll(t) J. ACM. 2006;53:937–977. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Schapire R., Singer Y. Boostexter: a boosting-based system for text categorization. Machine Learning. 2000;39:135–168. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Soria-Alcaraz J.A., Ochoa G., Swan J., Valadez J.M.C., Soberanes H.J.P., Burke E.K. Effective learning hyper-heuristics for the course timetabling problem. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2014;238:77–86. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Thompson G.M. Improved Implicit Optimal Modeling of the Labor Shift Scheduling Problem. Management Science. 1995;41:595–607. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tsoumakas G., Katakis I. Multi label classification: An overview. International Journal of Data Warehouse and Mining. 2007;3:1–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wang H. Flexible flow shop scheduling: Optimum, heuristics and artificial intelligence solutions. Expert Systems. 2005;22:78–85. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wheatley D. Employee satisfaction and use of flexible working arrangements. Work Employment and Society. 2016;31:567–585. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Zhang, L., Madigan, C.F., Moskewicz, M.H., Malik, S., 2001. Efficient conflict driven learning in a boolean satisfiability solver, in: Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-aided Design, IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA. pp. 279–285.

Articles from Procedia Computer Science are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES