|
Solver.com
From Frontline Systems, developers of the Excel Solver.
|
|
|
|
|
Personnel
scheduling for an Amusement Park 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Maximize the preference of the employees' schedules, taking
into account seniority, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| while
maintaining the schedule that minimizes payroll costs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sch. |
Days
off |
Employees |
|
Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| A |
Sunday, Monday |
3 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| B |
Monday, Tuesday |
5 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| C |
Tuesday, Wed. |
7 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| D |
Wed., Thursday |
3 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| E |
Thursday, Friday |
7 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| F |
Friday, Saturday |
0 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| G |
Saturday, Sunday |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule Totals: |
25 |
|
22 |
17 |
13 |
15 |
15 |
18 |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Demand: |
|
|
22 |
17 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
18 |
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pay/Employee/Day: |
$40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payroll/Week: |
$5,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Preference of employees |
|
|
Schedule assigned to |
|
|
|
| |
|
Seniority (Years) |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
Total |
Preference |
| Employee 1 |
5 |
|
5 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 2 |
6 |
|
3 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 3 |
4 |
|
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 4 |
7 |
|
3 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 5 |
3 |
|
1 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
5 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 6 |
2 |
|
4 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 7 |
7 |
|
3 |
4 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 8 |
5 |
|
2 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 9 |
3 |
|
4 |
3 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 10 |
2 |
|
3 |
4 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 11 |
5 |
|
4 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
3 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 12 |
7 |
|
5 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 13 |
5 |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 14 |
4 |
|
4 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 15 |
9 |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 16 |
5 |
|
3 |
5 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 17 |
6 |
|
4 |
3 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 18 |
7 |
|
3 |
4 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 19 |
6 |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 20 |
4 |
|
3 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 21 |
3 |
|
2 |
5 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 22 |
4 |
|
2 |
5 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 23 |
6 |
|
5 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 24 |
6 |
|
3 |
1 |
5 |
2 |
4 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Employee 25 |
7 |
|
1 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Demand |
3 |
5 |
7 |
3 |
7 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Problem |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| We
now extend the model as seen in Sched2 by adding another factor. When
deciding which employee |
|
|
|
| goes
on which schedule, the amusement park decides to let the seniority of the
employees affect the |
|
|
|
| decision.
The seniority is simply measured in years of employment at the park. How
should the company |
|
|
|
| assign the
schedules to the employees? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Solution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The
solution is almost identical to the one in Sched2. The difference is that
instead of just adding the |
|
|
|
| preferences,
we now weight them by multiplying each preference by the employee's
seniority. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Remarks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| There
are many ways of adjusting for seniority and other factors. By increasing and
decreasing the size of |
|
|
|
| the seniority
factors, you can adjust the importance of the seniority to the desired level. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|