Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Allocating Functions to Human and Algorithm in Scheduling

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Behavioral Operations in Planning and Scheduling

Abstract

An important part of Advanced Planning Systems (APS) are algorithms. When algorithms are applied, the task is automated as much as possible. However, the human that is supposed to use the algorithm is generally ignored during the development process. As a consequence, a prior investigation whether and how an algorithm can or will be used in practice is not integrated in the development process. In contrast, in the field of cognitive ergonomics, function allocation methods explicitly take into account human factors in the design of human/computer systems. The function allocation literature, however, is mainly focused on dynamic systems where humans must make decisions in situations with time pressure and important safety risks, e.g., nuclear plants and air traffic control. We analyze the differences between such dynamic systems and planning and scheduling, and we propose a model for function allocation in planning and scheduling taking into account cognitive and human–machine cooperation aspects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abbink, E. (2006). Intelligent shunting: dealing with constraints (satisfaction). In W. Van Wezel, R. J. Jorna, & A. Meystel (Eds.), Planning in intelligent systems: Aspects, motivation, and methods. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annett, J. (2000). Theoretical and pragmatic influences on task analysis methods. In J. M. Schraagen, S. F. Chipman, & V. L. Shalin (Eds.), Cognitive task analysis (pp. 25–37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annett, J., & Duncan, K. D. (1967). Task analysis and training design. Occupational Psychology, 41, 211–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bainbridge, L. (1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19, 775–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardo, J. J., & Lin, K. S. (1994). An interactive procedure for bi-criteria production scheduling. Computers and Operations Research, 21(6), 677–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. J. (1988). Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 40–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cegarra, J. (2008). A cognitive typology of scheduling situations: A contribution to laboratory and field studies. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 9(3), 201–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cegarra, J., & Hoc, J. M. (2008). The role of algorithm and results comprehensibility of automated scheduling on complacency. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 18(6), 603–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. E., & Kottemann, J. E. (1995). Determinants of decision rule use in a production planning task. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(2), 145–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dearden, A., Harrison, M., & Wright, P. (2000). Allocation of function: scenarios, context and the economics of effort. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 52(2), 289–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dockx, K., De Boeck, Y., & Meert, K. (1997). Interactive scheduling in the chemical process industry. Computers and chemical engineering: an international journal, 21(9), 925–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutoon, J. M. (1964). Production scheduling: A behavior model. International Journal of Production Research, 4, 21–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endsley, M. R. (1995). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endsley, M. R., & Kiris, E. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37(1), 381–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endsley, M. R., Kiris, E. O., Endsley, M. R., & Kaber, D. B. (1999). Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics, 42(3), 462–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitts, P. M. (1951). Human engineering for an effective air navigation and traffic control system. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabrel, V., & Vanderpooten, D. (2002). Enumeration and interactive selection of efficient paths in a multiple criteria graph for scheduling an earth observing satellite. European Journal of Operational Research, 139(3), 533–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haijema, R., Duin, C. W., & van Dijk, N. M. (2006). Train shunting: A practical heuristic inspired by dynamic programming. In W. Van Wezel, R. J. Jorna, & A. Meystel (Eds.), Planning in intelligent systems: Aspects, motivation, and methods. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoc, J. M. (2000). From human-machine interaction to human-machine cooperation. Ergonomics, 43, 833–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoc, J. M. (2001). Towards a cognitive approach to human-machine cooperation in dynamic situations. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 54, 509–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoc, J. M., & Amalberti, R. (2007). Cognitive control dynamics for reaching a satisficing performance in complex dynamic situations. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 1(1), 22–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoc, J. M., & Debernard, S. (2002). Respective demands of task and function allocation on human-machine co-operation design: a psychological approach. Connection Science, 14, 283–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoc, J. M., Mebarki, N., & Cegarra, J. (2004). L’assistance à l’opérateur humain pour l’ordonnancement dans les ateliers manufacturiers. Le Travail Humain, 67, 181–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonker, R., & Volgenant, A. (1987). A shortest augmenting path algorithm for dense and sparse linear assignment problems. Computing, 38, 325–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaber, D. B., Riley, J. M., Tan, K.-W., & Endsley, M. R. (2001). On the design of adaptive automation for complex systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 5, 37–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kantowitz, B. H., & Sorkin, R. D. (1987). Allocation of functions. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors (pp. 355–369). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamberts, D. (2007). Algorithmic support for worker assignment planning. Unpublished master thesis, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauer, J., Jacobs, L. W., Brusco, M. J., & Bechtold, S. E. (1994). An interactive, optimization-based decision support system for scheduling part-time, computer lab attendants. Omega, 22(6), 613–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Moray, N. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1243–1270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Moray, N. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 40(1), 153–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lentink, R. M., Fioole, P. J., Kroon, L. G., & Van’t Woudt, C. (2006). Applying operations research techniques to planning of train shunting. In W. Van Wezel, R. J. Jorna, & A. Meystel (Eds.), Planning in intelligent systems: Aspects, motivation, and methods. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, P., & Kirby, M. (2005). Allocation of functions. In N. Stanton (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods. London: CRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay, K. N., & Buzacott, J. A. (2000). The application of computerized production control systems in job shop environments. Computers in Industry, 42, 79–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKay, K. N., & Wiers, V. C. S. (2003). Integrated decision support for planning, scheduling, and dispatching tasks in a focused factory. Computers in Industry, 50, 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mietus, D. M. (1994). Understanding planning for effective decision support. PhD Thesis, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moray, N., Dessouky, M. I., Kijowski, B. A., & Adapathya, R. (1991). Strategic behavior, workload, and performance in task scheduling. Human Factors, 33, 607–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosier, K. L., & Skitka, L. J. (1996). Human decision-makers and automated decision aids: Made for each other? In R. Parasuraman & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and human performance: theory and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, K. L., Tyson, W. M., Wolverton, M. J., Jarvis, P. A., Lee, T. J., & desJardins, M. (2002). “PASSAT: A User-centric Planning Framework”. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International NASA Workshop on Planning and Scheduling for Space, Houston, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neerincx, M. A., & Griffioen, E. (1996). Cognitive task analysis: harmonising tasks to human capacities. Ergonomics, 39(4), 543–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oddi, A., & Cesta, A. (2000). Toward interactive scheduling systems for managing medical resources. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 20(2), 113–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Older, M. T., Waterson, P. E., & Clegg, C. W. (1997). A critical assessment of task allocation methods and their applicability. Ergonomics, 40(2), 151–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., & Singh, I. L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced “complacency”. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A, 30(3), 286–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, H. E., Maisano, R. E., & VanCott, H. P. (1982). The allocation of function in man-machine systems: A perspective and literature review. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam, R., & Price, H. E. (1984). Allocating functions to man or machine in nuclear power plant control. The Nuclear Engineer, 25(3), 79–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riedel, R., Fransoo, J., & Wiers, V. C. S. (2007). Building decision support systems for acceptance – the role of trust. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Euroma Conference, Ankara, Turkey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riezebos, J., & van Wezel, W. M. C. (2006). Planner-oriented design of algorithms for train shunting scheduling. In W. M. C. van Wezel, R. J. Jorna, & A. M. Meystel (Eds.), Planning in intelligent systems: Aspects, motivations, and methods (pp. 477–496). New Jersey: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Riezebos, J., & van Wezel, W. M. C. (2009). k-Shortest routing of trains on shunting yards. OR Spectrum, 31(4), 745–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, W. B. (1976). Adaptive allocation of decision making responsibility between supervisor and computer. In T. B. Sheridan & G. Johannsen (Eds.), Monitoring behavior and supervisory control (pp. 295–306). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, P. M. (1989). The human planning and scheduling role in advanced manufacturing systems: an emerging human factors domain. Human Factors, 31, 635–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scerbo, M. W. (1996). Theoretical perspectives on adaptative automation. In R. Parasuraman & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and human performance (pp. 37–64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schakel, B. (1976). Process control: Simple and sophisticated display devices as decision aids. In T. B. Sheridan & G. Johanssen (Eds.), Monitoring behavior and supervisory control (pp. 429–444). New York: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schraagen, J. M., Chipman, S. F., & Shalin, V. L. (Eds.). (2000). Cognitive task analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharit, J. (1997). Allocation of functions. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan, T. B., & Verplanck, W. L. (1978). Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Man–Machine Systems Laboratory Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smed, J., Johtela, T., Johnsson, M., Puranen, M., & Nevalainen, O. (2000). An interactive system for scheduling jobs in electronic assembly. The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology, 16(6), 450–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H. T., & Crabtree, R. G. (1975). Interactive planning: a study of computer aiding in the execution of a simulated scheduling task. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 7, 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. J., McCoy, C. E., & Layton, C. (1997). Brittleness in the design of cooperative problem-solving systems: the effects on user performance. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A, 27(3), 360–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulusoy, G., & Özdamar, L. (1996). A framework for an interactive project scheduling system under limited resources. European Journal of Operations Research, 90(2), 362–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Wezel, W. M. C., & Barten, B. (2002). Hierarchical mixed-initiative planning support. In: T. Grant and C. Witteveen (Eds.), Plansig 2002. Proceedings of the 21th workshop of the UK Planning and Scheduling Special Interest Group (pp 7–17). Delft: Delft University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Wezel, W. M. C., & Jorna, R. J. (2006). Introduction. In W. Van Wezel, R. J. Jorna, & A. Meystel (Eds.), Planning in intelligent systems: Aspects, motivation, and methods. New York: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van Wezel, W. M. C., & Jorna, R. J. (2009). Cognition, tasks, and planning; supporting the planning of shunting operations at Netherlands Railways. Cognition, Technology & Work, 11(2), 165–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Wezel, W., Jorna, R. J., & Meystel, A. (Eds.). (2006a). Planning in intelligent systems: Aspects, motivation, and methods. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Wezel, W. M. C., & Kiewiet, D. J. (2006). Perspectives on shunting planning: Research in planning support at the Netherlands railways. In W. Van Wezel, R. J. Jorna, & A. Meystel (Eds.), Planning in intelligent systems: Aspects, motivation, and methods. New York: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van Wezel, W. M. C., van Donk, D. P., & Gaalman, G. J. C. (2006b). The planning flexibility bottleneck in food processing industries. Journal of Operations Management, 24(3), 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wäfler, T. (2001). Planning and scheduling in secondary work systems. In B. MacCarthy & J. Wilson (Eds.), Human performance in planning and scheduling. London, UK: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Wout van Wezel

  2. Université de Toulouse, Toulousse, France

    Julien Cegarra

  3. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, (CNRS: French National Research Centre), University of Technology of Compiègne, Compiègne, France

    Jean-Michel Hoc

Authors
  1. Wout van Wezel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julien Cegarra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean-Michel Hoc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wout van Wezel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. BETA Research School, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, 5600 MB, Netherlands

    Jan C. Fransoo

  2. Northwestern Switzerland, School of Applied Psychology, University of Applied Sciences, Riggenbachstrasse 16, Olten, 4600, Switzerland

    Toni Waefler

  3. , Human Factors Group, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, United Kingdom

    John R. Wilson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van Wezel, W., Cegarra, J., Hoc, JM. (2010). Allocating Functions to Human and Algorithm in Scheduling. In: Fransoo, J., Waefler, T., Wilson, J. (eds) Behavioral Operations in Planning and Scheduling. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13382-4_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation