Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 239, Issue 1, pp 189–206 | Cite as

A flexible iterative improvement heuristic to support creation of feasible shift rosters in self-rostering

  • E. van der Veen
  • J. L. Hurink
  • J. M. J. Schutten
  • S. T. Uijland


Self-rostering is receiving more and more attention in literature and in practice. With self-rostering, employees propose the schedule they prefer to work during a given planning horizon. However, these schedules often do not match with the staffing demand as specified by the organization. We present an approach to support creating feasible schedules that uses the schedules proposed by the employees as input and that aims to divide the burden of shift reassignments fairly throughout the employees. We discuss computational results and indicate how various model parameters influence scheduling performance indicators. The presented approach is flexible and easily extendable, since labor rule checks are isolated from the actual algorithm, which makes it easy to include additional labor rules in the approach. Moreover, our approach enables the user to make a trade-off between the quality of the resulting roster and the extent to which the planner is able to track the decisions of the algorithm.


Self-rostering Linear programming Heuristics Personnel rostering Shift rostering 


  1. Ásgeirsson, E. (2012). Bridging the gap between self schedules and feasible schedules in staff scheduling. Annals of Operations Research (to appear). doi:10.1007/s10479-012-1060-2 Google Scholar
  2. Bailyn, L., Collins, R., & Song, Y. (2007). Self-scheduling for hospital nurses: An attempt and its difficulties. Journal of Nursing Management, 15(1), 72–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bard, J. F., & Purnomo, H. W. (2005). Preference scheduling for nurses using column generation. European Journal of Operational Research, 164(2), 510–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks, I., & Swailes, S. (2002). Analysis of the relationship between nurse influences over flexible working and commitment to nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 38(2), 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burke, E., de Causmaecker, P., vanden Berghe, G., & van Landeghem, H. (2004). The state of the art of nurse rostering. Journal of Scheduling, 7(6), 441–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, A. R., & Walker, H. (2011). Nurse rescheduling with shift preferences and minimal disruption. Journal of Applied Operational Research, 3(3), 148–162.Google Scholar
  7. De Grano, M. L., Medeiros, D., & Eitel, D. (2009). Accommodating individual preferences in nurse scheduling via auctions and optimization. Health Care Management Science, 12(3), 228–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ernst, A., Jiang, H., Krishnamoorthy, M., Owens, B., & Sier, D. (2004). An annotated bibliography of personnel scheduling and rostering. Annals of Operations Research, 127(1), 21–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hung, R. (1992). Improving productivity and quality through workforce scheduling. Industrial Management, 34(6), 4.Google Scholar
  10. Kellogg, D., & Walczak, S. (2007). Nurse scheduling: From academia to implementation or not? Interfaces, 37(4), 355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Maenhout, B., & Vanhoucke, M. (2011). An evolutionary approach for the nurse rerostering problem. Computers & Operations Research, 38(10), 1400–1411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moz, M., & Pato, M. V. (2004). Solving the problem of rerostering nurse schedules with hard constraints: New multicommodity flow models. Annals of Operations Research, 128(1), 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moz, M., & Pato, M. V. (2007). A genetic algorithm approach to a nurse rerostering problem. Computers & Operations Research, 34(3), 667–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Petrovic, S., Beddoe, G., & Vanden Berghe, G. (2003). Storing and adapting repair experiences in employee rostering. In E Burke & P Causmaecker (Eds.), Practice and theory of automated timetabling IV lecture notes in computer science, vol 2740 (pp. 148–165). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Purnomo, H. W., & Bard, J. F. (2007). Cyclic preference scheduling for nurses using branch and price. Naval Research Logistics (NRL), 54(2), 200–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Robb, E. A., Determan, A. C., Lampat, L. R., Scherbring, M. J., Slifka, R. M., & Smith, N. A. (2003). Strategies at work: Self-scheduling: Satisfaction guaranteed?. Nursing Management, 34(7), 16–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rönnberg, E., & Larsson, T. (2010). Automating the self-scheduling process of nurses in swedish healthcare: A pilot study. Health Care Management Science, 13(1), 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Self-Rostering Instances. (2013). Retrieved September, 2013 from
  19. Teahan, B. (1998). Implementation of a self-scheduling system: A solution to more than just schedules. Journal of Nursing Management 6, (6):361–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Uijland, S. (2012). Creating feasible schedules in the last step of the self rostering process. Accessed Feb 2014.
  21. Vanden Bergh, J., Beliën, J., De Bruecker, P., Demeulemeester, E., & De Boeck, Z. L. (2013). Personnel scheduling: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 226(3), 367–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wang Z., & Wang C. (2009). Automating nurse self-rostering: A multiagent systems model. In IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, (pp. 4422–4425)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. van der Veen
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. L. Hurink
    • 3
  • J. M. J. Schutten
    • 4
  • S. T. Uijland
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.ORTECZoetermeerThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Center for Healthcare Operations, Improvement, and Research (CHOIR)University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Applied MathematicsUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Management and GovernanceUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations