Journal of Scheduling

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 375–391 | Cite as

Term-end exam scheduling at United States Military Academy/West Point

  • Siqun Wang
  • Michael Bussieck
  • Monique Guignard
  • Alexander Meeraus
  • Fred O’Brien
Article

Abstract

Scheduling term-end exams (TEE) at the United States Military Academy in West Point is unlike any other exam timetabling problem we know of. Exam timetabling normally produces a conflict-free timetable covering a reasonably long exam period, where every exam is scheduled exactly once for all the students enrolled in the corresponding class. The situation is quite different at West Point. There are hundreds of exams to schedule over such a short time period that there is simply no feasible solution. The challenge is then to allow something that is not even considered elsewhere, that is, creating multiple sessions of some exams, scheduled at different times within the exam period, to allow each student to take all exams he/she must take. The overall objective is to find a feasible exam schedule with a minimum number of such duplicate exams.

The paper describes a system that has been developed at GAMS Development Corp. in close cooperation with the scheduling staff at West Point, and that has been used successfully since 2001. It uses mathematical optimization in several modules, and some of the techniques proposed are new. It is fast and flexible, and allows for human interaction, such as adding initially unexpected constraints, coming for instance from instructors’ preferences and dislikes, as well as their hierarchical rankings. It is robust and can be used by people familiar with the organization at West Point, without the need for them to be technically-trained. Overall, using the course and student information databases, it is an effective decision support system that calls optimization tools in an unobtrusive way.

Exam scheduling Timetabling 0-1 integer programming 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Appleby, J. S., Blake, D. V., & Newman, E. A. (1961). Techniques for producing school timetables on a computer and their application to other scheduling problems. The Computer Journal, 3, 237–245. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arani, T., Karwan, M., & Lofti, V. (1988). A Lagrangian relaxation approach to solve the second phase of the exam scheduling problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 34, 372–383. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aubin, J., & Ferland, J. A. (1989). A large scale timetabling problem. Computers and Operations Research, 16(1), 67–77. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avella, P., & Vasilev, I. (2005). A computational study of a cutting plane algorithm for university course timetabling. Journal of Scheduling, 8, 497–514. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banks, D., van Beek, P., & Meisels, A. (1998). A heuristic incremental modeling approach to course timetabling. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 1418. Advances in artificial intelligence (pp. 16–29). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beyrouthy, C., Burke, E. K., Landa-Silva, D., McCollum, B., McMullan, P., & Parkes, A. J. (2008). Conflict inheritance in sectioning and space planning. In Practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT 2008), Montreal, 19–22 August 2008. Google Scholar
  7. Birbas, T., Daskalaki, S., & Housos, E. (1997). Timetabling for Greek high schools. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48, 1191–1200. Google Scholar
  8. Boland, N., Hughes, B. D., Merlot, L. T. G., & Stuckey, P. J. (2008). New integer linear programming approaches for course timetabling. Computers and Operations Research, 35, 2209–2233. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bullnheimer, B. (1998). An examination scheduling model to maximize students’ study time. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. L1408. Practice and theory of automated timetabling II (pp. 78–91). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burke, E. K., & Petrovic, S. (2002). Recent research directions in automated timetabling. European Journal of Operational Research, 140, 266–280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burke, E. K., Elliman, D. G., & Weare, R. F. (1996a). Examination timetabling in British universities—a survey. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 1153. Practice and theory of automated timetabling (pp. 76–92). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  12. Bush, R. N., Caffrey, J. G., Oakford, R. V., & Allen, D. W. (1961). Using machines to make the high school schedule. The School Review, 69(1), 48–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bussieck, M., Guignard, M., Meeraus, A., O’Brien, F., & Wang, S. (2001). Term end exam scheduling at United States Military Academy/West Point (OPIM Department Report 01-10-01). University of Pennsylvania. Google Scholar
  14. Carlson, R. C., & Nemhauser, G. L. (1966). Scheduling to minimize interaction cost. Operations Research, 14, 52–58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carter, M. W. (1986). A survey of practical applications of examination timetabling algorithms. Operations Research, 34, 193–202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carter, M. W., Laporte, G., & Lee, S. Y. (1996). Examination timetabling: Algorithmic strategies and applications. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47, 373–383. Google Scholar
  17. Daskalaki, S., & Birbas, T. (2005). Efficient solutions for a university timetabling problem through integer programming. European Journal of Operational Research, 160, 106–120. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Werra, D. (1985). An introduction to timetabling. European Journal of Operational Research, 19, 151–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dimopoulou, M., & Miliotis, P. (2001). Implementation of a university course and examination timetabling system. European Journal of Operational Research, 130, 202–213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferland, J. A., & Roy, S. (1985). Timetabling problem for university as assignment of activities to resources. Computers and Operations Research, 12(2), 207–218. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frieze, A. M., & Yadegar, J. (1981). An algorithm for solving 3-dimensional assignment problems with applications to scheduling a teaching practice. Journal of Operational Research Society, 32, 989–995. Google Scholar
  22. Gotlieb, C. C. (1962). The construction of class-teacher timetables. In C. M. Popplewell (Ed.), Proceeding of IFIP congress Munchen 1962 (pp. 73–77). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Google Scholar
  23. Hertz, A. (1991). Tabu search for large scale timetabling problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 54, 39–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lawrie, N. L. (1969). An integer linear programming model of a school timetabling problem. The Computer Journal, 12, 307–316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Müller, T., & Murray, K. (2008). Comprehensive approach to student sectioning. In PATAT 2008—Proceedings of the 7th international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling. Google Scholar
  26. Qu, R., Burke, E., McCollum, B., Merlot, L., & Lee, S. (2009). A survey of search methodologies and automated system development for examination timetabling. Journal of Scheduling, 12(1), 55–89. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Robert, V., & Hertz, A. (1996). How to decompose constrained course scheduling problems into easier assignment type subproblems. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 1153. Practice and theory of automated timetabling (pp. 364–373). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  28. Schaerf, A. (1999). A survey of automated timetabling. Artificial Intelligence Review, 13(2), 87–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shih, W., & Sullivan, J. A. (1977). Dynamic course scheduling for college faculty via zero-one programming. Decision Sciences, 8, 711–721. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tripathy, A. (1984). School timetabling—a case in large binary integer linear programming. Management Science, 30, 1473–1489. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Siqun Wang
    • 1
  • Michael Bussieck
    • 2
  • Monique Guignard
    • 3
  • Alexander Meeraus
    • 2
  • Fred O’Brien
  1. 1.LKC School of BusinessSingapore Management UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.GAMS Development CorporationWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Wharton SchoolUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations