Journal of Scheduling

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 639–654 | Cite as

Empowerment scheduling for a field workforce

  • Abdullah Alsheddy
  • Edward P. K. Tsang


Employee empowerment is a flexible management concept. As in traditional scheduling, the employer is still in charge of assigning jobs to staff. However, employees are allowed to express their preferences for the jobs they want to do. The hope is that empowerment will improve morale, which will improve productivity. The challenge is to design such an empowerment scheduling system without undesirable outcomes.

In the proposed model, employees submit their preferences as “work plans”. The organizational goal and the employees’ work plans may not be in conflict. In such situations, win-win schedules can be generated without costing the organization. When there is a conflict, the organization is willing to give up a certain amount of its optimality (which is determined by the organization) in order to consider the employee’s work plans. The employer is in charge, and therefore jobs undesirable to any of the employees will still be done. A main consideration in empowerment is to make the employees feel that the system is fair. The proposed model maintains fairness by incorporating an automatic market-like mechanism that controls the violation cost of each employee’s request.

The model is applied to solve a workforce scheduling problem which involves scheduling a multi-skilled workforce to geographically dispersed tasks. Extensive computational experiments are conducted, which show that this model enables an organization to implement employee empowerment effectively.


Flexible workforce scheduling Skill-based routing Metaheuristics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behaviour on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 945–955. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alfares, H. (2004). Survey, categorization, and comparison of recent tour scheduling literature. Annals of Operation Research, 127, 145–175. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alsheddy, A., & Tsang, E. P. K. (2010). Guided Pareto local search based frameworks for biobjective optimization. In The congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), Spain, Barcelona. New York: IEEE Press. Google Scholar
  4. Azaiez, M. N., & Al Sharif, S.S. (2005). A 0–1 goal programming model for nurse scheduling. Computers & Operations Research, 32(3), 491–507. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Baker, S. (1993). Applying simulated annealing to the workforce management problem (Technical report). British Telecom Laboratories. Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Bertels, S., & Fahle, T. (2006). A hybrid setup for a hybrid scenario: combining heuristics for the home health care problem. Computers & Operations Research, 33(10), 2866–2890. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borenstein, Y., Shah, N., Tsang, E. P. K., Dorne, R., Alsheddy, A., & Voudouris, C. (2008). On the partitioning of dynamic scheduling problems—assigning technicians to areas. In Genetic and evolutionary computation conference 2008, USA. Google Scholar
  10. Boutilier, C., Brafman, R. I., Domshlak, C., Hoos, H. H., & Poole, D. (2004). Preference-based constrained optimization with cp-nets. Computational Intelligence, 20(2), 137–157. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burke, E. K., De Causmaecker, P., Petrovic, S., & Vanden Berghe, G. (2001). Fitness evaluation for nurse scheduling problems. In The congress on evolutionary computation (CEC2001) (pp. 1139–1146). New York: IEEE Press. Google Scholar
  12. Burke, E. K., 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
  13. Claydon, T., & Doyle, M. (1996). Trusting me, trusting you? The ethics of employee empowerment. Personnel Review, 25, 13–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice. The Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471–482. Google Scholar
  15. Cowling, P., Colledge, N., Dahal, K., & Remde, S. (2006). The trade off between diversity and quality for multi-objective workforce scheduling. In Evolutionary computation in combinatorial optimization (pp. 13–24). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Dimitriades, Z. S. (2001). Empowerment in total quality: Designing and implementing effective employee decision-making strategies. Quality Management Journal, 8(2), 19–28. Google Scholar
  18. Eveborn, P., & Rönnqvist, M. (2004). Scheduler—a system for staff planning. Annals of Operation Research, 128(1), 21–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feillet, D., Dejax, P., & Gendreau, M. (2005). Traveling salesman problems with profits. Transportation Science, 39(2), 188–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glover, F., & Kochenberger, G. (2003). International series in operations research & management science. Handbook of metaheuristics. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  21. Greasley, K., Bryman, A., Dainty, A., Price, A., Soetanto, R., & King, N. (2005). Employee perceptions of empowerment. Employee Relations, 27, 354–368. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hambleton, R. S. (1982). The prospect award 1981: a manpower planning model for mobile repairmen. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 33(7), 621–627. Google Scholar
  23. Hung, R. (2002). A note on nurse self-scheduling. Nursing Economics, 20(1), 37–39. Google Scholar
  24. Lever, J., Wallace, M., & Richards, B. (1995). Constraint logic programming for scheduling and planning. British Telecom Technology Journal, 13(1), 73–80. Google Scholar
  25. Love, R., & Hoey, J. (1990). Management science improves fast-food operations. Interfaces, 20(2), 21–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller, M. L. (1984). Implementing self-scheduling. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 14(3), 33–36. Google Scholar
  27. Muller, C., Magill, E., & Smith, D. (1993). Distributed genetic algorithms for resource allocation (Technical report). Strathclyde University. Google Scholar
  28. Naveh, Y., Richter, Y., Altshuler, Y., Gresh, D. L., & Connors, D. P. (2007). Workforce optimization: identification and assignment of professional workers using constraint programming. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 51(3), 263–279. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Randhawa, S. U., & Sitompul, D. (1993). A heuristic-based computerized nurse scheduling system. Computers & Operations Research, 20(9), 837–844. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Silver, S., Randolph, W. A., & Seibert, S. (2006). Implementing and sustaining empowerment: lessons learned from comparison of a for-profit and a nonprofit organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(1), 47–58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tang, H., Miller-Hooks, E., & Tomastik, R. (2007). Scheduling technicians for planned maintenance of geographically distributed equipment. Transportation Research, Part E, Logistics and Transportation Review, 43(5), 591–609. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Teahan, B. (1998). Implementation of a self-scheduling system: a solution to more than just schedules! Journal of Nursing Management, 6(6), 361–368. [Erratum: Journal of Nursing Management, 7(1), 65, 1999]. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tsang, E. P. K. (1993). Foundations of constraint satisfaction. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  34. Tsang, E. P. K., & Voudouris, C. (1997). Fast local search and guided local search and their application to British telecom’s workforce scheduling problem. Operations Research Letters, 20(3), 119–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tsang, E. P. K., Gosling, T., Virginas, B., Voudouris, C., & Owusu, G. (2005). Retractable contract network for distributed scheduling. In 2nd multidisciplinary international conference on scheduling: theory & applications (MISTA) (pp. 485–500), New York. Google Scholar
  36. Tsang, E. P. K., Gosling, T., Virginas, B., Voudouris, C., Owusu, G., & Liu, W. (2008a). Retractable contract network for empowerment in workforce scheduling. Multiagent and Grid Systems, 4(1), 25–44. Google Scholar
  37. Tsang, E. P. K., Virginas, B., Gosling, T., & Liu, W. (2008b). Multi-agent systems for staff empowerment. In Service chain management (pp. 263–272). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ursu, M., Virginas, B., Owusu, G., & Voudouris, C. (2005). Distributed resource allocation via local choices: A case study of workforce allocation. International Journal of Knowledge Based Intelligent Systems Engineering, 9(4), 293–301. Google Scholar
  39. Voudouris, C., & Tsang, E. P. K. (2003). Guided local search. In F. Glover (Ed.), Handbook of metaheuristics (pp. 185–218). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  40. Voudouris, C., Owusu, G., Dorne, R., & Lesaint, D. (2008). Service chain management: technology innovation for the service business. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  41. Wilkinson, A. (1998). Empowerment: theory and practice. Personnel Review, 27, 40–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yang, R. (1996). Solving a workforce management problem with constraint programming. In The 2nd international conference on the practical application of constraint technology (pp. 373–387). Google Scholar
  43. Yura, K. (1994). Production scheduling to satisfy worker’s preferences for days off and overtime under due-date constraints. International Journal of Production Economics, 33, 265–270. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The School of Computer Science and Electronic EngineeringUniversity of EssexColchesterUK

Personalised recommendations