EURO Journal on Computational Optimization

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 325–357 | Cite as

A decomposition-based heuristic for large employee scheduling problems with inter-department transfers

  • Dalia Attia
  • Reinhard BürgyEmail author
  • Guy Desaulniers
  • François Soumis
Original Paper


We consider a personalized employee scheduling problem with characteristics present in retail stores consisting of multiple departments. In the setting under study, each department generally covers its demand in employees over the planning horizon of a week by assigning shifts to its own staff. However, the employees can also be transferred to other departments under certain conditions for executing entire shifts or parts of shifts there. The transfer feature enables to improve the overall schedule quality considerably when compared to the nontransfer case. Given the complexity of the problem, we propose a three-phase decomposition-based heuristic. In the first phase, we consider each department separately and solve a simplified version of the mono-department scheduling problems. From the obtained solutions, we deduce inter-department shifts that could potentially reduce the overall cost. This is examined in the second phase by resolving the scheduling problem of the first phase where the deduced inter-department shifts are included. In this phase, however, we decompose the scheduling problem by time, looking at each day separately. From the obtained schedules, we then devise inter-department demand curves, which specify the number of transfers between departments over time. In the third phase, we decompose the initial scheduling problem into mono-department problems using these inter-department demand curves. Consequently, our approach makes it possible to solve mono-department optimization problems to get an overall schedule while still benefiting from the employee transfer feature. In all three phases, the scheduling problems are formulated as mixed-integer linear programs. We show through extensive computational experiments on instances with up to 25 departments and 1000 employees that the method provides high-quality solutions within reasonable computation times.


Employees scheduling Shift scheduling Multi-department Retail industry Heterogeneous workforce Mixed-integer linear programming Decomposition 

Mathematics Subject Classification




  1. Bard JF, Purnomo HW (2005) Hospital-wide reactive scheduling of nurses with preference considerations. IIE Trans 37(7):589–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bard JF, Wan L (2008) Workforce design with movement restrictions between workstation groups. Manuf Serv Oper Manag 10(1):24–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berman O, Larson RC, Pinker E (1997) Scheduling workforce and workflow in a high volume factory. Manag Sci 43(2):158–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bürgy R, Michon-Lacaze H, Desaulniers G (2018) Employee scheduling with short demand perturbations and extensible shifts. Omega. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Côté M-C, Gendron B, Rousseau L-M (2013) Grammar-based column generation for personalized multi-activity shift scheduling. INFORMS J Comput 25(3):461–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dahmen S, Rekik M (2015) Solving multi-activity multi-day shift scheduling problems with a hybrid heuristic. J Sched 18(2):207–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dahmen S, Rekik M, Soumis F, Desaulniers G (2018) A two-stage solution approach for personalized multi-department multi-day shift scheduling. Technical report, Les Cahiers du GERAD G-2018-46Google Scholar
  8. De Bruecker P, Van Den Bergh J, Beliën J, Demeulemeester E (2015) Workforce planning incorporating skills: state of the art. Eur J Oper Res 243(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Desaulniers G, Desrosiers J, Gamache M, Soumis F (1998) Crew scheduling in air transportation. Chapter 8. In: Crainic TG, Laporte G (eds) Fleet management and logistics. Springer, Belin, pp 169–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ernst AT, Jiang H, Krishnamoorthy M, Sier D (2004) Staff scheduling and rostering: a review of applications, methods and models. Eur J Oper Res 153(1):3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Faaland B, Schmitt T (1993) Cost-based scheduling of workers and equipment in a fabrication and assembly shop. Oper Res 41(2):253–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hur D, Mabert VA, Bretthauer KM (2004) Real-time work schedule adjustment decisions: an investigation and evaluation. Prod Oper Manag 13(4):322–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kabak Ö, Ülengin F, Aktaş E, Önsel Ş, Topcu YI (2008) Efficient shift scheduling in the retail sector through two-stage optimization. Eur J Oper Res 184(1):76–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kasirzadeh A, Saddoune M, Soumis F (2017) Airline crew scheduling: models, algorithms, and data sets. EURO J Transp Log 6(2):111–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Legrain A, Bouarab H, Lahrichi N (2015) The nurse scheduling problem in real-life. J Med Syst 39(1):160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Loucks JS, Jacobs FR (1991) Tour scheduling and task assignment of a heterogeneous work force: a heuristic approach. Decis Sci 22(4):719–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Love RR Jr, Hoey JM (1990) Management science improves fast-food operations. Interfaces 20(2):21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Quimper C-G, Rousseau LM (2010) A large neighbourhood search approach to the multi-activity shift scheduling problem. J Heuristics 16(3):373–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sabar M, Montreuil B, Frayret J-M (2008) Competency and preference based personnel scheduling in large assembly lines. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 21(4):468–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Souissi S (2016) Ré-optimisation d’horaires de personnel en ajoutant des transferts entre départements. Master’s thesis, École Polytechnique de MontréalGoogle Scholar
  21. Thompson GM (2003) Labor scheduling: a commentary. Cornell Hotel Restaur Adm Q 44(5–6):149–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van den Bergh J, Beliën J, De Bruecker P, Demeulemeester E, De Boeck L (2013) Personnel scheduling: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 226(3):367–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wright PD, Mahar S (2013) Centralized nurse scheduling to simultaneously improve schedule cost and nurse satisfaction. Omega 41(6):1042–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of European Operational Research Societies and Springer-Verlag GmbH Berlin Heidelberg 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de Mathématiques et de Génie IndustrielPolytechnique MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.GERADMontréalCanada
  3. 3.Département d’InformatiqueUniversité de FribourgFribourgSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations