# Scheduling of undergraduate thesis examination: a case study in Industrial Engineering Department of Universitas Sebelas Maret

- 223 Downloads

## Abstract

Undergraduate thesis examination in Industrial Engineering Department of Universitas Sebelas Maret conducted through two stages, namely intermediate and final examination. Currently, the scheduling process of such examinations is done by the undergraduate thesis coordinator manually without certain systematic method or approach. In this paper, we develop an optimization model for the examinations scheduling considering several factors, namely the number of lecturers that must attend the examinations, the availability of rooms for examinations, the availability of each lecturer, and the assignment distributions. The model uses integer programming approach. Two performance criteria are used in the model, namely the difference between the number of each lecturer’s assignment with the average number of lecturer assignments and the number of penalties from the assignment of lecturers on certain time slot. The developed model is able to solve the scheduling problem more efficiently than manual scheduling done by thesis coordinator. The optimal solutions from the optimization model show a total difference in the assignment of lecturer with an average of 29.6 and a penalty of 0.

## Keywords

Scheduling Timetabling Integer programming Invigilator assignment## Introduction

Timetabling problems have been applied in different domains such as employee allotment, transport systems, educational organizations, sport activities, and industrial applications (Yue et al. 2017). Education timetabling is one of the scheduling problems with a series of activities in the form of courses, subjects, or examinations in a number of limited space involving teachers or lecturers, administrative staffs, and students within a certain period of time. Education timetabling can be defined as scheduling subjects at school, scheduling courses at university, and examination scheduling that is differentiated based on the type of activity, the type of institution involved, and influence of existing constraints (Komijan and Koupaei 2015; Hanum et al. 2015). In general, education timetabling is considered as a big problem with many constraints and become complex combinatorial problem as a part of NP-complete subproblem (Carter and Laporte 1996). Timetabling problems involved hard and soft constraints. Hard constraints deal with model constraints that must be satisfied, while soft constraints are the constraints that may be violated, and both constraints may vary among institutions based on their resources and facilities (Hossain et al. 2019).

The research of timetabling was started with a simple sequential approach in the 1960s and then become emerged as constraint-based approaches. Current researches in the examination scheduling are dominated by the meta-heuristic approach and its integration or hybridization with various approaches, including techniques that existed at the beginning of the emergence of research in this field. Local search, multicriteria, and other approaches have been used to solve these scheduling problems such as variable neighborhood search, iterative local search, GRASP, and hyper-heuristic with the purpose to develop a stronger, more efficient, effective and more general approach (Qu et al. 2009). The issue of course and examination scheduling is important since it is carried out by various educational institutions in the world. The process is often difficult to perform and requires long time if done manually. Even this process is difficult to result viable solutions that can satisfy all parties involved (Laporte and Desroches 1984; Carter and Laporte 1996; McCollum et al. 2009). Generally, the course and examination scheduling involves several variables, including the subjects tested, time slots, rooms, lecturers, and examination supervisors and invigilators (Reis and Oliveira 1999).

Laporte and Desroches (1984) proposed a two-stage optimization model to solve examination timetabling. In the first stage, initial feasible schedule was generated by considering several hard constraints. Afterward, the improvement in the initial feasible solution was done by considering two costs, namely aversion and proximity costs. Boizumault et al. (1996) developed a constraint logic programming to solve examination timetabling problem at the West Catholic University in Angers France. Daskalaki et al. (2004) have successfully developed a model for scheduling problems at a university using binary integer programming approach. The model produced timetable without courses, lecturers, and classes scheduled together, allowing successive or repetitive scheduling for certain subjects and considered the assignment of lecturers on the existing certain examination. MirHassani (2006) in his research also used integer programming approach in resolving lectures scheduling problems at Shahrood University of Technology, Iran. McCollum et al. (2009) developed an extended deluge algorithm for examination timetabling problem and tested the algorithm performance using a data set from the 2nd International Timetabling Competition 2007. A research by Sagir and Ozturk (2010) developed a multi-integer mathematical modeling approach and analytic network process (ANP) for examination scheduling problem in the form of lecturer assignment as invigilators on each examination in the Department of Management, Eskisehir Osmangazi University. The model aimed at minimizing the total cost of the examination assignments, by considering the workload and the number of assignments for each lecturer. The model has successfully assigned lecturers on each schedule that prevents every lecturer to attend more than one examination in the same time slot and each examination has the number of invigilators according to their needs, considering lecturers assignments on certain examinations and willingness of lecturers to become invigilators at a certain time slot.

Kahar and Kendall (2010) proposed a constructive heuristic to solve examination timetabling problem at Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP). The heuristic was able to produce good quality solutions which claimed to be superior than the solutions produced by the university’s current software. Further, Kahar and Kendall (2014) developed two-phase approach in solving the examination timetabling problem at the UMP. First, they scheduled the examinations into time slot and rooms simultaneously and then used the solution from the first phase as input to the invigilators scheduling phase. Komijan and Koupaei (2012) developed a binary model for examination timetabling problem. The model was then applied and tested in the industrial Engineering Department of Islamic Azad University in Firoozkooh, Iran. Komijan and Koupaei (2015) extended their model by addressing more specific constraints, such as multi-offered courses and research society members, and types of lecturers. Fiarni et al. (2015) developed a method to solve examination timetabling problem using a heuristic method. Woumans et al. (2016) proposed a column generation algorithm by allowing of an examination to be scheduled to include the spreading of examinations for students. The algorithm was then implemented to solve examination timetabling problem at KU Leuven Campus Brussels, Belgium. Hossain et al. (2019) proposed particle swarm optimization with selective search to solve university course scheduling problem. The proposed method showed its superiority against prominent algorithm such as genetic algorithm and harmony search. Leite et al. (2019) proposed a fast simulated annealing method to solve examination timetabling problem in two phases, namely construction phase and optimization phase.

The published literature of timetabling problem and the position of this research

Research | Objective function | Timetabling problem | Timetabling case | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Single | Multi | Course | Examination | University | Others | ||

Course | Thesis | ||||||

Laporte and Desroches (1984) | √ | √ | √ | ||||

Boizumault et al. (1996) | √ | √ | √ | ||||

Daskalaki et al. (2004) | √ | √ | √ | ||||

MirHassani (2006) | √ | √ | √ | ||||

McCollum et al. (2009) | √ | √ | √ | ||||

Sagir and Ozturk (2010) | √ | √ | √ | ||||

Komijan and Koupaei (2012) | √ | √ | √ | ||||

Komijan and Koupaei (2015) | √ | √ | √ | ||||

Fiarni et al. (2015) | √ | √ | √ | ||||

Woumans et al. (2016) | √ | √ | √ | ||||

Leite et al. (2019) | √ | √ | √ | ||||

This research | √ | √ | √ |

## System description

Undergraduate Program of Industrial Engineering at Universitas Sebelas Maret has several examination timetabling problems, namely mid-semester examinations (MSE), final semester exams (FSE), and thesis exams (TE). MSE and FSE are conducted on weekdays, and the schedule of both examinations follows the normal course schedule, whereas thesis examinations are carried out through two stages, namely intermediate and final examinations. Currently, the scheduling process is done manually without using certain methods or approaches. The coordinator schedules both intermediate and final examinations for each student one by one. Hence, in this research, we address the TE to help the coordinator in solving the scheduling problems in more efficient way. The undergraduate thesis examination has several features. First, the scheduling process involves a process of scheduling and assigning of lecturers as supervisors and invigilators. Second, the coordinator has to consider several hard constraints: (1) Every intermediate and final examinations must be attended by two supervisors and two invigilators, (2) each lecturer cannot attend two intermediate and final examinations at the same time, (3) the examination room cannot be used by more than one intermediate and final examinations at the same time, and (4) the schedule must consider several lecturer activities such as course lecture, research, and other academic activities. Third, each lecturer has different time availability where the difficulty arises in this case to find a feasible schedule. Finally, the coordinator has to balance the assignments among the lecturers. Those two difficulties were known as soft constraints in the process of timetable scheduling.

In the current practice, the scheduling process is started with the request from thesis coordinator to each of the lecturer about their time availability in the examination process. Afterward, the coordinator will build a schedule for a set of registered student’s thesis considering that time availability. The examination is held on the week days with four time slots available on Monday–Thursday and three time slots on Friday. Every thesis seminar and final examinations must be attended by two supervisors and two invigilators. In determining the schedule, there are several factors that must be considered by the coordinator such as the total period of seminar and final examinations which usually take place for 2 until 3 weeks, the schedule of lecturer’s activities including research, conferences, and other official activities, and the distribution of thesis intermediate and final examinations that should be balanced among the lecturers.

## Model development

The model developed in this paper is based on the research of Sagir and Ozturk (2010) using binary integer programming model. Two models are developed in this research: thesis intermediate examination scheduling and final examination scheduling.

The following notations are used in the model:

*i *= the number of supervisors and invigilators for the thesis, *i *= 1… *I*.

*j *= the number of sessions at a certain time slot, *j *= 1… *J*.

*k *= the number of time slot during one scheduling period, *k *= 1… *K*.

*U* = a set of time slots which is not available for each lecturer

*V* = a set of examinations that has been assigned to each lecturer

\(y_{ik}\) = the amount of penalty given to lecturer *i* at time slot *k*

*i*at time slot

*k*

*i*on the examination session

*j*as a supervisor or invigilator.

*x*

_{ijk}= assignment of lecturer

*i*for final examination session

*j*at time slot

*k*

*j*scheduled at time slot

*k*

### Thesis examinations scheduling model

#### The objective function

In Eq. (3), \(F_{i} \left( x \right)\) denotes the current objective function, while \(F_{i}^{ \hbox{max} } ,\)\(F_{i}^{^\circ }\), and \(F_{i}^{\text{trans}}\) denote the maximum value, the minimum value, and transformed value of the objective functions, respectively.

#### Constraints set

- 1.
Each thesis intermediate and final examinations session needs four lecturers.

$$\mathop \sum \limits_{i \in I} \mathop \sum \limits_{k \in K} x_{ijk} = 4\quad \forall j \in J$$(5) - 2.
The constraint used to limit each particular lecturer only to be assigned for a particular examination session at one time slot only. Hence, every lecturer has the same opportunity not to be assigned at a particular session on one of the time slots or each lecturer can be assigned at a particular session on exactly one of the time slots.

$$\mathop \sum \limits_{k \in K} x_{ijk} \le 1\quad \forall j \in J, i \in I$$(6) - 3.
Constraint used to limit each lecturer only be assigned to one particular session at each time slot. Hence, every lecturer cannot be assigned to more than one session at each time slot.

$$\mathop \sum \limits_{j \in J} x_{ijk} \le 1\quad \forall k \in K, i \in I$$(7) - 4.
Equation (8) is used to ensure that the supervisors and invigilators are the same for one undergraduate thesis and will be scheduled according to the intermediate examination session.

$$\mathop \sum \limits_{k \in K} x_{ijk} = p_{ij} \quad \exists \left( {i,j} \right) \in V$$(8) - 5.
Constraint in Eq. (9) is used to ensure that the supervisors or invigilators are not scheduled to certain examination session on the time slot where the lecturer has another agenda, such as research, course, or other activities.

$$\mathop \sum \limits_{j \in J} x_{ijk} = m_{ik } - 1\quad \exists \left( {i,t} \right) \in U$$(9) - 6.
Constraint in Eq. (10) is used to ensure that after the previous five constraints have been fulfilled and each examination has appropriate two supervisors and two invigilators, then the examination must be scheduled at the same time slot.

$$\mathop \sum \limits_{k \in K} z_{jk} = 1\quad \forall j \in J$$(10) - 7.
Equations (11)–(13) are needed to limit the assignments of the rooms, in which each time slot is not scheduled more than the examination room available at a time. Equation (11) is used when there are two examination rooms available at a certain time slot. Equation (12) is used only one examination room is available at a certain time slot, while Eq. (13) is used when there is no room available for examinations because it is being used for other activities.

$$\mathop \sum \limits_{j \in J} z_{jk} \le 2\quad \forall k \in K$$(11)$$\mathop \sum \limits_{j \in J} z_{jk} \le 1$$(12)$$\mathop \sum \limits_{j \in J} z_{jk} \le 0$$(13)

## Results and discussion

List of participants for intermediate and final examinations

No. | Notation | Participant initial | Thesis code | Intermediate/final examination |
---|---|---|---|---|

1 | \(j_{1}\) | DP | T | Final examination |

2 | \(j_{2}\) | GK | T | Final examination |

3 | \(j_{3}\) | MS | T | Final examination |

4 | \(j_{4}\) | ZIM | T | Final examination |

5 | \(j_{5}\) | ARK | T | Intermediate examination |

6 | \(j_{6}\) | EYN | T | Intermediate examination |

7 | \(j_{7}\) | VA | T | Intermediate examination |

8 | \(j_{8}\) | AAP | T | Intermediate examination |

9 | \(j_{9}\) | GAG | T | Intermediate examination |

10 | \(j_{10}\) | DN | T | Intermediate examination |

11 | \(j_{11}\) | HK | T | Intermediate examination |

12 | \(j_{12}\) | RDS | T | Intermediate examination |

13 | \(j_{13}\) | YS | T | Intermediate examination |

14 | \(j_{14}\) | RH | T | Intermediate examination |

List of lecturers assigned as supervisors and invigilators

No. | Notation | Lecturer initial | Assignment | Student initial | Intermediate/final examination |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

1. | \(i_{1}\) | EL | Supervisor | ZIM | Final examination |

Supervisor | ARK | Intermediate examination | |||

Supervisor | EYN | Intermediate examination | |||

Supervisor | DN | Intermediate examination | |||

Supervisor | RH | Intermediate examination | |||

2. | \(i_{2}\) | RZ | Invigilator | ZIM | Final examination |

3. | \(i_{3}\) | IP | Invigilator | DP | Final examination |

Supervisor | VA | Intermediate examination | |||

Supervisor | AAP | Intermediate examination | |||

4. | \(i_{4}\) | RDA | Supervisor | DP | Final examination |

Supervisor | GK | Final examination | |||

Supervisor | VA | Intermediate examination | |||

5. | \(i_{5}\) | CNR | Supervisor | MS | Final examination |

6. | \(i_{6}\) | LH | Invigilator | DP | Final examination |

Invigilator | GK | Final examination | |||

Supervisor | GAG | Intermediate examination | |||

7. | \(i_{7}\) | BS | Supervisor | DP | Final examination |

Supervisor | GK | Final examination | |||

8. | \(i_{8}\) | PWL | Invigilator | GK | Final examination |

Invigilator | MS | Final examination | |||

Supervisor | RDS | Final examination | |||

9. | \(i_{9}\) | WAJ | Supervisor | MS | Final examination |

Supervisor | RDS | Final examination | |||

10. | \(i_{10}\) | MH | Invigilator | MS | Final examination |

11. | \(i_{11}\) | FF | Invigilator | ZIM | Final examination |

12. | \(i_{12}\) | WS | Supervisor | ZIM | Final examination |

13. | \(i_{13}\) | IWS | Supervisor | ARK | Intermediate examination |

Supervisor | EYN | Intermediate examination | |||

Supervisor | DN | Intermediate examination | |||

Supervisor | HK | Intermediate examination | |||

Supervisor | RH | Intermediate examination | |||

14. | \(i_{14}\) | SS | Supervisor | AAP | Intermediate examination |

Supervisor | GAG | Intermediate examination | |||

15. | \(i_{15}\) | YP | Supervisor | HK | Intermediate examination |

16. | \(i_{16}\) | RWD | Supervisor | YS | Intermediate examination |

17. | \(i_{17}\) | IRF | Supervisor | YS | Intermediate examination |

18. | \(i_{18}\) | EP | – | – | – |

19. | \(i_{19}\) | YA | – | – | – |

20. | \(i_{20}\) | TR | – | – | – |

Time slots of intermediate and final examinations

Date | Time | Slot | Notation | Date | Time | Slot | Notation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Wednesday, October 18, 2017 | 08.00–09.45 | 1 | | Thursday, October 26, 2017 | 08.00–09.45 | 24 | |

10.00–11.45 | 2 | | 10.00–11.45 | 25 | | ||

13.00–14.45 | 3 | | 13.00–14.45 | 26 | | ||

15.30–16.45 | 4 | | 15.30–16.45 | 27 | | ||

Thursday, October 19, 2017 | 08.00–09.45 | 5 | | Friday, October 27, 2017 | 08.30–10.30 | 28 | |

10.00–11.45 | 6 | | 13.00–14.45 | 29 | | ||

13.00–14.45 | 7 | | 15.30–16.45 | 30 | | ||

15.30–16.45 | 8 | | Monday, October 30, 2017 | 08.00–09.45 | 31 | | |

Friday, October 20, 2017 | 08.30–10.30 | 9 | | 10.00–11.45 | 32 | | |

13.00–14.45 | 10 | | 13.00–14.45 | 33 | | ||

15.30–16.45 | 11 | | 15.30–16.45 | 34 | | ||

Monday, October 23, 2017 | 08.00–09.45 | 12 | | Tuesday, October 31, 2017 | 08.00–09.45 | 35 | |

10.00–11.45 | 13 | | 10.00–11.45 | 36 | | ||

13.00–14.45 | 14 | | 13.00–14.45 | 37 | | ||

15.30–16.45 | 15 | | 15.30–16.45 | 38 | | ||

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 | 08.00–09.45 | 16 | | Wednesday, November 1, 2017 | 08.00–09.45 | 39 | |

10.00–11.45 | 17 | | 10.00–11.45 | 40 | | ||

13.00–14.45 | 18 | | 13.00–14.45 | 41 | | ||

15.30–16.45 | 19 | | 15.30–16.45 | 42 | | ||

Wednesday, October 25, 2017 | 08.00–09.45 | 20 | | ||||

10.00–11.45 | 21 | | |||||

13.00–14.45 | 22 | | |||||

15.30–16.45 | 23 | |

Penalty of each time slot

No. | Time slot | |||
---|---|---|---|---|

08.00–09.45 | 10.00–11.45 | 13.00–14.45 | 15.30–16.45 | |

1 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 10 |

2 | 10 | 1 | 3 | 6 |

3 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 10 |

4 | 10 | 1 | 3 | 6 |

5 | 10 | 1 | 3 | 10 |

Average | 7.4 | 1.4 | 3.6 | 8.4 |

Lecturers’ teaching schedule during thesis examination period

No | Lecturer initial | Time slot | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ||

1 | EL | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

2 | RZ | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

3 | IP | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |

4 | RDA | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

5 | CNR | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

6 | LH | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

7 | BS | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

8 | PWL | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |

9 | WAJ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

10 | MH | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |

11 | FF | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |

12 | WS | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |

13 | IWS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

14 | SS | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |

15 | YP | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

16 | RWD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

17 | IRF | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

18 | EP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

19 | YA | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

20 | TR | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |

No | Lecturer initial | Time slot | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ||

1 | EL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |

2 | RZ | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

3 | IP | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

4 | RDA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |

5 | CNR | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

6 | LH | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

7 | BS | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |

8 | PWL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |

9 | WAJ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

10 | MH | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

11 | FF | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

12 | WS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |

13 | IWS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

14 | SS | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

15 | YP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

16 | RWD | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

17 | IRF | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

18 | EP | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

19 | YA | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |

20 | TR | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |

No | Lecturer initial | Time slot | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||

1 | EL | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

2 | RZ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |

3 | IP | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |

4 | RDA | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

5 | CNR | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |

6 | LH | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

7 | BS | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |

8 | PWL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |

9 | WAJ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

10 | MH | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |

11 | FF | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

12 | WS | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |

13 | IWS | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

14 | SS | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |

15 | YP | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

16 | RWD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |

17 | IRF | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

18 | EP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |

19 | YA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

20 | TR | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |

No | Lecturer initial | Time slot | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | ||

1 | EL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |

2 | RZ | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

3 | IP | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

4 | RDA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

5 | CNR | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

6 | LH | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

7 | BS | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

8 | PWL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |

9 | WAJ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

10 | MH | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

11 | FF | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

12 | WS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |

13 | IWS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |

14 | SS | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |

15 | YP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |

16 | RWD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

17 | IRF | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

18 | EP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

19 | YA | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

20 | TR | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

### Optimization results

Optimization results of final examination scheduling

No. | Student initial | Thesis code | Date | Time slot | Supervisors | Invigilators |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1. | DP | T | Thursday, October 19, 2017 | 15.00–16.45 | BS and RDA | IP and LH |

2. | GK | T | Friday, October 27, 2017 | 13.00–14.45 | RDA and BS | LH and PWL |

3. | MS | T | Wednesday, November 1, 2017 | 10.00–11.45 | WAJ and CNR | MH and PWL |

4. | ZIM | T | Wednesday, November 1, 2017 | 10.00–11.45 | EL and WS | FF and RZ |

Thesis seminar scheduling optimization result

No. | Student initial | Thesis code | Date | Time slot | Supervisor | Invigilator |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1. | ARK | T | Wednesday, October 25, 2017 | 13.00–14.45 | IWS and EL | BS and WAJ |

2. | EYN | T | Wednesday, October 18, 2017 | 13.00–14.45 | IWS and EL | RDA and RWD |

3. | WA | T | Thursday, October 19, 2017 | 13.00–14.45 | IP and RDA | RZ and YP |

4. | AAP | T | Wednesday, November 1, 2017 | 08.00–09.45 | IP and SS | CNR and BS |

5. | GAG | T | Wednesday, October 18, 2017 | 10.00–11.45 | LH and SS | BS and WAJ |

6. | DN | T | Monday, October 31, 2017 | 10.00–11.45 | IWS and EL | IRF and TR |

7. | HK | T | Friday, October 20, 2017 | 13.00–14.45 | IWS and YP | RDA and YN |

8. | RDS | T | Thursday, October 19, 2017 | 08.00–09.45 | WAJ and PWL | RZ and IP |

9. | YS | T | Friday, October 20, 2017 | 13.00–14.45 | RWD and IRF | RZ and BS |

10. | RH | T | Tuesday, October 24, 2017 | 13.00–14.45 | IWS and EL | RDA and YA |

Number of assignments for each lecturer

No. | Lecturer | Number of examinations | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|

Intermediate | Final | |||

1. | EL | 4 | 1 | 5 |

2. | RZ | 3 | 1 | 4 |

3. | IP | 3 | 1 | 4 |

4. | RDA | 4 | 2 | 6 |

5. | CNR | 1 | 1 | 2 |

6. | LH. | 1 | 2 | 3 |

7. | BS | 4 | 2 | 6 |

8. | PWL | 1 | 2 | 3 |

9. | WAJ | 3 | 1 | 4 |

10. | MH | 0 | 1 | 1 |

11. | FF | 0 | 1 | 1 |

12. | WS | 0 | 1 | 1 |

13. | IWS | 5 | 0 | 5 |

14. | SS | 2 | 0 | 2 |

15. | YP | 2 | 0 | 2 |

16. | RWD | 2 | 0 | 2 |

17. | IRF | 2 | 0 | 2 |

18. | EP | 0 | 0 | 0 |

19. | YA | 2 | 0 | 2 |

20. | TR | 1 | 0 | 1 |

### Comparison between optimization model and manual scheduling

Comparison of optimization results and manual scheduling

No. | Lecturer | Optimization model | Manual scheduling | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Total assignment | Difference average | Total assignment | Difference average | ||

1. | EL | 5 | 2.2 | 5 | 2.2 |

2. | RZ | 4 | 1.2 | 2 | 0.8 |

3. | IP | 4 | 1.2 | 4 | 1.2 |

4. | RDA | 6 | 3.2 | 4 | 1.2 |

5. | CNR | 2 | 0.8 | 3 | 0.2 |

6. | LH. | 3 | 0.2 | 3 | 0.2 |

7. | BS | 6 | 3.2 | 3 | 0.2 |

8. | PWL | 3 | 0.2 | 3 | 0.2 |

9. | WAJ | 4 | 1.2 | 3 | 0.2 |

10. | MH | 1 | 1.8 | 2 | 0.8 |

11. | FF | 1 | 1.8 | 2 | 0.8 |

12. | WS | 1 | 1.8 | 1 | 1.8 |

13. | IWS | 5 | 2.2 | 5 | 2.2 |

14. | SS | 2 | 0.8 | 3 | 0.2 |

15. | YP | 2 | 0.8 | 3 | 0.2 |

16. | RWD | 2 | 0.8 | 1 | 1.8 |

17. | IRF | 2 | 0.8 | 2 | 0.8 |

18. | EP | 0 | 2.8 | 2 | 0.8 |

19. | YA | 2 | 0.8 | 2 | 0.8 |

20. | TR | 1 | 1.8 | 3 | 0.2 |

Total | 56 | 29.6 | 56 | 16.8 |

Comparison of thesis examination scheduling

Date | Time | Number of examination session each time slot | |
---|---|---|---|

Optimization model | Manual by coordinator | ||

Wednesday, October 18, 2017 | 08.00–09.45 | 0 | 0 |

10.00–11.45 | 1 | 1 | |

13.00–14.45 | 1 | 1 | |

15.30–16.45 | 0 | 0 | |

Thursday, October 19, 2017 | 08.00–09.45 | 1 | 0 |

10.00–11.45 | 0 | 0 | |

13.00–14.45 | 1 | 0 | |

15.30–16.45 | 1 | 0 | |

Friday, October 20, 2017 | 08.30–10.30 | 0 | 0 |

13.00–14.45 | 2 | 0 | |

15.30–16.45 | 0 | 0 | |

Monday, October 23, 2017 | 08.00–09.45 | 0 | 0 |

10.00–11.45 | 0 | 0 | |

13.00–14.45 | 0 | 1 | |

15.30–16.45 | 0 | 0 | |

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 | 08.00–09.45 | 0 | 0 |

10.00–11.45 | 0 | 0 | |

13.00–14.45 | 1 | 0 | |

15.30–16.45 | 0 | 0 | |

Wednesday, October 25, 2017 | 08.00–09.45 | 0 | 1 |

10.00–11.45 | 0 | 0 | |

13.00–14.45 | 1 | 0 | |

15.30–16.45 | 0 | 0 | |

Thursday, October 26, 2017 | 08.00–09.45 | 0 | 0 |

10.00–11.45 | 0 | 0 | |

13.00–14.45 | 0 | 0 | |

15.30–16.45 | 0 | 0 | |

Friday, October 27, 2017 | 08.30–10.30 | 0 | 0 |

13.00–14.45 | 1 | 0 | |

15.30–16.45 | 0 | 0 | |

Monday, October 30, 2017 | 08.00–09.45 | 0 | 1 |

10.00–11.45 | 0 | 1 | |

13.00–14.45 | 0 | 1 | |

15.30–16.45 | 0 | 0 | |

Tuesday, October 31, 2017 | 08.00–09.45 | 0 | 1 |

10.00–11.45 | 1 | 1 | |

13.00–14.45 | 0 | 0 | |

15.30–16.45 | 0 | 0 | |

Wednesday, November 1, 2017 | 08.00–09.45 | 1 | 2 |

10.00–11.45 | 2 | 0 | |

13.00–14.45 | 0 | 3 | |

15.30–16.45 | 0 | 0 |

### Sensitivity analysis

Objective function weighting scenarios

Scenario | F1 | F2 |
---|---|---|

1 | 1.0 | 0.0 |

2 | 0.75 | 0.25 |

3 | 0.25 | 0.75 |

4 | 0.0 | 1.0 |

Changes in the total number of assignments for each lecturer

No. | Lecturer | Number of assignments | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Scenario 1 | Scenario 2 | Scenario 3 | Scenario 4 | ||

1. | EL | 5 | 5 | 5 | 8 |

2. | RZ | 4 | 4 | 4 | 6 |

3. | IP | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 |

4. | RDA | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 |

5. | CNR | 2 | 4 | 3 | 5 |

6. | LH. | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |

7. | BS | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 |

8. | PWL | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 |

9. | WAJ | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 |

10. | MH | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 |

11. | FF | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 |

12. | WS | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |

13. | IWS | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |

14. | SS | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |

15. | YP | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |

16. | RWD | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 |

17. | IRF | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |

18. | EP | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 |

19. | YA | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 |

20. | TR | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 |

Changes in assignment from different weighting scenarios

No. | Lecturer | Difference of total assignment with assignment average | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Scenario 1 | Scenario 2 | Scenario 3 | Scenario 4 | ||

1. | EL | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 5.2 |

2. | RZ | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 3.2 |

3. | IP | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 0.2 |

4. | RDA | 0.2 | 0.2 | 2.2 | 2.2 |

5. | CNR | 0.8 | 1.2 | 0.2 | 2.2 |

6. | LH | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 |

7. | BS | 1.2 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.2 |

8. | PWL | 2.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |

9. | WAJ | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 0.8 |

10. | MH | 1.8 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 1.8 |

11. | FF | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.8 |

12. | WS | 0.2 | 0.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 |

13. | IWS | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.2 |

14. | SS | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 |

15. | YP | 1.8 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 1.8 |

16. | RWD | 1.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.8 |

17. | IRF | 0.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 |

18. | EP | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 2.8 |

19. | YA | 0.8 | 0.8 | 2.8 | 1.8 |

20. | TR | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.8 | 0.2 |

Total | 23.6 | 21.6 | 26 | 34 |

From Fig. 1, it can be seen that Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 result in the biggest penalty when the weight for minimizing the penalties is less than 0.5. Conversely, the total penalty obtained is zero when the weight to minimize the penalty is equal or larger than 0.5. So, if we want the optimization results with 0 total penalty, we can use Scenario 3 to get scheduling without using the time slot which coincides with the teaching time of a particular lecturer and the total assignment difference is better than the results of the initial optimization, whereas, to get the optimization results with the best total assignment difference, Scenario 2 must be used. However, this scenario produces a penalty that is not equal to zero. So, some schedules require certain lecturers to have the intermediate and final examinations in the same time with the teaching schedules or other activities. The model will reduce the time needed by the coordinator in developing the thesis intermediate and final examinations schedule.

## Conclusions

In this paper, a mathematical model was developed to solve the intermediate and final examinations scheduling problem in Undergraduate Program of Industrial Engineering at Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, Indonesia. Two performance criteria are used in the model. The first criterion is to minimize the total difference in the assignment of each lecturer with the average of the number of assignments for each lecturer, while the second criterion is to minimize the total penalty resulted from scheduling intermediate or final examinations with teaching schedule of other activities in the same time. The optimal solutions are obtained using the model producing intermediate and final examinations for October 2017 period. The optimization resulted 29.6 in term of the total difference in the assignment of lecturers with its average and 0 penalty. Based on the sensitivity analysis, Scenario 3 produced scheduling with 0 penalty with better total assignment difference than the results in initial optimization, whereas Scenario 2 produced best total difference in assignments, but the penalty is not zero. The model developed in this paper is expected to be used by the coordinator so the scheduling process will become more efficient. Further research is directed to the development of design support system and involving each lecturer in providing their preferences due to the time availability.

## References

- Boizumault P, Delon Y, Peridy L (1996) Constraint logic programming for examination timetabling. J Logic Program 26:217–233zbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Carter MW, Laporte G (1996) Recent developments in practical examination timetabling. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1153, Springer, Edinburgh, pp 3–21Google Scholar
- Daskalaki S, Birbas T Dan, Housos E (2004) An integer programming formulation for a case study in university timetabling. Eur J Oper Res 153:117–135MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Fiarni C, Gunawan AS, Ricky, Maharani H, Kurniawan H (2015) Automated scheduling system for thesis and project presentation using forward chaining method with dynamic allocation resources. Proc Comput Sci 72:209–216Google Scholar
- Hanum F, Romliyah MA, Bakhtiar T (2015) Exam invigilator assignment problem: a goal programming approach. Appl Math Sci 9(58):2871–2880Google Scholar
- Hossain SI, Akhand MAH, Shuvo MIR, Siddique N, Adeli H (2019) Optimization of university course scheduling problem using particle swarm optimization with selective search. Expert Syst Appl 127:9–24Google Scholar
- Kahar MNM, Kendall G (2010) The examination timetabling problem at Universiti Malaysia Pahang: comparison of a constructive heuristic with an existing software solution. Eur J Oper Res 207:557–565zbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Kahar MNM, Kendall G (2014) Universiti Malaysia Pahang examination timetabling problem: scheduling invigilators. J Oper Res Soc 65:214–226Google Scholar
- Komijan AR, Koupaei MN (2012) A new binary model for university examination timetabling: a case study. J Ind Eng Int 8:1–7Google Scholar
- Komijan AR, Koupaei MN (2015) A mathematical model for university course scheduling: a case study. Int J Tech Res Appl Spec Issue 19:20–25Google Scholar
- Laporte G, Desroches S (1984) Examination timetabling by computer. Comput Oper Res 11:351–360Google Scholar
- Leite N, Melicio F, Rosa AC (2019) A fast simulated annealing algorithm for the examination timetabling problem. Expert Syst Appl 122:137–151Google Scholar
- Marler RT, Arora JS (2004) Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Struct Multidisc Optim 26:369–395MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- McCollum B, McMullan PJ, Parkes AJ, Burke EK, Abdullah S (2009) An extended great deluge approach to the examination timetabling problem. In: Proceedings of the 4th multidisciplinary international conference on scheduling: theory and applications (MISTA 2009). Dublin, Ireland, pp 424–434Google Scholar
- MirHassani SA (2006) A computational approach to enhancing course timetabling with integer programming. Appl Math Comput 175:814–822MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Qu R, Burke EK, McCollum B, Merlot LTG, Lee SY (2009) A survey of search methodologies and automated system development for examination timetabling. J Sched 12(1):55–89MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Reis LP, Oliveira EA (1999) Constraint logic programming approach to examination scheduling. In: Artificial intelligence and cognitive science conference AICS’99, Cork, Ireland, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
- Sagir M, Ozturk ZK (2010) Exam scheduling: mathematical modelling and parameter estimation with analytic network process approach. Math Comput Model 52:930–941zbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Woumans G, Boeck LD, Belien J, Creemers S (2016) A column generation approach for solving the examination-timetabling problem. Eur J Oper Res 253:178–194MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Yue Y, Han J, Wang S, Liu X (2017) Integrated train timetabling and rolling stock scheduling model based on time-dependent demand for urban rail transit. Comput Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng 32(10):856–873Google Scholar

## Copyright information

**Open Access**This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.