Journal of the Operational Research Society

, Volume 65, Issue 2, pp 214–226 | Cite as

Universiti Malaysia Pahang examination timetabling problem: scheduling invigilators

General Paper

Abstract

This paper presents a real-world examination timetabling problem from Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP), Malaysia. The problem involves assigning invigilators to examination rooms. This problem has received less attention than the examination timetabling problem from the research community partly because no data sets are available in the literature. In modelling, and solving, this problem we assume that there is already an examination timetable in place (this was the subject of our previous work) and the task is to assign invigilators to that timetable. The contributions of this paper are to formally define the invigilator scheduling problem and to present a constructive algorithm that is able to produce good quality solutions that are superior to the solutions produced when using the university's current software. We also include additional constraints taking into account the comments made by the invigilators, which the current system fails to capture. The model we present, we believe, accurately reflects the real-world problem, capturing various aspects of the problem that have not been presented before in the scientific literature. Moreover, the proposed approach adheres to all hard constraints, which the university's current system fails to do.

Keywords

optimisation timetabling invigilator scheduling 

References

  1. Awang S, Kahar MNM, Jamil NM and Ajid KA (2006). A satisfaction survey on KUKTEM automated examination scheduling. Malaysian Science and Technology Congress 2006 (MSTC 2006).Google Scholar
  2. Burke EK and Carter MW (eds) (1998). Practice and theory of automated timetabling II, 2nd International Conference, PATAT’97. Toronto, Canada, 20–22 August 1997, Selected Papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1408. Springer, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  3. Burke EK and De Causmaecker P (eds) (2003). Practice and theory of automated timetabling IV, 4th International Conference, PATAT 2002. Gent, Belgium, 21–23 August 2002, Selected Revised Papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2740 Springer, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  4. Burke EK and Erben W (eds) (2001). Practice and theory of automated timetabling III, 3rd International Conference, PATAT 2000. Konstanz, Germany, 16–18 August 2000, Selected Papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2079 Springer, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  5. Burke EK and Ross P (eds) (1996). Practice and theory of automated timetabling, 1st International Conference. Edinburgh, UK, 29 August–1 September 1995, Selected Papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1153. Springer, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  6. Burke EK and Rudova H (eds) (2007). Practice and theory of automated timetabling VI, 6th International Conference, PATAT 2006. Brno, Czech Republic, 30 August–1 September 2006, Revised Selected Papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3867. Springer, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  7. Burke EK and Trick M (eds) (2005). Practice and theory of automated timetabling V, 5th International Conference, PATAT 2004. Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 18–20 August 2004, Revised Selected Papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3616. Springer, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  8. Burke EK, Elliman DG, Ford PH and Weare RF (1996a). Examination timetabling in British Universities—A survey. In: Burke EK and Ross P (eds). The Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling I: Selected Papers from 1st International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1153, Springer-Verlag: Edinburgh, UK, pp 76–92.Google Scholar
  9. Burke EK, Newall J and Weare RF (1996b). A memetic algorithm for university exam timetabling. In: Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling I, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1153, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carter MW and Laporte G (1996). Recent developments in practical examination timetabling. In: Burke EK and Ross P (eds). Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling: Selected Papers from the 1st International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling I. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1153, Springer-Verlag: Edinburgh, UK, pp 3–21.Google Scholar
  11. Carter MW, Laporte G and Lee SY (1996). Examination timetabling: Algorithmic strategies and applications. Journal of the Operational Research Society 47 (3): 373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cowling P, Kendall G and Hussin NM (2003). A survey and case study of practical examination timetabling problems. In: Burke EK and De Causmaecker P (eds). Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling (PATAT 2002). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2740, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 258–261.Google Scholar
  13. Dammak A, Elloumi A and Kamoun H (2006). Classroom assignment for exam timetabling. Advances in Engineering Software 37 (10): 659–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hussin NM (2005). Tabu search based hyper-heuristic approaches to examination timetabling. Phd Thesis, University of Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
  15. Kahar MNM and Kendall G (2010). The examination timetabling problem at Universiti Malaysia Pahang—Comparison of a constructive heuristic with an existing software solution. European Journal of Operational Research 207 (2): 557–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laporte G and Desroches S (1984). Examination timetabling by computer. Computers & Operations Research 11: 351–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCollum B, McMullan PJ, Parkes AJ, Burke EK and Abdullah S (2009). An extended great deluge approach to the examination timetabling problem. In: Blazewicz J, Drozdowski M, Kendall G and McCollum B (eds). Proceedings of the 4th Multidisciplinary International Conference on Scheduling: Theory and Applications (MISTA 2009). Dublin, Ireland, pp 424–434.Google Scholar
  18. McCollum B et al (2010). Setting the research agenda in automated timetabling: The second international timetabling competition. INFORMS Journal on Computing 22 (1): 120–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Merlot LTG, Boland N, Hughes BD and Stuckey PJ (2003). A hybrid algorithm for the examination timetabling problem. In: Burke EK and De Causmaecker P (eds). Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling IV: Selected Papers from 4th International Conference. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2740, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ong ML, Liew LH and Sim J (2009). Examination invigilation scheduling system in optimising lecturers' preference. Conference on Scientific & Social Research (CSSR 08’09).Google Scholar
  21. Qu R, Burke EK, McCollum B, Merlot LTG and Lee SY (2009). A survey of search methodologies and automated system development for examination timetabling. Journal of Scheduling 12 (1): 55–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reis LP and Oliveira EA (1999). Constraint logic programming approach to examination scheduling. Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science Conference AICS’99, Cork, Ireland, September.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Operational Research Society 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  2. 2.Universiti Malaysia PahangKuantanMalaysia
  3. 3.University of NottinghamMalaysia

Personalised recommendations