Advertisement

Do the Right Task! Supporting Volunteers Timetabling with Preferences Through the Sponsor Platform

  • Amedeo CestaEmail author
  • Luca Coraci
  • Gabriella Cortellessa
  • Riccardo De Benedictis
  • Francesca Fracasso
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 540)

Abstract

Sponsor is an AAL project that aims at developing, testing and implementing an ICT platform to facilitate the posting, browsing and exchange of key information between competence-offering seniors and search-based requests from competence-demanding organizations within the public, private and voluntary sectors. This paper describes a specific aspect addressed in developing a pilot for the project dedicated to volunteering associations support. Very important when dealing with volunteers is their assignment to the right activities not only suitable for their capabilities but also for their current wishes. The paper describes a complete prototype called SponsorT developed to support a volunteering organisation called Televita. SponsorT helps managers to better allocate different activities to the volunteers with the overall aims to find the more suitable match in terms of aptitude and personal inclinations. Attention is given to the description of the end-to-end aspects of the prototyped application from the problem definition to its day by day use.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors work is partially funded by the Active and Assisted Living Joint Program under the Sponsor project (AAL-2013-6-118—http://sponsor-aal.eu/).

References

  1. 1.
    Solving the Synergistic Team Composition Problem, 2018.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alberola, J. M., del Val Noguera, E., Saánchez-Anguix, V., Palomares, A., & Teruel, M. D. (2016). An artificial intelligence tool for heterogeneous team formation in the classroom. Knowledge- Based Systems, 101, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrejczuk, E., Rodŕıguez-Aguilar, J., Roig, C., & Sierra, C. (2017, February). Synergistic team composition. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, AAMAS ’17 (pp. 1463–1465).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aritzeta, A., Swailes, S., & Senior, B. (2007). Belbin’s team role model: Development, validity and applications for team building. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 96–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bowling, A. (2008). Enhancing later life: How older people perceive active ageing? Aging & Mental Health, 12(3), 293–301. PMID: 18728941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calvo, E., Haverstick, K., & Sass, S. A. (2009). Gradual retirement, sense of control, and retirees’ happiness. Research on Aging, 31(1), 112–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., De Benedictis, R., & Fracasso, F. (2017). A tool for managing elderly volunteering activities in small organizations. In AI*IA 2017. Advances in Artificial Intelligence—XVIth International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence, Bari, Italy, November 14–17, 2017, Proceedings (pp. 455–467).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., De Benedictis, R., Fracasso, F., Baumann, D., Cuomo, S., Doyle, J., Imeri, A., Khadraoui, D., & Rossel, P. (2016). Personalizing support to older adults who look for a job with the Sponsor Platform. Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence for Ambient Assisted Living 2016 Workshop, pages 105–122, 2016.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cesta, A., Oddi, A., & Smith, S. F. (2002). A constraint-based method for project scheduling with time windows. Journal of Heuristics, 8(1), 109–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Moura, L., & Bjørner, N. (2008). Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In Proceedings of the Theory and Practice of Software, 14th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, TACAS’08/ETAPS’08 (pp 337–340). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Vaus, D., Wells, Y., Kending, H., & Quine, S. (2007). Does gradual retirement have better outcomes than abrupt retirement? Results from an australian panel study. Ageing & Society, 27(5), 667–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Farhangian, M., Purvis, M., Purvis, M., & Savarimuthu, T. B. R. (2015). Agent-based modeling of resource allocation in software projects based on personality and skill. In F. Koch, C. Guttmann, & D. Busquets (Eds.), Advances in social computing and multiagent systems (pp. 130–146). Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fasbender, U., Wang, M., Voltmer, J.-B., & Deller, J. (2016). The meaning of work for post-retirement employment decisions. Work, Aging and Retirement, 2(1), 12–23.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Feldman, D. C. (1994). The decision to retire early: A review and conceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 285–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hershey, D. A., & Henkens, K. (2014). Impact of different types of retirement transitions on perceived satisfaction with life. The Gerontologist, 54(2), 232–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lim, V. K., & Feldman, D. (2003). The impact of time structure and time usage on willingness to retire and accept bridge employment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(7), 1178–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Manyaà, F., Negrete, S., Roig, C., & Soler, J. R. (2017). A MaxSAT-based approach to the team composition problem in a classroom. In G. Sukthankar & J. A. Rodriguez-Aguilar (Ed.), Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 164–173). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Myers, I. B., & Myers, P. B. (1995). Gifts differing: Understanding personality type. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quine, S., Wells, Y., De Vaus, D., & Kendig, H. (2007). When choice in retirement decisions is missing: Qualitative and quantitative findings of impact on well-being. Australasian Journal of Ageing, 26(4), 173–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Riumallo-Herl, C., Basu, S., Stuckler, D., Courtin, E., & Avendano, M. (2014). Job loss, wealth and depression during the great recession in the USA and Europe. Internationa Journal of Epidemiology, 43(5), 1508–1517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schwingel, A., Niti, M. M., Tang, C., & Ng, T. P. (2009). Continued work employment and volunteerism and mental well-being of older adults: Singapore longitudinal ageing studies. Age and Ageing, 38(5), 531–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Solinge, H., & Henkens, K. (2007). Involuntary retirement: The role of restrictive circumstances, timing, and social embeddedness. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 62(5), S295–S303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Solinge, H., & Henkens, K. (2008). Adjustment to and satisfaction with retirement: Two of a kind? Psychology and Aging, 23(2), 422–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang, M. (2007). Profiling retirees in the retirement transition and adjustment process: Examining the longitudinal change patterns of retirees’ psychological well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 455–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang, M., & Shi, J. (2014). Psychological research on retirement. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 209–233. PMID: 23751036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amedeo Cesta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Luca Coraci
    • 1
  • Gabriella Cortellessa
    • 1
  • Riccardo De Benedictis
    • 1
  • Francesca Fracasso
    • 1
  1. 1.CNR—Italian National Research Council, ISTCRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations