Advertisement

Dealing with Scheduling Fairness in Local Search: Lessons Learned from Case Studies

  • Christophe PonsardEmail author
  • Renaud De Landtsheer
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 966)

Abstract

Many systems undergoing an optimisation process also involve users which might be directly or indirectly impacted in different ways. Fairly spreading this positive or negative impact is required in specific contexts like critical healthcare or due to work regulation constraints. It can also be explicitly requested by users. This papers considers case studies from three different domains involving fairness: night shift planning, clinical pathways and a shared shuttle system. Each case is analysed to understand how fairness requirements were captured, how the solution was designed and implemented. It also analyse how fairness was perceived by the user using the deployed system. We also draw some lessons learned and recommendations which are discussed in the light of similar work reported in other domains.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was partly funded by the Walloon region as part of the PRIMa-Q CORNET project (nr. 1610019). We warmly thanks MedErgo and Sam-Drive for allowing us to share their respective cases.

References

  1. 1.
    Banister, D.: The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transp. Policy 15(2), 73–80 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benoist, T., Estellon, B., Gardi, F., Megel, R., Nouioua, K.: Localsolver 1.x: a black-box local-search solver for 0–1 programming. 4OR 9(3), 299–316 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertsekas, D., Gallager, R.: Data Networks. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (1987)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boulware, L.E., Troll, M.U., Wang, N., Powe, N.R.: Perceived transparency and fairness of the organ allocation system and willingness to donate organs: a national study. Am. J. Transplant. 7(7), 1778–1787 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burke, E.K., et al.: Fitness evaluation for nurse scheduling problems. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 2, pp. 1139–1146 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Busa-Fekete, R., Szörényi, B., Weng, P., Mannor, S.: Multi-objective bandits: Optimizing the generalized gini index. CoRR abs/1706.04933 (2017). http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04933
  7. 7.
    Campbell, H., Hotchkiss, R., Bradshaw, N., Porteous, M.: Integrated care pathways. Br. Med. J. 316, 133–137 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    CETIC and Sam-Drive: Samobi - the next generation shared taxi (2016). https://www.cetic.be/SAMOBI-3055
  9. 9.
    van Dam, P.A., et al.: A dynamic clinical pathway for the treatment of patients with early breast cancer is a tool for better cancer care: implementation and prospective analysis between 2002–2010. World J. Surg. Oncol. 11(1), 70 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Devesse, V., Santos, M.O., Toledo, C.: Fairness in physician scheduling problem in emergency rooms. In: Revista de Sistemas de Informação da FSMA, pp. 9–20 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferrand, Y., et al.: Building cyclic schedules for emergency department physicians. Interfaces 41(6), 521–533 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Francez, N.: Fairness. Texts and Monographs in Computer Science, 1st edn. Springer, New York (1986).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4886-6CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gecode Team: Gecode - an open, free, efficient constraint solving toolkit (2017), available under the MIT licence from http://www.gecode.org/
  14. 14.
    Gendreau, M., et al.: Physician Scheduling in Emergency Rooms. In: Burke, E.K., Rudová, H. (eds.) PATAT 2006. LNCS, vol. 3867, pp. 53–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77345-0_4. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1782534.1782540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gooch, P., Roudsari, A.: Computerization of workflows, guidelines, and care pathways: a review of implementation challenges for process-oriented health information systems. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 18(6), 738–748 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jain, R., Chiu, D., Hawe, W.: A quantitative measure of fairness and discrimination for resource allocation in shared computer systems. CoRR cs.NI/9809099 (1998). http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.NI/9809099
  17. 17.
    Landtsheer, R.D., Delannay, G., Ponsard, C.: Dealing with perceived fairness when planning doctor shifts in hospitals. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems, ICORES 2018, Funchal, Madeira - Portugal, pp. 320–326, 24–26 January 2018Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lin, C.C., Kang, J.R., Liu, W.Y., Deng, D.J.: Modelling a Nurse Shift Schedule with Multiple Preference Ranks for Shifts and Days-Off. Mathematical Problems in Engineering (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lyman, G.: Impact of chemotherapy dose intensity on cancer patient outcomes. J. Nat. Comput. Canc. Netw. 7, 99–108 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marynissen, J., Demeulemeester, E.: Literature review on integrated hospital scheduling problems. Tech. Rep. 555258, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McGlynn, E.A., et al.: The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 348(26), 2635–2645 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    MedErgo: NiceWatch - Complex Schedules within Seconds (2016). http://www.nicewatch.net
  23. 23.
    Mühlenthaler, M., Wanka, R.: Fairness in academic course timetabling. Ann. Oper. Res. 239(1), 171–188 (2016). https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:annopr:v:239:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-014-1553-2
  24. 24.
    Michel, L., Hentenryck, P.V.: Iterative relaxations for iterative flattening in cumulative scheduling. In: Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Automated Planning & Scheduling (ICAPS) (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Michel, R.: Sams (2012). https://www.sam-drive.be
  26. 26.
    Moulin, H.: Fair Division and Collective Welfare. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003). http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/86973/
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
    Ogryczak, W., Luss, H., Pioro, M., Nace, D., Tomaszewski, A.: Fair optimization and networks: a survey. J. Appl. Math. 2014, 25 (2014)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    OR-tools Team: OR-tools: Operations research tools developed at Google (2017). https://code.google.com/p/or-tools/
  31. 31.
    OscaR Team: OscaR: Operational Research in Scala (2012). available under the LGPL licence from https://bitbucket.org/oscarlib/oscar
  32. 32.
    Piccart, M., Biganzoli, L., Di Leo, A.: The impact of chemotherapy dose density and dose intensity on breast cancer outcome: what have we learned? Eur. J. Can. 36(Suppl 1), 4–10 (2000)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ponsard, C., Landtsheer, R.D., Germeau, F.: Building sustainable software for sustainable systems: case study of a shared pick-up and delivery service. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Green and Sustainable Software (accepted), GREENS@ICSE 2017, Gothenburg, Sweden, 27 May 2018Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ponsard, C., Landtsheer, R.D., Guyot, Y., Roucoux, F., Lambeau, B.: Decision making support in the scheduling of chemotherapy coping with quality of care, resources and ethical constraints. In: ICEIS 2017 - Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, Porto, Portugal, 26–29 April 2017Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roucoux, F., et al.: Pipas - optimal piloting of care pathways. Final Report, Université catholique de Louvain (2014)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Santos, M., Eriksson, H.: Insights into physician scheduling: a case study of public hospital departments in Sweden. Int. J. Health Care Qual. Assur. 27(2), 76–90 (2014). MCB University PressGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Smet, P., Martin, S., Ouelhadj, D., Ozcan, E., Berghe, G.V.: Investigation of fairness measures for nurse rostering. In: Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling (PATAT), Son, Norway (2012)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stutzle, T.: Local Search Algorithms for Combinatorial Problems: Analysis, Improvements, and New Applications. Ph.D. Thesis, Infix Verlag (1999)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Van Hentenryck, P., Michel, L.: Constraint-Based Local Search. MIT Press, Cambridge (2009)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Walter, F., et al.: Success of clinical pathways for total joint arthroplasty in a community hospital. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 457, 133–137 (2007)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Weymark, J.A.: Generalized GINI inequality indices. Math. Soc. Sci. 1(4), 409–430 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Younglai, R.: Rise of sharing services Uber, Airbnb points to a precarious labour climate. The Globe and Mail (2015). http://bit.do/precarious-sharing-economy

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CETIC Research CentreCharleroiBelgium

Personalised recommendations