Competence-Oriented Recruitment of a Project Team Robust to Disruptions

  • Eryk SzwarcEmail author
  • Izabela Nielsen
  • Czesław Smutnicki
  • Grzegorz Bocewicz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12034)


Selection of competent employees is one of the numerous factors that determine the success of a project. The literature describes many approaches that help decision makers to recruit candidates with the required skills. Only a few of them take into account the disruptions that can occur during the implementation of a project, caused by employee absenteeism, fluctuations in the duration of activities, etc. Collectively, what these approaches amount to is proactive planning of employee teams with redundant competences. Searching for competence frameworks robust to disruptions involves time-consuming calculations, which do not guarantee that an admissible solution will be found. In view of this, in the present study, we propose sufficient conditions, the fulfilment of which guarantees the existence of such a solution. By testing these conditions, one can determine whether there exists an admissible solution, i.e. whether it is at all worth searching for a robust competence framework. The possibilities of practical application of the proposed method are illustrated with an example.


Project team Employee competences Robust competence framework Disruptions 


  1. 1.
    Antosz, K.: Maintenance – identification and analysis of the competency gap. Maint. Reliab. 20(3), 484–494 (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bocewicz, G., Wikarek, J., Sitek, P., Banaszak, Z.: Robust competence allocation for multi-project scheduling. In: Świątek, J., Borzemski, L., Wilimowska, Z. (eds.) ISAT 2019. AISC, vol. 1051, pp. 16–30. Springer, Cham (2020). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davenport, A., Gefflot, C., Beck, C.: Slack-based techniques for robust schedules. In: Cesta, A., Borrajo, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on Planning, pp. 43–49 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dück, V., Ionescu, L., Kliewer, N., Suhl, L.: Increasing stability of crew and aircraft schedules. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 20(1), 47–61 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Easton, F., Rossin, D.: Overtime schedules for full-time service workers. Omega 25(3), 285–299 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ehrgott, M., Ryan, D.M.: Constructing robust crew schedules with bicriteria optimization. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 11(3), 139–150 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fapohunda, T.M.: Towards effective team building in the workplace. Int. J. Educ. Res. 1(4), 1–12 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hazir, O., Haouari, M., Erel, E.: Robust scheduling and robustness measures for the discrete time/cost trade-off problem. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 207(2), 633–643 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ingels, J., Maenhout, B.: Employee substitutability as a tool to improve the robustness in personnel scheduling. OR Spectrum 37(3), 623–658 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ingels, J., Maenhout, B.: The impact of overtime as a time-based proactive scheduling and reactive allocation strategy on the robustness of a personnel shift roster. J. Sched. 21(2), 143–165 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ingels, J., Maenhout, B.: The impact of reserve duties on the robustness of a personnel shift roster: an empirical investigation. Comput. Oper. Res. 61, 153–169 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ionescu, L., Kliewer, N.: Increasing flexibility of airline crew schedules. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 20(3), 1019–1028 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moudani, W., Mora-Camino, F.: Solving crew reserve in airlines using dynamic programming approach. Int. J. Optim. Theory Methods Appl. 2(4), 302–329 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nielsen, P., Jiang, L., Rytter, N.G.M., Chen, G.: An investigation of forecast horizon and observation fit’s influence on an econometric rate forecast model in the liner shipping industry. Marit. Policy Manag. 41(7), 667–682 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shebalov, J., Klabjan, D.: Robust airline crew pairing: move-up crews. Transp. Sci. 40, 300–312 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sitek, P., Wikarek, J.: A multi-level approach to ubiquitous modeling and solving constraints in combinatorial optimization problems in production and distribution. Appl. Intell. 48, 1344–1367 (2018)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith III, H.H., Smarkusky, D.: Competency matrices for peer assessment of individuals in team projects. In: Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Information Technology Education, SIGITE 2005, 20–22 October 2005, Newark, NJ, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sobaszek, Ł., Gola, A., Kozłowski, E.: Application of survival function in robust scheduling of production jobs. In: Ganzha, M., Maciaszek, M., Paprzycki, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2017 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FEDCSIS), pp. 575–578. IEEE, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Szwarc, E., Bocewicz, G., Bach-Dąbrowska, I.: Planning of teacher staff competence structure robust to unexpected personnel absence. In: Manufacturing Modelling, Management and Control (MIM), Berlin (2019, in print)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Szwarc, E., Bocewicz, G., Bach-Dąbrowska, I., Banaszak, Z.: Declarative model of competences assessment robust to personnel absence. In: Damaševičius, R., Vasiljevienė, G. (eds.) ICIST 2019. CCIS, vol. 1078, pp. 12–23. Springer, Cham (2019). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Szwarc, E., Bocewicz, G., Banaszak, Z., Wikarek, J.: Competence allocation planning robust to unexpected staff absenteeism. Maint. Reliab. 21(3), 440–450 (2019)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tam, B., Ehrgott, M., Ryan, D.M., Zakeri, G.: A comparison of stochastic programming and bi-objective optimisation approaches to robust airline crew scheduling. OR Spectrum 33(1), 49–75 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vieira, G.E., Herrmann, J.W., Lin, E.: Rescheduling manufacturing systems: a framework of strategies, policies and methods. J. Sched. 6(1), 35–58 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Whiddett, S., Hollyforde, S.: The Competency Handbook. Institute of Personnel and Development, London (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Electronics and Computer ScienceKoszalin University of TechnologyKoszalinPoland
  2. 2.Department of Materials and ProductionAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  3. 3.Faculty of ElectronicsWroclaw University of TechnologyWroclawPoland

Personalised recommendations