Optimal Resource Assignment in Workflows for Maximizing Cooperation

  • Akhil Kumar
  • Remco Dijkman
  • Minseok Song
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8094)

Abstract

A workflow is a team process since many actors work on various tasks to complete an instance. Resource management in such workflows deals with assignment of tasks to workers or actors. In team formation, it is necessary to ensure that members of a team are compatible with each other. When a workflow instance of, say, an insurance claim (or a surgery) process is performed, the handoffs between successive tasks are often soft as opposed to hard, and actors who perform successive tasks in this process instance must cooperate. If they cooperate well, it can improve quality and increase throughput of the instance. In general, the degree of required cooperation between a pair of tasks varies and this should be captured by a model. This paper develops a model to capture the compatibility between actors while assigning tasks in a workflow to a group of actors. The model is tested through a simulation and the results from a greedy algorithm are compared with optimal results. A technique for computing the compatibility matrix is given and used for an empirical validation from a real execution log. We argue that workflow resource models should recognize soft handoffs and provide support for them.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Berkenstadt, H., Haviv, Y., Tuval, A., et al.: Improving handoff communications in critical care: Utilizing simulation-based training toward process improvement in managing patient risk. CHEST 134(1), 158–162 (2008)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S. (eds.): Computers and Intractability: AGuide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco (1979)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grunow, M., Günther, H.-O., Yang, G.: Development of a decision support model for scheduling clinical studies and assigning medical personnel. Health Care Management Science 7(4), 305–317 (2004)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ILOG: Ilog CPLEX software, Version 11.010 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jablonski, S., Bussler, C.: Workflow Management: Modeling Concepts, Ar-chitecture and Implementation. Thomson Computer Press, London (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kumar, A., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Verbeek, H.M.W.: Dynamic work distribution in workflow management systems: How to balance quality and performance. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(3), 157–193 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kumar, A., Wang, J.: A framework for designing resource driven workflow systems. In: Rosemann, M., vom Brocke, J. (eds.) The International Handbook on Business Process Management, pp. 419–440. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leach, L., Myrtle, R., Weaver, F., Dasu, S.: Assessing the performance of surgical teams. Health Care Manage Rev. 34(1), 29–41 (2009)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mansar, S., Reijers, H.: Best practices in business process redesign: validation of a redesign framework. Computers in Industry 56(5), 457–471 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mazzocco, K., Petitti, D.B., Fong, K.T., Bonacum, D., Brookey, J., Graham, S., Lasky, R., Sexton, J., Thomas, E.: Surgical team behaviors and patient out-comes. The American Journal of Surgery 197(5), 678–685 (2009)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reijers, H.A., Jansen-Vullers, M.H., Zur Muehlen, M., Appl, W.: Workflow management systems + swarm intelligence = dynamic task assignment for emergency management applications. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 125–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reijers, H.A., Song, M., Jeong, B.: Analysis of a collaborative workflow process with distributed actors. Information System Frontiers 11(3), 307–322 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seidmann, A., Sundararajan, A.: The effects of asymmetry on business process redesign. International Journal of Production Economics 50, 117–128 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sen, S.: Reciprocity: a foundational principle for promoting cooperative behavior among self-interested actors. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Multiactor Systems, pp. 322–329. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Song, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Towards comprehensive support for orga-nizational mining. Decision Support Systems 46(1), 300–317 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sun, S., Kumar, A., Yen, J.: Merging workflows: A new perspective on connecting business processes. Decision Support Systems 42(2), 844–858 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tjosvold, D., Moy, J., Sasaki, S.: Co-operative teamwork for service quality in East Asia. Managing Service Quality 9(3), 209–216 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wolf, A.: Constraint-based modeling and scheduling of clinical pathways. In: Larrosa, J., O’Sullivan, B. (eds.) CSCLP 2009. LNCS, vol. 6384, pp. 122–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ZurMühlen, M.: Organizational management in workflow applications – Issues and perspectives. Information Technology and Management 5(3-4), 271–291 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Akhil Kumar
    • 1
  • Remco Dijkman
    • 2
  • Minseok Song
    • 3
  1. 1.Smeal College of BusinessPenn State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Ulsan National Institue of Science and Technology, UNIST-GIL 50UlsanSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations