Accounting for the Multi-Period Impact of Service When Determining Employee Requirements for Labor Scheduling

Providing good customer service, inexpensively, is a problem commonly faced by managers of service operations. To tackle this problem, managers must do four tasks: forecast customer demand for the service; translate these forecasts into employee requirements; develop a labor schedule that provides appropriate numbers of employees at appropriate times; and control the delivery of the service in real-time. This paper focuses upon the translation of forecasts of customer demand into employee requirements. Specifically, it presents and evaluates two methods for determining desired staffing levels. One of these methods is a traditional approach to the task, while the other, by using modified customer arrival rates, offers a better means of accounting for the multi-period impact of customer service. To calculate the modified arrival rates, the latter method reduces (increases) the actual customer arrival rate for a period to account for customers who arrived in the period (in earlier periods) but have some of their service performed in subsequent periods (in the period). In an experiment simulating 13824 service delivery environments, the new method demonstrated its superiority by serving 2.74% more customers within the specified waiting time limit while using 7.57% fewer labor hours.

Improved Implicit Optimal Modeling of the Labor Shift Scheduling Problem

This paper presents an integer programming model for developing optimal shift schedules while allowing extensive flexibility in terms of alternate shift starting times, shift lengths, and break placement. The model combines the work of Moondra (1976) and Bechtold and Jacobs (1990) by implicitly matching meal breaks to implicitly represented shifts. Moreover, the new model extends the work of these authors to enable the scheduling of overtime and the scheduling of rest breaks. We compare the new model to Bechtold and Jacobs' model over a diverse set of 588 test problems. The new model generates optimal solutions more rapidly, solves problems with more shift alternatives, and does not generate schedules violating the operative restrictions on break timing.

Labor Scheduling Using NPV Estimates of the Marginal Benefit of Additional Labor Capacity

An extensive literature exists on the problems of daily (shift) and weekly (tour) labor scheduling. In representing requirements for employees in these problems, researchers have used formulations based either on the model of Dantzig (1954) or on the model of Keith (1979). We show that both formulations have weakness in environments where management knows, or can attempt to identify, how different levels of customer service affect profits. These weaknesses results in lower-than-necessary profits. This paper presents a New Formulation of the daily and weekly Labor Scheduling Problems (NFLSP) designed to overcome the limitations of earlier models. NFLSP incorporates information on how changing the number of employees working in each planning period affects profits. NFLP uses this information during the development of the schedule to identify the number of employees who, ideally, should be working in each period. In an extensive simulation of 1,152 service environments, NFLSP outperformed the formulations of Dantzig (1954) and Keith (1979) at a level of significance of 0.001. Assuming year-round operations and an hourly wage, including benefits, of $6.00, NFLSP's schedules were $96,046 (2.2%) and $24,648 (0.6%) more profitable, on average, than schedules developed using the formulations of Danzig (1954) and Keith (1979), respectively. Although the average percentage gain over Keith's model was fairly small, it could be much larger in some real cases with different parameters. In 73 and 100 percent of the cases we simulated NFLSP yielded a higher profit than the models of Keith (1979) and Danzig (1954), respectively.

Dealing with Shifting Labor Employment Sands

Changes in regulations and tighter interpretations of existing regulations engaged participants in 14th annual Labor and Employment Roundtable, hosted by the Cornell Institute for Hospitality Labor and Employment Relations. They also reviewed changes in union organizing rules. Two Supreme Court decisions dealt with the challenging application of accommodating workers’ health and religious needs, while a new ruling by the National Labor Relations Board calls into question the supposedly arm’s length relationship of employee leasing firms and their clients, as well as franchisors and franchisees. The NLRB also has shortened the campaign time for union elections. In one Supreme Court case, Young v. United Parcel Services, Inc., the Court pointed to a simple principle when employers implement policies for those with illness or medical conditions. Policies must be consistent with regard to how on-job and off-job health issues are treated, and the company’s policy must not be driven by economic considerations. That is, the Court stated that an employer’s denial of a light-duty assignment for an employee could not be based on cost or convenience. The case relating to religious accommodation also involved an economic hinge. In an earlier case, the Court had held that religious accommodations are limited to that which would have no more than a de minimus cost on the employer. In this case, EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc., Abercrombie had declined to hire a woman wearing a headscarf on the assumption that she would need a religious accommodation. The Court frowned on the idea that an employer would take religious accommodations into account when deciding whether to hire a person. The franchising industry is attempting to make sense of the NLRB ruling regarding joint employment, in which the board ruled that franchisors that maintain some kind of control over their franchisees’ employees should be considered joint employers of those employees. This is a complicated matter, and the situation is still in flux. Finally, with regard to the telescoped union campaign ruling, these are supposed to benefit the unions. So far, however, there’s no indication that the change has affected the overall outcome of union election campaigns.