Taxonomy of Scheduling Systems as a Basis for the Study of Strategic Behavior

Abstract

Strategic behavior is frequently characterized by the need to decide among several courses of action, each of which may lead to a desired goal, subject to time constraints. Often strategic behavior can be regarded as a series of answers to the question, "In what sequence should I perform the set of actions required, and when should I start and stop each of them?" Scheduling theory, which is usually used to determine the sequencing of operations in such situations as transportation and manufacturing, provides normative answers to such a question. We introduce the concepts and terminology of scheduling theory and show how these can be identified with aspects of human operator behavior. Scheduling theory can provide a systematic conceptual framework for planning research on behavior in complex human-machine settings, both in and beyond laboratory contexts. It can be used to discover optimal or satisficing strategies and to provide norms against which to measure the quality of strategic decision making and performance in complex systems. The use of scheduling theory is one example of the many well-developed quantitative models available in operations research that are applicable to the analysis of behavior, well beyond the discrete trials paradigm that often characterizes human factors laboratory research.

The role of algorithm and result comprehensibility of automated scheduling on complacency

“…Many studies have noted the importance of graphical representation in determining human scheduling strategies (e.g., Cegarra & Hoc, 2003;Dessouky et al, 1995;Gibson & Laios, 1978;Higgins, 1996;Sanderson, 1991). Thus, it is very important that result comprehensibility is taken into account because of the consequences it could have on schedule evaluation.…”

“…For example, it is possible to distinguish between exact algorithms and approximate algorithms. However, such a classification is not really relevant from the human point of view as humans do not represent complexity in the same way as formal models (Dessouky, Moray, & Kijowski, 1995). To our knowledge, no classification of scheduling algorithms using dimensions relevant from the human point of view has been elaborated.…”

“…However, in practice, it is extremely difficult to measure scheduling performance because of the number of potentially contradictory objectives (Gary, Uzsoy, Smith, & Kempf, 1995;Wiers, 1997). Indeed, it is sometimes impossible to design a schedule that can fully satisfy all of them (Dessouky et al, 1995). An alternative approach is to describe the algorithm functioning in terms of algorithm failures.…”

Implications of Technological Changes in Vehicle Routing Interfaces for Planners' Constraint Processing

“…According to Vicente (1999), interfaces should favor direct perception of visual patterns, as planners' powerful visual perception of patterns has frequently been noted (Dessouky et al, 1995;Sanderson, 1989;Trentesaux, Moray, & Tahon, 1998). Ormerod and Chronicle (1996), for instance, showed that visual perception allows planners to find close approximations to optimum solutions for simple routing problems at low computational costs.…”

Organizational, Systems and Human Issues in Production Planning, Scheduling and Control

“…Moray et al (1991) proposed using scheduling theory as a normative model for strategic behavior for operator tasks. Dessouky et al (1995) examine the use of classical scheduling theory to develop a conceptual framework for behavior in human-machine settings.…”