# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

• Previous Article
The finite-time ruin probability of a risk model with a general counting process and stochastic return
• JIMO Home
• This Issue
• Next Article
Robust optimal strategies of DC pension plans with stochastic volatility and stochastic income under mean-variance criteria
doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021001
Online First

Online First articles are published articles within a journal that have not yet been assigned to a formal issue. This means they do not yet have a volume number, issue number, or page numbers assigned to them, however, they can still be found and cited using their DOI (Digital Object Identifier). Online First publication benefits the research community by making new scientific discoveries known as quickly as possible.

Readers can access Online First articles via the “Online First” tab for the selected journal.

## Cost of fairness in agent scheduling for contact centers

 Department of Industrial Engineering, Ozyegin University, Istanbul, 34794, Turkey

* Corresponding author: erhun.kundakcioglu@ozyegin.edu.tr

Received  December 2019 Revised  October 2020 Early access December 2020

We study a workforce scheduling problem faced in contact centers with considerations on a fair distribution of shifts in compliance with agent preferences. We develop a mathematical model that aims to minimize operating costs associated with labor, transportation of agents, and lost customers. Aside from typical work hour-related constraints, we also try to conform with agents' preferences for shifts, as a measure of fairness. We plot the trade-off between agent satisfaction and total operating costs for Vestel, one of Turkey's largest consumer electronics companies. We present insights on the increased cost to have content and a fair environment on several agent availability scenarios.

Citation: Onur Şimşek, O. Erhun Kundakcioglu. Cost of fairness in agent scheduling for contact centers. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021001
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
Required and Working Agents
Demand Volumes
Preference Scores
Distribution of Agents in Shifts
Cost and Fairness Values for P1
Total Understaffed and Working Hours for P1
Cost and Fairness Values for P2
Total Understaffed and Working Hours for P2
Model Inputs and Outputs
 Inputs Outputs Demand for a Theoretical Day Scheduling/Planning Horizon Number of Agents in Each Shift Time Intervals and Possible Shifts Total Employee Cost Break Time Distribution Rules Total Shuttle Cost Shuttle (Transportation) Costs Understaffed Hours Agent Wages and Undesirability Cost of Shifts Agent-Shift Assignments Cost of Understaffing Total Satisfaction Score Shift Preference Scores of Agents Fairness Score Distribution Fairness Bounds
 Inputs Outputs Demand for a Theoretical Day Scheduling/Planning Horizon Number of Agents in Each Shift Time Intervals and Possible Shifts Total Employee Cost Break Time Distribution Rules Total Shuttle Cost Shuttle (Transportation) Costs Understaffed Hours Agent Wages and Undesirability Cost of Shifts Agent-Shift Assignments Cost of Understaffing Total Satisfaction Score Shift Preference Scores of Agents Fairness Score Distribution Fairness Bounds
Inputs and a Sample Assignment
Break Time (Effectiveness) Factor
Preference Scoring Sample
 $\textbf{Preference Priority}$ Preference Score First 8 Second 4 Third 2 Fourth 1 Not preferred 0
 $\textbf{Preference Priority}$ Preference Score First 8 Second 4 Third 2 Fourth 1 Not preferred 0
Preference Matrix Sample
 $\textbf{agents}$ shift 1 shift 2 shift 3 shift 4 shift 5 shift 6 shift 7 shift 8 agent 1 8 4 0 0 1 0 0 2 agent 2 8 4 0 0 0 0 2 1 agent 3 4 8 0 2 0 0 0 1 agent 4 4 2 0 1 0 0 8 0 agent 5 4 2 0 1 0 8 0 0 agent 6 2 1 8 4 0 0 0 0 agent 7 1 2 0 4 8 0 0 0 agent 8 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 8 agent 9 0 8 0 4 2 0 0 1
 $\textbf{agents}$ shift 1 shift 2 shift 3 shift 4 shift 5 shift 6 shift 7 shift 8 agent 1 8 4 0 0 1 0 0 2 agent 2 8 4 0 0 0 0 2 1 agent 3 4 8 0 2 0 0 0 1 agent 4 4 2 0 1 0 0 8 0 agent 5 4 2 0 1 0 8 0 0 agent 6 2 1 8 4 0 0 0 0 agent 7 1 2 0 4 8 0 0 0 agent 8 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 8 agent 9 0 8 0 4 2 0 0 1
Model Parameters
 Description Parameter Week Index in Planning Horizon $w$ Shift Index $s$ Time Interval Index in a Day $t$ Agent Index $i$ Individual Fairness Lower Limit $h$ Overall Fairness Lower Limit $H$ Weekly Cost Per Agent $c^\text{agent}$ Cost Estimation for 1% of Understaffing $c^{\text{understaff}}$ Cost of Shift Undesirability $c^{\text{undesirable}}_s$ Average Per Person Arrival Shuttle Cost for Intervals $c^{\text{v}}_t$ Average Per Person Departure Shuttle Cost for Intervals $c'^{\text{v}}_t$ Break Time Factor (Effectiveness) of Agent in Intervals of Shift $a^s_t$ Demand in Intervals of Weeks $d^w_t$ Agents' Preference Value of Shifts $p_{is}$ Starting Interval Binary of Shifts $s_t^s$ Ending Interval Binary of Shifts $e_t^s$
 Description Parameter Week Index in Planning Horizon $w$ Shift Index $s$ Time Interval Index in a Day $t$ Agent Index $i$ Individual Fairness Lower Limit $h$ Overall Fairness Lower Limit $H$ Weekly Cost Per Agent $c^\text{agent}$ Cost Estimation for 1% of Understaffing $c^{\text{understaff}}$ Cost of Shift Undesirability $c^{\text{undesirable}}_s$ Average Per Person Arrival Shuttle Cost for Intervals $c^{\text{v}}_t$ Average Per Person Departure Shuttle Cost for Intervals $c'^{\text{v}}_t$ Break Time Factor (Effectiveness) of Agent in Intervals of Shift $a^s_t$ Demand in Intervals of Weeks $d^w_t$ Agents' Preference Value of Shifts $p_{is}$ Starting Interval Binary of Shifts $s_t^s$ Ending Interval Binary of Shifts $e_t^s$
Decision Variables
 Description Notation Binary Variable of Agents' Shift in Weeks $Y_{isw}$ Individual Average Fairness Score Auxiliary Variable of Working Weeks $A_{iw}$ Individual Average Weekly Fairness Score Variable $Z_i$ Number of Agents Variable in Shifts of Weeks $X^w_s$ Understaffed Level Variable in Intervals $U^w_t$
 Description Notation Binary Variable of Agents' Shift in Weeks $Y_{isw}$ Individual Average Fairness Score Auxiliary Variable of Working Weeks $A_{iw}$ Individual Average Weekly Fairness Score Variable $Z_i$ Number of Agents Variable in Shifts of Weeks $X^w_s$ Understaffed Level Variable in Intervals $U^w_t$
Shift Descriptions
Shuttle Costs
Parameter Values
 Description Parameter Value Number of Weeks $|W|$ 4 Number of Shifts $|S|$ 17 Number of Time Intervals $|T|$ 24 Number of Agent $|I|$ 150 Agent Cost $c^{\text{agent}}$ ＄200 Understaffing Coeffcient $c^{\text{understaff}}$ ＄10
 Description Parameter Value Number of Weeks $|W|$ 4 Number of Shifts $|S|$ 17 Number of Time Intervals $|T|$ 24 Number of Agent $|I|$ 150 Agent Cost $c^{\text{agent}}$ ＄200 Understaffing Coeffcient $c^{\text{understaff}}$ ＄10
Fairness Distribution
 $Z_i$ Range/$h$ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [0-1) 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [1-2) 19 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [2-3) 35 68 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 [3-4) 8 9 14 89 0 0 0 0 0 [4-5) 3 8 12 61 130 0 0 0 0 [5-6) 0 1 3 0 14 81 0 0 0 [6-7) 0 2 1 0 6 68 149 0 0 [7-8) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 77 0 [8] 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 73 150 Total Satisfaction Score 178 289 370 519 640 824 904 1123 1200 Cost (in ＄1000) 139 139 139 139 140 143 157 522 618
 $Z_i$ Range/$h$ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [0-1) 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [1-2) 19 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [2-3) 35 68 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 [3-4) 8 9 14 89 0 0 0 0 0 [4-5) 3 8 12 61 130 0 0 0 0 [5-6) 0 1 3 0 14 81 0 0 0 [6-7) 0 2 1 0 6 68 149 0 0 [7-8) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 77 0 [8] 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 73 150 Total Satisfaction Score 178 289 370 519 640 824 904 1123 1200 Cost (in ＄1000) 139 139 139 139 140 143 157 522 618
Comparison of P1 and P2
 Overall Fairness Score 640 824 904 1123 P1 Cost (＄1000) 140 143 157 522 P2 Cost (＄1000) 139 139 141 304 (P1 Cost - P2 Cost) / P2 Cost 0.7% 2.3% 10.9% 71.5%
 Overall Fairness Score 640 824 904 1123 P1 Cost (＄1000) 140 143 157 522 P2 Cost (＄1000) 139 139 141 304 (P1 Cost - P2 Cost) / P2 Cost 0.7% 2.3% 10.9% 71.5%
Fairness Distribution for P2
 $Z_i$ Range/$H$ 640 824 904 1123 [0-1) 23 16 17 0 [1-2) 10 7 6 2 [2-3) 25 9 7 3 [3-4) 5 4 2 0 [4-5) 19 17 7 11 [5-6) 11 6 3 0 [6-7) 17 20 12 1 [7-8) 2 5 12 0 [8] 38 66 84 133 Cost (in ＄1000) 139 139 141 304
 $Z_i$ Range/$H$ 640 824 904 1123 [0-1) 23 16 17 0 [1-2) 10 7 6 2 [2-3) 25 9 7 3 [3-4) 5 4 2 0 [4-5) 19 17 7 11 [5-6) 11 6 3 0 [6-7) 17 20 12 1 [7-8) 2 5 12 0 [8] 38 66 84 133 Cost (in ＄1000) 139 139 141 304
Available Shifts for Agent Groups
 Shifts Unrestricted Pregnant Disabled Student Distant 1 $\bullet$ $\bullet$ $\bullet$ $\bullet$ 2 $\bullet$ $\bullet$ $\bullet$ 3 $\bullet$ $\bullet$ $\bullet$ 4 $\bullet$ 5 $\bullet$ $\bullet$ 6 $\bullet$ 7 $\bullet$ 8 $\bullet$ 9 $\bullet$ 10 $\bullet$ 11 $\bullet$ 12 $\bullet$ 13 $\bullet$ 14 $\bullet$ 15 $\bullet$ $\bullet$ 16 $\bullet$ $\bullet$ $\bullet$ 17 $\bullet$ $\bullet$ $\bullet$
 Shifts Unrestricted Pregnant Disabled Student Distant 1 $\bullet$ $\bullet$ $\bullet$ $\bullet$ 2 $\bullet$ $\bullet$ $\bullet$ 3 $\bullet$ $\bullet$ $\bullet$ 4 $\bullet$ 5 $\bullet$ $\bullet$ 6 $\bullet$ 7 $\bullet$ 8 $\bullet$ 9 $\bullet$ 10 $\bullet$ 11 $\bullet$ 12 $\bullet$ 13 $\bullet$ 14 $\bullet$ 15 $\bullet$ $\bullet$ 16 $\bullet$ $\bullet$ $\bullet$ 17 $\bullet$ $\bullet$ $\bullet$
Number of Agents in Groups
 Scenario Unrestricted Pregnant Disabled Student Distant high restriction 30 20 20 20 60 med. restriction 90 10 10 10 30 low restriction 120 5 5 5 15 no restriction 150 0 0 0 0
 Scenario Unrestricted Pregnant Disabled Student Distant high restriction 30 20 20 20 60 med. restriction 90 10 10 10 30 low restriction 120 5 5 5 15 no restriction 150 0 0 0 0
Cost of Restriction
 no rest. low rest. medium rest. high rest. total cost (＄1000) 139 139 139 159 cost gap - 0% 0% 14%
 no rest. low rest. medium rest. high rest. total cost (＄1000) 139 139 139 159 cost gap - 0% 0% 14%
Cost of Fairness Levels with Restriction in ＄1000
 no rest. low rest. med. rest. high rest. h=4 140 140 140 193 h=5 143 144 155 224 h=6 157 160 176 243
 no rest. low rest. med. rest. high rest. h=4 140 140 140 193 h=5 143 144 155 224 h=6 157 160 176 243
Efficient Solutions for Fairness Levels with Restriction
 Cost Acceptable Solution 1 Solution 2 Tolerance Cost (＄1000) 0% 139 h=0|medium rest. scenario N/A 1% 140 h=4|medium rest. scenario 2% 141 3% 143 h=5|no rest. scenario 4% 144 5% 146 10% 153 15% 160 h=5|medium rest. scenario h=6|low rest. scenario
 Cost Acceptable Solution 1 Solution 2 Tolerance Cost (＄1000) 0% 139 h=0|medium rest. scenario N/A 1% 140 h=4|medium rest. scenario 2% 141 3% 143 h=5|no rest. scenario 4% 144 5% 146 10% 153 15% 160 h=5|medium rest. scenario h=6|low rest. scenario
Solution Times for Instances
 Restrictions Preferences Bound $h$ for P1 $H$ for P2 Time (sec) None Individual – P1 0 3 1 7 2 17 3 1257 4 117 5 126 6 49 7 14 8 5 Overall – P2 640 12 824 18 904 16 1123 10 Low Individual – P1 0 5 4 20 5 30 6 20 Medium 0 3 4 12 5 14 6 9 High 0 2 4 7 5 9 6 6
 Restrictions Preferences Bound $h$ for P1 $H$ for P2 Time (sec) None Individual – P1 0 3 1 7 2 17 3 1257 4 117 5 126 6 49 7 14 8 5 Overall – P2 640 12 824 18 904 16 1123 10 Low Individual – P1 0 5 4 20 5 30 6 20 Medium 0 3 4 12 5 14 6 9 High 0 2 4 7 5 9 6 6
 [1] Semih Yalçındağ, Ettore Lanzarone. Merging short-term and long-term planning problems in home health care under continuity of care and patterns for visits. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021029 [2] Omer Faruk Yilmaz, Mehmet Bulent Durmusoglu. A performance comparison and evaluation of metaheuristics for a batch scheduling problem in a multi-hybrid cell manufacturing system with skilled workforce assignment. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2018, 14 (3) : 1219-1249. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018007 [3] Qiong Liu, Jialiang Liu, Zhaorui Dong, Mengmeng Zhan, Zhen Mei, Baosheng Ying, Xinyu Shao. Integrated optimization of process planning and scheduling for reducing carbon emissions. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (3) : 1025-1055. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020010 [4] Masataka Kato, Hiroyuki Masuyama, Shoji Kasahara, Yutaka Takahashi. Effect of energy-saving server scheduling on power consumption for large-scale data centers. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2016, 12 (2) : 667-685. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016.12.667 [5] Elena Bonetti, Giovanna Bonfanti, Riccarda Rossi. Long-time behaviour of a thermomechanical model for adhesive contact. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2011, 4 (2) : 273-309. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2011.4.273 [6] Stanisław Migórski, Anna Ochal, Mircea Sofonea. Analysis of a frictional contact problem for viscoelastic materials with long memory. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2011, 15 (3) : 687-705. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2011.15.687 [7] Hailing Xuan, Xiaoliang Cheng. Numerical analysis and simulation of an adhesive contact problem with damage and long memory. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (5) : 2781-2804. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020205 [8] Hailing Xuan, Xiaoliang Cheng. Numerical analysis of a thermal frictional contact problem with long memory. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2021, 20 (4) : 1521-1543. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2021031 [9] Dariush Mohamadi Zanjirani, Majid Esmaelian. An integrated approach based on Fuzzy Inference System for scheduling and process planning through multiple objectives. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020, 16 (3) : 1235-1259. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018202 [10] Xiaoying Han, Peter E. Kloeden, Basiru Usman. Long term behavior of a random Hopfield neural lattice model. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2019, 18 (2) : 809-824. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2019039 [11] Tyson Loudon, Stephen Pankavich. Mathematical analysis and dynamic active subspaces for a long term model of HIV. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2017, 14 (3) : 709-733. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2017040 [12] Mouhamadou Aliou M. T. Baldé, Diaraf Seck. Coupling the shallow water equation with a long term dynamics of sand dunes. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2016, 9 (5) : 1521-1551. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2016061 [13] M. Hadjiandreou, Raul Conejeros, Vassilis S. Vassiliadis. Towards a long-term model construction for the dynamic simulation of HIV infection. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2007, 4 (3) : 489-504. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2007.4.489 [14] Brian Pigott, Sarah Raynor. Long-term stability for kdv solitons in weighted Hs spaces. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2017, 16 (2) : 393-416. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2017020 [15] Igor Chueshov, Irena Lasiecka, Daniel Toundykov. Long-term dynamics of semilinear wave equation with nonlinear localized interior damping and a source term of critical exponent. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2008, 20 (3) : 459-509. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2008.20.459 [16] Igor Chueshov, Peter E. Kloeden, Meihua Yang. Long term dynamics of second order-in-time stochastic evolution equations with state-dependent delay. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2018, 23 (3) : 991-1009. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2018139 [17] Raffaele D'Ambrosio, Martina Moccaldi, Beatrice Paternoster. Numerical preservation of long-term dynamics by stochastic two-step methods. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2018, 23 (7) : 2763-2773. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2018105 [18] Dingshi Li, Lin Shi, Xiaohu Wang. Long term behavior of stochastic discrete complex Ginzburg-Landau equations with time delays in weighted spaces. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2019, 24 (9) : 5121-5148. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2019046 [19] Ian Johnson, Evelyn Sander, Thomas Wanner. Branch interactions and long-term dynamics for the diblock copolymer model in one dimension. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2013, 33 (8) : 3671-3705. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2013.33.3671 [20] Anhui Gu, Boling Guo, Bixiang Wang. Long term behavior of random Navier-Stokes equations driven by colored noise. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020, 25 (7) : 2495-2532. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020020

2020 Impact Factor: 1.801