Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Shenandoah University, Winchester, USA; and 2Texas A&M University, College Station, USA
Appointment-based service systems admit limited number of customers at a specic time interval to make service
providers more accessible by reducing customers waiting time and make the costly resources more productive.
A traditional approach suggests the Bailey rule, which assigns one or more customers at the initial block and only
one customer at remaining blocks. We prescribe two heuristic approaches and variations of the traditional Bailey
rule to appointment scheduling systems with the objective of minimizing total expected costs of delay and idle
times between blocks. The rst heuristic adopts a branch-and-bound approach using forward dynamic programming and tries to fully enumerate with some restrictions. The second heuristic uses a sequential-inverse newsvendor approach using a starting solution. We conduct numerical tests, which show that both heuristics get
near-optimal solutions in a quicker time than a commercial solver, CPLEX and that the second approach gives
near-optimal solutions far faster than the rst approach. In addition, we suggest the use of a periodic Bailey rule,
which can be implemented easily in practice, and provides a close solution to the best result of both heuristics,
depending upon cost parameters and service-time variances.
Journal of the Operational Research Society (2016) 67(4), 576592. doi:10.1057/jors.2015.79
Published online 4 November 2015
Keywords: health-care management; appointment scheduling; sequential inverse newsvendor; branch-and-bound
heuristic; periodic Bailey rule
1. Introduction
Appointment-based service systems, such as care delivery
organization (CDO, eg, hospital, clinic), admit limited
number of customers at a specic time interval (eg, 30-min
time block) to make CDOs more accessible by reducing
crowding in waiting rooms and to effectively utilize costly
resources. CDOs that do not make their outpatient departments more cost effective may not be able to remain in good
standing nancially in the fast-growing health-care industry
(Cayirli and Veral, 2003). To keep patients waiting longer
than their expectation is undesirable on humanitarian
grounds (Gupta and Denton, 2008), since all patients require
timely care by CDOs. Many researchers (Bailey and Welch,
1952; Fries and Marathe, 1981; Ho and Lau, 1992; Ho et al,
1995; Klassen and Rohleder, 1996; Denton and Gupta,
2003; Robinson and Chen, 2003; Kaandorp and Koole,
2007; Begen and Queyranne, 2011) have proposed outpatient appointment scheduling systems (OASys) for higher
*Correspondence: Amarnath Banerjee, Department of Industrial and Systems
Engineering, Texas A&M University, 3131 TAMUS, 4041 ETB, College
Station, TX 77843-3131, USA.
E-mail: banerjee@tamu.edu
Block-size
Block-size
577
Time
Time
578
2. Literature review
We review literature in scheduling patients of CDO including
primary and surgical appointments, but not nurse scheduling,
which is associated with staff scheduling. Service durations are
typically short and a large number of patients are scheduled in
primary CDO. Block size, not individual patients scheduling, is
a primary decision variable in primary CDO. In surgical
environment, block size is always one and block duration is
the main decision variable. Surgical scheduling is close to timetabling of individual patients.
The studies by Ho and Lau (1999, 1992) and Ho et al (1995)
compared 50 appointment rules under various operating environments. They introduced a number of individual-block/variableinterval appointment systems and tested their performance
against traditional rules. Their best performing variable-interval
rule allowed patients to arrive in shorter intervals in a sessions
earlier part, and in larger intervals later on. This is called as domeshaped interval. The equivalent representation is larger initial
block and smaller block sizes in later blocks. They concluded that
there is no rule that will perform well under all circumstances and
proposed a simple heuristic to choose an appointment rule. Their
procedure for nding the efcient frontier provided a unied
framework for comparing the performance of an appointment
system. Cayirli and Veral (2003) classied them into seven
appointment rules, as mentioned earlier.
A series of research studies (Weiss, 1990; Wang, 1993, 1997;
Denton and Gupta, 2003; Robinson and Chen, 2003) to determine
the optimal interval times has appeared since 1990. On the
contrary, our approach focuses on the optimal numbers of patients
assigned (ie, block size), not timing decisions. The optimal interval
times between patients are individual and varying, which is
equivalent to (7) of Cayirli and Veral (2003), individual block/
variable interval. Weiss (1990) was the rst to address the problem
of jointly determining the optimal start times of surgical procedures and the optimal order of those procedures. Wang (1993)
developed a model to nd appointment dates of jobs in a single
k
cd
ci
h
p
Tk
Dk
Ik
xk
3. Problem formulation
We propose a SDP model and its associated SIP model to
involve uncertainties of service durations. The dynamic
approach is able to involve all meaningful, possible combinations of integer values. However, it is hard to evaluate the
objective function value by the integral operation for a
multi-dimensional space. Hence, we devise an equivalent
SIP model with a number of scenarios to approximate the
objective function value, and use it to compare the objective
function values.
This section comprises of two subsections. We address
notation and assumptions in the rst section, then explain a
prototypical SDP and its associated SIP in the next subsection.
579
580
(2)
(3)
(4)
- z +
(9)
p!2
z2 2 + 4h
;
2
(10)
s:t: Tk - 1 +
Dk
xk
X
i1
Ik
k2K 2
pki + Ik k*h + Dk
k 2; 2
(12)
581
Dk ; Ik ; Tk 0
k 2 K; 2
25
(13)
k 2 K; 2
(14)
Ik Dk 0
20
15
10
5
0
1
Block size
Figure 2 Objective function values for a single block for the case
of = 8 min, CV = 0.1, and cd: ci = 0.5:0.5.
Ik M*I k
Ik *Ik
Dk M*Dk
Dk *Dk ;
where M is a big number and is a small number. Constraint
(14) guarantees the non-negativity of all decision variables.
Pk
pki of (12) should be changed because the
The term xi1
number of summation, xk, k K should be xed. We reformulate (12) into the following with binary variable ^xki ; k 2 K :
N
X
^xki pi ;
k2K
i1
k2K
4. Solution approaches
One may solve SDP by either forward or backward induction.
However, it would take prohibitively long owing to the curse of
dimensionality as each block is added. In the next subsections,
we suggest two heuristic approaches to avoid the curse of
dimensionality. The rst approach is a constructive method
(CON), which starts with the rst block and adds next blocks
step by step. The CON approach tries to fully enumerate with
582
x1
1
2
3
4
5
6
43.9
36.1
27.9
22.1
21.9
22.1
35.9
29.9
20.1
14.1
14.1
21.9
27.9
19.9
12.00
6.1*
14.1
30.1
24.1
16.1
8.1
6.3
21.9
37.9
31.9
23.9
15.9
14.2
30.1
46.1
40.1
31.9
24.1
22.2
37.9
53.9
Notes: The superscript * denotes the optimal value. Bold-faced numbers are
for combinations with x1 and x2 having value of either 3 or 4 only.
(2, 3)
(3, 2)
(3, 3)
(3, 4)
(3, 5)
(4, 2)
(4, 3)
(4, 4)
(4, 5)
(5, 3)
x3
1
41.9
40.1
33.9
28.1
28.1
36.2
27.9
24.2
24.2
32.1
34.1
33.9
26.1
20.1
20.1
28.2
20.1
16.2
16.8
16.9
25.8
26.1
17.9
12.1
19.8
20.2
12.2
8.8
20.6
16.9
22.1
22.1
14.1
12.4
27.7
16.2
8.4*
12.1
28.7
19.7
29.8
29.9
22.1
20.4
35.7
23.9
16.2
20.4
36.2
27.7
38.1
38.1
30.1
28.2
43.7
31.9
24.1
28.7
44.2
35.7
Case II:
xk
E[Dk]
E[Ik]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
4.34
7.91
5.19
8.79
11.87
14.67
17.52
13.20
16.12
18.89
21.64
17.11
19.99
22.61*
18.17
21.12
2.11
1.27
3.15
1.22
0.83
0.65
0.54
1.50
0.76
0.52
0.39
1.28
0.61
0.45
1.31
0.64
Notes: The superscript * denotes the optimal value. Bold-faced numbers are
for combinations with x1 and x2 having value of either 3 or 4 only.
Case I:
xk
E[Dk]
E[Ik]
14
15
16
3
4
3
18.17
21.12
14.65
1.31
0.64
1.88
583
Solve |Rk| 2 problems using the following vectors, where |Rk| is the number of all possible
combinations of feasible solutions Rk:
*
r
x1 ; ; x*k fd^xegr 2 Rk
*
r
x1 ; ; x*k fb^xcgr 2 Rk :
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
cd E Tk - kh + + ci E kh - Tk + :
(16)
k2K
(17)
The expected idle time, E[(kh Tk)+] has the following upper
bound:
+
E kh - Tk + E kh - px1 + + xk :
(18)
584
Step 2:
Step 3:
k2K
+ cik E kh - px1 + + xk + :
19
Step 4:
Step 5:
dk
where F
x* + + x*
1
k
c
cdk + cik
zk ;
(20)
x* + + x*
1
k
- zk +
q12
z2k 2 + 4kh
A :
2
(21)
(22)
Choi and Wilhelm (2014) show that sequential newsvendor problem can be solved separately and independently if
k |zk|k.
Proposition 2 Let z and zk be standard normal score values
that satisfy (z) = cd/(cd + ci) and zk cdk =cdk + cik ;
respectively. Then z zk for k K.
Proof of Proposition 2 Since cd cdk and ci cik ; the
following inequality holds:
cd
c dk
:
cd + ci cdk + cik
(23)
5. Numerical study
We conduct numerical tests to compare the two heuristics by
considering a single-day scheduling scheme. We assume that
OASys schedules 8 h with 30-min time block (ie, 16 blocks a
day). One of the authors has experienced the same time block
whenever he made an appointment with a doctors ofce.
Given that the block duration is xed as h = 30 min, we show
three xed values for : 8, 15, and 20 min. As mean value
increases, the possible block size (ie, b^xc or d^xe) decreases
step-wise. For example, if = 4 min, the possible block size
is either 7 or 8; = 5 min, 5 or 6; = 6 min, 4 or 5,
respectively. Preliminary numerical tests show that one
patient is very likely to be allocated for all blocks, if
22 min, and that two patients are very likely to be
allocated for all blocks, if 13 18. We vary with ve
levels of variance, corresponding to ve levels of CV (0.1,
0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5) so as to use a relative measure of variation independent of magnitude of . We consider nine
levels of cost ratio cd: ci = (0.01:0.99, 0.09:0.91, 0.37:0.63,
0.435:0.565, 0.5:0.5, 0.63:0.37, 0.91:0.09, 0.99:0.01) to
cover general cases, in each of which CDO administrators may
value delay (or waiting) and utilization differently. One cost is
100 times of the other when 0.01:0.99 or 0.99:0.01. One cost
is about 10 times of the other when 0.09:0.91 or 0.91:0.09.
One cost is 70% higher than the other when 0.37:63 or
0.63:0.37, equivalently 1:1.7 or 1.7:1. One cost is 30% higher
than the other when 0.435:0.565 or 0.565 or 0.435, equivalently 1:1.3 or 1.3:1. Two costs have the same weight when
0.5:0.5 or equivalently 1:1. We change CV and cost ratio in
order to nd out the impact of variance and weight of delay
and idle time. We show the case for CV = 0.1 and cd:
ci = 0.5:0.5 for numerical examples and explanations in the
next two subsections. In the last subsection, we analyze results
of all cases.
We compare two heuristics (CON and IMP) with four
periodic Bailey rules. We prescribe four periodic Bailey rules:
t-Bailey, p-Bailey-l, p-Bailey-m, and p-Bailey-s, since the
Bailey rules are easy to implement.
Iteration 3
We solve two SIP problems with Xs3, r R3 as follows:
Root
z13 min f3 X13 20:7 where X13 4; 3; 3:
7.29
z23 min f3 X23 21:5 where X23 4; 3; 4
6.35
candidate node
15.51
Iteration 4
We solve four SIP problems with Xr4, r R4 as follows:
pruned node
best node
20.66
21.50
z14 min f4 X14 27:6 where X14 4; 3; 3; 3:
z24 min f4 X24 28:1 where X24 4; 3; 3; 4:
27.56
28.11
29.15
32.40
z34 min f4 X34 29:2 where X34 4; 3; 4; 3:
z44 min f4 X44 32:4 where X44 4; 3; 4; 4:
34.68
35.08
35.86
38.82
z*4
41.95
42.06
42.48
45.14
43.13
44.59
27:6: Since
* r
z - z
4
z*4
>0:1 for r 3; 4;
Iteration 5
We solve four SIP problems with Xr5, r R5 as follows:
z15 min f5 X15 34:7 where X15 4; 3; 3; 3; 3:
z25 min f5 X25 35:1 where X25 4; 3; 3; 3; 4:
z35 min f5 X35 35:8 where X35 4; 3; 3; 4; 3:
z45 min f5 X45 38:8 where X45 4; 3; 3; 4; 4:
r
Iteration 1
We solve two SIP problems with Xr1, r R1 = {1, 2} as
follows:
z11 min f1 X11 7:29 where X11 3:
z21 min f1 X21 6:35 where X21 4:
z*1 6:35:
Since (|z*1 z11|/z*1) = 0.148, remove r = 1 and R1 = {1}.
Iteration 2
We solve two SIP problems with Xr2, r R2 as follows:
z12 min f2 X12 13:3 where X12 4; 3:
z22 min f2 X22 15:51 where X22 4; 4:
* 2
j z2 - z2 j
0:166;
z*2 13:3: Since
z*2
remove r 2: R2 f1g:
j z*5 - z45 j
>0:1;
z*5
Iteration 6
We solve four SIP problems with Xr6, r R6 as follows:
z16 min f6 X16 41:9 where X16 4; 3; 3; 3; 3; 3:
z26 min f6 X26 42:1 where X26 4; 3; 3; 3; 3; 4:
z36 min f6 X36 42:5 where X36 4; 3; 3; 3; 4; 3:
z46 min f6 X46 45:1 where X46 4; 3; 3; 3; 4; 4:
z56 min f6 X56 43:1 where X56 4; 3; 3; 4; 3; 3:
z66 min f6 X66 44:6 where X66 4; 3; 3; 3; 4; 4:
z*5 34:7: Since
* r
z - z
5
z*5
>0:05 for r 4; 6;
585
586
Table 5 The numerical results for the expected delay and idleness
time when the sequence is given as X0
Block index
x*k
E[Dk]
E[Ik]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
4.4
2.8
6.6
9.8
12.8
9.1
12.3
15.2**
11.3
14.5
10.8
14.1
16.8*
12.9
16.1
12.4
2.1
4.2
1.6
1.1
0.7
2.1
0.9
0.7
2.1
0.9
2.2
0.9
0.7
1.8
0.8
2.1
Note: The superscript * denotes the worst, and the superscript ** denotes the
second worst.
587
Table 6 Optimal block sizes for the case of = 15 min, the different cost ratios, and variance
(, CV)
cd: ci
^x1
x*k , k 2
Block size
Total patients
Objective value
Iteration
Time (s)
(15, 0.1)
0.01:0.99
0.09:0.91
0.37:0.63
0.435:0.565
0.5:0.5
0.565:0.435
0.63:0.37
0.91:0.09
0.99:0.01
0.01:0.99
0.09:0.91
0.37:0.63
0.435:0.565
0.5:0.5
0.565:0.435
0.63:0.37
0.91:0.09
0.99:0.01
0.01:0.99
0.09:0.91
0.37:0.63
0.435:0.565
0.5:0.5
0.565:0.435
0.63:0.37
0.91:0.09
0.99:0.01
0.01:0.99
0.09:0.91
0.37:0.63
0.435:0.565
0.5:0.5
0.565:0.435
0.63:0.37
0.91:0.09
0.99:0.01
0.01:0.99
0.09:0.91
0.37:0.63
0.435:0.565
0.5:0.5
0.565:0.435
0.63:0.37
0.91:0.09
0.99:0.01
2.35
2.19
2.04
2.02
2.0
1.97
1.95
1.81
1.69
2.77
2.41
2.09
2.04
2.0
1.95
1.91
1.65
1.44
3.26
2.65
2.14
2.07
2.0
1.93
1.86
1.51
1.22
3.81
2.91
2.19
2.09
2.0
1.91
1.82
1.37
1.04
4.45
3.19
2.25
2.12
2.0
1.88
1.78
1.25
0.89
2, 3
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
2, 3
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
2, 3
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
2, 3
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
2, 3
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
3-2-2-2/2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2
3-2-2-2/2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2
2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2
2-2-2-2/2-2-2-1/2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2
1-2-2-2/2-2-2-2/1-2-2-2/2-2-2-2
2-2-2-2/2-1-2-2/1-2-2-1/2-2-2-2
2-2-2-2/2-1-2-2/2-2-2-1/2-2-2-2
2-1-2-1/2-1-2-1/2-1-2-1/2-1-2-1
1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
3-2-2-2/2-2-2-3/2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2
2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2
2-2-2-2/2-2-2-1/2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2
2-2-2-2/2-1-2-2/2-2-2-1/2-2-2-2
2-2-2-1/2-2-2-1/2-2-2-2/1-2-2-2
2-2-2-1/2-2-2-2/1-2-2-2/1-2-2-2
2-2-2-1/2-2-1-2/2-1-2-2/2-1-2-2
1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-2-1/1-1-1-1
1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
3-3-2-2/2-2-2-3/2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2
2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2
2-2-2-2/1-2-2-2/1-2-2-2/1-2-2-2
2-2-2-2/1-2-2-2/1-2-2-2/1-2-2-2
2-2-2-1/2-2-1-2/2-1-2-2/1-2-2-2
2-2-2-1/2-2-1-2/2-1-2-2/1-2-2-2
2-2-1-2/2-1-2-2/1-2-2-1/2-2-1-2
1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
3-3-2-2/2-2-2-2/3-2-2-2/3-2-2-2
2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2
2-2-2-2/1-2-2-2/1-2-2-2. 1-2-2-2
2-2-1-2/2-1-2-2/2-1-2-2/2-1-2-2
2-2-1-2/2-1-2-1/2-2-1-2/2-1-2-2
2-1-2-2/1-2-1-2/1-2-2-1/2-1-2-2
2-2-1-2/1-2-1-2/1-2-1-2/1-2-1-2
1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
4-3-2-2/2-3-2-2/2-2-2-2/2-2-3-2
3-2-2-2/2-1-2-2/2-2-2-2/2-2-2-2
2-2-1-2/2-1-2-2/1-2-1-2/2-1-2-2
2-2-1-2/1-2-2-1/2-2-1-2/1-2-1-2
2-2-1-2/1-2-1-2/1-2-2-1/2-1-2-2
2-2-1-2/1-2-1-2/1-2-1-2/1-2-1-2
2-1-2-1/1-2-1-2/1-2-1-2/1-2-1-2
1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
33
33
32
31
30
30
29
24
16
34
32
31
30
29
29
28
17
16
35
32
29
29
28
28
27
16
16
35
32
29
28
27
26
25
16
16
37
32
27
26
26
25
24
16
16
2.5
21.4
24.0
25.7
32.8
28.4
27.7
17.0
2.4
4.5
21.0
41.3
42.6
44.2
43.6
42.8
21.6
2.4
7.0
30.7
57.5
58.3
58.0
56.7
54.3
21.6
2.4
9.2
41.9
69.9
72.2
69.9
68.2
64.3
21.8
2.6
11.1
48.9
82.5
82.7
83.3
78.9
73.3
22.2
3.6
2865
2176
1538
6019
4775
16 031
7295
2473
15
3997
3447
11 490
16 024
22 579
15 157
17 160
1499
21
4196
81
6692
26 527
45 972
27 618
44 712
68
42
4722
4005
40 718
60 462
36 836
32 490
32 673
10 319
57
9484
3330
65 823
67 848
20 203
22 661
17 762
9614
67
36
20
32
133
124
213
195
99
64
33
28
216
238
240
237
283
102
79
31
104
145
248
297
221
246
92
91
28
25
246
304
355
257
319
91
93
11
161
409
338
196
256
271
98
101
(15, 0.2)
(15, 0.3)
(15, 0.4)
(15, 0.5)
588
Table 7 Comparative results when = 8 min with different cost ratios, variance, and heuristic rules
(, CV)
cd: ci
Method
Block size
Objective value
Gap (%)
Iterations
Time (s)
(8, 0.1)
0.435:0.565
(8, 0.1)
0.5:0.5
(8, 0.1)
0.565:0.435
(8, 0.2)
0.435:0.565
(8, 0.2)
0.5:0.5
(8, 0.2)
0.565:0.435
(8, 0.3)
0.435:0.565
(8, 0.3)
0.5:0.5
(8, 0.3)
0.565:0.435
0.435:0.565
4-4-3-4/3-4-4-3/4-3-4-4/3-4-3-4
4-4-3-4/3-4-4-3/4-4-3-4/3-4-4-3
4-4-3-4/3-4-3-4/4-3-4-4/3-4-3-4
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3
4-4-3-4/3-4-3-4/4-3-4-3/4-4-3-4
4-3-4-4/3-4-3-4/3-4-4-3/4-3-4-3
4-3-4-4/3-4-4-3/4-3-4-4/3-4-3-4
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3
4-3-4-4/3-4-3-4/3-4-3-4/3-4-3-4
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-4
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3
4-3-3-4/3-4-3-4/3-4-3-4/3-4-3-4
4-3-3-4/3-4-3-4/3-4-3-4/3-4-3-4
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-3-4/3-4-3-4
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-3-4/3-4-3-4
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-3-4/3-4-3-4
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-3-4/3-4-3-4
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3
4-3-4-3/3-4-3-3/4-3-4-3/3-4-3-4
4-3-4-3/3-4-3-3/4-3-4-3/3-4-3-4
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-3-4/3-4-3-4
4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3/4-3-4-3
4-3-3-4/3-3-3-4/3-3-3-4/3-3-4-3
4-3-3-4/3-3-3-4/3-3-3-4/3-3-4-3
4-3-4-3/3-4-3-4/3-3-4-3/3-4-3-4
4-3-3-3/4-3-3-3/4-3-3-3/4-3-3-3
4-3-4-3/3-4-3-3/3-4-3-4/3-3-4-3
4-3-4-3/3-4-3-3/3-4-3-4/3-3-4-3
4-3-4-3/3-4-3-3/4-3-3-3/4-3-3-4
4-3-3-3/4-3-3-3/4-3-3-3/4-3-3-3
4-3-3-3/4-3-3-3/4-3-3-4/3-3-3-4
4-3-3-3/4-3-3-3/4-3-3-4/3-3-3-4
4-3-4-3/3-3-3-3/4-3-4-3/3-4-3-4
4-3-3-3/4-3-3-3/4-3-3-3/4-3-3-3
4-3-3-3/3-4-3-3/3-3-3-3/3-3-3-3
4-3-3-3/3-4-3-3/3-3-3-3/3-3-3-3
4-3-4-3/3-3-4-3/3-3-4-3/3-3-4-3
4-3-3-3/3-3-3-3/4-3-3-3/3-3-3-3
4-3-3-3/4-3-3-3/3-3-4-3/3-3-3-4
4-3-3-3/3-4-3-3/3-3-4-3/3-3-3-4
4-3-3-3/3-4-3-3/3-3-4-3/3-3-3-4
4-3-3-3/3-3-3-3/3-3-3-3/3-3-3-3
4-3-3-3/3-3-3-3/3-3-3-3/3-3-3-3
4-3-3-3/3-3-3-3/3-3-3-3/3-3-3-3
4-3-3-3/3-3-3-3/3-3-3-3/4-3-3-3
4-3-3-3/3-3-3-3/3-3-3-3/3-3-3-3
3-3-3-3/3-3-3-3/3-3-3-3/3-3-3-3
3-3-3-3/3-3-3-3/3-3-3-3/3-3-3-3
3-4-3-3/3-3-3-3/3-3-4-3/3-4-3-3
4-3-3-3/3-3-3-3/3-3-3-3/3-3-3-3
23.0
23.3
23.4
25.5
23.9
24.4
24.2
24.6
23.5
23.6
23.6
23.6
30.3
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.6
30.6
30.7
30.7
30.1
30.1
30.3
30.1
40.5
40.5
40.8
41.2
40.1
40.1
40.9
41.6
39.0
39.0
39.7
39.4
48.7
48.7
49.3
51.7
48.8
48.8
49.4
49.3
46.9
46.9
47.1
46.9
57.9
58.8
58.8
60.0
56.4
56.4
56.5
56.4
122.2
122.2
131.8
122.6
1.3
1.7
10.8
1.9
1.0
2.7
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.9
1.7
0.0
1.9
3.6
0.0
2.0
1.1
(8, 0.4)
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-s
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-s
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-s
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-s
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-s
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-s
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-s
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-s
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-m
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-m
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-m
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-l
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
t-Bailey
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
t-Bailey
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
t-Bailey
166 971
113
4
1
168 379
108
6
1
70 392
52
6
1
77 067
189
9
1
75 403
167
8
1
51 061
165
6
1
42 920
167
8
1
40 549
182
8
1
32 941
191
16
1
56 765
122
15
1
30 473
196
11
1
16 175
201
11
1
26 088
253
13
1
20 813
224
11
1
8836
58
10
1
776.2
13.8
0.7
0.1
676.3
11.7
1.1
0.1
448.3
5.9
1.1
0.1
412
15.2
1.1
0.1
650
14.3
1.3
0.1
310
13.9
0.5
0.1
381
17.1
0.9
0.1
481
19.1
0.7
0.1
435
19.2
1.3
0.1
338
10.5
1.8
0.1
386
20.5
1.5
0.1
214
21.2
1.3
0.1
165.2
31.8
2.3
0.1
134.7
22.2
1.9
0.1
61.1
6.9
1.8
0.1
(8, 0.4)
0.5:0.5
(8, 0.4)
0.565:0.435
(8, 0.5)
0.435:0.565
(8, 0.5)
0.5:0.5
(8, 0.5)
0.565:0.435
0.0
1.2
6.1
0.0
1.2
1.0
0.0
0.6
0.1
1.7
1.7
3.6
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
7.9
0.3
589
Table 8 Comparative results when = 20 min and the different cost ratios, variance, and heuristic rules
(, CV)
cd: ci
Method
Block size
Objective value
Gap (%)
Iterations
Time (s)
(20, 0.1)
0.435:0.565
(20, 0.1)
0.5:0.5
(20, 0.1)
0.565:0.435
(20, 0.2)
0.435:0.565
(20, 0.2)
0.5:0.5
(20, 0.2)
0.565:0.435
(20, 0.3)
0.435:0.565
(20, 0.3)
0.5:0.5
(20, 0.3)
0.565:0.435
(20, 0.4)
0.435:0.565
(20, 0.4)
0.5:0.5
(20, 0.4)
0.565:0.435
(20, 0.5)
0.435:0.565
(20, 0.5)
0.5:0.5
(20, 0.5)
0.565:0.435
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-m
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-m
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-m
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-m
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-m
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-m
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-m
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-m
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
t-Bailey
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-m
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
p-Bailey-l
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
t-Bailey
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
t-Bailey
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
t-Bailey
CPLEX
Constructive
Improving
t-Bailey
2-1-2-1/2-1-1-2/1-2-1-1/2-1-2-1
2-1-2-1/1-2-1-2/1-2-1-1/2-1-2-1
2-1-2-1/1-2-1-1/1-2-1-2/1-1-2-1
2-1-1-2/1-1-2-1/1-2-1-1/2-1-1-1
2-1-1-2/1-1-2-1/1-2-1-2/1-1-2-1
2-1-1-2/1-1-2-1/1-2-1-2/1-1-2-1
2-1-1-2/1-1-2-1/1-2-1-1/2-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1
2-1-1-2/1-1-2-1/2-1-1-2/1-1-2-1
2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-2/1-1-2-1
2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-2/1-1-2-1
2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1
2-1-1-2/1-1-2-1/1-2-1-1/2-1-2-1
2-1-1-2/1-1-2-1/1-2-1-1/2-1-2-1
2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/1-1-2-1
2-1-1-2/1-1-2-1/1-2-1-1/2-1-1-1
2-1-1-2/1-1-2-1/1-1-2-1/1-2-1-1
2-1-1-2/1-1-2-1/1-1-2-1/1-2-1-1
2-1-1-2/1-1-2-1/1-1-2-1/1-2-1-1
2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/1-2-1-1/2-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1
2-1-1-2/1-1-2-1/1-1-2-1/1-2-1-1
2-1-1-2/1-1-1-2/1-1-2-1/1-1-1-1
2-1-1-2/1-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/1-2-1-1
2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/1-2-1-1/1-2-1-1/1-2-1-1
2-1-1-1/1-2-1-1/1-2-1-1/1-2-1-1
2-1-1-1/1-2-1-1/1-1-2-1/1-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1
1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
1-2-1-1/1-1-2-1/1-1-1-2/1-1-1-1
1-2-1-1/1-1-2-1/1-1-1-2/1-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-2/1-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/2-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/1-1-1-2/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/1-1-2-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/2-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
2-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1/1-1-1-1
52.7
52.9
55.2
58.5
56.4
56.4
58.2
62.7
58.2
59.0
59.0
60.7
64.1
64.1
65.5
64.7
64.3
64.3
64.3
67.0
64.9
64.9
65.5
64.9
74.9
75.3
75.4
76.2
73.6
73.6
74.8
74.7
70.6
70.6
71.3
71.3
86.9
86.9
88.8
87.7
83.8
84.1
83.8
83.8
74.4
74.4
74.4
75.9
97.4
97.4
97.4
98.7
89.3
89.3
89.8
91.5
79.7
79.7
79.7
84.6
0.3
4.6
10.9
0.0
3.2
11.2
1.3
1.3
4.3
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.0
4.2
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.6
0.7
1.7
0.0
1.6
1.3
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2.2
1.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
6.2
284 708
68
10
1
323 056
48
11
1
207 610
42
10
1
233 618
42
11
1
163 595
76
15
1
223 639
52
10
1
134 261
144
16
1
120 681
342
10
1
60 640
60
16
1
97 895
162
10
1
45 337
214
13
1
24 287
34
11
1
40 416
334
8
1
21 558
42
9
1
185
32
7
1
1213
6.1
1.1
0.1
1344
4.2
1.7
0.1
1030
3.9
1.5
0.1
1164
4.1
1.1
0.1
966
7.9
1.9
0.1
1258
5.8
2.1
0.1
865
15.1
2.0
0.1
755
35.1
1.1
0.1
504
7.1
1.9
0.1
1192
17.1
0.9
0.1
694
20.5
1.2
0.1
373
3.1
0.9
0.1
535
30.7
0.9
0.1
268
4.1
1.2
0.1
105
2.9
0.9
0.1
590
CV
0.2
0.1
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
# of patients
40
0.3
0.3
0.2
CV
20
0.1
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.0
0
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Block
the best block sizes for all cases since it searches a large number
of feasible block sizes. To get the optimal block sizes, we
should use a larger tolerance rather than the current values.
Preliminary tests show that current values not only remove most
unrealistic values that are far from the optimum, but there is also
a possibility of removing the optimal block sizes as well. The
numerical studies show that the best solution using the current
values is close to the optimal solution. However, there are
limitations for CON and IMP heuristics. The CON heuristic has
a limitation that it may be hard to nd good tolerance ratios at
stages. The IMP heuristic also has a limitation of neighbourhood search approach that there might be no break-through
solution from current solution to global optimal solution.
t-Bailey can be the best block size rule for certain case in
which variance is large. For example, t-Bailey is the best when
= 8 min, cd: ci = 1:1 and CV = 0.5; and when = 20 min, cd:
ci = 1:1.3 and CV = 0.5. p-Bailey-s rule can be used for the case
of small variance, whereas p-Bailey-l rule can be used for the
case of larger variance.
In most cases, t-Bailey or p-Bailey rule performs worse than
IMP and CON. When variance is large, three rules have
different solutions of block sizes but objective function values
are close to each other. When variance is small, t-Bailey rule
gives the worst objective function value, which is 1.7 ~ 1.9
times of the two heuristic rules.
We see how sensitive the optimal solution is to , CV, and
cost ratios (cd: ci). Figure 5 depicts two iso-solutions for each
case of ( = 8 min, CV = 0.1, cd: ci = 1:1.3) or ( = 8, CV = 0.1,
cd: ci = 1.3:1), respectively. Iso-solutions are the same optimal
block sizes for different congurations. We take 8 blocks into
account, because iso-solutions is unique for 16 blocks. Isosolutions look off-diagonal, which means that as increases,
CV should be smaller for iso-solutions. If cd ci, the smaller
591
References
Bailey NTJ and Welch JD (1952). Appointment systems in hospital
outpatient department. Lancet 259(6718): 11051108.
Begen MA and Queyranne M (2011). Appointment scheduling with
discrete random durations. Mathematics of Operations Research
36(2): 240257.
Belin J and Demuelemeester E (2007). Building cyclic master surgery
schedules with leveled resulting bed occupancy. European Journal of
Operational Research 176(2): 11851204.
Belin J, Demuelemeester E and Cardoen B (2009). A decision support
system for cyclic master surgery scheduling with multiple objectives.
Journal of Scheduling 12(2): 147161.
Bruin AM, Koole GM and Visser MC (2005). Bottleneck analysis of
emergency cardiac in-patient ow in a university setting: An
application of queuing theory. Clinical and Investigative Medicine
28(6): 316317.
Cardeon B, Demeulemeester E and Belin J (2009). Sequencing surgical
cases in a day-care environment: An exact branch-and-price approach.
Computers & Operations Research 36(9): 26602669.
Cayirli T and Veral E (2003). Outpatient scheduling in health care:
A review of literature. Production and Operations Management
12(4): 519549.
Chase M (2005). Beginning patient ow modeling in Vancouver
coastal health. Clinical and Investigative Medicine 28(6): 323325.
Choi S and Ketzenberg M (2014). An inverse newsvendor model to set
the optimal number of customers in a capacitated environment.
Working paper, Shenandoah University.
Choi S and Wilhelm WE (2012). An analysis of sequencing surgeries
with durations that follow the lognormal, gamma, or normal distribution. IIE Transactions on Healthcare Systems and Engineering
2(2): 156171.
Choi S and Wilhelm WE (2014). An approach to optimize master
surgical block schedules. European Journal of Operational Research
235(1): 138148.
Denton B and Gupta D (2003). A sequential bounding approach for
optimal appointment scheduling. IIE Transactions 35(11): 10031016.
Dexter F and Traub RD (2002). How to schedule elective surgical cases
into specic operating rooms to maximize the efciency of use of
operating room time. Anesthesia and Analgesia 94(4): 933942.
Fries B and Marathe V (1981). Determination of optimal variablesized multiple-block appointment systems. Operations Research
29(2): 324345.
Green LV, Savin S and Wang B (2006). Managing patient service in a
diagnostic medical facility. Operations Research 54(1): 1125.
Gupta D (2007). Surgical suites operations management. Production
and Operations Management 16(6): 689700.
Gupta D and Denton B (2008). Appointment scheduling in health care:
Challenges and opportunities. IIE Transactions 40(9): 800819.
Hans E, Wullink G, van Houdenhoven M and Kazemier G (2008).
Robust surgery loading. European Journal of Operational Research
185(3): 10381050.
Ho C and Lau H (1992). Minimizing total cost in scheduling outpatient
appointments. Management Science 38(12): 17501764.
Ho C and Lau H (1999). Evaluating the impact of operating conditions on
the performance of appointment scheduling rules in service systems.
European Journal of Operational Research 112(3): 542553.
Ho C, Lau H and Li J (1995). Introducing variable-interval appointment
scheduling in service systems. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 15(6): 5969.
Kaandorp G and Koole G (2007). Optimal outpatient appointment
scheduling. Health Care Management Science 10(3): 217229.
Klassen K and Rohleder T (1996). Scheduling outpatient appointments
in a dynamic environment. Journal of Operations Management 14(2):
83101.
592