A Systems View of Personnel Assignment Problems: Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing May 2006

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/229450777
A systems view of personnel assignment problems
Article in Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing · May 2006

DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20042
CITATIONS READS
10 1,043
3 authors:
Karen Holness Colin G Drury
11 PUBLICATIONS 35 CITATIONS
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
398 PUBLICATIONS 7,738 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Rajan Batta
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
189 PUBLICATIONS 6,216 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Inspection Studies View project
China Airlines Safety Culture Evaluation Project View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Colin G Drury on 24 May 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, Vol. 16 (3) 285–307 (2006)
© 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20042
A Systems View of Personnel Assignment Problems

Karen S. Holness, Colin G. Drury, and Rajan Batta
Department of Industrial Engineering, University at Buffalo,
Buffalo, New York 14260
ABSTRACT
Personnel assignment problems have traditionally been solved using operations research (OR) meth-
ods. The purpose of the research was to demonstrate the value of taking a systems view of person-
nel assignment beyond the usual OR models. Human factors methodologies and research methods
were used to describe and analyze the components of the personnel assignment process at a printing
company. These included macroergonomics, human–computer interaction, the skills–rules–
knowledge (SRK) framework, hierarchical task analysis, decision ladders, and abstraction decom-
position spaces. This approach facilitated assessments for function allocation and work system design,
which are argued to be necessary for successful implementations of any solution for personnel
assignment problems. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Research Background

Personnel assignment (PA) entails the assignment or allocation of human operators to
previously scheduled tasks, given a set of qualified individuals or teams. Personnel assign-
ment takes place in any organization that relies on human resources to generate tangible
throughput or provide services (e.g., manufacturing, military, airports, hospitals, mainte-
nance). It is important to note that PA is not human resource or manpower planning,
which involves determining the number of people required to staff an operation. It involves
deciding which of the available people should perform each of the scheduled tasks.
Research in the PA field covers many aspects of the problem: from methodology to
solution technique, multiskilled workers to multicriteria problems, as well as cost require-
ments and personal preferences of workers and managers. Although it is covered exten-
sively in the operations research (OR) literature, PA is also addressed by other disciplines,
including management science, engineering management, human resources, and organi-
zational behavior. This research takes a novel approach based on human factors, by con-
sidering the PA problem in its social as well as technical context.
1.2. Research Problem Statement

This research is particularly concerned with the development and implementation of opti-
mization models for PA problems. It is important to note that in the literature that uses
Correspondence to: Karen S. Holness, Department of Industrial Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo,
New York 14260. E-mail: ksh_ny@yahoo.com
285
286 HOLNESS, DRURY, AND BATTA
optimization models, there is little or no discussion of how the input data was collected
and verified. There are also few descriptions of how the solutions were applied and inte-
grated into the workplace from a systems and organization design standpoint. The liter-
ature review in Section 2 gives more detail. Instead, emphasis is placed more on using
real organization data to validate the developed models. This practice points to a larger
issue in model development. Specifically, it raises the question, “What organizational or
process design factors do OR practitioners actually consider when developing these mod-
els?” In fact, the ability to assess the impact of a designed solution on an organization
may influence the choice of variables, constraints, solution approach, and ultimately solu-
tion implementation. Although these specific issues are not addressed here, they are a
necessary part of future PA research.
Nonetheless, accomplishing solution implementation would require additional tech-
niques beyond optimization model creation and verification. Questions such as, “What
should the model be capable of doing?” or “Who is the best person to use the model to
generate assignments?” or “How does the introduction of a model change the way the job
is performed?” cannot be answered with OR alone. It is in the best interest of a company
paying for an OR model solution for their PA process to understand the implications of
using the model and the resulting changes to the PA process. It is also important to fully
understand the impact the new process will have on the other functions in the organiza-
tion that both provide inputs to it and use its outputs. Addressing these issues requires
analysis that surpasses creating a spreadsheet and training someone in the company how
to use it. Human factors (HF) methodologies, coupled with the traditional OR solution
creation and validation, can be used to facilitate the successful implementation and inte-
gration of the solution into an organization. Specifically, macroergonomics (ME), which
includes function allocation, takes a broad, systems approach to work system design. It
seeks to optimize both the technical and social aspects of a process by looking at its
primary functions, variances, and social structure. Also, human–computer interaction (HCI),
which provides several techniques and methods to facilitate computer interface design, is
a necessary segment of any algorithmic or software solution.
1.3. Research Objective

The primary objectives of this research were to (a) investigate a personnel assignment
process that did not use OR methods, (b) evaluate the process in terms of OR and mac-
roergonomics, and (c) make recommendations to develop and implement an OR solution.
The secondary objective was to demonstrate the value of using HF methods to investigate
what has traditionally been regarded as an OR–mathematical problem.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Operation Research Assignment Models

Personnel assignment involves the use of some method to match people with tasks,
machines, projects, etc. to meet specific objectives. Assignment tasks are usually subject
to various constraints over a planning horizon. This implies OR. Classical OR describes
the assignment problem, for machines or people, as a special case of the transportation
problem. Such problems utilize linear programming as a solution technique. As described
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing DOI: 10.1002/hfm
PERSONNEL ASSIGNMENT 287
by Rardin (1998), “[The] Linear assignment model is a discrete optimization problem—an

ILP [integer linear program which deals with the] optimal pairing or matching of objects
in two distinct sets.” A key assumption for personnel assignment is that a set resource
pool already exists, and tasks are allocated to the members of this set. However, it is very
likely that each person may be assigned more than one job while also ensuring that some-
body is assigned to each job. To address this problem, a different problem formulation
was developed, known as the generalized assignment model. One version of this model is
structured as follows:
Minimize or Maximize (i (j ci, j x i, j

Subject to
(j x i, j ⫽ 1 for all i (1)
(i si, j x i, j ⱕ bj for all j (2)
x i, j ⫽ 0 or 1 for all i, j
where i is the job, j is the resource (person or machine), ci, j is the cost or benefit of
assigning job i to resource j. x i, j is equal to 1, if job i is assigned to resource j and equal
to 0 otherwise. si, j is the size or amount of resource j ’s capacity used if job i is assigned
to j. bj is the total capacity of j.
The objective function optimizes the value of the assignments, x i, j . The variable ci, j is
negative if it is a cost factor and positive if it represents a benefit. Constraint (1) ensures
that each job receives exactly one resource. Constraint (2) ensures that the total capacity
or capability of each resource is not exceeded. Different versions of this assignment model
have been used, along with various heuristics and algorithms, to model different person-
nel assignment scenarios.
Journal articles in the OR field describe the development, testing, and validation of
different optimization methods for a variety of PA cases in companies with small to large
workforces (Holness, 2003). The majority of the PA cases in the OR literature describes
two common modeling steps: (a) identifying the variables and constraints for creating
assignments, and (b) studying a process where the assignments will be utilized.
2.2. Other Assignment Models and Studies

2.2.1. Management science and engineering management. Several articles
reviewed from the management science and engineering management literature were struc-
tured like those from the OR literature. Some aspect of the personnel assignment problem
is presented then solved using optimization models, heuristics, and algorithms. An early
model developed by Childs and Wolfe (1972) used a transportation model to maximize
personnel allocations. The model incorporated subjective measures of performance, which
were converted to calculated values of each worker’s effectiveness. Other authors focused
on the generalized assignment problem for a multiskilled work force (Dean, Denzler, &
Watkins, 1992; Gomar, Haas, & Morton, 2002; Villeda & Dean, 1990; Warner & Prawda,
1972), while other authors simply reviewed the use of optimization models, methods,
algorithms, and heuristics to solve allocation problems (Gardenfors, 1973; Gavish & Pirkul,
1991; Ross & Zoltners, 1979;).
2.2.2. Human resources studies. There were few PA examples in the human
resources literature as it was defined above. The majority of authors focused on man-
power planning. For example, Bergmann and Martin (1987) studied the use of various
strategies and policies for recruitment, including the use of simple linear models and
sensitivity analysis. Other authors investigated the use of models to determine the num-
ber of people required to meet current or forecasted demand, or to actually forecast demands
for human resources (Bechet & Maki, 1987; Niehaus, 1988). Methods such as regression,
Markov models, goal programming, linear programming, and simulation were recom-
mended in these cases.
Singell and Lillydahl (1996) studied how faculty members allocated their time to four
tasks: teaching, research, service, and leisure. A random utility (multinomial, grouped-
data logit) model was created, using predetermined utility values to determine “how indi-
vidual and institutional differences affect time allocation decisions.” Doyle (2002)
performed a questionnaire study of how managers choose subordinates for participation
in organizational change. Some authors focused on the conceptual implications of select-
ing domestic employees for overseas assignments or creating assignments for expatriates
to ensure their quality of working life and work life balance (Bolino & Feldman, 2000;
Torbiorn, 2002). However, no mathematical or optimization models were used in these
cases.
2.2.3. Organizational behavior studies. The main contribution to PA research in

the organizational behavior literature focuses on (a) analyzing human strategies to accom-
plish these tasks, and (b) comparing the allocation solutions made by subjects with an
optimal solution generated by an OR model. Three separate studies were performed to
investigate allocation performance: first, in the presence of uncertainty and risk (Lang-
holtz, Gettys, & Foote, 1993); second, for benign and harsh (scarce resource) environ-
ments (Langholtz, Gettys, & Foote, 1994); and third, for cases where resource fluctuations
(gains and losses) were anticipated (Langholtz, Gettys, & Foote, 1995). Another study
was performed for nontechnical tasks, specifically allocating time and money to procure
food for a given time period (Langholtz, Ball, Sopchak, & Auble, 1997). The final study
used verbal protocol analysis to analyze the strategies employed for nontechnical task
assignments (Langholtz, Ball, Sopchak, & Auble, 1998). This organizational behavior
literature was the first to use issues (strategy and decision-making) and research methods
(verbal protocol analysis) that are common to human factors as the focus of the assign-
ment problem research. Even though the Doyle (2002) study in the human resources lit-
erature did use a questionnaire study, there was no direct tie-in between the study findings
and other personnel allocation research.
3. RESEARCH STRATEGY
The goal of this research was to show the value of combining “soft system” methodolo-
gies from human factors studies with the “hard system” mathematical formulations and
validation from OR to increase the chances of successful implementations in organiza-
tions. Using macroergonomics and human computer interaction methodologies provides

guidelines for OR model design and usability. Rasmussen’s (1986) skills–rules–knowledge
(SRK) framework is particularly useful for function allocation.
As defined by Hendrick and Kleiner (2002), “the goal of macroergonomics is to opti-
mize the work system’s design in terms of its sociotechnical system characteristics, and
then carry the characteristics of the overall work system design down through to the design
of individual jobs and human–machine and human–software interfaces to ensure a fully
harmonized work system.” The 10-step macroergonomics analysis and design methodol-
ogy (MEAD) enables the members of an organization to focus on its functions, and to
assess and correct the alignment of those functions to the organization’s overall purpose
and mission. The implications of this level of analysis are wide because it influences how
the organization is structured to achieve its objectives. In fact, it affects whether the orga-
nization is flat or hierarchical (vertical differentiation). It also determines the degrees of
division of labor and specialization (horizontal differentiation), the levels of job stan-
dardization (formalization), the decision-making structures (centralization), the modes
of control, coordination and communication between work systems (integration), and the
breadth of the operations across facilities (spatial dispersion; Hendrick & Kleiner, 2002).
This analysis also influences the level of human interactions with other humans, machines,
software, environment, and jobs (work design). For these machine–software interactions,
function allocation is particularly important.
Function allocation defines what functions are performed by a human versus a com-
puter or a machine, as well as the level of interaction between these resources. Fortu-
nately, there are methods to facilitate function allocation tasks. Parasuraman, Sheridan,
and Wickens (2000) developed a model for determining the type and level of human
interaction with automation. It involves consideration of the levels of information acqui-
sition, analysis, decision, and action execution in the task. This is followed by a deter-
mination of (a) the level of automation appropriate for each of the tasks in the system
question, then (b) the consequences such automation will have on the human users of the
system. This means deciding the appropriateness of automation from the human perspec-
tive; how such changes will affect human efficiency and output quality must also be
considered.
Waterson, Older Gray, and Clegg (2002) developed a method based on sociotechnical
systems for use in the design phases of a work system. It includes task analyses and
evaluations of the organization’s objectives, coupled with decisions regarding three pos-
sible levels of allocation: human versus machine, human–human, and dynamic, which
provides the capability to switch between human and machine as needed. The benefit of
this method is the assurance that the organization, not just the user, benefits from all the
allocation decisions.
Also of particular use in function allocation is Rasmussen’s (1986) classic SRK tax-
onomy: skill-, rule-, and knowledge-based behavior. In essence, skill-based behavior is
automatic while rule-based behavior is a structured response using “if–then” logic. Finally,
knowledge-based behavior requires problem solving in situations where known skills and
rules do not directly apply. More specifically, it is the case where “more general knowl-
edge concerning the behavior of the system, the characteristics of the environment, and
the goals to be obtained must be integrated to formulate a novel plan of action” (Wickens
& Hollands, 2000). Use of a particular type of behavior implies different levels of response
to environmental cues and cognitive control. Identifying each behavior is important for
the assessment of tasks for cognitive work analysis and for systems design (Vicente, 1999),
and is particularly useful for function allocation. These classifications were used in the
current research because it was necessary to determine what steps could be performed by
a computer instead of a human operator.
For example, Roberts and Gawron (1986) used the SRK framework to distinguish
between operator and manager functions as part of the development of a cockpit auto-
mation technology program. The framework was used in a decision aid for assigning
tasks, particularly those tasks that were not easily distinguishable as either an operator or
a manager function. All functions were classified as operations (skill-based), decisions
(rule-based) or problem formulations (knowledge-based) using a predetermined set of
assumptions and decision criteria. Once categorized, it was then easier to determine which
were primarily for operators (skill) versus managers (knowledge). The decision tasks
were assigned to either operators or managers, depending on the capabilities of the par-
ticular user and the machine used for the task. In summary, using this framework allowed
the authors to assess not only human-to-human task allocations but human–machine assign-
ments as well.
Human–computer interaction logically follows function allocation. Human–computer
interaction facilitates the design, testing, and evaluation of the actual interfaces between
humans and machines or computers. There are established characteristics of an effective
interface design, which include consistency, familiarity, feedback, and error correction
(Shneiderman, 1998). These are necessary to ensure that an interface does not provide
additional complexity to the execution of the function of interest. It is also important that
the interface minimizes the stress of its human users, whether novices or experts. Human–
computer interaction methodology also guarantees that usability tests are carried out to
ensure alignment with its intended purpose, in addition to the creation of documentation
and training plans.
In terms of personnel assignment, OR solutions typically involve the creation of com-
puter software to run the optimization models and their associated heuristics. It is safe to
assume that users of these models may not be the OR practitioners who created them.
Therefore, the type of interface a shift supervisor would use to allocate jobs would be
very different from that used by an OR practitioner. This is especially true if changes to
the model by supervisors are required when she or he uses the software. In this respect, it
is important that the interface is appropriate to the class of user, which implies the need
for HCI. It is also critical to ensure that the software is used by the appropriate persons for
the function, which involves function allocation. Finally, the macroergonomics process
can help ensure approval and support of new software from all levels in an organization.
Macroergonomics also guarantees that those directly impacted by its output will be con-
sidered in the design of the solution.
4. CASE STUDY METHOD
The research was conducted in the pressroom department of a printing company. The
pressrooms run 5 days a week, with three 8-hour shifts per day. Running the presses on
the weekends and extending shifts to 12 hours as needed is considered overtime. There
were between 300 and 350 total hourly employees working in the pressrooms’ depart-
ment at the time of the study. It should be noted that at this company, PA was called
Manning and the primary person who worked on PA was called the Manning Clerk. How-
ever, in this article, this person will be referred to by the more generic term of PA Clerk.
4.1. Participants
One of the manufacturing managers at this plant was the key stakeholder for the study. He
granted permission to interview himself, the pressrooms’ PA Clerk, and one pressrooms’
supervisor—all of whom were actively involved in the personnel assignment process cur-
rently used at the company. There was only one pressrooms’ PA Clerk, who handled the
assignment functions for all of the presses on all three shifts. He was a fulltime union
employee with over 20 years of service, who also worked on the presses on the weekends.
In the remainder of this article, the PA Clerk will be referred to as “he” although it is
certainly possible for this position to be filled by either a man or a woman in other
companies.
4.2. Data Collection Methods

Information was gathered primarily from interviews—on-site and on the telephone, when
only brief interactions were required. Although it was only possible to observe the PA
Clerk and the use of the manual PA board on two visits, some verbal reports were cap-
tured and used in the data collection process. The interviews of the manufacturing man-
ager, the PA Clerk, and the shift supervisor were structured to give general instructions
about the purpose of the interview, the types of questions asked, and how responses would
be recorded. All interview sessions, except the telephone conversations, were audiotaped
and were conducted over a 3-month period. Each session took place at a location deemed
convenient for the interviewee. Initially, the manufacturing manager provided a copy of
a training document used in an unsuccessful, earlier effort to train production clerks to
perform the PA function. This document was used as the starting point for more detailed
data collection and as the initial template to create the interview questions.
A knowledge elicitation methodology was also employed to create the interview ques-
tions and solicit responses from the PA Clerk, the manufacturing manager, and the press-
room supervisor. As described by Shadbolt and Burton (1995), “knowledge elicitation
comprises a set of techniques and methods that attempt to elicit an expert’s knowledge
through some form of direct interaction with the expert” (p. 406). This approach was
suitable for our research because such a small number of experts were available for inter-
views. Examples of the kinds of questions asked of the shift supervisor are:
Once the next week’s schedule is created by the PA Clerk and posted outside of your
department office on a Wednesday:
1. What do you do with the paper copy? Does it stay there?

2. How often do you refer to it? Up until when?
3. What is the last change you made to the schedule (departments, shifts, etc.)?
4. The one before that?
5. What is considered an unusual change?
6. What kinds of circumstances would prompt you to make a change?
4.3. Analysis Tools

A determination had to be made whether the company’s PA process had the basic ele-
ments required for software solution development from both OR and HF perspectives. To
do this, HF data collection and analysis techniques were used for two reasons. First, it
was desired to map the existing, primarily manual, PA process as a user-independent pro-
cess. This allowed the identification of possible objective functions, key model assump-
tions, variables, constraints, and criteria–goals for a model. Second, these methods provided
the data to define the kind of support structure necessary for the successful implementa-
tion and use of a software solution.
To model the PA process, flow charts and hierarchical task analysis (HTA) spread-
sheets were created using the data from the interviews and the observations made. Because
of the level of detail and influencing factors in the procedures used, a listing of process
steps in a spreadsheet proved to be a more efficient method of presenting the data than a
traditional HTA diagram. Therefore, flowcharts were created to present only the macro
view of each element of the PA process. Spreadsheets were then created for each element
of the PA process. They contain numbered lists of the actions taken in the process with the
following descriptors for each action:
• Classification: The action was classified as skill (S), rule (R) or knowledge (K).
• Day: The day of the week the action was performed
• Tool/Method: What was used to execute the action (computer, paper, conversation,
etc.)?
• Input: What information was required to do the action?
• Procedure: Actual steps taken
• Decision: What decisions, if any, had to be made to perform the action successfully?
• Variables for Rules: What variables affect the choice of rule to make the decision?
• Rules: What rules, if any, were used to make a decision?
• Output: What resulted from the execution of the action?
• Input for: What depended on the results from the current action?
• Comments: Additional information about the execution of this action
With the results from the flowcharts and the HTA spreadsheets, decision ladders were
created as a supplement to the SRK classifications. This was done to assess the algorith-
mic nature of the process steps. Decision ladders were chosen because “the decision lad-
der provides a generic template for identifying the demands associated with particular
control tasks. As a result, it allows us to identify the information requirements that must
be satisfied. Regardless of the role allocation architecture that is adopted, these require-
ments must be satisfied if task goals are to be reliably and consistently attained” (Vicente,
1999). For this reason, the decision ladders generically map information-processing activ-
ity, making the diagrams user-independent. This is particularly useful for software devel-
opment because it allows for the additional analysis of information sources and their
interaction.
5. CASE STUDY RESULTS

There were two kinds of PA performed at the printing company—weekly (known as Mon-
day PA) and overtime. Each was performed in two stages. The first stage was done by the
PA Clerk to generate a labor pool and was referred to as department PA. The second
stage, press PA, was done by individual shift supervisors, who used the completed labor
pool to actually assign employees to different functions. When needed, the supervisors
made last-minute changes to the final assignments; the PA Clerk did not get involved.
Figure 1 flowcharts the basic structure of the PA process.
Figure 1 Personnel assignment process overview.
Having two PA stages is unusual when compared to the OR literature. All assignment
models assume that a labor pool already exists and the solution simply matches people to
jobs. Although a set of employees does indeed exist at this company, generating a PA
labor pool separately is deemed necessary for two reasons. First, department PA strives to
merely adjust the current week’s assignments for the next week, instead of simply “wip-
ing the slate clean.” It attempts to consider each employee for each department only when
deemed necessary. Second, the size of the labor pool changes considerably from week to
week, due primarily to vacations. Both of these issues will be discussed later in more
detail.
5.1. Monday Personnel Assignment Process
5.1.1. Department PA decision ladders. There were two main decisions in the
department PA process. The first was made solely by the PA Clerk; it is depicted in the
Figure 2 Department personnel assignment (PA) process decision ladder (rectangles ⫽ informa-
tion processing activities, circles ⫽ states of knowledge, shading ⫽ not relevant to this decision).
decision ladder in Figure 2. Rectangles represent information-processing activities; cir-

cles represent resulting states of knowledge after the said activity. The shaded boxes rep-
resent the stages in the general decision task that are not relevant to a specific process.
First, the PA Clerk assesses whether or not there is a difference between the current week’s
schedule and the next week’s schedule. With this in mind, he decides if each person’s
assignment changes or not. The decision process begins at the “observe” step, where the
PA Clerk mentally matches a person’s current assignment and work characteristics with
that of the future staffing needs of the person’s current department. The resulting state of
knowledge is an assessment of whether the person remains where they currently are or is
needed more in another department. The “define task” activity is where the PA Clerk
decides what department the person will move to, using the criteria from the observation
step. The PA Clerk uses his knowledge of the presses, the kinds of jobs that are run, and
the person’s capabilities to come up with a “best” fit or feasible solution. The resulting
state of knowledge is the department the person will work in.
When the decision is made, the person’s assignment is noted on the PA board—a phys-
ical structure mounted on a wall with plastic leaves that flip up. The board is divided into
sections primarily by each press department and by employee job classification: Jour-
neymen (JM), Assistants (ASST), and Junior Helpers (JH). Journeymen are considered
the most experienced. Each employee has a card, which can be left in its current spot or
be moved to a new location on the board. If it is moved, the change is also noted in a
computer program used for PA.
Each card is color-coded by employee type: white for JM, pink for ASST, and blue for
JH. This coding scheme helps the PA Clerk easily tell the difference between the cards
without taking time to read its contents. This becomes particularly important when the
cards are rearranged on the PA board. The color-coding of the cards, as a preattentive
feature, enables the PA Clerk to easily find the cards when searching the board and to
place cards in their correct locations. Color codes are notably useful for both searching
and identification tasks because they provide a salient feature that “catches the eye” and
allow for parallel, instead of serial, searches (Sanders & McCormick, 1993; Treisman,
1986). As a result, the time it takes to complete the task decreases.
When one person’s assignment is complete, the PA Clerk repeats the process for the
remainder of the names on the employee list, which is organized by job classification.
There are 300 to 350 employees. It is important to note that while he goes through the
names, he also compares each one with any changes previously made. This is done to
make sure he accommodates as many first-choice shift preferences as possible. For this
reason, he may revisit a previous name on the list and change his or her assignment.
A red card is placed at the end of the classification or pressroom–department block
listing on the PA board, either at an angle or straight, to signify that a press department
has all the required people or is short, respectively. Like the color-coded employee cards,
the red card provides another visual cue to aid in the searches performed on the board.
Both the color and the angle of this card provides a preattentive feature that enhances the
PA Clerk’s parallel processing, which refers to the initial collection and organization of
information that “pops out” of a display. With parallel processing, a person can then selec-
tively pay attention to certain items for additional evaluation (Wickens & Hollands, 2000).
This feature attracts the attention of the PA Clerk and enables him to quickly draw con-
clusions about the state of the system.
This decision ladder illustrates that the PA Clerk relies primarily on information assess-
ments and evaluation criteria to decide on assignment changes. No interpretation or
evaluation of each person’s current assignment in terms of the overall goal of Monday
PA (to create the PA pool) is required. Because of this, it was concluded that the process
was primarily skill- and rule-based. However, for a novice in the PA Clerk position, it is
believed that the task would be primarily rule-based with more controlled, rather than
automatic, processing. This belief is justified by the fact that a high level of familiarity
with the employees and the presses contributes to the PA Clerk’s ability to quickly
evaluate each person’s status. This can be attributed to a type of recognition-primed
decision-making (RPD), whereby “the decision maker in essence “recognizes” the pat-
tern of cues in a problem as one that matches a template of typical cues in prior expe-
rience, and thereby rapidly categorizes (diagnoses) the situation, without going through
the time- and effort-consuming processes of cue weighting and integration” (Wickens
& Hollands, 2000). The PA Clerk’s expertise also allows him to mentally track the
changes he makes and compare them with those made for other employees. This ability
would certainly be difficult for a novice and would most likely require specific decision
rules and training.
The second decision involves resolving deficiencies. Once the PA Clerk generates a PA
pool for each department that satisfies as many production requirements as possible, he
then determines whether the department is short (called deficiencies) or if there are extra
people. If there are extra people, voluntary layoffs and bump down requests are granted.
Bump downs allow a person to work in a position of a lower classification level. If there
are deficiencies, however, a rule-based decision logic is executed, mainly by members of
the scheduling department and a pressroom department superintendent, who is also the
first shift supervisor for that department. The PA Clerk does not directly handle decisions
regarding deficiencies, although he may contribute to the discussion. The options for han-
dling deficiencies involve posting 12-hour shifts and requesting upgrades. Upgrades are
the opposite of bump downs and allow an employee to work in a higher classification job.
The process of handling deficiencies was primarily a rule- and knowledge-based process
because of the level of evaluation and consideration given to the consequences of the
shortage options. It is important to note that although the task is knowledge-based due to
the level of problem solving, it involves common problems with a predetermined set of
solutions. It can be said, then, that the level of uncertainty is small, but large enough to
require discussion and consensus. The knowledge-based facet to this task presents a chal-
lenge to automating it. Because of the level of communication and personal interaction
involved, simply rerunning an OR model with different constraint values may not be
sufficient. Further discussion may be required.
In summary, the majority of the steps taken in the department PA process involve infor-
mation gathering and assessment, which are primarily skill- and rule-based. Those that
are rule-based utilize simple decision rules. The PA Clerk uses very little problem solving
when rearranging the cards on the PA board and formulating the final PA pool. Resolving
deficiencies is primarily a rule-based process, again with simple, yet specific decision
rules. Here, the use of the decision ladder and the SRK framework highlighted the level
of complexity used in this process and the possibility for automation. Because the steps in
this process, in the novice or expert case, involve cue processing and use of simple deci-
sion rules, they are prime candidates for algorithm development.
5.1.2. Press PA decision ladders. The main decision made by the supervisors in
the Monday press PA process is to assign employees of different classification levels to
each press by considering the type of job being run on the press. Like the PA Clerk’s
decision process for determining assignment changes, these decisions do not require any
knowledge-based behavior. The comparisons made between each employee for assign-
ment on a particular press are primarily skill- and rule-based comparisons. No decision
ladders were made for making last minute changes because all of them were determined
to be rule-based.
5.2. Overtime PA Process

The overtime PA process, like the Monday PA process, has two parts: department PA to
form the PA pool and press PA to form the press crews. The overtime PA by department
process was found to be primarily skill-based, according to the SRK classifications of the
steps taken. In this process, the PA Clerk asked every employee, face-to-face, if she or he
wanted to work overtime. At his company, working overtime was voluntary as written in
the union contract. The only times overtime became mandatory were when no one signed
up for positions that had to be staffed for the press to run.
The same decision ladder for handling deficiencies in Monday PA applies to overtime.
For these reasons, no additional decision ladders were created for this process. Like Mon-
day PA, the overtime press PA process is mainly a skill- and rule-based process. Even
deciding whom to select for mandatory assignments and upgrades involves little knowledge-
based or problem-solving behavior. However, for new supervisors, this would not be true.
5.3. Skills–Rules–Knowledge Summary

The SRK framework was used as a tool for determining candidacy for automation. The
majority of the steps are primarily rule-based, with skill-based behaviors, for both depart-
ment and press PA in either Monday or Overtime PA. The main activities involved are
information gathering and assessment using established rules. The “resolving deficien-
cies” activities involve assessment of information through discussion and consensus, mak-
ing it more of a problem solving activity. According to Parasuraman et al. (2000),
information acquisition, information analysis, and decision–action selection are candi-
dates for automation; the degree to which each is automated depends on the conse-
quences to the human user’s ability to perform the entire task efficiently. For this reason,
both the Monday and Overtime PA processes are prime candidates for automation. Decid-
ing on these levels of automation is a group consensus evaluation task performed by the
key stakeholders in the process. Evaluating the consequences for PA at this company
requires an analysis of the process, which is out of the scope of this research. However,
under the guidelines of macroergonomics (ME) and sociotechnical systems (STS), some
assumptions can be made using a unit operations diagram.
6. MACROERGONOMICS ANALYSIS
6.1. Unit Operations of the Personnel Assignment Process

The key to a ME–STS study is to focus on the product or output of the process and the
functions that transform the product. During the course of a full ME–STS system analy-
sis, unit operation diagrams are one of the first tools used to assess “IT”—the technology
(T) used to convert inputs (I) into outputs (Taylor & Felten, 1993). Because these dia-
grams focus on transforming functions, they convey different information than standard
process flowcharts and high-level HTA diagrams. Unit operations diagrams specifically
show the process functions, not the process steps, which convert input into output.
Where inputs enter each function in the diagram, descriptions of the work performed
by these functions are provided. Finally, the output of each function is shown as an
input into the next function, including the final output of the process. For this case study,
a final PA assignment schedule can be considered the product of the overall PA process,
for either Monday to Friday or Overtime PA. Figure 3 shows a unit operation diagram for
this process.
As shown in the diagram, all of the functions are carried out in both the department and
press PA processes. The key personnel are the PA Clerk and the shift supervisors, respec-
tively. The first two functions are the information gathering and assessment steps, which
have been determined to be skill- and rule-based steps. The last two functions, creating
and modifying the base schedule, involve skill-, rule-, and knowledge-based behavior.
These functions currently utilize the most person-to-person interactions to complete. The
result of this process is a dynamic schedule, which is subject to change throughout its use.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the first two functions could be automated and the
output used by a human operator for the last two functions. Also, because the last two
involve problem solving, they could be performed mainly by humans, with some low
levels of automation for data presentation and organization. But adding automation does
not simply mean replacing the PA Clerk with a computer or letting a software program
create the PA pool and crew assignments. Considerations must be made of the potential
effects of eliminating the PA Clerk position and/or replacing the supervisors. Decisions
must also be made regarding the primary user of the software output to create and modify
the base schedule. In fact, a variety of organizational design factors comes into play with
the redesign of this system. It is worth examining each of these factors in detail and their
relationship to the throughput of the system.
6.1.1. Human–human interactions. Taylor and Felten (1993) state that “the social
system can be seen as not merely work or friendship behavior, but rather the source of
adaptability and flexibility in coping with variances in the product and with changes in
the system’s complex environment” (p. 115). Following this reasoning, it is important to
understand the social system used in a process to capture the impact of automation on
how the social system functions. This understanding will also facilitate job restructuring,
in terms of formalization, centralization, etc. Thus, it is worth taking the time to consider
these interactions when planning for the PA process.
6.1.2. Levels of abstraction. Apart from the functional interactions in the PA pro-
cess, there are system-wide interactions that impact how it operates. To put into perspec-
tive the organizational variables and constraints that impact the overall PA process, it is
helpful to look at them from different levels of abstraction. The abstraction–decomposition
space, as described by Vicente (1999) and originally developed by Rasmussen (1986), is
ideal for analyzing work domains in sociotechnical systems. Figure 4 displays the overall
PA process (Monday and Overtime) from different levels of abstraction (rows), from the
perspective of the different people involved in the process (columns). These levels illus-
trate the means–ends and part–whole relationships between the different elements.
The levels of abstraction illustrate that the successful completion of the entire process
depends on two key factors—scheduling information and press employee availability. It
was discovered during the HTA creation that high variability exists in the scheduling
process. This variability could cause daily changes to the press assignments, which, in
turn, resulted in the need for weekend production. The need for overtime was also com-
pounded by the fact that mandatory work was not enforced during the week. It was enforced
on the weekends, however, after volunteers were requested. Employee availability was
greatly affected by the predominately senior workforce (by years of service) and the union
policy on vacations by seniority. Other factors such as high attrition among the lower
Unit operations for overall personnel assignment (PA) process.

Figure 3

300
HOLNESS, DRURY, AND BATTA
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing

DOI: 10.1002/hfm
Figure 4 Abstraction–decomposition space for the overall personnel assignment (PA) process.
classification employees, informal skill tracking, and career progression between classi-
fication levels were also contributing factors to the formation of the PA pools.
Any changes to the level of automation in this PA process must address the two factors
of scheduling information and press employee availability. Such considerations would be
virtually impossible to model as constraints in an OR model. Therefore, an assessment
must be performed on the information technology and social infrastructure to resolve
these factors, which are necessary to perform the PA tasks with automation.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1. Full Macroergonomics–Sociotechnical Systems Study

A recommendation was made to perform a full macroergonomics study of the PA process
in this company. As stated earlier, the basic purpose of an ME analysis is to evaluate the
work system in terms of its basic functions and the alignment of those functions with the
organization’s mission and purpose. For this company, it is particularly important to eval-
uate the true impact of workforce availability and the highly variable scheduling infor-
mation on the PA process. Additionally, ME examines the social interactions among those
involved in the process and their resulting quality of working life. This focus could facil-
itate discussions on the impact that the PA process, scheduling, and employee availability
have on production. Through such discussions, key stakeholders could decide how to
optimally reassign responsibilities in terms of function allocation and restructure the social
and communication systems to ensure agreement by all involved. Examining these rela-
tionships is important because they contribute to and manage the key variances in the
process. Planning for social and technical changes to the PA process and the implemen-
tation of these changes would be a critical component of the ME analysis.
7.1.1. Social system questions. There are two classes of questions that must be
addressed when considering the addition of an OR model to this process: the PA Clerk
position and human–human function allocation. The following is only a sample of the
questions that may arise:
• The PA Clerk position:

• What is the advantage of currently having a PA Clerk?
• What role does familiarity with employees play in the creation of the PA pool?
What is the cost of removing this familiarity?
• How would the organization respond to such a change?
• Human–human function allocation:
• What would it mean if the PA Clerk responsibility was simply transferred to
other individuals, like the production clerks or the supervisors?
• Would doing this only be possible if a computer automatically generated a PA
pool?
• If so, would the computer solution have to be verified, requiring an additional
cognitive task? How would this be done?
• How would people adjust to using the software as opposed to relying on the
first feasible solution found by hand (a.k.a. satisficing)?
• How would the value of the software solution be measured?
7.1.2. Technical system questions. The first and most important technical ques-
tion to ask is, “What should be automated?” The design of an OR model or other software
aid will depend on which functions are chosen for automation. Also, it was previously
mentioned that separating a PA process into parts is not done in the literature because the
OR models assume that the labor pool has already been created or will be created by the
model. How the OR model is developed will also depend on any other changes made for
the PA process, like changes in employee availability during the week through mandatory
assignment. Of course, such changes may not be feasible or cost effective but worth con-
sidering nonetheless.
If it is decided to create an OR model to either generate the PA pool or create press
assignments, the model inputs must be decided upon. A basic assignment model formu-
lation assumes that there is a one-to-one matching between person and job and ignores
the fact that each employee can have multiple skills. This is also true of the current depart-
ment PA process, which does not consider upgrades or bump downs when the PA pool is
first generated. They are considered only if there or shortages or extra people. However,
considering different equipment qualifications without assigning employees multiple jobs
complicates the model considerably. Actually, it may be necessary to quantify the fre-
quency of upgrades and bump downs granted each week in order assess the feasibility of
including this factor in the model. The model is not impossible, just more complicated.
Applying the correct heuristic or algorithm would be the task of an OR practitioner. How-
ever, the basic function of the model must be decided upon by the organization. This must
be done with the understanding that, depending on how the model is created, its use may
require different skills from those currently used in the process.
However, regardless of how complicated the model turns out to be, the basic model
does require some key pieces of information: an objective function or functions, a value
or cost variable to evaluate each assignment, and an assignment variable. The objective
function specifies what needs to be optimized. It is possible to have multiple objective
functions in the same model if multiple variables are required to solve the assignment
problem. The value or cost variable reflects the desired association for each assignment.
For example, a value or cost could reflect crew potential, with optimal values compared
to a crew rating score. In another example, it may reflect the cost or value to the depart-
ments of assigning a person there. However, many others are possible. The type of value
or cost will determine whether the model solves a minimization or maximization prob-
lem. Finally, the assignment variable is usually associated with each job-to-employee
pairing. Because there are multiple characteristics for each employee and multiple jobs
for each department and press, the indices associated with the assignment variable can be
numerous. An alternative to multiple indices is multiple variables and multiple objective
functions.
Nesting classification and seniority under employee is one way to capture multiple
characteristics. Franz, Baker, Leong, and Rakes (1989) used nesting in their model that
assigned medical staff to different clinics within different regions in a geographic area.
This method allowed them to index the total number of employees of different job
classifications per clinic district. Figure 5 shows an example for the printing company’s
PA process. All employees would be categorized by their primary classification, which
is their highest classification to date. Then, under each classification, the employees are
listed by seniority. This is, in fact, how the employee lists used by the PA Clerk are
currently structured. However, they also list which equipment each person is qualified
to work on. This additional qualification could be characterized under a different index.
Figure 5 Example of Possible Employee Index structure.
Of course, the ultimate decision about these indices would have to be made by the
organization.
Table 1 summarizes some possible criteria for an optimization model of this PA process
as it currently functions. The most important listing in this table, however, is the practice
of starting the PA process using the previous week’s PA pool and simply making adjust-
ments to it. Most of the OR models in the literature do not follow this assumption; they
essentially start with a clean slate. It may not be feasible for this company to start at this
point. But, if a clean slate is desirable, this process change must be properly facilitated.
For example, one way to ensure minimal changes to the previous schedules, if desirable
to the employees is to include a cost term for each change from the previous week.
Regarding the input of employee availability, it is important to note that it is possible
to run a model using a pool for employees known to be available. However, this would
require an initial screening of employees, similar to what the PA Clerk currently does. It
is also possible to equate either the cost variable or the assignment variable to zero to
reflect the unavailability of certain employees. Another alternative is to create dummy
press jobs in the model to assign unavailable employees. This would allow the model to
assign each person somewhere. However, either option would require some change of the
model structure and code to reflect unavailability. The capability of making such a change
would have to be decided upon while defining the requirements of the new work design.
The constraints, like the inputs, must be also be decided upon. There are hard con-
straints, which cannot be violated and soft constraints, which do not have grave conse-
quences if violated. For example, suppose the model was designed to form crews and
includes generating the PA pool. Then, a hard constraint would allow for the evaluation of
the “best possible” pairing of each employee to a task, using inputs that most likely assign
values to the pairings of certain employees. Such pairings would be based on each person’s
classification and qualifications, as well as the supervisor’s assessments of optimal pair-
ing. For this reason, it would be critical to track the supervisors’ ratings of individual
performance. However, this constraint would most likely be soft because of the addi-
tional policies on 12-hour shifts, upgrades, and bump downs. Realistically, it would be
difficult to satisfy this constraint without accounting for the possibility that a person could
refuse a “best possible” assignment because these options are considered voluntary under
these policies.
To summarize, careful consideration must be made when deciding what will be auto-
mated, what the variables, constraints, etc. will be and what the model output will look
like. This again ties back to how the model will be used to create and modify the base
schedule for a redesigned PA process. Consideration must also be given to the way the job
TABLE 1. Possible Operations Research (OR) Model Criteria for the Personnel Assignment (PA) Processes
304
Objective functions Variables Inputs Constraints Key model assumptions
Monday • Maximize coverage cijkm • Employee classification • Work staffing levels • Start with the current week’s schedule,
PA by classification, x ijkm (JM, ASST, JH) required per union contract PA pool and crew assignments (as is) or
seniority and Pijkm • Employee seniority for each classification start from scratch.
qualification Others (years in position, • Total # JM assigned to dept • Labor pool exists
• Maximize or years at company) or press ⫽ Total # JM • Press production schedule and labor
minimize cost or • Employee qualification needed for the dept or press. demand exists
value of the (1–3 levels) Same for ASST and JH • Consider shift preferences
assignment • Employees shift • Use as much of total labor • Assign all available slots to all available
• Maximize shift preferences supply as possible employees
preferences • Employee availability • Each worker is assigned • Assignments done by classification,
• Others, as deemed • Employee request for somewhere (Use a dummy with seniority and qualification within
HOLNESS, DRURY, AND BATTA
necessary voluntary layoff by press/dept for those not each classification

seniority assigned to a press position) • Bump downs, upgrades, and 12-hr shifts
• Employee request for • Each x ⫽ 0 or 1 for all are not considered.
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing

bump down by workers, depts, presses, etc. • No one receives multiple jobs. Each
seniority • Assignment of the shift person is only considered for one type
• Type of job being run union steward to first shift of job based on his or her primary
and resulting press preference classification.
width (gravure) • Which employee pairings • Run the model for one day, three shifts
• Training/Experience are possible for crews worth. Then duplicate the assignment
opportunities for 5 days.
Overtime Same as above Same as • Same as above Same as above. • Same as above
DOI: 10.1002/hfm
PA above • Employee number of • Employees considered by total of works
works and refusals and refusals.
year-to-date • First week of the year all works and
• Employees taking the refusals are zero. Employee lists are
14th day off ordered by seniority.
Note. cijkm ⫽ cost or value of assigning the ith employee (classification and seniority nested under employee) to press j during shift k. x ijkm ⫽ 1 if employee i is assigned to press
j during shift k, 0 otherwise. Pijkm ⫽ the preference of employee i of being assigned to press j during shift k (accommodates shift preferences). i ⫽ employees by primary
classification. j ⫽ seniority—years of service in plant or in current primary classification. k ⫽ qualification (maybe qualification for certain department or press—some indexed
code for each department and each press type and job type), e.g., 1 ⫽ 132 JM, 2 ⫽ 132 ASST1, etc. s ⫽ shift ⫽ $1,2,3%. m ⫽ press, which can be indexed like the qualifications.
will be carried out by whoever generates the output. The benefits of this level of careful
planning and analysis are numerous because ultimately, it will help to guarantee the suc-
cess of the new system.
At this point, it is worth noting some of the human–computer interaction (HCI) impli-
cations of using an OR model. It is assumed that the person(s) using the model would not
be familiar with OR. Therefore, some kind of user interface and software would be required
to enable whoever does the PA to make necessary changes to the model (e.g., input or
constraint values, etc.). At the base level of functionality, the model interface should have
a familiar format (e.g., Windows environment) and allow for data input, access, and inte-
gration from a variety of sources. Finally, it must accommodate both novice and expert
users. Beyond these basics, any further recommendations would depend on the details of
what the model/software will be expected to do.
7.1.3. Implementing changes. It is important to state that regardless of what changes

are decided upon, it is necessary to prepare the organization adequately for change. To do
this, Eason (1988) notes that first, the new organizational structure must be outlined in
detail, including roles and responsibilities and communication structures. Second,
the change must be facilitated through factors such as training, job descriptions,
career progression paths, and pay and benefits adjustments, etc. Third, external relations,
including labor agreements and impact on other departments and work systems must
be assessed and planned. All of these factors would be addressed by the recommended
ME analysis.
8. CONCLUSIONS
This research demonstrated the value of including a systems view when analyzing a tra-
ditional operations research problem. This view provides additional guidelines for a suc-
cessful implementation of an OR model. The knowledge elicitation questions asked during
data collection and the consequent analysis of the answers using HTA resulted in the
mapping of both the process steps and the relationships between these steps. More impor-
tantly, the use of these methods made three different analyses possible. First, the HTA
captured the interactions among personnel and the types of communication methods they
employed. Second, the HTA facilitated the classification of the steps in terms of skill-,
rule-, or knowledge- (SRK) based behavior, according to the Rasmussen (1986) criteria.
Third, it highlighted the decisions made in the process, which were further analyzed using
decisions ladders. The ladders allowed for an extended SRK analysis of the decisions
themselves. Such information, at this level of detail, would not have been captured in a
simple flowchart of the process. The preliminary ME study showed the areas in the PA
process that required additional consideration and analysis because of the potential impact
that an OR solution would have on its performance. It also allowed for an extraction of
possible objective functions, variables, model inputs, constraints, and assumptions in terms
of organizational goals, social factors and communication systems.
Future research on the use of human factors research methods as well as systems or
organizational perspective for personnel assignment problems is wide and far-reaching.
For example, it may be worth doing a strategy study like those conducted in the organi-
zational behavior literature, to test the assumption that an OR model is better equipped to
evaluate multiple variables, constraints, and objectives than does the human operator.
Additionally, if an OR model is developed for this company, it would certainly be worth
studying how the OR practitioner goes about developing the model, in terms of integrat-
ing social as well as technical factors. Finally, rigorous tests on the value added by a
human factors approach can be assessed. This can be done by comparing specific perfor-
mance metrics of completed test cases with and without the use of human factors, such as
employee involvement, implementation of the OR solution, or sustained use after imple-
mentation. Such research could lead to the formulation of methodologies to enhance the
usability of OR solutions for personnel assignment problems.
REFERENCES
Bechet, T.P., & Maki, W.R. (1987). Modeling and forecasting focusing on people as a strategic
resource. Human Resource Planning, 10(4), 209–217.
Bergmann, T.J., & Martin, G.E. (1987). Optimal large-scale manpower recruitment policies. Human
Resource Planning, 10(2), 93–101.
Bolino, M.C., & Feldman, D.C. (2000). Increasing skill utilization of expatriates. Human Resource
Management, 39(4), 367–379.
Childs, M., & Wolfe, H. (1972). A decision and value approach to research personnel allocation.
Management Science, 18(6), B269–B278.
Dean, B.V., Denzler, D.R., & Watkins, J.J. (1992). Multi-project staff scheduling with variable resource
constraints. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 39(1), 59–71.
Doyle, M. (2002). Selecting managers for transformational change. Human Resource Management
Journal, 12(1), 3–15.
Eason, K. (1988). Information technology and organizational change. London: Taylor and Francis.
Franz, L.S., Baker, H.M., Leong, G.K., & Rakes, T.R. (1989). A mathematical model for sched-
uling and staffing multiclinic health regions. European Journal of Operational Research, 41,
277–289.
Gardenfors, P. (1973). Assignment problems based on ordinal preferences. Management Science,
20(3), 331–340.
Gavish, B., & Pirkul, H. (1991). Algorithms for the multi-resource generalized assignment prob-
lem. Management Science, 37(6), 695–713.
Gomar, J.E., Haas, C.T., & Morton, D.P. (2002). Assignment and allocation optimization of par-
tially multiskilled workforce. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(2),
103–109.
Hendrick, H.W., & Kleiner, B.M. (2002). Macroergonomics: Theory, methods and applications.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Holness, K.S. (2003). Personnel assignment from a human factors perspective. In Proceedings
of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting (pp. 1394–1398). Santa
Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Langholtz, H., Gettys, C., & Foote, B. (1993). Resource allocation behavior under certainty, risk
and uncertainty. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 203–224.
Langholtz, H., Gettys, C., & Foote, B. (1994). Allocating resources over time in benign and harsh
environments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 28–50.
Langholtz, H., Gettys, C., & Foote, B. (1995). Are resource allocations anticipated in resource
allocation tasks? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(3), 274–282.
Langholtz, H.J., Ball, C., Sopchak, B., & Auble, J. (1997). Resource allocation behavior in com-
plex but commonplace tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(3),
249–266.
Langholtz, H.J., Ball, C., Sopchak, B., & Auble, J. (1998). Resource allocation strategies: A verbal
protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(1), 70–88.
Niehaus, R.J. (1988). Models for human resource decisions. Human Resource Planning, 11(2),
95–107.

Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B., & Wickens, C.D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human
interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 30(3),
286–297.
Rardin, R.L. (1998). Optimization in Operations Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information processing and human machine interaction: An approach to cog-
nitive engineering. New York: North Holland.
Roberts, D.P., & Gawron, V.J. (1986). Operator/Manager classification as a precursor to function
allocation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 30th Annual Meeting
(pp. 857–860). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Ross, G.T., & Zoltners, A.A. (1979). Weighted assignment models and their application. Manage-
ment Science, 25(7), 683– 696.
Sanders, M.S., & McCormick, E.J. (1993). Human factors in engineering and design. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Shadbolt, N., & Burton, M. (1995). Knowledge elicitation: A systematic approach. In J.R. Wilson
& E.N. Corlett (Eds.), Evaluation of human work (pp. 406– 440). London: Taylor and Francis.
Shneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human computer
interaction. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Singell, L.D., & Lillydahl, J.H. (1996). Will changing times change the allocation of faculty time?
Journal of Human Resources, 31(2), 429– 449.
Taylor, J.C., & Felten, D.F. (1993). Performance by design: Sociotechnical systems in North Amer-
ica. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Torbiorn, I. (2002). Staffing for international operations. Human Resource Management Journal,
7(3), 42–52.
Treisman, A.M. (1986). Properties, parts, and objects. In K.R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J.P. Thomas
(Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance. New York: Wiley.
Vicente, K. (1999). Cognitive work analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Villeda, R., & Dean, B.V. (1990). On the optimal safe allocation and scheduling of a workforce in
a toxic substance environment. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 37(2), 95–101.
Warner, D.M., & Prawda, J. (1972). A mathematical programming model for scheduling nursing
personnel in a hospital. Management Science, 19(4), 411– 422.
Waterson, P.E., Older Gray, M.T., & Clegg, C.W. (2002). A sociotechnical method for designing
work systems. Human Factors, 44(3), 376–391.
Wickens, C.D., & Hollands, J.G. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
View publication stats

A Systems View of Personnel Assignment Problems: Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing May 2006

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Systems View of Personnel Assignment Problems: Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing May 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

A systems view of personnel assignment problems

Article in Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing · May 2006

Karen Holness Colin G Drury

Inspection Studies View project

China Airlines Safety Culture Evaluation Project View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A Systems View of Personnel Assignment Problems

1.1. Research Background

1.2. Research Problem Statement

1.3. Research Objective

2.1. Operation Research Assignment Models

by Rardin (1998), “[The] Linear assignment model is a discrete optimization problem—an

Minimize or Maximize (i (j ci, j x i, j

(j x i, j ⫽ 1 for all i (1)

(i si, j x i, j ⱕ bj for all j (2)

2.2. Other Assignment Models and Studies

2.2.3. Organizational behavior studies. The main contribution to PA research in

tions. Using macroergonomics and human computer interaction methodologies provides

4. CASE STUDY METHOD

4.2. Data Collection Methods

1. What do you do with the paper copy? Does it stay there?

4.3. Analysis Tools

5. CASE STUDY RESULTS

Figure 1 Personnel assignment process overview.

5.1. Monday Personnel Assignment Process

decision ladder in Figure 2. Rectangles represent information-processing activities; cir-

5.2. Overtime PA Process

5.3. Skills–Rules–Knowledge Summary

6.1. Unit Operations of the Personnel Assignment Process

Unit operations for overall personnel assignment (PA) process.

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing

7.1. Full Macroergonomics–Sociotechnical Systems Study

• The PA Clerk position:

Figure 5 Example of Possible Employee Index structure.

Objective functions Variables Inputs Constraints Key model assumptions

necessary voluntary layoff by press/dept for those not each classification

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing

7.1.3. Implementing changes. It is important to state that regardless of what changes

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing DOI: 10.1002/hfm

View publication stats

You might also like