MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3030601836 · doi:10.1111/poms.13362

Constant Job‐Allowance Policies for Appointment Scheduling: Performance Bounds and Numerical Analysis

2021· article· en· W3030601836 on OpenAlexafffund
Shenghai Zhou, Yichuan Ding, Woonghee Tim Huh, Guohua Wan

Bibliographic record

VenueProduction and Operations Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAllowance (engineering)QueueScheduling (production processes)ScheduleComputer scienceUpper and lower boundsConstant (computer programming)Mathematical optimizationJob shop schedulingTime horizonOperations researchMathematicsOperations managementEconomicsComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the classical appointment scheduling problem that does not have a session length constraint. The decision is to determine job allowances to minimize total expected weighted costs of waiting times of jobs and idle times of the service provider. In particular, we study a simple yet effective scheduling policy—the so‐called “constant" policy, which allocates a constant job allowance for each appointment. Prior studies on appointment scheduling suggest a “dome”‐shaped structure for the optimal job allowance over the planning horizon. This implies that job allowance does not vary significantly in the middle of the schedule sequence, but varies at the beginning as well as the end of the optimal schedule. We show that an even simple scheduling policy—the constant policy, is asymptotically optimal thus provide theoretical justification for such a widely used policy. Using a dynamic programming formulation, we express each job's waiting time as the maximum of a random walk, which allows us to bound the performance gap between the constant policy and the optimal schedule based on classical results on D/ G/1 queues. We derive an explicit upper bound for the performance gap when either of the following conditions holds: (i) the server idling cost is relatively small compared to the job waiting cost, and (ii) the number of appointments is sufficiently large. We also extend this result to a more general setting with multiple service types. Numerical experiments show that the constant policy is near optimal even when the number of appointments is small or when the server idling cost is moderately large, which complements our theoretical results. Our result provides a justification and strong support for the constant policy under certain mild conditions. Moreover, with minor modifications, the constant policy can be adapted to more general scenarios with patient no‐shows, or with heterogeneous appointment types.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProduction and Operations ManagementSame topicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationFrench-language works237,207