Workforce Scheduling with Order-Picking Assignments in Distribution Facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scheduling the availability of order pickers is crucial for effective operations in a distribution facility with manual order pickers. When order-picking activities can only be performed in specific time windows, it is essential to jointly solve the order picker shift scheduling problem and the order picker planning problem of assigning and sequencing individual orders to order pickers. This requires decisions regarding the number of order pickers to schedule, shift start and end times, break times, as well as the assignment and timing of order-picking activities. We call this the order picker scheduling problem and present two formulations. A branch-and-price algorithm and a metaheuristic are developed to solve the problem. Numerical experiments illustrate that the metaheuristic finds near-optimal solutions at 80% shorter computation times. A case study at the largest supermarket chain in The Netherlands shows the applicability of the solution approach in a real-life business application. In particular, different shift structures are analyzed, and it is concluded that the retailer can increase the minimum compensated duration for employed workers from six hours to seven or eight hours while reducing the average labor cost with up to 5% savings when a 15-minute flexibility is implemented in the scheduling of break times.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".