Skip to main content

"Call Scheduling Algorithms" = Call Scheduling Algoritms + Staffing

We think about call scheduling algorithms as a set of rules about when cases should be called. However, staffing is the other half of the problem. For the rules to be implemented, the staff making the calls need to be there. And, there can also be issues if the staff is too large. The rules need to account for both of these situations.

Probably the more difficult problem is a staff that is too large. For example, imagine that all active cases have been called. There is an appointment in 45 minutes. The interviewer can wait, or call cases that have already been called on this shift. Calling cases again would be inefficient and a violation of a rule of the algorithm. Still, it seems bad to not make he calls.

I wrote a paper on a call scheduling algorithm. I assigned a preferred calling window to each case. These windows changed over time as calls were placed and the results of previous calls were used to inform the assignment of preferred window. I spent a lot of time analyzing data to see how often calls were placed in the preferred window.

This issue comes up in the paper by Greenberg and Stokes. Their algorithm recommended placing 30% of the calls on the first night of the study. This is likely infeasible as a scheduling problem.

In any event, call scheduling is a complicated problem. The complications, I think, stem in part from the difficulty of implementing staffing that will match the rules of the calling. And extending results across organizations with different approaches to staffing is difficult. In evaluating these algorithms, we need to know the rules, the violations of the rules, and the results.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Assessment of Maching Learning Classifiers

I heard another interesting episode of the Data Skeptic podcast . They were discussing how a classifier could be assessed (episode 121). Many machine learning models are so complex that a human being can't really interpret the meaning of the model. This can lead to problems. They gave an example of a problem where they had a bunch of posts from two discussion boards. One was atheist and the other board was composed of Christians. They tried to classify each post as being from one or the other board. There was one poster who posted heavily on the Christian board. His name was Keith. Sadly, the model learned that if the person who was posting was named Keith, then they were Christian. The problem is that this isn't very useful for prediction. It's an artifact of the input data. Even cross-validation would eliminate this problem. A human being can see the issue, but a model can't. In any event, the proposed solution was to build interpretable models in local areas of t...
3 comments
Read more

Tailoring vs. Targeting

One of the chapters in a recent book on surveying hard-to-reach populations looks at "targeting and tailoring" survey designs. The chapter references this paper on the use of the terms among those who design health communication. I thought the article was an interesting one. They start by saying that "one way to classify message strategies like tailoring is by the level of specificity with which characteristics of the target audience are reflected in the the communication." That made sense. There is likely a continuum of specificity ranging from complete non-differentiation across units to nearly individualized. But then the authors break that continuum and try to define a "fundamental" difference between tailoring and targeting. They say targeting is for some subgroup while tailoring is to the characteristics of the individual. That sounds good, but at least for surveys, I'm not sure the distinction holds. In survey design, what would constitute ...
36 comments
Read more

What is Data Quality, and How to Enhance it in Research

  We often talk about “data quality” or “data integrity” when we are discussing the collection or analysis of one type of data or another. Yet, the definition of these terms might be unclear, or they may vary across different contexts. In any event, the terms are somewhat abstract -- which can make it difficult, in practice, to improve. That is, we need to know what we are describing with those terms, before we can improve them. Over the last two years, we have been developing a course on   Total Data Quality , soon to be available on Coursera. We start from an error classification scheme adopted by survey methodology many years ago. Known as the “Total Survey Error” perspective, it focuses on the classification of errors into measurement and representation dimensions. One goal of our course is to expand this classification scheme from survey data to other types of data. The figure shows the classification scheme as we have modified it to include both survey data and organic f...
1 comment
Read more