Conference scheduling involves organizing presentations into sessions which are assigned to time periods and rooms. This includes assuring a feasible utilization of time periods and rooms, and avoiding individual schedule conflicts. The problem increases in complexity by considering the preferences of presenters: for time periods, for rooms, etc. A greater level of complexity comes from considering the preferences of conference attendees, which we define as preference‐based conference scheduling (PBCS). This article provides a structure on which PBCS problems are founded, including empirical demonstration of solution techniques. In addition, real‐world strategic planning issues of flexibility and preference detail are explored.
AbramsonD.KrishnamoorthyM.DangH.1999. Simulated annealing cooling schedules for the school timetabling problem. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research16(1) 1–22.
2.
Alvarez‐ValdesR.MartinG.TamaritJ. M.1996. Constructing good solutions for the Spanish school timetabling problem. Journal of the Operational Research Society47(10) 1203–1215.
3.
AndersonJ. M.Bernhard.R. H.1981. A university examination‐scheduling model to minimize multiple‐examination days for students. Decision Sciences12(2) 231–239.
CarterM. W.1986. A survey of practical applications of examination timetabling algorithms. Operations Research34(2) 193–202.
8.
CarterM. W.Laporte.G. (1996). Recent developments in practical examination timetabling. In Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling, BurgeE. and RossP., (eds.), Springer, Berlin, 19.
9.
CostaD.1994. A tabu search algorithm for computing an operational timetable. European Journal of Operational Research76(1) 98–101.
10.
deWerraD.1985. An introduction to timetabling. European Journal of Operational Research19(2) 151–162.
11.
DesrochesS.LaporteG.RousseauJ. M.1978. HOREX: A computer program for the construction of examination schedules. Infor16(3) 294–298.
12.
EgleseR. W.Rand.G. K.1987. Conference seminar timetabling. Journal of the Operational Research Society38(7) 591–598.
13.
HertzA.1991. Tabu search for large scale timetabling problems. European Journal of Operational Research54(1) 39–47.
14.
JohnsonD.1990. Timetabling university examinations. Journal of the Operational Research Society41(1) 39–47.
15.
JungingerW.1986. Timetabling in Germany‐A survey. Interfaces16(4) 66–74.
16.
KeeneyR. L.Raiffa.H.1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York.
17.
KiaerL.Yellen.J.1992. Weighted graphs and university course timetabling. Computers & Operations Research19(1) 59–77.
18.
LotfiV.Sarin.S.1986. A graph coloring algorithm for large scale scheduling problems. Computers & Operations Research13(1) 27–32.
19.
MehtaN. K.1981. The application of a graph coloring method to an examination scheduling problem. Interfaces11(5) 57–64.
SalazarA.Oakford.R. V.1974. A graph formulation of a school scheduling algorithm. Communications of the ACM17(12) 696–698.
24.
SampsonS. E.FreelandJ. R.WeissE. N.1995. Class scheduling to maximize participant satisfaction. Interfaces25(3) 30–41.
25.
SampsonS. E.Weiss.E. N.1995. Increasing service levels in conference and educational scheduling: A heuristic approach. Management Science41(11) 1816–1825.
26.
SampsonS. E.Weiss.E. N.1996. Designing conferences to improve resource utilization and participant satisfaction. Journal of the Operational Research Society47(2) 297–314.
27.
SchaerfA.1999. A survey of automated timetabling. Artificial Intelligence Review13(2) 87–127.
28.
SchmidtG.Strohlein.T.1980. Timetable construction—An annotated bibliography. The Computer Journal23(4) 307–316.
29.
ThompsonJ. M.Dowsland.K. A.1998. A robust simulated annealing based examination timetabling system. Computers & Operations Research25(7,8) 12.
30.
WhiteG.Chan.P.1979. Towards the construction of optimal examination schedules. Canadian Journal of Operational Research and Information Processing17(3) 219–229.
