Taxonomy of Scheduling Systems as a Basis for the Study of Strategic Behavior

Abstract

Strategic behavior is frequently characterized by the need to decide among several courses of action, each of which may lead to a desired goal, subject to time constraints. Often strategic behavior can be regarded as a series of answers to the question, "In what sequence should I perform the set of actions required, and when should I start and stop each of them?" Scheduling theory, which is usually used to determine the sequencing of operations in such situations as transportation and manufacturing, provides normative answers to such a question. We introduce the concepts and terminology of scheduling theory and show how these can be identified with aspects of human operator behavior. Scheduling theory can provide a systematic conceptual framework for planning research on behavior in complex human-machine settings, both in and beyond laboratory contexts. It can be used to discover optimal or satisficing strategies and to provide norms against which to measure the quality of strategic decision making and performance in complex systems. The use of scheduling theory is one example of the many well-developed quantitative models available in operations research that are applicable to the analysis of behavior, well beyond the discrete trials paradigm that often characterizes human factors laboratory research.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bainbridge, L. (1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19, 755–779.

Baker, K. R. (1974). Introduction to sequencing and scheduling. New York: Wiley.

Card, S. K. , Moran, T. P. , and Newell, A. 1983. The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Conway, R. W. , Maxwell, W. L. , and Miller, L. W. (1967). Theory of scheduling. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Dietrich, B. L. (1991). A taxonomy of discrete manufacturing systems. Operations Research, 39, 886–902.

Dutton, J. M. , and Starbuck, W. (1971). Finding Charlie's runtime estimator. In J. M. Dutton and W. Starbuck (Eds.), Computer simulation of human behavior. New York: Wiley.

Fisher, D. L. (1993). Optimal performance engineering: Good. better, best. Human Factors, 35, 115–140.

French, S. (1982). Sequencing and scheduling: An introduction to the mathematics of the Job Shop. Chichester. England: Harwood.

Graham, R. L. , Lawler, E. L. , Lenstra, J. K. , and Rinnooy Kan, A. H. G. (1979). Optimization and approximation in deterministic sequencing and scheduling: A survey. Annals of Discrete Mathematics, 5, 287–326.

10.

Graves, S. C. (1981). A review of production scheduling. Operations Research, 29, 646–675.

11.

Holte, R. , Mok, A. , Rosier, L. , Tulchinsky, I. , and Varvel, D. , (1989). The pinwheel: A real-time scheduling problem. In Proceedings of the 22nd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science (pp. 693-702).

12.

Klein, G. , Orasanu, J. , Calderwood, R. , and Zsambok, C. E. (1993). Decision making in action: Models and methods. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

13.

Lawler, E. L. , Lenstra, J. K. , Rinnooy Kan, A. H. G. , and Shmoys, D. B. (1989). Sequencing and scheduling: Algorithms and complexity (Report BS-R8909). Amsterdam: Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science.

14.

Lenstra, J. K. (1977). Sequencing by enumerative methods (Mathematical Centre Tracts 69). Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.

15.

Lenstra, J. K. , and Rinnooy Kan, A. H. G. (1985). Scheduling theory since 1981: An annotated bibliography (Combinatorial Optimization: Annotated Bibliographies Series). Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.

16.

Moray, N. (1986). Monitoring behavior and supervisory control. In K. R. Boff , L. Kaufman . and J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance (pp. 40.1–40.51). New York: Wiley.

17.

Moray, N. (1990a). A lattice theory approach to the structure of mental models. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 8327, 577–584.

18.

Moray, N. (1990b). Prologomena to a standard terminology for use in research on strategic behavior (Tech. Report EPRL-90-04). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Engineering Psychology Research Laboratory.

19.

Moray, N. , Dessouky, M. I. , Kijowski, B. A. , and Adapathya, R. (1991). Strategic behavior, workload, and performance in task scheduling. Human Factors, 33, 607–29.

20.

Panwalker, S. S. , and Iskander, W. (1977). A survey of scheduling rules. Operations Research, 25, 45–1.

21.

Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information processing and human machine interaction. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

22.

Reason, J. (1992). Human error. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

23.

Rodammer, F. A. , and White, K. P., Jr. , (1988). A recent survey of production scheduling. IEEE Transactions On Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-18, 841–851.

24.

Sabadosh, N. , and Moray, N. (1991). STRESSFWL: Strategic research simulation for workload (Tech. Report). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Engineering Psychology Research Laboratory.

25.

Sanderson, P. M. (1989). The human planning and scheduling role in advanced manufacturing systems: An emerging human factors domain. Human Factors, 31, 635–667.

26.

Sheridan, T. B. (1988). Please, no more “optimum MMI's”; Or, please watch your language! Human Factors Society Bulletin, 31(6), 4.

27.

Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

28.

Smith, W. E. (1956). Various optimizers for single-stage production. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 3, 59–66.

29.

Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

30.

Tulga, M. K. , and Sheridan, T. B. (1980). Dynamic decisions and workload in multitask supervisory control. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-10, 217–232.

31.

Wickens, C. D. (1984). Engineering psychology and human performance. Columbus. OH: Merrill.