Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun. 2016, 64(6), 2047-2051 | DOI: 10.11118/actaun201664062047

Dynamic Planning of Experiments for the Optimisation of Managerial Scheduling

Tomáš Macák, Jan Hron
Department of Managemt, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague, Kamycka 129, 16521 Prague 6, Czech Republic

Time management has a crucial role in organizations and also in our personal lives. Managerial scheduling is an important tool for the time management, especially It can serve as a tool for the first phase, of time management - namely for effective planning. This paper focusses on finding the best possible setting for determining significant the best layout for activities according to the criteria of urgency and importance using a modified steepest ascent method, which can be referred as dynamic scheduling. This term indicates the nature of the method; wherein the experimental design space is changed to look for the best conditions for adjustment factors influencing a managerial process. Existing methods for layout optimization mentioned in the literature and conventionally implemented in practice have only shown local optima.

Keywords: dynamic planning, steepest ascent, experimental space, managerial scheduling

Prepublished online: December 21, 2016; Published: January 1, 2017  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Macák, T., & Hron, J. (2016). Dynamic Planning of Experiments for the Optimisation of Managerial Scheduling. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 64(6), 2047-2051. doi: 10.11118/actaun201664062047
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. BINGHAM, D. and SITTER, R. S. 2001. Design Issues in Fractional Factorial Split-Plot Experiments. Journal of Quality Technology, 33: 1-15. DOI: 10.1080/00224065.2001.11980043 Go to original source...
    2. BISGAARD, S. 2000. The Design and Analysis of Split Plot Experiment. Journal of Quality Technology, 32: 39-56. DOI: 10.1080/00224065.2000.11979970 Go to original source...
    3. BOX, G. E. P. 1996. Split-Plot Experiments. Quality Engineering, 8: 515-520. DOI: 10.1080/08982119608904655 Go to original source...
    4. BOX, G. E. P. and JONES, S. 1992. Split-Plot Designs for Robust Product Experimentation. Journal of Applied Statistics, 19: 3-26. DOI: 10.1080/02664769200000001 Go to original source...
    5. GOOS, P. and VANDEBROEK, M. 2001. Optimal Split-Plot Designs. Journal of Quality Technology, 33: 436-450. DOI: 10.1080/00224065.2001.11980103 Go to original source...
    6. HUANG, P., CHEN, D., and VOELKEL, J. O. 1998. Minimum- Aberration Two-Level Split-Plot Designs. Technometrics, 40: 314-326. DOI: 10.1080/00401706.1998.10485560 Go to original source...
    7. KOWALSKI, S. M., VINING, G. G., MONTGOMERY, D. C.; and BORROR, C. M. 2004. Modifying a Central Composite Design to Model the Process Mean and Variance When There Are Hard-to-Change Factors. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 55: 615-630. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9876.2006.00556.x Go to original source...
    8. LETSINGER, J. D., MYERS, R. H.; and LENTNER, M. 1996. Response Surface Methods for Bi-Randomization Structures. Journal of Quality Technology, 28: 381-397. DOI: 10.1080/00224065.1996.11979697 Go to original source...
    9. LUCAS, J. M. and HAZEL, M. C. 1997. Running Experiments With Multiple Error Terms: How an Experiment Is Run Is Important. In: ASQC Technical Conference Transactions. Milwaukee, WI: American Society for Quality Control, 283-296.
    10. MYERS, R. H., MONTGOMERY, D. C.; VINING, G. G., BORROR, C. M., and KOWALSKI, S. M. 2004. Response Surface Methodology: A Retrospective and Literature Survey. Journal of Quality Technology: ASQC Technical Conference Transactions, 36: 53-77. Go to original source...
    11. VINING, G. G., KOWALSKI, S. M., and MONTGOMERY, D. C. 2005. Response surface designs within a split-plot structure. Journal of Quality Technology, 37(2): 115-129. DOI: 10.1080/00224065.2005.11980310 Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content