IIE Transactions (2008) 40, 495–508

Copyright

C “IIE”

ISSN: 0740-817X print / 1545-8830 online

DOI: 10.1080/07408170701598124

An exact algorithm for a workforce allocation problem

with application to an analysis of cross-training policies
MICHAEL J. BRUSCO
Department of Marketing, College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110, USA
E-mail: mbrusco@cob.fsu.edu

Received October 2006 and accepted June 2007

The evaluation of workforce staffing and scheduling policies is of paramount importance for meeting the challenge of simultaneously
providing good customer service and low operational costs. Policy studies are particularly critical in workforce environments plagued by
staffing shortages. The cross-utilization of employees among different departments or work centers is a well-recognized staffing policy
for coping with shortages. We revisit a non-linear assignment problem for allocating cross-trained workers so as to maximize overall
utility, which is measured using a quadratic function of labor shortages. We develop a branch-and-bound algorithm that efficiently
provides optimal solutions for problems of practical size. This algorithm is then used to conduct a computational investigation of
cross-training policies. Among the most critical factors affecting utility improvement are the coefficient of variation for demand,
worker absenteeism, the percentage of cross-trained workers and cross-training breadth. Several important interactions among these
and other factors are also identified.
Keywords: Cross-training, workforce allocation, chaining, branch and bound

1. Introduction requirements in mail processing and distribution centers

Workforce staffing and scheduling research comprises a
substantial component of the literature base in service ca-
pacity management. Areas of application include hospital
nursing (Bard and Purnomo, 2005; Wright et al., 2006), tele-
phone operations and call centers (Brusco and Jacobs, 2000;
Iravani et al., 2007), postal facilities (Jarrah et al., 1994;
Bard, 2004; Bard and Wan, 2005), toll collection booths
(Jacobs and Brusco, 1996), fast-food restaurants (Hueter
and Swart, 1998) and airport stations (Brusco and Jacobs,
1998; Mason et al., 1998). A significant portion of the aca-
demic literature focuses on the development of optimal and
heuristic solution procedures for staffing and scheduling
problems; however, there are also research streams that em-
phasize the assessment of staffing and scheduling policies.
Many published studies offer both a methodological and
policy analysis contribution.
The cross-utilization of workers among different skill
classes, departments or work centers is an especially impera-
tive area of study that requires effective solution procedures
and analysis of policies. In practice, there are many situa-
tions where labor requirements must be subdivided based
on departments, work centers or skill categories. For exam-
ple, requirements for agents in a telephone call center could
be partitioned into sales orders and customer inquiries (e.g.,
Andrews and Cunningham (1995)). Different skill cate-
gories also necessitate the specification of multiple sets of
(Bard, 2004). The demand for hospital nursing labor is of-
ten specified by department and/or skill class (registered
nurses, licensed practical nurses, nursing assistants, etc.),
which offers the potential for both downward substitution
among the skill classes as well as “float pools” of nurses who
can work in different departments (Warner and Prawda,
1972; Trivedi and Warner, 1976).
The potential for cross-utilization of a workforce is a
function of the cross-training of employees. During the past
10 years, there has been a concerted effort to better under-
stand the benefits of cross-training in both manufacturing
(Slomp and Molleman, 2002; Bokhorst et al., 2004; Hopp
et al., 2004; Hopp and Van Oyen, 2004; Jordan et al., 2004;
Iravani et al., 2005) and service environments (Brusco and
Johns, 1998; Campbell, 1999; Inman et al., 2005; Iravani
et al., 2007). Although our interest in this paper focuses on
service operations, many of the relevant issues are portable
across both service and manufacturing systems (Iravani
et al., 2005).
The hierarchy of workforce planning presented in
Abernathy et al. (1973) provides one possible basis for fram-
ing recent cross-utilization research pertaining to service
operations. The levels of the hierarchy, from top to bot-
tom, are: (i) planning; (ii) scheduling; and (iii) allocation.
At the planning phase, which is sometimes referred to as
the “staffing” or “budgeting” phase, staffing levels and skill
mixes for each department or work center are established

0740-817X

C 2008 “IIE”
496
for an annual or semi-annual basis. The scheduling phase
focuses on the assignment of employees to days-off and
daily shift patterns for a period that is typically 1 to 4 weeks.
The allocation phase focuses on the day-to-day, within- and
between-shift adjustments of labor across departments to
more effectively meet changing requirements attributable
to demand and capacity variations.
Brusco and Johns (1998) provided an analysis of cross-
training policies at the planning phase. They used an in-
teger programming model to determine the number of
workers in different skill classes with the objective of min-
imizing staffing costs subject to constraints that guar-
anteed satisfaction of labor requirements in all depart-
ments (no shortages were permitted). Iravani et al. (2007)
focused on a strategic analysis of cross-training struc-
tures for inbound call centers. They developed an innova-
tive deterministic rule for evaluating different structures,
which was based on average path length in small-world
networks.
In contrast, Campbell (1999) and Inman et al. (2005)
investigated cross-training policies for hospital nursing at
the allocation phase; however, the contexts of their analy-
ses were markedly different. Campbell (1999) proposed a
non-linear assignment model for allocating cross-trained
workers at the beginning of a shift with the objective of
maximizing a utility function. His experimental analysis
was based on obtaining heuristic solutions to the result-
ing optimization model for synthetically constructed test
cases, and evaluating cross-training policies based on im-
provement in the utility function. In contrast, Inman et al.
(2005) built a simulation model that was used to inves-
tigate the performance of several cross-training policies
when randomness with respect to both demand and capac-
ity was present. The performance measure in their study
was the number of nursing shifts that had to be met via
staff from a supplemental nursing agency. More recently,
Batta et al. (2007) presented a mathematical program-
ming model and column generation heuristic for service
systems that process multiple types of customers. Their
model, which is adaptable for multiple phases of the work-
force planning hierarchy, is characterized by an objec-
tive function that considers both staffing and switching
(reassignment of employees to different customer types)
costs.
Our paper revisits the Non-linear Workforce Allocation
Problem (NWAP) studied by Campbell (1999). The mo-
tivation for this additional investigation is based on sev-
eral factors. First, the context of Campbell’s policy study
was one where cross-utilization is apt to be especially con-
structive because many service environments must operate
in the presence of labor shortages. The provision of hos-
pital nursing care, for example, is a noteworthy area of
study where cross-utilization is one strategy for coping with
shortages of labor (Jack and Powers, 2004; Inman et al.,
2005; Wright et al., 2006). For his analyses, Campbell se-
lected an objective function of maximizing utility, which
Brusco
was measured using a quadratic function of shortage costs.
Although this is a legitimate and reasonable criterion with
an established history in the literature (Warner and Prawda,
1972; Trivedi and Warner, 1976), we outline a couple of
alternative criteria that might be appropriate for certain
situations.
The second reason for revisiting Campbell’s model is to
offer an exact solution procedure for the NWAP. Campbell
solved the NWAP using a linear assignment heuristic (see
Campbell and Diaby (2002)) and demonstrated that this
procedure typically yielded a small departure from an upper
bound. With respect to the development of exact methods
for the NWAP, Campbell and Diaby (2002, p. 20) observed
that “. . . optimal solutions are likely to remain elusive”.
Nevertheless, we developed a branch-and-bound procedure
that provided a confirmed, globally optimal assignment of
workers in less than a CPU second for more than 96% of
the 4096 cross-utilization problems in our test set. The algo-
rithm, which can be modified easily for alternative objective
criteria, facilitates cross-utilization experiments without the
need for qualifying results based on the potential for sub-
optimal solutions.
The third motivating issue for this paper is that Campbell
offered an interesting experimental paradigm for evaluat-
ing the effectiveness of a cross-training policy within the
context of the NWAP. Nevertheless, since the time his study
was conducted, several important cross-training issues have
been offered in the literature. A particularly salient aspect of
cross-training is the structural flexibility provided by chain-
ing skill classes of workers, which was originally proposed
by Jordan and Graves (1995) in the context of manufac-
turing process flexibility. A lack of chaining occurs when
departments are partitioned into subgroups (usually pairs
of departments) such that there is cross-training within the
subgroups but not between the subgroups (see, for exam-
ple, the discussion of reciprocal pairs presented in Inman
et al. (2005)). In contrast, when chaining is present, no such
partition exists. Instead, an “overlapping subgroup” per-
spective is appropriate, where each subgroup shares depart-
ments with other subgroups. The beneficial consequences
of chaining have received considerable attention (Brusco
and Johns, 1998; Graves and Tomlin, 2003; Hopp et al.,
2004; Hopp and Van Oyen, 2004; Jordan et al., 2004; Inman
et al., 2005; Iravani et al., 2005, 2007). Aside from chaining,
the importance of worker absenteeism (Slomp and Molle-
man, 2002; Inman et al., 2005) and partial cross-training
(i.e., having some percentage of the workforce that is cross-
trained) are other relevant issues for experimental investi-
gation. Accordingly, we have broadened Campbell’s (1999)
study to accommodate chaining, partial-cross-training and
absenteeism factors. Our results shed some new insights re-
garding main effects and interactions among experimental
factors.
In Section 2, we describe the NWAP, address possi-
ble variations of the objective function and present the
Campbell–Diaby linear assignment heuristic (Campbell
Cross-utilization of workers
and Diaby, 2002). This is followed in Section 3 by a de-
scription of the proposed branch-and-bound algorithm for
solving the NWAP. Section 4 compares the performances
of the linear assignment heuristic and branch-and-bound
algorithm for two test problems: (i) a small example re-
ported by both Campbell (1999) and Campbell and Diaby
(2002); and (ii) a larger example based on data from a 600-
bed Florida hospital (Brusco, 1990). Section 5 describes the
design and results of the computational study. The paper
concludes with a brief summary in Section 6.
2. An allocation problem for a cross-trained workforce
2.1. The NWAP due to Campbell (1999)
Campbell (1999) presented the NWAP for allocating cross-
trained workers to departments or work centers with an ob-
jective of maximizing overall utility. The NWAP allows for
a variety of possible utility functions (Warner and Prawda,
1972), fractional worker capabilities (Campbell, 1999) and
the inclusion of side constraints. Our description uses the
following parameters.
D = the number of departments or work centers, indexed
d = 1, 2, . . . , D;
N = the number of workers requiring assignment to a
department, indexed n = 1, 2, . . . , N;
and = the productivity of worker n in department d, where
0 ≤ and ≤ 1 for 1 ≤ n ≤ N and 1 ≤ d ≤ D;
Sn = the set of departments for which worker n has
non-negative productivity, and > 0 ⇒ {d} ∈ Sn ,
for 1 ≤ n ≤ N and 1 ≤ d ≤ D;
wd = the relative importance weight for department d, for
1 ≤ d ≤ D;
rd = the requirement for workers in department d, for
1 ≤ d ≤ D.
The decision variables of the model are as follows.
ynd = 1 if worker n is assigned to department d, 0 other-
wise, for 1 ≤ n ≤ N and d ∈ Sn ;
pd = the total workforce productivity assigned to depart-
ment d, for 1 ≤ d ≤ D.
Using these definitions, the NWAP is represented as follows.


D

max Z1 = g(pd ),
d=1
subject to

lected in the objective function regardless of whether de-
ynd = 1 for 1 ≤ n ≤ N,
d∈Sn


N the model. The second term in Equation (6) imposes the
and ynd = pd for 1 ≤ d ≤ D,
n=1
ynd ∈ {0, 1} for 1 ≤ n ≤ N, d ∈ Sn ,
497
where
  
wd rd2 − (rd − pd )2 for pd < rd
g(pd ) = for 1 ≤ d ≤ D. (5)
wd rd2 for pd ≥ rd
The objective function of the NWAP, as defined by
Equation (1), is an additive function of utilities of the
individual departments, g(pd ), for 1 ≤ d ≤ D. As shown
in Equation (5), the utility of department d is a quadratic
function of departmental shortage. If the productive work-
load in department d equals or exceeds the labor require-
ment (i.e., pd ≥ rd ), then the full contribution of weighted
utility is awarded (i.e., wd rd2 ). However, if pd < rd , then
the contribution to the utility is reduced by weighting the
squared shortage. Specifically, wd rd2 is reduced by wd (rd –
pd )2 . Constraint set (2) ensures that each worker is assigned
to only one department. Constraint set (3) links depart-
mental productive workload to worker assignments. Con-
straint set (4) imposes binary restrictions on the assignment
variables.
2.2. Variations of the objective function for the NWAP
The objective function of the NWAP reduces the depart-
ment utility by imposing a quadratic penalty for shortages.
This criterion, which draws heavily on the work of Warner
and Prawda (1972), is predicated on the assumption that
shortage costs are a non-linear increasing function of the
magnitude of the shortage, see also Hershey et al. (1974).
Warner and Prawda (1972) cited several hospital staffing
studies to support the quadratic shortage penalty (Connor,
1960; Stafford and Schlotfeldt, 1960; Feyerherm and Kirk,
1964). Quadratic, or variance-type, criteria for equitable
distribution of employee surpluses have also been described
in the literature (Bechtold, 1981; Easton and Rossin, 1991).
For consistency with the work presented in Campbell
(1999) and Campbell and Diaby (2002), our presentation
of solution methods for the NWAP in subsequent sec-
tions will use their original objective function as defined
by Equations (1) and (5). Nevertheless, we recognize that
different objective criteria could also be employed. An
alternative presentation of the objective function of the
NWAP facilitates the development of other objective cri-
teria. Specifically, Equations (1) and (5) can be collapsed
as follows:
D

D
(1) max Z1 = wd rd2 − wd (max(rd − pd , 0))2 . (6)
d=1 d=1
The first term in Equation (6) is a constant, which is col-
(2) partmental shortages do or do not exist (see Equation
(5)). Accordingly, this constant term can be deleted from
(3) quadratic penalty based on the shortage. Deletion of the
constant term and changing the sign of the second term
(4) clearly illustrates that the objective function of the NWAP
498 Brusco

can be stated precisely as minimizing a weighted quadratic
function of shortage:


D
min Z2 = wd (max(rd − pd , 0))2 . (7)
d=1
Using this restatement of the objective function of the
NWAP, it is easy to construct a host of alternative objec-
tive criteria. We offer two possible adaptations. The first
adaptation is based on the criticism that Equation (7) does
not consider the magnitude of the shortage relative to the
requirement. A shortage of three workers would incur the
same penalty in the objective function regardless of whether
the labor requirement was ten or 100. For service envi-
ronments where there is considerable disparity among the
labor requirements, an alternative criterion that expresses
the shortage as a percentage of the requirement might be
appropriate:

  2
D
rd − pd
min Z3 = wd max ,0 . (8)
d=1
rd
As another example, consider service systems where cus-
tomer waiting can be reduced by providing additional work-
ers. In such instances, the provision of surplus employees
could possibly offer an improvement in utility. Although
many alternatives for accommodating this scenario exist,
one potential modification of Equation (7) is


D tic requires solution of the following linear assignment
max Z4 = wd (α(max{pd − rd , 0})2
d=1
− (1 − α)(max{rd − pd , 0})2 ). (9)
The objective function posed by Equation (9) maximizes
a weighted function of shortages and surpluses. If pd >
rd , then a positive contribution to the objective function,
weighted by α, is awarded for the squared surplus. On
the other hand, if pd < rd , then a penalty on the objective
function, weighted by (1 − α), is imposed for the squared
shortage. The parameter α (0 < α < 1) controls the rela-
tive importance of surpluses and shortages. For example, if
α = 1/3, then a shortage would be penalized twice as much
as a surplus of the same magnitude would be rewarded.
2.3. Linear assignment heuristic
Campbell and Diaby (2002) observed that the NWAP can
be approached using a variety of heuristic solution proce-
dures. Additionally, these authors concluded that verifiably
optimal solutions for the general case that permits frac-
tional productivity coefficients would likely remain elusive,
and that branch-and-bound schemes would typically re-
quire excessive computation times. Campbell and Diaby
(2002) developed a linear assignment heuristic, which pro-
duces guaranteed optimal solutions when the productivity
coefficients are binary, and sharply outperformed a greedy
heuristic and a Lagrangian relaxation heuristic in their ex-
periments. In addition to the previously presented notation,
the linear assignment heuristic requires definition of the fol-
lowing parameters.
B = an N × D matrix, [bnd ], with columns containing
the ranked and values in descending order;
pmxdq = the largest possible value of pd prior to assign-
ment of slot q (i.e., the qth worker assigned) in
department d (this quantity is the sum of the
first q − 1 elements in column d of matrix B), for
1 ≤ d ≤ D and 1 ≤ q ≤ N;
ndq = an estimate of the improvement in the objective
function value (1) that is realized from assigning
worker n to slot q in department d, for 1 ≤ n ≤ N,
1 ≤ d ≤ D and 1 ≤ q ≤ N;
The computation of ndq proceeds as follows:

g(pmxdq + and ) − g(pmxdq ) for and ≤ bqd
dq =
n
0 for and > bqd
for 1 ≤ n ≤ N, 1 ≤ d ≤ D and 1 ≤ q ≤ N. (10)
We also define the following decision variables:
xndq = 1 if worker n is assigned to slot q in department
d, 0 otherwise, for 1 ≤ n ≤ N, d ∈ Sn and 1 ≤
q ≤ N.
With these definitions in place, the Campbell–Diaby heuris-
problem.


N


N
max Z5 = ndq xndq , (11)
n=1 d∈Sn q=1
subject to



N
xndq = 1 for 1 ≤ n ≤ N, (12)
d∈Sn q=1


N
xndq ≤ 1 for 1 ≤ d ≤ D, 1 ≤ q ≤ N, (13)
n=1
xndq ∈ {0, 1} for 1 ≤ n ≤ N, d ∈ Sn . (14)
The objective function (11) represents the maximization
of the estimated utility. Constraint set (12) requires each
worker to be assigned to one of the available department
slots. Constraint set (13) ensures that no more than one
worker is assigned to a slot, and constraint set (14) places
the binary restrictions on the assignment variables.
The use of slots and the clever development of the ndq
parameters are the crux of the Campbell–Diaby procedure.
For the case of and ∈ {0, 1} for all 1 ≤ n ≤ N and 1 ≤ d ≤ D,
the parameter estimates of ndq represent the exact marginal
contribution to the objective function, and thus the optimal
solution to the linear assignment heuristic is also an optimal
solution to the NWAP. However, in the case of fractional
Cross-utilization of workers 499

productivity coefficients, the ndq values can underestimate Step 0. INITIALIZE. Compute τnd for 1 ≤ n ≤ N and
the actual marginal contribution. The reason for this under- 1 ≤ d ≤ D. Compute jnde for 1 ≤ j < n ≤ N and
estimation is that the pmxdq values are computed based on 1 ≤ d, e ≤ D. Set n = 0, λm = 0 for 1 ≤ m ≤ N,
maximum possible pd values, which might not be realized λ∗ = [λ1 , λ2 , ..., λN ], f (λ∗ ) = 0, and γd = 0 for 1
because slots could be filled by workers with productivity ≤ d ≤ D.
coefficients that are smaller than the maximum possible for Step 1. ADVANCE. Set n = n + 1, d = 1, λn = d and γd =
slots. γd + and .
Step 2. SUBOPTIMAL ASSIGNMENT. If and = 0, then
3. A branch-and-bound algorithm go to Step 6.
Step 3. REDUNDANCY. If jned = 1 for any 1 ≤ j ≤ n −
3.1. Algorithm development 1 where e = λj , then go to Step 6.
We offer a branch-and-bound method for obtaining opti- Step 4. BOUND TEST. Compute the following upper
mal solutions to the NWAP. The algorithm uses a forward bound for a completed solution:
branching scheme where the level of depth in the search tree

D
corresponds to a particular worker. We refer to a partial as- fUB = hd , (17)
signment as one where some, but not all, workers have been d=1
assigned to a department. We have found that sequencing
where
the workers, such that those with primary responsibility in
the departments with greater workload requirements (i.e.,
larger rd values) are placed first in the ordering, reduces
the computation time. We also compute two sets of indices
prior to entering the branch-and-bound process. These in-
dices, which play significant roles during the execution of
the branch-and-bound algorithm, need only be computed
once and are subsequently called as necessary during the
search process. They are computed as follows:


N
τnd = amd for 1 ≤ n ≤ N and 1 ≤ d ≤ D, (15)
m=n+1
 Step 8.
 1 if ane = aje , and > ajd and d = e

 n − 1. If n = 0, then return the incumbent solution,
1 if ane = aje , ajd = and and d > e
jnde = which is an optimal solution, and STOP; otherwise,

 set d = λn and return to Step 6.
0 otherwise
for 1 ≤ j < n ≤ N and 1 ≤ d, e ≤ D.
(16)
The value of τnd represents the best possible further con-
tribution to productivity in department d that can be real-
ized across all N – n workers after worker n in the list (for
1 ≤ n ≤ N and 1 ≤ d ≤ D). The values of jnde facilitate
the avoidance of redundant solutions. For example, sup-
pose that worker j precedes worker n in the list of workers,
and that worker j has already been assigned to department
d and worker n is currently under consideration for assign-
ment to department e. If ane = aje , and > ajd , and d = e,
then we could get the same coverage in department e and
better coverage in department d by switching the assign-
ments of the two workers and, therefore, jnde is set to one
to ensure that the partial assignment would be pruned. Sim-
ilarly, if ane = aje , ajd = and and d = e, then switching the
assignments of workers n and j would have no effect; how-
ever, one of the partial assignments (j assigned to d and
n assigned to e, or j assigned to e and n assigned to d)
must be pursued. Hence, for this condition, we only prune
if d > e. The steps of the branch-and-bound algorithm are
as follows:
 
wd rd2 − (rd − (γd + τnd ))2 for (γd + τnd ) < rd
hd = wd rd2 for (γd + τnd ) ≥ rd (18)

for 1 ≤ d ≤ D.
If fUB < f (λ∗ ), then go to Step 6.
Step 5. COMPLETE ASSIGNMENT? If n = N, then go
to Step 1. Otherwise, set λ∗ = λ and store f (λ∗ ).
Step 6. DISPENSATION. If d = D, then go to Step 8.
Step 7. DEPARTMENT REASSIGNMENT. Set
γd = γd – and . Set d = d + 1, λn = d and
γd = γd + and . Return to Step 2.
RETRACTION. Set λn = 0, γd = γd – and and n =
Step 0 requires the preliminary computations of τnd and
jnde parameters. The pointer for the branch-and-bound al-
gorithm, which marks the worker whose assignment is un-
der current consideration, is set to n = 0. An N-dimensional
vector, λ, with elements λm (1 ≤ m ≤ N) representing the
department to which worker m is assigned is also initialized
to zero. This vector is the initial incumbent solution, λ∗ ,
with the corresponding objective value of f (λ∗ ) = 0. The
productivity sums for each department, 1 ≤ d ≤ D are also
initialized to zero at Step 0.
Step 1 advances the pointer to the next worker by set-
ting n = n + 1, and this worker is assigned to the first de-
partment, d = 1. Department 1 is recorded as the place-
ment of worker n (i.e., λn = d) and the current productivity
sum is incremented for the department via γd = γd + and .
Steps 2 through 4 are the most important steps of the al-
gorithm because they provide rules for pruning of partial
assignments and prevent complete enumeration of all fea-
sible solutions. Step 2 prunes a partial assignment if and =
0, and is based on the rationale that an assignment of
worker n to department d when and = 0 (and = 0) cannot
possibly improve (worsen) the objective function. To avoid
500
redundant solutions as described above, Step 3 prunes a
partial assignment of worker n to department d if jned =
1 for any worker j earlier in the list assigned to department
e = λj .
At Step 4, a partial assignment is pruned if it can be veri-
fied that a completed solution stemming from the partial as-
signment cannot achieve a utility value greater than the in-
cumbent value, f (λ∗ ). The upper bound, fUB , computed in
Equations (17) and (18) combines the current departmental
assignments (γd , 1 ≤ d ≤ D) and the greatest possible addi-
tional contribution to each department’s assignment from
workers n + 1, . . . , N (τnd , 1 ≤ d ≤ D). Thus, fUB provides
a best-case scenario for completion of the partial assign-
ment, and if fUB < f (λ∗ ), then a pruning operation occurs.
A partial assignment that makes it to Step 5 has passed all
of the pruning tests. If n = N at Step 5, then the current
partial assignment is, in fact, a complete assignment and is
accepted as the new best-found solution. If n < N at Step
5, then processing returns to Step 1 for advancement in the
search tree via assignment of the next worker in the list.
Step 6 controls the processing of pruned partial solu-
tions, as well as completed solutions. If d < D at Step 6,
then the department assignment for the current worker n
is incremented to the next department in Step 7. Depart-
ment reassignment in Step 7 requires removal of the pro-
ductivity contribution from worker n in the current depart-
ment (γd = γd – and ), advancement of the department index
(d = d+ 1), and then addition of the productivity contribu-
tion for this new department assignment (γd = γd + and ). If
d = D at Step 6, then advancement of the department in-
dex for the current position is not possible and retraction
occurs at Step 8 by backing up one worker in the sequence
(n = n –1). If n = 0, then all assignments have been explic-
itly or implicitly enumerated and the algorithm terminates
with an optimal solution; otherwise, processing returns to
Step 6 for dispensation of the partial assignment.
3.2. Strengths and limitations of the algorithm
In the worst case, the proposed branch-and-bound algo-
rithm for solving the NWAP can devolve into exhaustive
enumeration of all possible assignments. Accordingly, we
acknowledge that our proposed method can require signif-
icant computation time for some test problems. We have
successfully solved NWAPs with up to N = 80 workers and
D = 8 departments. Some problems of this size are solved
in seconds, whereas other instances require several hours or
more. This potential limitation notwithstanding, our com-
putational experience with the algorithm has revealed that
it is extremely efficient in obtaining optimal solutions for
many problems of practical size.
One of the most important benefits of the branch-and-
bound algorithm is that its deployment in computational
experiments obviates any concerns about the potential con-
founding effects of algorithm suboptimality. When heuris-
tic methods are used for computational investigation of
Brusco
workforce policies, there is always the potential for esti-
mates of factor effects to be distorted by the differential
performance of the heuristic across cells of the experi-
mental design. Recognizing the potential for this circum-
stance, Campbell (1999) took great care in his experiments
to demonstrate that his heuristic method was robust across
experimental conditions. Given our use of the exact branch-
and-bound procedure, such a demonstration is unnecessary.
Another positive aspect of the proposed branch-and-
bound algorithm is that the basic structure is adaptable
for different criteria and contexts. For example, we have de-
veloped a version of the branch-and-bound algorithm that
uses Equation (8) instead of Equation (6) as the objective
function of the NWAP. This program will be used for com-
parative purposes in Section 4. The algorithm could also
be modified for objective function (9) or related criteria;
however, the computational performances for such criteria
are dependent on the quality of the bounds and pruning
rules that can be constructed. The algorithm is also com-
mensurate with those designed for partitioning problems,
such as the minimum sum of squares clustering problem
(Koontz et al., 1975; Klein and Aronson, 1991; Brusco and
Stahl, 2005). These partitioning problems may also have
practical relevance to certain types of workforce planning
problems, such as the selection of cross-functional teams.
To give an example, suppose we have a non-negative N × N
matrix, with off-diagonal elements representing the dissim-
ilarity between pairs of workers with respect to their skills.
We might wish to form C teams from the data, where each
team, 1 ≤ c ≤ C, has at least some minimum number of
members. A typical objective criterion might be to form
the teams so as to maximize the diversity within the groups
(see, for example, Baker and Powell (2002) who address for-
mation of student teams).
4. Numerical examples
4.1. Application to a previously published test problem
Campbell (1999) and Campbell and Diaby (2002) present
an example of a test problem for the NWAP. The problem
consists of N = 20 workers and D = 4 departments, with
department requirements of r1 = 8.38, r2 = 3.55, r3 = 8.58
and r4 = 4.00, and department utility weights of w1 = 0.84,
w2 = 1.39, w3 = 1.44 and w4 = 0.94. Workers are cross-
trained for one secondary department, and productivity
coefficients for the secondary department vary from 0.4 to
1.0 in increments of 0.2. Campbell (1999) and Campbell
and Diaby (2002) do not report solutions for the test prob-
lem. Therefore, we obtained solutions using both the lin-
ear assignment heuristic and the branch-and-bound algo-
rithm. The linear assignment formulation was solved using
CPLEX 6.5 (Anon, 1999), whereas the branch-and-bound
program was written and implemented in Fortran. Solu-
tions were obtained using a 2.2 GHz Pentium PC with 1 GB
Cross-utilization of workers 501
Table 1. Linear assignment heuristic and branch-and-bound solutions for the test problem presented in Campbell (1999, p. 726)

Linear assignment heuristic solution* Branch-and-bound solution*

Worker d=1 d=2 d=3 d=4 d=1 d=2 d=3 d=4

n=1 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

n=2 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
n=3 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.0
n=4 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.0
n=5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
n=6 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.6
n=7 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
n=8 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.0
n=9 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.0
n = 10 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0
n = 11 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
n = 12 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
n = 13 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.0
n = 14 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0
n = 15 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.0
n = 16 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.0
n = 17 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
n = 18 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.6
n = 19 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0
n = 20 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
pd 5.40 3.00 6.40 4.00 5.80 3.00 6.40 3.00
rd 8.38 3.55 8.58 4.47 8.38 3.55 8.58 4.47
wd 0.84 1.39 1.44 0.94 0.84 1.39 1.44 0.94
Utility, Z1 = 186.36452 Utility, Z1 = 186.40908
*Values in bold indicate the department to which the worker is assigned.

of RAM. The results are displayed in Table 1, with worker
assignments shown in bold type.
The branch-and-bound algorithm obtained the optimal
solution for the test problem in less than 0.01 seconds, yield-
ing a utility value of Z1 = 186.409 08. The linear assign-
ment heuristic produced a near-optimal utility value of Z1 =
186.364 52 in 0.25 seconds. The superior solution provided
by the branch-and-bound method was achieved by assign-
ing worker 2 to department 2 instead of department 4, and
assigning worker 10 to department 1 instead of department
2. From a utility standpoint, the effect of this modifica-
tion is to the reduce the weighted utility in department 4,
as follows: [0.94((4.47)2 − (4.47 − 3)2 )] − [0.94((4.47)2 −
(4.47 − 4)2 )] = −1.8236. The weighted utility in depart-
ment 1, however, is improved by an amount computed
as follows: [0.84((8.38)2 − (8.38 − 5.8)2 )] − [0.84((8.38)2
− (8.38 − 5.4)2 )] = +1.868 16. Thus, the total utility im-
proves by 1.868 16 − 1.8236 = 0.044 56, from 186.364 52 to
186.409 08.
To understand why the linear assignment heuristic fails
to find the optimal solution, it is insightful to closely in-
spect the effect of reassigning worker 10 to department 1.
We can perceive worker 10 as being assigned the seventh slot
in department 1, joining workers 1, 5, 9, 13, 17 and 8, who
occupy the first six slots. The key is that worker 8, placed
in the sixth slot, has a productivity coefficient of 0.4 not
unity. However, the linear assignment objective coefficient,
10
17 , for placing worker 10 in slot 7 of department 1 is based
on the maximum possible assignment up through the first
six slots. Given that there are six ones in column d = 1, the
linear assignment heuristic considers the effect of adding
worker 10 to slot 7 to increase the productive workforce in
department 1 from 6 to 6.4, not from 5.4 to 5.8 as is actually
the case. The marginal increase in the utility of department
1 from an increase of productive workforce from 6 to 6.4
is [0.84((8.38)2 − (8.38 − 6.4)2 )] − [0.84((8.38)2 − (8.38
− 6)2 )] = +1.464 96. This increase understates the true in-
crease of 1.868 16, and is too small to offset the productivity
reduction in department 4.
We also applied a version of the branch-and-bound algo-
rithm that uses Equation (8) as the objective criterion of the
NWAP. The optimal solution was obtained in less than 0.01
seconds, and the resulting objective value is Z3 = 0.240 01.
The assignment of workers to departments is the same as
the branch-and-bound solution for criterion (6) shown on
the right-hand side of Table 1, except that worker 8 is reas-
signed from department 1 to department 4, and worker 10 is
reassigned from department 1 to department 2. These two
workers were contributing a productivity of 0.4 to depart-
ment 1, which has a relatively high demand and low weight.
By moving worker 10 to department 2 with full productivity,
the shortage is eliminated in this low-demand department
502 Brusco
Table 2. The top portion presents the problem characteristics for an illustrative example based on data from the Maternal/Child
Service Center of a Florida hospital (Brusco, 1990). The bottom portion presents departmental productivity assignments obtained
from three different solution procedures

Nursing unit number d=1 d=2 d=3 d=4 d=5

Nursing unit name Pediatrics Family Care Neonatal Stepdown Pediatric Sp. Care
Number of RNs 14 16 24 3 12
Percentage of cross-trained nurses 71.4 68.8 75.0 66.7 75.0
Secondary departments 2, 3 3, 4 4, 5 5, 1 1, 2
Department weight (wd ) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Department requirement (rd ) 10.42 20.12 28.25 8.82 9.46
Department productivity from maximizing Z1 using the 8.8 18.2 25.6 4.6 9.0
linear assignment heuristic
Department productivity from maximizing Z1 using the 8.8 17.8 25.4 5.4 8.0
branch-and-bound algorithm
Department productivity from minimizing Z3 using the 10.0 16.8 21.4 8.2 9.0
branch-and-bound algorithm

that has relatively high weight. Similarly, assigning worker 8
to department 4 with full productivity will place four work-
ers in that department, mitigating the shortage in this low-
demand department. These changes are perfectly consis-
tent with objective criterion (8), which penalizes shortages
in low-demand departments more severely.
4.2. Application to a larger test problem
For a second illustration, we applied the linear assignment
heuristic and branch-and-bound algorithm to a test prob-
lem that, although synthetically constructed, was based on
data collected from the Maternal/Child Service Center of a
large Florida hospital (Brusco, 1990). The input data for the
test problem are summarized in the top panel of Table 2. The
test problem consists of N = 69 nurses assigned to D = 5
departments. We assumed that roughly 70% of the nurses in
each unit were cross-trained for one secondary nursing unit,
and that a chaining structure was implemented. For exam-
ple, 35.7% of the nurses in the Pediatric Unit were cross-
trained for the Family Care Unit, and 35.7% of the nurses
in the Pediatric Unit were cross-trained for the Neonatal
Unit. Cross-trained nurses in the Family Care Unit could
work in either the Neonatal Unit or the Stepdown Unit,
etc. Productivity coefficients for the secondary department
ranged from 0.4 to unity in increments of 0.2, and the de-
partment weights were assumed to be equal. The nominal
shortage in the unit was 11.7%.
We applied the linear assignment heuristic and both ver-
sions of the branch-and-bound algorithm (objective criteria
(6) and (8)) to this test problem, and the resulting assign-
ments are shown in the bottom panel of Table 2. For cri-
terion (6), the branch-and-bound algorithm obtained the
optimal solution for the test problem in 0.47 seconds, yield-
ing a utility value of Z1 = 1449.836. Once again, the lin-
ear assignment heuristic produced a good, but suboptimal,
utility value of Z1 = 1448.44. To assess the value of cross-
training, Campbell (1999) uses a measure (Vcross) that rep-
resents the percentage improvement in utility relative to no
cross-training. If all nurses are assigned to their home nurs-
ing unit, then Z1 = 1196.7344. Thus, the branch-and-bound
algorithm and linear assignment heurstic provide utility im-
provements of 21.15 and 21.03%, respectively.
When using Equation (8) as the objective criterion for
the NWAP, the branch-and-bound algorithm obtained the
optimal solution for the test problem in 0.83 seconds,
yielding a utility value of Z3 = 0.095 43. The bottom
panel of Table 2 shows that, relative to the solutions for
maximizing Z1 , the nursing unit assignments when mini-
mizing Z3 prevent large shortages from occurring in the
units with lower demand. For example, we observe that
the total productivity assignment for the Pediatrics and
Stepdown Units are closer to the labor requirement when
minimizing Z3 .
In hospital nursing, another common paradigm is to use
a pool of float nurses who can be assigned to any nursing
unit, usually with full productivity for each unit. If we as-
sume that the N = 69 nurses formed a float pool, and could
each work in any department, then the resulting solution
would provide a baseline as a “best possible” scenario for
cross-training. The optimal solution under this assump-
tion yields Z1 = 1466.3, and Vcross = 22.53%. Thus, for
this particular test problem, it is encouraging to observe
that cross-training provides an improvement in utility that
is only slightly less than what is achievable from a float
pool.
5. An experimental analysis of cross-training policies
5.1. Experimental design
The experimental design in this paper is an extended ver-
sion of the study presented in Campbell (1999). Campbell’s
experiment consisted of seven factors, each measured at
two levels, resulting in 27 = 128 cells. He generated four
replications per cell, resulting in a total of 512 unique test
Cross-utilization of workers
Table 3. Factors and factor levels for the computational experiment
Description
Factor 1 Number of departments (DEPTS)
Factor 2 Number of workers per department (WORKERS)
Factor 3 Percentage of workforce cross-trained (PARTIAL)
Factor 4 Type of cross-chaining (CHAINING)
Factor 5 Number of secondary departments (NUMSEC)
Factor 6 Minimum productivity (PROD)
Factor 7 Nominal shortage (NOMSHOR)
Factor 8 Coefficient of variation for requirements (CV)
Factor 9 Department weights (WEIGHTS)
Factor 10 Percentage of workers absent (ABSENT)
problems. We have added three additional factors, each
measured at two levels. Therefore, our study consists of
210 = 1024 cells and 1024 × 4 = 4096 unique test problems.
Each test problem represents an instance of the NWAP,
with Equation (6) as the objective function for consistency
with Campbell’s (1999) study. Each problem was solved to
optimality using the branch-and-bound algorithm, which
was implemented on a 3.4 GHz Pentium PC with 1 GB
of RAM. The data collected were the total CPU time re-
quired to solve the test problem and Campbell’s measure of
the value of cross-training, Vcross = (f (λ∗ ) − f (λ ))/f (λ ),
where λ is an assignment of workers to their primary de-
partment. The Vcross results were the response measures
for the ANOVA model that was used to evaluate the effects
of the factors. The ten factors and their levels are listed in
Table 3.
The first two factors, the number of departments
(DEPTS) and the number of workers per department
(WORKERS), effectively define the sizes of the cross-
utilization problems. The levels for DEPTS were four and
six, whereas the levels for WORKERS were four and eight.
Thus, the smallest (largest) problems consisted of 16 (48)
workers and four (six) departments. The third factor, the
percentage of cross-trained workers, was introduced to es-
timate the effects of a partially cross-trained workforce. The
levels of the third factor (PARTIAL) were 40 and 80%. The
fourth factor (CHAINING) corresponded to the type of
chaining policy. One level of this factor was strict cross-
chaining, where secondary departments were systematically
selected to build the chain. For the second level, fuzzy chain-
ing, secondary departments for each worker were selected
randomly, such that chaining would only arise from ran-
domness. The number of secondary departments (NUM-
SEC) was the fifth factor, and was tested at levels of one and
two departments. NUMSEC is a measure of the breadth
of cross-training (see Brusco and Johns (1998)). To illus-
trate the interrelationship between factors 4 and 5, con-
sider CHAINING = “strict” and NUMSEC = 2. This
corresponds to what Hopp et al. (2004) term a “3-DSC”
(three-department skill chaining) policy, where workers in
department d were cross-trained for departments d + 1 and
503
Level 1 Level 2
4 6
4 8
40% 80%
Strict Fuzzy
1 2
0.8 0.4
10% 20%
0.3 0.6
Equal Unequal
10% 0%
d + 2 for 1 ≤ d ≤ D − 2, workers in department D − 1 were
cross-trained for departments D and 1, and workers in de-
partment D were cross-trained for departments 1 and 2.
In our experiments, worker productivity coefficients for
the primary departmental assignment were always unity
The sixth factor (PROD) corresponds to the minimum
level of productivity for workers in their secondary depart-
ments. For the first level, the productivity for worker n in a
secondary department was randomly selected (with equal
probability) as 0.8 or unity. For the second level, we used
equal probability selection among 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and unity,
as alternatives. The seventh factor, which Campbell (1999)
termed “nominal shortage”, represents the total shortage
of labor across all departments. The two levels of this fac-
tor (NOMSHOR) were 10 and 20%. Departmental require-
ments for labor were generated from a normal distribution
with a fixed mean and standard deviation for each depart-
ment. The eighth factor (CV) controlled the dispersion of
labor requirements via manipulation of the coefficient of
variation, which was tested at levels of 0.3 and 0.6. The ninth
factor (WEIGHTS) controlled for the relative importance
or “criticality” of departments through a weight factor. For
the first level of the ninth factor, each department received
a weight of unity, whereas for the second level, weights were
selected randomly from a uniform distribution on the in-
terval [0.5, 1.5]. The tenth factor, absenteeism, was added
to reflect that the need for cross-training can arise not only
from unexpectedly high demand, but also from capacity
shortfalls. The two levels of the tenth factor (ABSENT)
were 10 and 0% (no absenteeism).
The additions to Campbell’s (1999) design were factors
3 (PARTIAL), 4 (CHAINING), and 10 (ABSENT). We
felt that a factor (PARTIAL) that allowed for some cross-
trained and some non-crossed-trained workers for each
department was appropriate in light of the recommenda-
tions of Pinker and Shumsky (2000), who warned against
the degradation in service quality from using only cross-
trained workers. The inclusion of the CHAINING factor
was based on the demonstrated importance of this factor
in other service contexts (Brusco and Johns, 1998; Inman
et al., 2005). The ABSENT factor was included based on the
504 Brusco
Table 4. Experimental results: average utility improvements and CPU times

Vcross* CPU time

Factor Levels (%) (seconds)

DEPTS D=4 6.26 0.00

D=6 5.87 4.10
WORKERS 4 per department 4.70 0.00
8 per department 7.43 4.10
PARTIAL 40% of workers cross-trained 3.87 0.00
80% of workers cross-trained 8.26 4.10
CHAINING Strict 6.39 0.18
Fuzzy 5.74 3.93
NUMSEC One secondary department 4.47 0.00
Two secondary department 7.66 4.11
PROD Minimum = 0.8 7.03 0.93
Minimum = 0.4 5.10 3.17
NOMSHOR 10% 5.80 1.19
20% 6.33 2.91
CV 0.3 2.25 3.96
0.6 9.88 0.15
WEIGHTS Equal 5.68 2.44
Unequal 6.45 1.67
ABSENT 10% absenteeism 3.17 1.21
No absenteeism 8.96 2.90
OVERALL 6.07 2.05
*Vcross is the percentage improvement in utility relative to no cross-utilization.

noted importance of this factor in previous studies (Slomp
and Molleman, 2002; Bokhorst et al., 2004).
5.2. Experimental results part I. The CPU time
Table 4 presents, for each level of each factor, the aver-
age improvements in utility relative to no cross-training, as
well as the average CPU time required by the branch-and-
bound algorithm. The average CPU time across all 4096
test problems was 2.05 seconds. Approximately 96% of the
test problems were solved in less than a CPU second, and
99.24% of the test problems were solved in less than a CPU
minute. The maximum CPU time across all test problems
was 865.68 seconds. The principal factors influencing the
CPU time were the number of departments (DEPTS) and
the number of workers per department (WORKERS). To-
gether, these factors jointly define the size of the test prob-
lem. For the smallest test problems, consisting of D = 4
departments and four workers per department, the average
CPU time was less than 0.01 seconds. In contrast, for the
largest test problems, consisting of six departments (D = 6)
and eight workers per department, the average CPU time
was 8.20 seconds.
Other factors with a strong influence on the CPU time
were the extent of partial cross-training (PARTIAL), the
number of secondary departments (NUMSEC) and, to
a slightly lesser extent, the coefficient of variation (CV).
Specifically, increases in the proportion of cross-trained
workers and the number of secondary departments, along
with a smaller coefficient of variation, tended to increase the
computational difficulty. To illustrate, consider the 128 test
problems in the experiment consisting of six departments,
eight workers per department, 80% of the workforce cross-
trained, two secondary departments and CV = 0.3. The
average CPU time for these “difficult” test problems was
63.13 seconds.
5.3. Experimental results part II. The main effects
for Vcross
A comparison of the Vcross means for each level of each
factor in Table 4 provides some indication of the impor-
tance of each factor in influencing the cross-training bene-
fits. We conducted a more formal analysis of Vcross using
an ANOVA model with all main effects and two-way in-
teractions. The ANOVA results included estimates of effect
size (partial eta squared, ηp2 ) for each term in the model.
Consideration of effect sizes is important because all main
effects were statistically significant, which is not surprising
given the large number of test problems in the experiment.
The resulting ANOVA table is displayed in Table 5 and con-
tains all significant ( p-value <0 .05) terms in the model.
The ANOVA results showed that the CV factor had the
largest effect (ηp2 = 0.445) on utility improvement. At the
smaller level of variation in labor requirements of CV =
0.3, the average improvement in utility was only 2.25%,
which was less than one-fourth of the average improvement
of 9.88% observed for CV = 0.6. The results for the CV fac-
tor are perfectly consistent with Campbell’s findings, where
Cross-utilization of workers 505
Table 5. Experimental results: ANOVA table for Vcross with effect sizes*

Source Sum of squares df Mean square F p-value Effect size ηp2

Corrected model 15.245 57 55 0.2772 150.44 0.000 0.672

Intercept 15.066 93 1 15.06 69 8177.19 0.000 0.669
DEPTS 0.015 98 1 0.0160 8.67 0.003 0.002
WORKERS 0.759 52 1 0.7595 412.21 0.000 0.093
PARTIAL 1.972 67 1 1.9727 1070.61 0.000 0.209
CHAINING 0.043 51 1 0.0435 23.61 0.000 0.006
NUMSEC 1.042 80 1 1.0428 565.95 0.000 0.123
PROD 0.385 27 1 0.3853 209.09 0.000 0.049
NOMSHOR 0.029 67 1 0.0297 16.10 0.000 0.004
CV 5.956 61 1 5.9566 3232.80 0.000 0.445
WEIGHTS 0.061 02 1 0.0610 33.12 0.000 0.008
ABSENT 3.424 02 1 3.4240 1858.30 0.000 0.315
DEPTS × CV 0.041 83 1 0.0418 22.70 0.000 0.006
DEPTS × ABSENT 0.030 57 1 0.0306 16.59 0.000 0.004
WORKERS × PARTIAL 0.112 25 1 0.1122 60.92 0.000 0.015
WORKERS × CHAINING 0.009 05 1 0.0091 4.91 0.027 0.001
WORKERS × CV 0.052 42 1 0.0524 28.45 0.000 0.007
WORKERS × ABSENT 0.136 94 1 0.1369 74.32 0.000 0.018
PARTIAL × NOMSHOR 0.012 90 1 0.0129 7.00 0.008 0.002
PARTIAL × CV 0.375 24 1 0.3752 203.65 0.000 0.048
PARTIAL × ABSENT 0.018 02 1 0.0180 9.78 0.002 0.002
CHAINING × NUMSEC 0.031 68 1 0.0317 17.19 0.000 0.004
CHAINING × CV 0.019 46 1 0.0195 10.56 0.001 0.003
NUMSEC × CV 0.483 04 1 0.4830 262.16 0.000 0.061
PROD × CV 0.079 25 1 0.0793 43.01 0.000 0.011
NOMSHOR × CV 0.017 00 1 0.0170 9.23 0.002 0.002
NOMSHOR × ABSENT 0.040 63 1 0.0406 22.05 0.000 0.005
CV × ABSENT 0.050 44 1 0.0504 27.38 0.000 0.007
Error 7.443 93 4040 0.0018
Total 37.756 43 4096
Corrected total 22.689 50 4095
Only main effects and interaction terms that were statistically significant (p < 0.05) are shown.

CV was, by far, the most important factor affecting utility
improvement. The natural explanation for these findings is
that greater demand variation creates greater opportunity
for cross-utilizing workers from low-demand departments
in high-demand departments. Another interesting observa-
tion pertaining to the CV factor is that, whereas average
utility improvement at CV = 0.6 was more than four times
the improvement at CV = 0.3, the average CPU time for
the branch-and-bound algorithm at CV = 0.6 was less than
1/25th of the average time for CV = 0.3. Thus, problems
where cross-utilization was of greatest benefit were gener-
ally easier to solve.
The ABSENT factor had the second largest effect (ηp2 =
0.315) on utility improvement. A reduction in absenteeism
from 10 to 0% provided an increase in labor capacity that
facilitated an average improvement in Vcross from 3.17 to
8.96%. Thus, whereas CV was the most important demand
factor influencing utility improvement, absenteeism was the
most important capacity factor. Greater absenteeism re-
duces utility; however, this should not be misinterpreted
as a lack of importance for cross-training in the presence
of greater absenteeism. Two other capacity factors, PAR-
TIAL (ηp2 = 0.209) and NUMSEC (ηp2 = 0.123) had the third
and fourth largest effect sizes, respectively. An increase in
the proportion of cross-trained workers from 40 to 80%
resulted in an average improvement in Vcross from 3.87 to
8.26%. Similarly, an increase from one to two secondary de-
partments yielded an average improvement in Vcross from
4.47 to 7.66%. This latter finding is in marked contrast to
Campbell’s results, which showed a negligible improvement
in Vcross when moving from one to three secondary depart-
ments. We believe that this disparity between our results and
Campbell’s is likely attributable to the fact that his study did
not consider absenteeism, partial cross-training or chaining
of secondary departments.
The WORKERS factor had the fifth largest effect on util-
ity improvement (ηp2 = 0.093). The average utility improve-
ments realized for four and eight workers per department
were 4.70 and 7.43%, respectively. These findings are also
contradictory to those reported by Campbell, who found
a slightly greater utility improvement at five workers per
department (9.48%) than at ten workers per department
506
(8.45%). A plausible explanation for this discrepancy is the
presence of the PARTIAL and ABSENT factors in our
study, which were not included in Campbell’s study.
It is also insightful to consider some of the factors with
small effect sizes. For example, although the main effects
for the DEPTS, NOMSHOR, WEIGHTS and CHAIN-
ING factors were statistically significant at the α = 0.05
level, their effect sizes were each less than ηp2 = 0.008. The
lack of relative importance of the first three of these factors
is consistent with Campbell’s findings. However, the find-
ing for the CHAINING factor is new. The average Vcross
improvements for strict and fuzzy chaining differed only
slightly, at 6.39 and 5.74%, respectively. From a practical
standpoint, it was interesting to observe that service man-
agers can realize comparable improvements in utility with
either strict or fuzzy chaining. This is a valuable finding.
Whereas some service environments might be able to create
strict chaining either through training programs or hiring
practices, others might be more at the mercy of the labor
market. For example, in a multilingual call center environ-
ment, it is not practical to “train” agents in multiple lan-
guages (Iravani et al., 2007); however, our results provide
the comforting finding that a natural mix of agents speak-
ing different pairs of languages can still yield exceptional
benefits.
5.4. Experimental results part III. The interaction
effects for Vcross
Some of the most interesting findings from our experimen-
tal analysis corresponded to two-way interaction effects.
The NUMSEC × CV term had the largest interaction effect
(ηp2 = 0.061) on utility improvement. A practical interpre-
tation of this interaction term is that having an additional
secondary department was more important for improving
Vcross when CV = 0.6, relative to the lower demand varia-
tion level of CV = 0.3. At CV = 0.3, the average improve-
ment in Vcross with one secondary department was 1.74%,
and there was a slight increase to 2.76% when there were
two secondary departments. In contrast, at CV = 0.6, the
average improvement in Vcross with one secondary depart-
ment was 7.20%, but there was a sizable increase to 12.56%
when there were two secondary departments.
The PARTIAL × CV term had the second largest in-
teraction effect (ηp2 = 0.048) on utility improvement, and
the interpretation is similar to that of the NUMSEC ×
CV term. Specifically, having a larger percentage of cross-
trained workers was more important when CV was high.
At CV = 0.3, the average improvement in Vcross with 40%
of the workforce cross-trained was 1.01%, and there was an
increase to 3.49% when 80% of the workforce was cross-
trained. In contrast, at CV = 0.6, the average improve-
ment in Vcross with 40% of the workforce cross-trained
was 6.73%, and there was a tremendous increase to 13.03%
when 80% of the workforce was cross-trained.
Brusco
The WORKERS factor had two strong interaction terms
in our experiment: (i) WORKERS × PARTIAL (ηp2 =
0.015); and (ii) WORKERS × ABSENT (ηp2 = 0.018).
Given that the PARTIAL and ABSENT factors were not
included in Campbell’s study, these interactions help to ex-
plain why our findings for the main effect of WORKERS
differed from his results. An increased number of workers
per department was more important when only 40% of the
workforce was cross-trained, and when there was a 10% ab-
sentee rate. At PARTIAL = 40%, the average improvement
in Vcross with four workers per department was 1.99%, and
there was a fairly sizable increase to 5.76% when there were
eight workers per department. However, at PARTIAL =
80%, the corresponding Vcross improvement when moving
from four to eight workers per department was only from
7.42% to 9.10%. Similarly, at ABSENT = 10%, the average
improvement in Vcross with four workers per department
was 1.23%, and there was a noteworthy increase to 5.11%
when there were eight workers per department. However,
at ABSENT = 0%, the corresponding Vcross improvement
when moving from four to eight workers per department
was only from 8.17% to 9.74%. The relatively smaller ef-
fects of the WORKERS factor at PARTIAL = 80% and
ABSENT = 0% are consistent with Campbell’s findings,
which were based on PARTIAL = 100% and ABSENT =
0% throughout his entire study. Our results, however, sug-
gest that the WORKERS factor has a much stronger effect
at different levels of partial cross-training and absenteeism.
5.5. Experimental results part IV. Alternative computation
of Vcross in the case of absenteeism
The experimental results reported in Tables 4 and 5 and
discussed in Sections 5.3 and 5.4 assume that f ( λ ) in the
Vcross expression is computed prior to consideration of ab-
sent workers. Based on this assumption, increased absen-
teeism has an adverse effect on the benefits realized from
cross-training, resulting in a reduction of average Vcross
from 8.96 to 3.17% when moving from 0 to 10% absen-
teeism. An alternative approach is to compute f (λ ) after
adjusting for absent workers in each department. This al-
ternative computation procedure does not effect the results
for ABSENT = 0%; however, the average Vcross value for
ABSENT = 10% increases markedly to 15.21%. It is im-
portant to clarify that this result does not imply that there
is greater overall utility when absenteeism is present. In-
stead, the correct interpretation is that greater absenteeism
provides more opportunity for a larger percentage utility
improvement to be realized from cross-training when f (λ )
is computed after adjustment for absent workers.
We re-ran the ANOVA analyses on the data obtained
from the alternative computation of Vcross. The results
were strikingly consistent with those reported in Table 5.
For example, the six largest main effects were CV (ηp2 =
0.509), ABSENT (ηp2 = 0.297), PARTIAL (ηp2 = 0.195),
Cross-utilization of workers
NUMSEC (ηp2 = 0.111), WORKERS (ηp2 = 0.047), PROD
(ηp2 = 0.044), respectively. This is precisely the same order
as the six largest main effects in Table 5. The most impor-
tant two-way interactions obtained using the alternative
computation of Vcross were also consistent with those in
Table 5, with mostly minor differences in ordering with re-
spect to effect size. Based on these results, we are confident
that our major findings are not an artifact of the method
for computing Vcross.
6. Conclusions
The principal methodological contribution of our paper is
the provision of a branch-and-bound algorithm for solving
an important NWAP originally posed by Campbell (1999).
Whereas Campbell (1999) and Campbell and Diaby (2002)
relied on heuristics for their experiments on the same prob-
lem, our proposed method typically produced guaranteed
optimal solutions in a few seconds. The development and
implementation of exact algorithms are valuable because
they enable managers and researchers to analyze policies
without any uncertainty about the relative performance of
heuristics across cells of an experiment. We acknowledge
that, like most branch-and-bound procedures, our algo-
rithm does tend to total enumeration when the bounds are
not sharp. Nevertheless, we were encouraged by its ability to
obtain optimal solutions for problems of practical size. Im-
provements of the branch-and-bound methodology could
expand the size of allocation problems that can be solved
optimally.
Through a broadening of Campbell’s (1999) experiment,
we were able to uncover some new findings within the con-
text of the NWAP. For example, we found that absenteeism,
partial cross-training, cross-training breadth and the num-
ber of workers per department were important factors af-
fecting the utility of worker allocations. These latter two fac-
tors exhibited much less importance in Campbell’s (1999)
study, presumably because his original study did not con-
sider absenteeism, partial cross-training and chaining as ex-
perimental factors. Another interesting finding from our ex-
periment was that strict and fuzzy chaining provided com-
parable improvements in utility. Several important two-way
interactions were also identified. The two largest interaction
effects suggested that greater cross-training breadth and a
workforce with a greater proportion of cross-trained work-
ers were especially important when demand variation was
high.
The computational experiment offered in this paper
could be adapted in a variety of ways. Assuming that ef-
fective algorithms can be developed for alternative objec-
tive criteria, a comparison of cross-training policy effects
across objective criteria would be interesting. Another ex-
tension would be to use the algorithm and experimental
results to provide prescriptive information. For example,
Slomp and Molleman (2002) conducted analyses to de-
507
termine which employees should be the next to be cross-
trained. The use of the NWAP to determine precisely how
and where cross-training should be expanded (and possibly
where it should be contracted) could prove quite valuable
from a cost perspective.
Acknowledgement
I am extremely grateful for the helpful comments of three
anonymous reviewers, which led to significant improve-
ments in this article.
References
Abernathy, W.J., Baloff, N., Hershey, J.C. and Wandel, S. (1973) A three-
stage manpower planning and scheduling model – a service sector
example. Operations Research, 21, 693–711.
Andrews, B.H. and Cunningham, S.M. (1995) L.L. Bean improves call
center forecasting. Interfaces, 25, 1–13.
Anon (1999) ILOG CPLEX 6.5 User’s Manual, ILOG, Inc, Mountain
View, CA.
Baker, K.R. and Powell, S.G. (2002) Methods for assigning students to
groups: a study of alternative objective functions. Journal of the Op-
erational Research Society, 53, 397–404.
Bard, J.F. (2004) Staff scheduling in high volume service facilities with
downgrading. IIE Transactions, 36, 983–997.
Bard, J.F. and Purnomo, H.W. (2005) Hospital-wide reactive scheduling
of nurses with preference considerations. IIE Transactions, 37, 589–
608.
Bard, J.F. and Wan, L. (2005) Weekly scheduling in the service indus-
try: an application to mail processing and distribution centers. IIE
Transactions, 37, 379–396.
Batta, R., Berman, O. and Wang, Q. (2007) Balancing staffing and switch-
ing costs in a service center with flexible servers. European Journal
of Operational Research, 177, 924–938.
Bechtold, S.E. (1981) Work-force scheduling for arbitrary cyclic demands.
Journal of Operations Management, 1, 89–107.
Bokhorst, J.A.C., Slomp, J. and Molleman, E. (2004) Development and
evaluation of cross-training policies for manufacturing teams. IIE
Transactions, 36, 969–984.
Brusco, M.J. (1990) An evaluation of nurse staffing policies in a con-
strained labor environment. Doctoral dissertation, Florida State
University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.
Brusco, M.J. and Jacobs, L.W. (1998) Personnel tour scheduling when
starting-time restrictions are present. Management Science, 44, 534–
547.
Brusco, M.J. and Jacobs, L.W. (2000) Optimal models for meal-break
and start-time flexibility in continuous tour scheduling. Management
Science, 46, 1630–1641.
Brusco, M.J. and Johns, T.R. (1998) Staffing a multiskilled workforce with
varying levels of productivity: an analysis of cross-training policies.
Decision Sciences, 29, 499–515.
Brusco, M.J. and Stahl, S. (2005) Branch-and-Bound Applications in Com-
binatorial Data Analysis, Springer, New York. NY, ch. 2.
Campbell, G.M. (1999) Cross-utilization of workers whose capabilities
differ. Management Science, 45, 722–732.
Campbell, G.M. and Diaby, M. (2002) Development and evaluation of an
assignment heuristic for allocating cross-trained workers. European
Journal of Operational Research, 138, 9–20.
Connor, R.J. (1960) A hospital inpatient classification system. Doctoral
dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
508
Easton, F.F. and Rossin, D.F. (1991) Equivalent alternate solutions for
the tour scheduling problem. Decision Sciences, 22, 985–1007.
Feyerherm, A.M. and Kirk, W.R. (1964) Effect of census variation on
nursing activity patterns. Hospitals, 38, 62–74.
Graves, S.C. and Tomlin, B.T. (2003) Process flexibility in supply chains.
Management Science, 49, 907–919.
Hershey, J.C., Abernathy, W.J. and Baloff, N. (1974) Comparison of nurse
allocation policies – a Monte Carlo model. Decision Sciences, 5, 58–
72.
Hopp, W.J., Tekin, E. and Van Oyen, M.P. (2004) Benefits of skill chaining
in serial production lines with cross-trained workers. Management
Science, 50, 83–98.
Hopp, W.J. and Van Oyen, M.P. (2004) Agile workforce evaluation: a
framework for cross-training and coordination. IIE Transactions,
36, 919–940.
Hueter, J. and Swart, W. (1998) An integrated labor-management system
for Taco Bell. Interfaces, 28, 75–91.
Inman, R.R., Blumenfeld, D.E. and Ko, A. (2005) Cross-training hospital
nurses to reduce staffing costs. Health Care Management Review, 30,
116–123.
Iravani, S.M., Kolfal, B. and Van Oyen, M.P. (2007) Call center labor
cross-training: it’s a small world after all. Management Science, 53,
1102–1112.
Iravani, S.M., Van Oyen, M.P. and Sims, K.T. (2005) Structural flexibil-
ity: a new perspective on the design of manufacturing and service
operations. Management Science, 51, 151–166.
Jack, E.P. and Powers, T.L. (2004) Volume flexible strategies in health
services: a research framework. Production and Operations Manage-
ment, 13, 230–244.
Jacobs, L.W. and Brusco, M.J. (1996) Overlapping start-time bands in
implicit tour scheduling. Management Science, 42, 1247–1259.
Jarrah, A., Bard, J. and de Silva, A. (1994) Solving large-scale tour
scheduling problems. Management Science, 40, 1124–1144.
Jordan, W.C. and Graves, S.C. (1995) Principles on the benefits of man-
ufacturing process flexibility. Management Science, 41, 577–594.
Jordan, W.C., Inman, R.R. and Blumenfeld, D.E. (2004) Chained cross-
training of workers for robust performance. IIE Transactions, 36,
953–967.
Brusco
Klein, G. and Aronson, J.E. (1991) Optimal clustering: A model and
method. Naval Research Logistics, 38, 447–461.
Koontz, W.L.G., Narendra, P.M. and Fukunaga, K. (1975) A branch
and bound clustering algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Computers,
C-24, 908–915.
Mason, A.J., Ryan, D.M. and Panton, D.M. (1998) Integrated simulation,
heuristic, and optimisation approaches to staff scheduling. Opera-
tions Research, 46, 161–175.
Pinker, E.J. and Shumsky, R.A. (2000) The efficiency-quality tradeoff of
cross trained workers. Manufacturing and Services Operations Man-
agement, 2, 32–48.
Slomp, J. and Molleman, E. (2002) Cross-training policies and team per-
formance. International Journal of Production Research, 40, 1193–
1219.
Stafford, B.J. and Schlotfeldt, R.M. (1960) Nursing service staffing and
quality of nursing care. Nursing Research, 9, 149–154.
Trivedi, V.M. and Warner, D.M. (1976) A branch and bound algorithm
for optimum allocation of float nurses. Management Science, 22,
972–981.
Warner, D.M. and Prawda, J. (1972) A mathematical programming model
for scheduling nursing personnel in a hospital. Management Science,
19, 411–422.
Wright, P.D., Bretthauer, K.M. and Côté, M.J. (2006) Reexamining the
nurse scheduling problem: staffing ratios and nursing shortages.
Decision Sciences, 37, 39–70.
Biographies
Michael J. Brusco is the Synovus Professor of Marketing and Operations
Research at Florida State University. His research focuses on the devel-
opment of optimal and heuristic solution procedures for combinatorial
optimization problems related to scheduling, location, layout and data
analysis. He is a past member of the board of directors for the Classifi-
cation Society of North America, and currently serves on the editorial
board of the Journal of Classification.