IP Library Granted Patent US 7,246,076
Granted Patent B2
US 7,246,076 · App. 11/010,045 · Granted Jul 17, 2007

Method and apparatus for queue-based automated staff scheduling

Assignee: Lightning Bolt Solutions, Inc.
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 7,246,076
App. No.
11/010,045
Granted
Jul 17, 2007
Kind
B2
Abstract

A queue-based scheduling system, which comprises an automated staff scheduling computer program that is highly flexible in enforcing scheduling rules. This flexibility comes from the ability to: (1) Define conditional and unconditional rules; (2) Rank the rules/requests in varying priority as represented by a numeric value assigned to each rule/request; and (3) Specify rules both per individual and per group. These three abilities synergistically produce an automatic scheduling system that can enforce a wide variety of scheduling rules and requirements seen in actual staff scheduling situations. Furthermore, all these abilities rely on using a queue per scheduled assignment to hold requests and rules.

Claims (48)

1. A queue-based scheduling apparatus for automated staff scheduling and for enforcing scheduling rules and requirements, comprising:

means for defining conditional and unconditional rules;

means for ranking rules and requests in varying priority as represented by a numeric value assigned to each rule and request; and

means for specifying rules both per individual and per group; and

means for generating schedules in multiple phases;

wherein during each phase, an automatic scheduler entirely schedules every assignment on every day in a scheduling period;

wherein on second and later phases, said auto scheduler learns from any hazards detected in earlier phases to generate a better overall schedule;

wherein said hazards are detected whenever said automatic scheduler cannot find an individual that would not violate some rule or request;

said automatic scheduler determining if any conditional rule has caused detection of hazard, and if said conditional rule is satisfied, finding a source or a condition of the rule that generated a violating request;

said automatic scheduler generating and submitting an internal request; and in subsequent phases, said automatic scheduler avoiding said hazard by using said submitted request from previous phases.

2. The apparatus of claim 1 , further comprising:

at least one queue per each scheduled assignment for holding requests and rules.

3. A scheduling process, comprising the steps of:

collecting requests and rules using a graphical user-interface;

determining a scheduling period that has a user-defined start date and stop date;

creating a request queue for each day of a period;

for each request or rule, determining which days said request or rule is applicable;

for each applicable day, inserting a request into its queue;

sorting said days from most constrained to least constrained;

beginning scheduling from a most constrained day;

for each assignment in a day, creating a list of candidates for that assignment for that day;

for each candidate, associating a highest priority request in said request queue that applies to said candidate, wherein said highest priority value for a candidate is a candidate bid for a chosen assignment;

sorting said candidates according to a bid calculated in the immediately preceding step;

scheduling a candidate having a highest number;

determining a schedule for any remaining days; and

means for generating schedules in multiple phases;

wherein during each phase, an automatic scheduler entirely schedules every assignment on every day in a scheduling period;

wherein on second and later phases, said automatic scheduler learns from any hazards detected in earlier phases to generate a better overall schedule;

wherein said hazards are detected whenever said automatic scheduler cannot find an individual that would not violate some rule or request;

said automatic scheduler determining if any conditional rule has caused detection of hazard, and said conditional rule is satisfied, finding a source or a condition of the rule that generated a violating request;

said automatic scheduler generating and submitting an internal request; and in

subsequent phases, said automatic scheduler avoiding said hazard by using said submitted request from previous phases.

4. The method of claim 3 , wherein said constraints on scheduling choices comprise either of conditional and unconditional constraints, wherein conditional constraints are only in effect if a certain scheduling condition applies.

5. The method of claim 3 , wherein a rule applies to either of a specific individual or a group of individuals.

6. The method of claim 3 , further comprising the step of:

associating rules with a number which describes a rank or a priority of that rule relative to other rules;

wherein a large positive number indicates that any individual under that rule is highly favored to be scheduled for the given shift on a given day;

wherein a large negative number indicates that any individual under that rule is not favored to be scheduled for the given shift on a given day; and

wherein an individual who is not subject to any rules has a priority point zero by default, indicating neutrality.

7. The method of claim 3 , further comprising the step of:

choosing a rule having a highest absolute value of priority points for an individual to compete with other individuals when more than one rule is to be applied.

8. The method of claim 3 , further comprising the steps of:

entering static or unconditional rules in the request queue prior to running the automated scheduler; and

entering conditional rules and requests during execution of the steps of said method, depending on the scheduling conditions;

wherein a highly adaptive scheduler is provided that changes its scheduling behavior during execution of the method, based on scheduling decisions made during execution of the method.

9. The method of claim 3 , further comprising the step of: providing conditional rules, wherein each conditional rule has a set of conditions and a set of actions, wherein when all conditions are met, said set of actions is converted into a request.

10. The method of claim 3 , further comprising the step of: providing an alternates list that exposes information in a form a user can use to override the choice that said automatic scheduler has made; wherein said alternates list displays all constraints and requests that are currently imposed on alternate individuals.

11. The method of claim 3 , further comprising the steps of: said auto scheduler randomly choosing different assignments on different days, rescheduling individuals until a global schedule improves or converges to an acceptable one; and said auto scheduler summarizing a number of requests or rules in each queue that are in violation across all assignments in an entire schedule to determine whether a global schedule has improved after a scheduling adjustment; wherein if a total number of violations decreases, said schedule has been improved and therefore is chosen over prior schedules.

Assignments (3)
RELEASE OF SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Feb 27, 2026
From: PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
To: CAREWIRE, INC.; LIGHTNING BOLT SOLUTIONS, INC.
Reel/Frame 073928/0360 →
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Nov 21, 2019
From: CAREWIRE, INC.; LIGHTNING BOLT SOLUTIONS, INC.
To: PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Reel/Frame 051079/0619 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Dec 28, 2004
From: VAJRACHARYA, SUVAS; SETIAWAN, DAVID; TJAHJONO, ROBBY
To: LIGHTNING BOLT SOLUTIONS, LLC
Reel/Frame 015492/0698 →
Continuity (2)
Provisional Application 6052810700 · Dec 9, 2003
Related Publication 20050125278A1 · Jun 9, 2005