A Quantitative Analysis About Optimization of Number of Employees and Rebalancing Workload

  • Yılmaz GökşenEmail author
  • Osman Pala
  • Mustafa Ünlü
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)


In an organization, the workload of the employees is very important in terms of efficiency and motivation toward work. Workloads must be at the same level as employees can achieve.

In the study, a large faculty of one of Turkey’s leading universities was selected as a pilot. There are 25 different business units and 92 employees in the faculty. AHP and LP are preferred as models. With AHP, utility values ​​of employees in each job type are calculated separately for 25 job types. The obtained utility values ​​are assigned as the objective function coefficients of the decision variables of the LP model. Three different LP models were obtained and solved to obtain optimal workload values. According to the results of three different models, the manager will be able to complete the missing workloads of the employees from different units.


Workload of the employees AHP and LP MCDM 


  1. Aksaraylı, M., Pala, O., Aksoy, M. A., & Turaba, L. (2016). A fuzzy mixed integer goal programming approach for academic performance modeling. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(34), 14–32.Google Scholar
  2. Aldowaisan, T. A., & Gaafar, L. K. (1999). Business process reengineering: An approach for process mapping. Omega, 27(5), 515–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azmat, C. S., Hürlimann, T., & Widmer, M. (2004). Mixed integer programming to schedule a single-shift workforce under annualized hours. Annals of Operations Research, 128(1), 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burgess, T. F. (1996). Planning the Academic’s workload: Different approaches to allocating work to university academics. Higher Education, 32(1), 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chandran, B., Golden, B., & Wasil, E. (2005). Linear programming models for estimating weights in the analytic hierarchy process. Computers & Operations Research, 32, 2235–2254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, C. F. (2006). Applying the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach to convention site selection. Journal of Travel Research, 45(2), 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diodato, V. (1983). Faculty workload: A case study. Journal of Education for Librarianship, 23(4), 286–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ghodsypour, S. H., & O’Brien, C. (1998). A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear programming. International Journal of Production Economics, 56–57, 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gökşen, Y., Aşan, H., Doğan, O., Ünlü, M., & Pala, O. (2016). The proposal model of rational workforce assignment in Dokuz Eylul University by analytic hierarchy process based 0-1 integer programming. Scientific Bulletin – Economic Sciences, 15(2), 54–66.Google Scholar
  10. Ho, W. (2008). Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 186, 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jaumard, B., Semet, F., & Vovor, T. (1998). A generalized linear programming model for nurse scheduling. European Journal of Operational Research, 107(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Öztürk, A. (2002). Yöneylem Araştırması, 8. Baskı, Ekin Kitabevi Yayınları, The Bur, p. 167.Google Scholar
  13. Pala, O. (2016). Bulanik Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi ve Meslek Seçiminde Uygulanmasi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 18(3), 427–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Porter, S. R., & Umbach, P. D. (2001). Analyzing faculty workload data using multilevel modeling. Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 171–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Reid, G. R. (1988). The subjective workload assessment technique: A scaling procedure for measuring mental workload. Advances in Psychology, 52, 185–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rhoades, G. (2001). AIR research and practice: Managing productivity in an academic institution: Rethinking the whom, which, what, and whose of productivity. Research in Higher Education, 42(5), 619–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Saaty, T. L., Vargas, L. G., & Dellmann, K. (2003). The allocation of intangible resources: The analytic hierarchy process and linear programming. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 37, 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Saaty, T. L., Peniwati, K., & Shang, J. S. (2007). The analytic hierarchy process and human resource allocation: half the story. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46, 1041–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Seaberg, J. R. (1998). Faculty reports of workload: Results of a national survey. Journal of Social Work Education, 34(1), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Winston, W. L. (1994). Operations research: Applications and algorithms. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business and EconomicsDokuz Eylül UniversityİzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations