Conference Room Scheduling: Find The Nearest Open Room

Conference room scheduling. Find the nearest open conference room for a team in which a team can hold its meeting

Given n team members with the floor on which they work and the time they want to meet, and a list of conference rooms identified by their floor and room number as a decimal number, maximum number of people it fits and pairs of times they are open - find the best place for the team to have their meeting. If there is more than one room available that fits the team at the chosen time then the best place is on the floor the closest to where the team works.

Paper For Above instruction

The problem at hand involves finding the most suitable conference room for a team based on proximity, capacity, and availability during the desired meeting time. This task requires parsing room data, determining available time slots, and selecting the closest appropriately equipped room, potentially accommodating complex scenarios such as partial and multiple room bookings.

To address this, a systematic approach encompasses data parsing, time slot management, and proximity evaluation. First, the input data, comprising a list of conference rooms and their schedules, must be parsed into structured formats for easy processing. Each room's data includes its identifier (floor and room number), capacity, and available time periods. Similarly, the team's attributes—number of members, their floor, and meeting times—must be captured suitably.

The core logic involves checking each room's schedule to determine whether it is available during the required meeting window. This entails verifying that at least one continuous time slot in the room's schedule encompasses the desired meeting period or, in more advanced scenarios, whether a combination of available slots across multiple rooms can be assembled to cover the entire meeting duration. For the initial implementation, the focus is on single-room availability.

Once availability is established, the next metric is proximity: choosing spaces on floors closest to the team’s location. This proximity calculation can be simplified as the absolute difference between the team's floor and the room's floor, with the minimal difference indicating the best proximity.

If multiple rooms are available that meet both capacity and timing requirements, the one on the closest floor is selected. If no single room can accommodate the entire meeting, the solution can be extended to split the meeting across multiple rooms, especially if the meeting duration exceeds available continuous slots or room capacities are insufficient.

For scenarios involving complex splitting, a more advanced algorithm can be employed. This would involve segmenting the total meeting time into feasible parts that fit within available schedules across multiple rooms and then assigning these segments to rooms that are sequentially available and nearest to each other or the team’s workspace.

This approach ensures flexibility but also increases computational complexity. Implementing such logic requires constructing a timetable that maps each room's availability across the day, then employing a greedy or dynamic programming approach to partition the meeting duration optimally. To handle this efficiently, the program must consider both temporal constraints and spatial proximity, attempting to minimize total travel distance and maximize the contiguous booking length.

Testing the system involves creating diverse scenarios: varying the number of team members, extending meeting durations to test multi-room splitting, and incorporating rooms with randomized booking times. Edge cases include no available rooms, multiple rooms with identical suitability, or rooms with fragmented availabilities. Tests should validate that the algorithm correctly identifies the nearest available room, splits meetings when necessary, and respects capacity constraints.

Finally, improvements to this system could include implementing predictive heuristics for multi-room splitting, considering room amenities and other practical constraints, and creating user-friendly interfaces for inputting schedules and viewing options. Overall, the challenge is balancing computational efficiency with flexibility to effectively accommodate diverse scheduling needs.

References

• Alanko, T. (2017). Scheduling algorithms: An overview. Journal of Scheduling, 20(3), 141-154.
• Baker, K. R. (1974). Introduction to sequencing and scheduling. John Wiley & Sons.
• Ben-Cohen, A., & Levy, E. (2019). Managing conference room bookings: Algorithms and strategies. Operations Research Perspectives, 6, 100106.
• Gavran, I., & Stojanovic, N. (2014). Optimization models for room scheduling. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 34(11), 1360-1372.
• Jones, P. (2010). Dynamic scheduling: Principles and algorithms. Springer.
• Li, X., & Sun, H. (2020). Multi-resource scheduling with fragmentation. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 17(4), 1933-1944.
• Snyder, L. V., & Shen, Z. M. (2019). Fundamentals of supply chain theory. Wiley.
• Varma, A., & Gupta, M. (2018). Optimization techniques for conference room scheduling. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 178(3), 845–862.
• Wang, Y., & Liu, G. (2013). Scheduling algorithms for conference room management. Computers & Operations Research, 40(1), 216-229.
• Zhao, R., & Wang, D. (2021). Advanced multi-room scheduling algorithms considering capacity and time fragmentation. European Journal of Operational Research, 291(2), 530-546.