Category Archives: Promoting OR

The First Sentence of the Great Analytics Novel

Thedarktower7 I’ve written many times before about the importance of promoting O.R. to the general public. One of the ideas that’s been suggested by several people is the possibility of writing a work of fiction whose main character (our hero) is an O.R./Analytics person. I still believe this is a great idea, if executed properly.

Today, my wife brought to my attention The Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, which, according to their web page, consists of the following:

Since 1982 the English Department at San Jose State University has sponsored the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, a whimsical literary competition that challenges entrants to compose the opening sentence to the worst of all possible novels. The contest (hereafter referred to as the BLFC) was the brainchild (or Rosemary’s baby) of Professor Scott Rice, whose graduate school excavations unearthed the source of the line “It was a dark and stormy night.” Sentenced to write a seminar paper on a minor Victorian novelist, he chose the man with the funny hyphenated name, Edward George Bulwer-Lytton, who was best known for perpetrating The Last Days of PompeiiEugene AramRienziThe CaxtonsThe Coming Race, and – not least – Paul Clifford, whose famous opener has been plagiarized repeatedly by the cartoon beagle Snoopy. No less impressively, Lytton coined phrases that have become common parlance in our language: “the pen is mightier than the sword,” “the great unwashed,” and “the almighty dollar” (the latter from The Coming Race, now available from Broadview Press).

Just like an awful first sentence can be a good indicator of a terrible book, the converse can also be true. Take, for example, the first sentence of Stephen King’s The Dark Tower series, which I happen to be reading (and loving) as we speak:

The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

It’s such a strong, mysterious, and captivating sentence…

…which brings me to the point of this post. If it’s going to be difficult to write The Great Analytics Novel, what if we start by thinking about what would be the perfect, most compelling sentence to start such a novel? Yes, I propose a contest. Let’s use our artistic abilities and suggest starting sentences. Feel free to add them as comments to this post. Who knows? Maybe someone will get inspired and start writing the novel.

Here’s mine:

Upon using the word “mathematical” he knew he had lost the battle for, despite the dramatic cost savings, their logical reasoning was instantly halted, like a snowshoe hare frozen in fear of its chief predator: the Canada lynx.

I can’t wait to read your submissions!

3 Comments

Filed under Analytics, Books, Challenge, INFORMS Public Information Committee, Motivation, Promoting OR

Promote O.R. by Taking Folks by Surprise

Due to a number of things that have been keeping me busy, including a 20-day fight against a kidney stone that is now finally over, I haven’t had much time to post. I have two ideas that I plan to turn into posts soon, but in the meantime I’d like to suggest that everyone write a post about “santa claus” and “reindeer” (and properly tag it with those words). As the picture below indicates, I’ve been getting a lot of hits lately (way above average) and, digging deeper, I see that my post entitled “How Should Santa Pair Up His Reindeer?” has had 2,209 views this past week. Yay for Christmas!

Screen Shot 2012-12-04 at 10.27.15 AMAs a matter of fact, I suggest that everyone write a post about each special date of the year (Easter, Fourth of July, Valentine’s Day, Summer Camp, etc.). Those will keep bringing you recurring visits, without any extra effort, year after year. Of course not all (in fact, most) of those visits will be here for O.R. But that’s the point! If we want to spread the word about O.R. we’ve got to take people by surprise. “I was just looking for a cute reindeer picture and this guy blew my mind by showing me that math and reindeer have something to do with each other! How cool is that!”

BTW, I just realized I do not have an Easter post. I need to take care of this…

Leave a comment

Filed under Holidays, Promoting OR

Did You See Any OR During Apple’s iPhone 5 Announcement? I did!

On September 12, Apple finally announced its much-awaited iPhone 5. I didn’t have time to watch the keynote speech, but I watched the shorter 7-minute video that’s posted on Apple’s web site featuring Jony Ive, Apple’s Senior Vice President, Design. In that video, at around the 5-minute, 26-second mark, something they said caught my attention: the way they put parts together during the assembly process. I encourage you to watch that part of the video before reading on.

Jony Ive says:

Never before, have we built a product with this extraordinary level of fit and finish. We’ve developed manufacturing processes that are our most complex and ambitious.

And on Apple’s web site, they say this:

During manufacturing, each iPhone 5 aluminum housing is photographed by two high-powered 29MP cameras. A machine then examines the images and compares them against 725 unique inlays to find the most precise match for every single iPhone.

So let’s see if I understood this correctly. In a typical manufacturing operation, the multiple parts that get put together to create a product are put together without much fuss. A machine makes part A, another machine makes part B, and perhaps a robotic arm or a third machine takes any one of the many part A’s that are coming down a conveyor belt and attaches it to any one of the many part B’s that are coming down another conveyor belt. What Apple did was to improve on the “any one” choice. I don’t know if Apple pioneered this idea, I’d say probably not, but this is the first time I hear about something like this. If you’ve seen this before, let me know in the comments.

Before OR comes into play, Computer Science does its job in the form of computer vision / image processing algorithms. The photographs of the parts are analyzed and (I’m guessing) a fitness score is calculated for every possible matching pair of parts A (the housing) and B (the inlay). What happens next? How do they pick the winning match? Here are some possibilities:

  1. Each part A is matched with the part B, among the 725 candidates, that produces the best matching score.
  2. A 725 by 725 matrix of fitness scores is created between 725 parts of type A and 725 parts of type B, and the best 725 matches are chosen so as to maximize the overall fitness score (i.e. the sum of the fitness scores of all the chosen matches).
  3. Proceed as in the previous case, but pick the 725 matches that maximize the minimum fitness score. That is, we worry about the worst case and don’t let the worst match be too bad when compared to the best match.

After these 725 pairs are put together, new sets of parts A and B come down the conveyor belt and the matching process is repeated. Possibility number 1 is the fastest (e.g. do a binary search, or build a priority queue), but not necessarily the best because every now and then a bad match will have to be made. Possibilities 2 (an assignment problem) and 3 (assignment problem with a max-min objective) are better, in my opinion, with the third one being my favorite. They are, however, more time consuming than possibility 1. Jony Ive says the choice is made “instantaneously”, which doesn’t preclude something fancier than possibility 1 from being used given the assignment problems are pretty small.

The result? In the words of Jony Ive:

The variances from product to product, we now measure in microns.

It is well-known that OR plays a very important role in manufacturing (facility layout, machine/job scheduling, etc.) but it’s not every day that people stop to think about what happens in a manufacturing plant. This highly-popular announcement being watched by so many people around the world painted a very clear picture of the kinds of problems high-tech manufacturing facilities face. I think it’s a great example of what OR can do, and how relevant it is to our companies and our lives.

Leave a comment

Filed under Applications, iPhone, Motivation, Promoting OR

Fourth of July Logistics in Coral Gables: No OR, No Glory

After a six-year hiatus, the city of Coral Gables and the Biltmore Hotel decided to host the Fourth of July celebrations once again including, of course, a very nice fireworks display on the Biltmore 18-hole golf course. My wife and I had watched the Independence Day fireworks at Biscayne bay and on the beach the past two years, so we thought this would be a nice change.

At the outset, the event seemed to be very well organized with buses and trolleys departing from four different places in the city to take people to the hotel, as shown in the map below.

So we parked our car at the Andalusia garage (Garage 4 on the map) and took the 6pm trolley. There was going to be a concert starting at 7pm, while the fireworks would go off at 9pm. We found a nice spot to place our chairs and my wife’s camera tripod, so we sat down and relaxed. Numerous food trucks offered plenty of tasty choices, the concert was entertaining and, most importantly, we loved the fireworks. All in all, we were very pleased with the whole thing. The problems started once the fireworks ended. Take a look at this map.

The red arrows indicate the flow of people trying to exit the golf course through a single narrow path (people coming from all directions were converging to that point). The yellow arrows start at the trolley/bus stop (a single stop) and show the path the trolleys/buses would take to go back to the garages in the previous map.

By now you’ve already guessed what happened, but I’ll list some of the main problems: (1) large congestion to exit the golf course (bottleneck); (2) no organized lines were formed by the police; people simply aggregated as a large mass at the bus stop (forget about FIFO); (3) tons of people actually drove their cars and parked not only in the parking lot depicted above, but also all around the neighborhood surrounding the hotel. Therefore, the yellow bus path was full of pedestrians walking to their cars (or walking home) and the police did not allow trolleys/buses to come in or out while there were pedestrians on the road (that is, forever); (4) we were given no indication as to which would be the destination of the incoming trolley/bus until they were parked at the stop (crowd left in the dark = annoyed crowd).

After standing there for a while, my wife and I decided that it would be much faster and less stressful if we simply walked back to Garage 4 (a 1.3-mile, 25-minute walk). Yes, it was very hot that day, and we had to carry some heavy chairs and equipment, but it was better than suffering through the chaos.

As an Operations Research person, I couldn’t stop thinking of all the bad decisions that were made by the organization of this event. I know they meant well, but everyone’s experience would have been much more enjoyable if they did a few things differently. Some of my suggestions below require conveying information to the attendees ahead of time, but this could have been accomplished by handing out flyers to people as they arrived. (Arrivals were not a problem because they were spread out over 3.5 hours, between 5 and 8:30pm.)

  • Divide the crowd by telling people to exit the golf course through different paths depending on where they’re headed: those walking home exit through gate A, those walking to the Biltmore parking lot exit through gate B, those wishing to catch a trolley/bus, exit through gate C, etc.
  • Have multiple bus stops, reasonably away from each other.
  • Have barricades set up so that: (1) lines are properly formed at the bus stops, (2) pedestrians do not walk on the road and impede the flow of trolleys/buses.
  • Schedule the return trips of trolleys/buses in advance and tell people to come to the bus stop at their assigned time based on desired destination (à la Disney fast pass).

These are just some ideas that came to mind right away, but I bet more improvements are possible (what would you have done, dear reader?). Judging by how many of my friends who did not attend the event already knew it had had a chaotic ending even before I told them, I’m sure the city received plenty of feedback. I expect next year’s event to run much more smoothly. However, just in case they need a little extra help, I’d like to write a quick letter to the City of Coral Gables:

Dear City of Coral Gables:

I’m a professor at the University of Miami who specializes in using advanced analytical methods to help with decision making. If you need help with the logistics of your Fourth of July Fireworks or any other city-sponsored activity, I’m available. Here’s my contact information.

Sincerely,

Tallys Yunes.

To end this post on a happy note, here are some beautiful photos of the fireworks taken by my favorite photographer. Enjoy!

1 Comment

Filed under Applications, Holidays, Promoting OR

The “Real” Reason Bill Cook Created the TSP App

By now, most people are aware of the latest Internet meme Texts from Hillary which is, by the way, hilarious. You’re also probably aware that Bill Cook created an iPhone App that allows one to solve traveling salesman problems (TSP) on a mobile phone! If you like optimization, you have to give this App a try; and make sure to check out the Traveling Salesman book too!

Inspired by Texts from Hillary I finally figured out the “real” reason why Bill Cook created the App. Here it is:

1 Comment

Filed under Applications, Books, iPhone, Meme, People, Promoting OR, Traveling Salesman Problem

Operations Research Memes

In the spirit of bringing awareness about O.R. to the masses, I created the memes below. Perhaps they’ll gain some traction or at least get a few people to wonder about what O.R. is. Who knows, they may even motivate someone to Google the term! If you end up making your own O.R.-inspired meme, please send me a link to it via the comments section. To create mine, I used the quickmeme.com web site.

UPDATE: A few other OR bloggers and tweeps joined the meme crusade! Here are their creations (in chronological order of my becoming aware of them):

Laura McLay created the memes below:

Michael Trick created these:

Paul Rubin suggested the creation of this one:

Guido Diepen created this one:

Bill Cook made this cool TSP meme:

Paul Rubin made this one, western style:

My MBA student William Bucciero got inspired by these O.R. memes and made some of his own. He was kind enough to share them with me. I think he did a great job! Here they are:

Another one of my MBA students, Jason Siem, also joined the O.R. meme bandwagon. Here’s one of his (pretty funny and true):

9 Comments

Filed under Meme, Promoting OR

Choosing Summer Camps for Your Kids

Today I’m going to write about a decision that’s made by many American families each year: how to pick summer camps for our kids. There are several issues to take into account, such as cost, benefit, hours, and kids’ preferences. I’ll introduce an optimization model for summer camp selection through a numerical example. The example portrays a large family, but the same ideas apply if a few smaller families want to get together and solve this problem. This way they can take advantage of the discounts and take turns driving the kids around.

The Joneses have six kids: Amy, Beth, Cathy, David, Earl and Fred (yes, their first names are alphabetically sorted, matching their increasing order of age; Mr. and Mrs. Jones always knew they’d have six kids and hence named their firstborn with an ‘F’ name). This year, they’ve narrowed down their list of potential summer camps to the following ten: Math, Chess, Nature, Crafts, Cooking, Gymnastics, Soccer, Tennis, Diving, and Fishing. The Nature camp takes kids on a hike through the woods with the guidance of a biologist; they make frequent stops upon encountering specific plants and animals, during which a mini science lecture is delivered (pretty cool!). The Cooking camp involves cooking chemistry instruction, à la Alton Brown (also pretty cool).

The following table contains some data related to each camp:

The Cost column indicates the cost per child. The Discount column indicates the percentage discount that each child enrolled after the first would receive on the cost of each camp. For instance, if three children are enrolled in Math camp, the first would cost $1100, and the second and third would cost $770 each (30% less). The Hours column is self-explanatory and the last two columns indicate whether or not that particular camp develops mental and physical abilities, respectively (a value of one = yes, zero=no).

The next table shows some of the child-specific requirements:

For example, the Joneses want Fred to attend at least 3 camps that develop mental abilities, and at least 1 camp that develops physical abilities. The last two columns in the above table indicate the minimum and maximum number of camp hours for each child over the 9-week summer break.

The next thing parents need to take into account are their children’s preferences. So here they are:

The smaller the number in the above table, the more desirable a particular camp is. For example, Amy is a bit of a math nerd, and if we were to flip David’s preference scores for Math and Tennis, he could be classified as a bit of a jock. Some conflicts exist, in the sense that not all camps are compatible with each other in terms of time schedules. In this particular case, let’s assume that no child can attend both the Soccer and Tennis camps, or both the Nature and Soccer camps. Here’s how we are going to use this preference table to create a sense of fairness among the children: whenever a child that prefers camp X to camp Y goes to camp Y and doesn’t go to camp X, nobody else gets to go to camp X either. For example, if Amy goes to Nature camp and isn’t sent to either Math or Chess camp, none of her siblings are allowed to go to Math or Chess either. Conversely, if the Joneses decide to send Earl to Chess camp and Fred to Tennis camp, they must also send Earl to Tennis camp (because Earl prefers Tennis to Chess, and “Fred is going! Why can’t I go too!”). Clearly, there are other ways to use/interpret this table, such as trying to send everyone to at least one of their top N choices, but we won’t consider those alternatives here.

After taking all of the above issues and conditions into account, here’s a solution that satisfies all the requirements while resulting in the minimum cost of $22,180.00 (You guessed it…the Joneses are probably *not* among the 99%):

Amy goes to Math, Crafts, Cooking, and Tennis; Beth goes to Math, Cooking, Tennis, and Fishing; Cathy goes to Math, Crafts, Tennis, and Fishing; David goes to Math, Cooking, and Fishing; Earl goes to Math, Tennis, and Fishing; and Fred goes to Math, Crafts, Cooking, and Tennis. Mmm…interestingly, everyone goes to Math camp. I think the Joneses are on to something…

Depending on your own requirements, preferences, and costs your solution may differ, of course. But this should give you an idea of how this simple problem can easily become very complicated to solve. No need to fear, though! Operations Research is here!

Food for Thought: Here’s an interesting question that helps illustrate how high-quality solutions can be counterintuitive: by looking at the preferences table, we see that everyone prefers Soccer to Tennis. In addition, Soccer camp is less expensive than Tennis camp. So how come we send almost everyone to Tennis camp? Isn’t that strange? Let me know what you think in the comments below! That’s one of the advantages of using an analytical approach to decision making: it helps us find solutions we wouldn’t even consider otherwise because they don’t seem to make sense (at least not at first).

If you’re curious about how I managed to find the optimal solution, read on!

Details of the Analysis:

To find the minimum-cost solution, we can create a mathematical representation of the problem, a.k.a. a model, and then solve this model with the help of a computer. Let’s see how.

The first obvious decision to make is who goes where. So let the binary variable x_{ij} equal 1 when child i goes to camp j, and equal to 0 otherwise. We’ll also need another binary variable y_j that is equal to 1 when at least one child goes to camp j and equal to 0 when none of the children go to camp j. We are now ready to write our objective function and constraints. I’ll refer to the problem data using the column headings of the tables above. The subscript i will always refer to a child, and the subscript j will always refer to a camp.

To minimize the total cost, we write the following objective function:

\displaystyle \min \sum_i \sum_j (1-\mathrm{Discount}_j)\mathrm{Cost}_j x_{ij} + \sum_j \mathrm{Discount}_j \mathrm{Cost}_j y_j

Note how we are using the y_j variable to handle the discount for sending more than one child to camp j: we charge every child the discounted price in the double summation and add the discount back in only once if y_j=1.

Now we have to deal with the four requirements: minimum and maximum hours, mental activity, and physical activity. For every child i, we have to write the following four constraints:

\displaystyle \sum_j \mathrm{Hours}_j x_{ij} \geq \mathrm{MinTimeReq}_i

\displaystyle \sum_j \mathrm{Hours}_j x_{ij} \leq \mathrm{MaxTimeReq}_i

\displaystyle \sum_j \mathrm{IsMental}_j x_{ij} \geq \mathrm{MentalReq}_i

\displaystyle \sum_j \mathrm{IsPhysical}_j x_{ij} \geq \mathrm{PhysicalReq}_i

Next, we enforce the preference rules. Let’s recall the example involving Earl and Fred: if Earl goes to Chess camp and someone else (it doesn’t matter who) goes to Tennis camp, then Earl has to go to Tennis camp as well. Here’s what this constraint would look like:

x_{\mathrm{Earl},\mathrm{Chess}} + y_{\mathrm{Tennis}} - x_{\mathrm{Earl},\mathrm{Tennis}} \leq 1

Of course, we have to repeat this constraint for every child i and every pair of camps j_1 and j_2 such that child i prefers j_1 to j_2 in the following way:

x_{ij_2} + y_{j_1} - x_{ij_1} \leq 1

The camp compatibility constraints say that no child i can attend both Soccer and Tennis, or both Nature and Soccer, therefore:

x_{i,\mathrm{Soccer}} + x_{i,\mathrm{Tennis}} \leq 1

x_{i,\mathrm{Nature}} + x_{i,\mathrm{Soccer}} \leq 1

Finally, we need to relate the x_{ij} and y_j variables by stating that unless y_j=1 , no x_{ij} can be equal to 1 . So we write the following constraint for all values of i and j :

x_{ij} \leq y_j

And that’s the end of our model. Here’s a representation of this mathematical model in AMPL in case you want to play with it yourself. This is the model I used to obtain the numerical results reported above. Enjoy!

5 Comments

Filed under Applications, INFORMS Monthly Blog Challenge, Integer Programming, Mathematical Programming, Modeling, Motivation, Promoting OR, Summer camp

A Conversation with Mr. X

This year I’ll be blogging during the INFORMS conference in Charlotte. My first post is already up, and it’s entitled A Conversation with Mr. X. Make sure to check it out!

I’m also looking forward to eating some delicious southern food (I hope they’ll have enough vegetarian options like they did in Austin). I’ll make sure to add barbecue sauce to my potato salad again; an act that drives my wife completely nuts :-)

See you in Charlotte!

Leave a comment

Filed under Conferences and Events, INFORMS, INFORMS Public Information Committee, Promoting OR

An O.R. Vocabulary Test for Non-Experts

I was talking to my wife the other day recalling how much fun she has while overhearing words from some of my research-related phone calls. We started to think about what comes to people’s minds when they hear an OR-related term whose definition is not obvious to them. I’m not talking about obscure and technical mathematical terms such as a “contrapolymatroid“, but terms at which a non-expert would actually be able to take an educated guess, such as “large-neighborhood search“. So I made a list of ten such terms and asked three friends (named A, B, and C) to define them to the best of their ability. The only rule was that they had to do it on the spot, off the top of their heads; no Googling allowed. Because none of them have training in OR, some of the answers turned out to be pretty interesting.

1. A global constraint.

A) All the stuff in the world that’s holding us back.

B) All the factors that prevent the open market from being truly open: laws, politics, foreign/domestic policy, national borders, etc.

C) Gravity.

2. Complementary slackness.

A) A dude who hangs out in a bar with no job, but complements the decor and vibe perfectly.

B) An equal and opposite reaction to whatever sectors are experiencing growth in the marketplace.

C) Time off from performing a task or responsibility granted by a superior or by oneself.

3. An odd cycle.

A) When you get your period unexpectedly; or that cycle on the washing machine that no one ever uses.

B) An economic cycle (quarter, fiscal year, etc.) which displays characteristics unlike the ones that preceded or succeeded it. In other words, in a sustained period of economic growth, it’s the one segment that shows recession.

C) A phenomenon with awkward tendencies and characteristics that is repeated every so often.

4. A spanning tree.

A) A tree that creeps from your neighbor’s yard to yours. Usually makes a huge mess in yours.

B) Has something to do with Ethernet networks.

C) A rather large plant with either a long branch span or time span on planet Earth.

5. A cutting plane.

A) A wood working tool that both cuts and planes.

B) No freaking clue.

C) A slice that intersects a 3D object in order to provide another viewpoint.

6. A shadow price.

A) The hidden cost of owning things. Like the extra cost of owning and maintaining a house or a luxury car.

B) The true representative value of goods and services, compared to the value dictated by the supply/demand of the marketplace.

C) A value for an item or service which can be obtained but that requires the buyer to perform an extensive search.

7. A comb inequality.

A) When you have a better comb than I do.

B) huh?

C) Inadequacies that persist despite efforts to eliminate them.

8. Duality gap.

A) The gap between personalities in someone with multiple personality disorder.

B) Again no idea.

C) A two-faced abyss. In other words, an alternative that may seem unfortunate but that possesses some advantages.

9. A feasible region.

A) The region where it is possible for you to live given your income, wants, and available houses.

B) Sounds like agriculture. Sorry, I got nothing.

C) An area or scope which could be a viable alternative for several purposes.

10. The first-fail principle.

A) When you get to repeat a class the first time you fail it, if approved by your high-school principal.

B) The idea that early adopters in a new sector of the market who fail will provide secondary adopters guidance through their failure. Not literal guidance, of course, but the secondary adopters will come into the marketplace and make decisions based upon others’ prior failures.

C) If you fail miserably the first time, don’t try again.

The first lesson I learned from this very non-scientific experiment is: if you’re at a party and somebody asks you what you do, you’re probably better off using an example. For instance: “Do you ever wonder how hurricane paths are estimated? That’s what I do.” You’d of course replace “hurricane paths” with your favorite problem. If the example comes before “scary” words, I believe the end result will be much better. If things go well, the ideal reaction by other person will be: “That’s so cool! What kind of training do you need to do that?” From that point on, you proceed to convince them that math is cool.

Secondly, the amusing nature of the answers above notwithstanding, this experiment got me thinking about how to make OR more visible and accessible to the general audience. That’s one of the goals of the INFORMS Public Information Committee (PIC), of which I’ve recently become a member. We already have some ideas and initiatives lined up, but I’m open to your comments and suggestions. Feel free to send me your thoughts by e-mail or via the comments section below. By the way, if you feel like doing this experiment with your own friends, feel free to send me their answers and I’ll add them to the bunch.

5 Comments

Filed under INFORMS Public Information Committee, People, Promoting OR

MLB Umpire Scheduling

There are two purposes to this post. First, I’d like to follow-up on Michael Trick’s post on the importance of teaching and its relationship with research. One of the points Mike makes is that your next exciting research or consulting project may come from current or former students. Those of us who teach undergraduate and MBA classes have the opportunity to network with (future) managers and practitioners who will eventually put their training to the test, producing actual answers to real-life problems. And if one of those problems requires more OR knowledge than what they had the opportunity to learn in school, they might remember their friendly neighborhood OR professor. Another way research can come out of teaching is during hands-on projects. Back in 2006, Mike was in charge of an elective OR-project class that allows MBA students to try their hands on a real-life problem; in that case umpire scheduling. To my delight, Mike invited me to be the TA for that course and I gladly accepted. The rest is history.

The second purpose of this post is to help myself keep track of the recent news stories about our umpire scheduling paper. Thanks to an excellent job by the PR departments at the University of Miami School of Business (thanks, Catharine!) and Michigan State University, the story has appeared in numerous outlets. As a matter of fact, I’m very excited to report that Scientific American had a 60-second science podcast about our work:

August 18Scientific American: Researchers Tell Umpires Where to Go (PDF version)

Here are a few other news outlets that covered the story (I’m trying to keep this list up-to-date for my own sake). I’m also providing a link to a PDF version of each story in case the web pages are taken offline:

April 2012, The Spring issue of Business Miami Magazine has an article about our work entitled Road Trip (PDF version).

October 19, WAMC Northeast Public Radio Academic Minute. I recorded a 1:45-minute explanation of the problem, approach, and results which aired as one of WAMC’s Academic Minutes on the same day of the first game of the World Series. That was a lot of fun! Click on the link to listen. If the link doesn’t work, here’s the MP3 file.

September 6, Miami New Times: Tallys Yunes, UM Professor, Solves MLB’s Umpire Scheduling Dilemma (PDF version). This article also appeared in print, in the September 8-14 issue of Miami New Times. Here’s a PDF scan of that.

August 3, PhysOrg: University of Miami Business Professor Helps Create a Successful Scheduling Method for Umpires in Major League Baseball (PDF version)

August 3, HPCwire: Business Prof Solves Traveling Umpire Problem for Major League Baseball (PDF version)

July 31, University of Miami School of Business: School’s Management Science Research Resolves Major League Baseball’s Umpire Scheduling Challenges (PDF version)

July 21, ScienceDaily: Scholar Helps Make Major League Baseball Umpire Schedule a Hit (PDF version)

July 21, ThePostGame: MLB Umpires Have a Turkish Secret Weapon (PDF version)

July 20, PhysOrg: Michigan State Scholar Helps Make MLB Umpire Schedule a Hit (PDF version)

July 20, Michigan State University News: Michigan State Scholar Helps Make MLB Umpire Schedule a Hit (PDF version)

I greatly enjoy the teaching side of my job because I believe it complements the research side quite well. I’m looking forward to bringing articles like the ones above to my classes in the Spring and I’m sure they’ll be well received.

Further acknowledgments: thanks to those who also helped spread the word about the umpire scheduling problem on Twitter, especially Paul Rubin (@parubin), Aurélie Thiele (@aureliethiele), and @INFORMS (is that you, Mary Leszczynski? :-).

3 Comments

Filed under Applications, Heuristics, Promoting OR, Research, Sports, Teaching, Traveling Umpire Problem