priority assignment survey

Prioritize Like a Pro: Steps to Creating an Effective Prioritization Matrix

Have you ever wondered why many digital agencies can create and finish successful projects on time?

Despite taking on multiple projects simultaneously, they can still produce quality results that satisfy their clients.

Makes one wonder what they are doing to manage multiple tasks .

In reality, it is no secret!

It is really simple— those digital agencies know how to prioritize.

But what do we really mean by "prioritizing"?

We know that all tasks associated with a project are important, but how do we determine which to prioritize? After all, prioritizing the wrong task and doing it before others may jeopardize the timeline and delay the project's completion.

And we so don't want that to happen!

What should we do?

When prioritizing tasks and assignments, project managers and teams use a prioritization matrix. Also called a priority matrix , the prioritization matrix is a management tool that orders tasks and projects based on specific criteria managers define. The priority matrix gives managers and teams a visual to identify which tasks or projects they should work on next.

A prioritization matrix is a very helpful tool for both managers and teams alike. If you are not yet using a priority matrix, here are some reasons why you should consider it:

• A matrix tells you which projects to prioritize . As we handle multiple projects simultaneously, we start to realize that not all projects are the same. Different projects require different deliverables and need to be completed at different times. So, to prevent us from wasting our limited resources and time, we need to prioritize.
• It helps us manage our time better . Many teams use to-do lists and other task management tools to manage time. However, when we have a load of tasks to work on, we often end up procrastinating, and our productivity is affected. To help us with time management, a priority matrix is an alternative tool we can use. By using a one, we can determine which tasks are critical and urgent and which have low urgency and importance.
• It promotes collaboration and teamwork . Handling multiple projects simultaneously means each project will compete for the agency's attention and funding. Choosing the incorrect project to pour resources and time into first may lead to jeopardizing others' timelines and may cause disagreements among teams. To prevent this from happening, we need an objective, logical process to identify which projects to put first. After all, we get our resources from different departments with different priorities. By using a prioritization matrix, we will have a reliable process for conflict resolution, providing our stakeholders with peace of mind.

Prioritization matrices are a proven method of organizing projects along with the tasks and deliverables they bring. We even use it for our projects and tasks!

How about you ? Do you want to keep your tasks organized? Start by creating a priority matrix for your agency's projects and identify which to focus on!

If you are not yet aware of how to create and use a priority matrix, we're here to teach you the basics of prioritization matrices— from the necessary steps in creating one to how you can use these matrices effectively to tips on how you can create an effective matrix for your agency. Continue reading to discover more!

Steps to Create a Prioritization Matrix Template

Successful project management is not based on gut feeling. Instead, making decisions regarding projects must be based on fact-based criteria and data gathered from various sources. This also happens when we use a prioritization matrix for the agency. Because of this, it is imperative that we apply a logical process to create our own matrix, right? After all, the priority matrix will provide us with a clear idea of what our projects are, as well as the necessary deliverables and the urgency of each project.

Follow these simple steps in creating a project prioritization matrix and impress clients with the success of the completed projects.

Determine criteria to assess priority.

Creating a prioritization matrix starts with the project objectives. Our projects and deliverables intend to provide solutions to the client's existing problems.

In creating a prioritization matrix, we recommend limiting the criteria to three to five items.

Will it make a difference? It certainly will!

Having criteria ensures that the matrix is easy to use and provides clarity about the projects.

Most prioritization matrices use the following criteria in their template:

• Importance . The importance criteria of the priority matrix refer to the importance of the project or task. For example, complex and time-sensitive projects are more important than small-scale, simple ones.
• Urgency . This criterion refers to the time-sensitivity of each project or task. We can consider urgent projects with shorter deadlines than those with longer ones.
• Required effort . The amount of effort to be put into the task or project is also essential in the prioritization matrix. We can prioritize those projects requiring high effort, such as complex projects requiring thorough research.
• Impact . Also considered as the value of the project, the impact is the prioritization criteria that measures how much a project or task can affect our agency. High-value projects are those that can provide us with the most benefits and positive impact.

Determining the criteria for our prioritization matrix can be done through brainstorming with teams . After all, we need collaboration and team effort to make successful projects.

List all your tasks/projects that need prioritizing.

After we've determined your criteria for the prioritization matrix, we should list all the tasks and projects that need to be prioritized.

In this step, we can also ask for help from team members as well as stakeholders to create the agency's list of projects and tasks needing priority. We can look at one another's to-do lists to identify these projects and tasks and find the common ones. Doing this can make ordering and classifying tasks and projects much easier.

Create a table with your criteria as columns and tasks as rows.

Now that we've determined the selection criteria as well as the projects and tasks needing prioritization, it's time for us to create the actual matrix! There are many variations of priority matrices, from simple priority matrices to complex ones, such as the Six Sigma prioritization matrix. The type of matrix we create depends on our needs and objectives .

The selection criteria are positioned as the columns for your prioritization matrix. The number of columns depends on the number of criteria that the team has determined. For example, the matrix will have four columns if we have four selection criteria (importance, urgency, impact, and difficulty/required effort).

On the other hand, the projects and tasks listed will become the rows for the matrix. Again, the number of rows depends on the projects and tasks listed.

Score each task on each criterion.

The next step in your prioritization matrix is scoring each project or task based on the criteria. Each criterion in the matrix should have a corresponding weight or numerical value and will be the basis for comparison or ranking. The numbers on each criterion will indicate the level of importance of each criterion.

When scoring each project and task, it is recommended that we stay objective. We should score each project and task on how well it meets each criterion. Most matrices use a 1 to 5 scale or a 1 to 10 scale, with one being the lowest and 5 or 10 being the highest. However, you can still use a different scale if you prefer, just make sure that you are consistent with the one used.

Add up scores to get a priority ranking for each task.

After rating each project and task, we can now add each score to determine its priority ranking. Calculating the weighted score for each task will depend on the type of prioritization matrix used.

How do we do that?

Well, we can calculate the weighted score of each task using the following tips:

• Multiply the score of each project or task with the criteria weight to calculate the weighted score. Then, add up the weighted scores to get the cumulative score. The higher the cumulative value, the higher the priority.
• Compute for the relative decimal value. To arrive at this value, we should first get the raw total by adding the decimal values of each row. Then, add up the raw totals to get the grand total. Divide each row's total by the grand total to arrive at the relative decimal value. The higher the decimal value, the higher its priority.

After we've determined the scores of each project or task, we should compare the values against one another to assess its hierarchy in the priority list. Usually, the higher the score, the more essential and urgent the task. However, if we think the results are incorrect, we can reevaluate the criteria and the weights then recalculate the values.

Tips for an Effective Matrix

A priority matrix may be easy to create but can be complicated. One wrong move in determining the criteria or project and assigning values may lead our projects down the drain!

That is why we can ensure that our matrix is effective and helpful by following these simple tips below:

Keep It Simple!

Many project teams avoid using the prioritization matrix as they find the process difficult. Sure, doing a little math can be pretty confusing, but we can avoid confusion if we keep the matrix simple.

Doesn't that sound great?

We always recommend keeping the matrix simple for project teams that are total newbies to the prioritization matrix. We can simplify the priority matrix by using a small number of criteria, preferably three to five at most.

How can we determine which criteria to use? It's simple – we must look at our agency's development goals and objectives . After all, the projects we prioritize will impact our performance and success as an agency.

In essence, project teams created the prioritization matrix to determine which projects to prioritize to maximize productivity and reap the most benefits for the agency. If we are rating projects and tasks based on our biases (and sometimes even hidden agendas), then what is the need for the matrix in the first place?

By being honest in assigning scores to each project and task, we can have more accurate values on our prioritization matrix. And a more accurate prioritization matrix means more chances of project success.

Update as Needed!

Update project management tools and software periodically as the teams' needs change. This is also the case when creating a prioritization matrix.

To ensure we can create an accurate prioritization matrix, we should update our criteria and their corresponding weights as our priorities shift. However, we should still remember that while our priorities may shift with each project, our goals and objectives as an agency will not. So, when we reevaluate our prioritization matrix, we should always align it with our goals and objectives and determine which we should prioritize for now.

The prioritization matrix can help us determine which projects and tasks should come first above all others. We have the weights to identify which of these have the highest priority, but how can other members of the team who weren't involved with its creation know which to prioritize?

It's simple— visualize!

We can use color coding to visualize the priority levels of each project and task. Here's an example:

• Red for high urgency, high importance projects
• Orange for high urgency, low importance projects
• Yellow for low urgency, high importance projects
• Green for low urgency, low importance projects.

Color coding allows us to easily look at the matrix and determine which is which without taking too much time.

How Do You Use a Prioritization Matrix?

Creating a prioritization matrix is one thing, but using it effectively is another matter. As a project manager, how can we use the matrix effectively?

Here are some ways we can use the project prioritization matrix in handling multiple projects simultaneously.

Let the matrix guide what you work on first.

The purpose of the prioritization matrix is to determine which projects and tasks should be put first. It is our guiding star when taking on multiple projects simultaneously.

Taking full advantage of the priority matrix means we look at the results calculated and focus on the projects and tasks with the highest priority based on our criteria.

Schedule/batch tasks by priority level.

Now that we know the priority level of each project and task, we can start working on them depending on their priority level.

Based on these levels, we can execute tasks in batches to better manage our time. For example, we can perform high-urgency and high-importance tasks first until we can accomplish them by a certain percentage. Then, we can work on the next priority level until we can deliver the necessary results.

By working in batches by priority levels, we can avoid procrastinating and accomplish tasks to meet deadlines. This way, we can work smoothly and according to the project management plan .

Delegate or eliminate low-priority tasks.

High-priority projects and tasks are those that can have the most impact and value to the agency. These often include complex and large-scale projects that require experts from the team.

Projects with the highest priority levels often require to be worked on by the best of the team. We can have them focus solely on these projects and follow up from time to time.

But how about low-priority projects? How can we ensure these are still worked on with excellence? We can have these tasks and projects delegated to other team members. However, we still need to consider their skills to ensure we can minimize mistakes and delays in the project. Just don't forget to follow up on your team's progress occasionally!

Review and update your matrix regularly.

Just like other project management tools, prioritization matrices are not one-offs. They need to be reviewed and updated regularly to ensure accuracy and alignment with our goals and objectives.

Reviewing and updating the matrix regularly gives us an insight into how our priorities change as our projects change. This way, we can determine the appropriate priority level for each project and task without compromising the client's objectives or our own.

Key Takeaways

So, what have we learned today? Here are some key takeaways regarding the prioritization matrix.

• A prioritization matrix can provide us with a number of benefits, namely, 1) determining which projects to focus on, 2) helping in time management, 3) promoting collaboration and teamwork, and 4) aiding in conflict resolution.
• Creating a prioritization matrix will require us to perform several steps: 1) identifying assessment criteria for testing each project or task; 2) determining and listing down the projects and tasks that need prioritizing; 3) assigning scores for each project or task against each criterion; and 4) adding the scores of each task and comparing them to determine priority levels.

Many agencies use a prioritization matrix to manage their projects better and avoid procrastination. Are you having problems with meeting deadlines and executing projects? Maybe a prioritization matrix is what your agency needs!

In a Nutshell...

Here are some reminders when you want to create a prioritization matrix for your agency.

• A prioritization matrix is a simple yet powerful tool that organizations and digital agencies can use to manage their projects better. It provides teams with a clear idea of each project's needs and objectives and the necessary deliverables for each project.
• Creating a prioritization matrix is simple and will need the project team's collaboration. Although it will need effort when you create it, it will save you time in the long run.
• A prioritization matrix is an effective tool to help your agency work smarter, not harder. You can create better workflows and more independent teams by using this powerful tool.

Ready to take on projects that will help you scale up your agency? Contact us today and discover the full potential of your agency !

Popular Posts

Free tips, tricks & business hacks.

Related Posts

The Game-Changer: Elevating Your Business with the Right SOP Template

AI Project Management Tools: Not Just for Tech Wizards Anymore

Smooth Transitions: Creating an Effective Offboarding Checklists

From Zero to Hero: AI Project Management Success

Operations Manual: Because 'Winging It' is Just Too Mainstream

5 Best Project Management Methodologies to Help Run Your Business

Ready to set that sh*t on auto-pilot.

That's All Folks!

Are you ready to level up and streamline your sales process?

Stop Herding Cats

Level Up Your Agency Hiring and Onboarding Process with ScaleTime and the SCALE. Framework

Work Smarter, Not Harder

Take the ScaleMap Diagnostic

Find out in In 5 minutes if you can …

• 💰 Save 50k per quarter
• ⌛ Reclaim 5 hours a week
• 🗺️ Get the visual roadmap of 50 touchpoints to optimize your ops

Attend Our 2X Agency Profit Masterclass

Objective: Outline your 10-week Ops Roadmap that gets you

• 💰 25% lower costs [so you can take home more of what you bring in]
• ⌛ 3X client capacity [so you can scale]
• 🗺️ 10x peace of mind [so you can sleep]

Register for the webinar on Zoom

Priority-Aware Task Assignment in Opportunistic Network-Based Mobile Crowdsourcing

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

KPMG Personalization

Global Assignment Policies & Practices Survey Report

Insights on how global organizations administer their global mobility programs.

• Share Share close
• Download Global Assignment Policies & Practices Survey Report pdf Opens in a new window
• 1000 Save this article to my library
• View Print friendly version of this article Opens in a new window
• Go to bottom of page
• Home ›
• Insights ›
• Global Assignment Policies & Practices Survey Report

For global mobility leaders of multinational organizations, benchmarking your global mobility policies and practices against those of other global organizations and industry peers can be a powerful tool for reflecting on your current approach and planning how to prepare your talent mobility program for the future. To help, KPMG International conducts this annual survey of global mobility policies and practices of multinational organizations. While the number of participants continues to grow, the resulting database is already believed to be one of the most robust of its kind on a global scale.

The data offers insights into global mobility programs and how they are evolving in terms of mobility, tax and immigration policies, structure, governance, priorities, performance measures, technology, robotics, automation, international remote working and more

Download the 2023 KPMG Global Assignment Policies and Practices Survey summary report and scroll down for more on this year's key findings.  

2023 KPMG Global Assignment Policies and Practices Survey

A look into how global mobility programs are evolving based on the survey results from over 100 multinational organizations in jurisdictions worldwide.

Download PDF (888 KB) ⤓

What do the latest results tell us?

The results of this year’s Global Assignment Policies and Practices (GAPP) Survey sheds light on how global mobility programs are continually evolving. In addition to compliance and global risk management, supporting the organization’s business objectives, controlling program costs and being adaptable to changing business requirements are clearly the top priorities for today’s global mobility leaders. The global talent mobility function’s contribution to strategic value for the organization has taken priority; being recognized as a trusted advisor and collaborator to the business.

Many organizations are recalibrating their approach to flexible work arrangements, leaning towards requiring employees to be more present in the office. This shift represents a response to several factors, including the desire for more direct collaboration, and the cultivation of company culture. Businesses, however, must recognize that top professionals now prioritize flexibility and work-life balance. To remain competitive, organizations will need to blend the advantages of in-person collaboration with a continued commitment to accommodating the diverse needs and preferences of their workforce, all while striving to attract and retain the best talent in this ever-evolving employment environment.

Recognizing the importance of attracting, retaining, and developing top talent as a competitive advantage, the global mobility function plays a pivotal role in making this vision a reality. This alignment helps ensure the right people are in the right place at the right time, with the skills and expertise to drive the organization forward. By harmonizing global mobility with talent initiatives, companies can leverage international experience, facilitate career growth, and support the evolving needs of their workforce, ultimately contributing to sustained success and an agile response to the ever-changing demands of the global marketplace.

Global mobility functions continue to place a strong emphasis on technology due to its transformative impact on the way organizations manage their global workforce. In terms of global mobility, technology serves as an enabler, allowing companies to optimize the deployment of their talent on a global scale. By leveraging technology, global mobility functions can not only improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness but also enhance the overall employee experience, making it an indispensable tool for organizations seeking to navigate the complexities of global talent management while remaining agile, competitive, and compliant in the dynamic global landscape.

There has been a notable increase in the incorporation of inclusive language and a heightened awareness of accessibility concerns within mobility policy development. As organizations strive for greater diversity and inclusivity, it has become essential to ensure mobility policies address the unique needs of all employees. This shift underscores a commitment to providing equitable opportunities for all, irrespective of individual circumstances or identities. Organizations are recognizing that mobility policies must be accessible, accommodating, and free from bias, thereby fostering a more inclusive work environment.

There continues to be an ongoing trend of short-term cross-border mobility by companies. Short-term assignments, often lasting weeks or a few months, provide companies with a flexible solution to address specific projects, knowledge transfers, or market exploration without the long-term commitment of traditional expatriate assignments. This trend aligns with the evolving preferences of a mobile and diverse workforce, and as companies continue to prioritize agility and adaptability, short-term cross-border mobility is likely to remain a prominent feature of talent management strategy.

Benchmark your organization today!

KPMG’s Global Mobility Services practice members can provide a personalized benchmarking report allowing you to compare your organization across key areas of interest. Participants find this useful in evaluating their organizational policies against a specific set of parameters. In addition to key organizational demographics and global mobility policy overview, the survey questions follow an overarching framework of the key phases of an international assignment and transfer life cycle with additional relevant topical categories covering immigration compliance, assignment management technology leverage, automation and robotics and program data and analytics insights.

If you would like to participate in the KPMG GAPP Survey and receive a personalized benchmarking report, please click here . To learn more about how KPMG’s Mobility Consulting Services can help you build an operating model that serves and delivers for your organization, please send an email to [email protected] .

Related content

The most pressing business issues and opportunities facing global mobility leaders and their global workforces.

The most pressing business issues and opportunities facing global mobility leaders and...

Aligning our thinking to your talent management objectives, we can support you with the planning and management of your international workforce.

Aligning our thinking to your talent management objectives, we can support you with.....

Short podcasts addressing some of the most pressing issues and opportunities facing tax and legal functions in the modern business world.

Short podcasts addressing some of the most pressing issues facing tax departments today.

Connect with us

Subscribe to the Future of Tax

Updates on the future of tax and mobility straight to your inbox..

Marc Burrows

Head of global mobility services, kpmg international, and partner, kpmg in the uk.

Follow us on LinkedIn

Hit the button above to follow the global mobility services linkedin..

• Engineering Mathematics
• Discrete Mathematics
• Operating System
• Computer Networks
• Digital Logic and Design
• C Programming
• Data Structures
• Theory of Computation
• Compiler Design
• Computer Org and Architecture
• Foreground-Background Scheduling
• Longest Job First (LJF) CPU Scheduling Algorithm
• Completely fair Scheduler (CFS) and Brain Fuck Scheduler (BFS)
• Task Scheduling in Windows 10
• Priority to Round-robin scheduling with dynamic time quantum
• Traps and System Calls in Operating System (OS)
• Most Frequently Used (MFU) Algorithm in Operating System
• Relation between Preemptive Priority and Round Robin Scheduling Algorithm
• Fair-share CPU scheduling
• Anticipatory Scheduling
• Deadline Monotonic CPU Scheduling
• Two-level scheduling in Operating Systems
• Shortest Remaining Time First (SRTF) With predicted Time
• Earliest Deadline First (EDF) CPU scheduling algorithm
• Clairvoyant Shortest Job first (SJF)
• Generalized foreground-background in Scheduling
• CPU Scheduling Criteria
• Relation in FCFS and Round Robin Scheduling Algorithm
• Operating Systems | CPU Scheduling | Question 1

Priority Assignment to Tasks in Operating System

Assigning priority to tasks : When the number of tasks with different relative deadlines are more than the priority levels supported by the operating system, then some tasks share the same priority value. But the exact method of assigning priorities to tasks can proficiently affect the utilization of processor.

If the tasks are randomly selected for sharing the same priority level then the utilization of the processor would be lessen. It is required to select the tasks systematically to share a priority level so that the achievable schedulable utilization would be higher.

There are several priority assignment methods used when tasks share the same priority level. Some of the most used methods are:

1. Uniform Priority Assignment : In this assignment method, all the tasks are uniformly divided among the available priority levels. If the number of priority levels completely divides the number of tasks then uniform division tasks among priority levels can be done easily.

For example, if there are 20 tasks to be scheduled and 4 priority levels are supported by the operating system then each priority level is assigned 5 tasks. If uniform division is not possible i.e there are N tasks and p priority levels and N % p > 0 then floor(N/p) tasks are assigned to each level and remaining tasks are assigned to lower priority levels.

For example, if there are 10 tasks to be scheduled and 4 priority levels are supported by the operating system then firstly floor(10/4) i.e. 2 tasks are assigned to each priority levels and remaining 2 tasks are assigned to one each to lower priority levels.

2. Arithmetic Priority Assignment : In this assignment method, an arithmetic progression is formed by the number of tasks assigned to each priority level.

For example, If N are number of tasks and p is number of priority levels then

where ‘a’ tasks are assigned to highest priority level, ‘2a’ tasks are assigned to next highest priority level and so on.

3. Geometric Priority Assignment : In this assignment method, a geometric progression is formed by the number of tasks assigned to each priority level.

where ‘a’ tasks are assigned to highest priority level, ‘a^2’ tasks are assigned to next highest priority level and so on.

3. Logarithmic Priority Assignment : In this assignment method, shorter period tasks are allotted distinct priority levels as much as possible and lower priority tasks (tasks with higher period) are combined together and assigned to same priority level so that higher priority tasks would not be affected. For this the tasks are arranged in increasing order of their period.

If p max is the maximum period and p min is the minimum period among period of all tasks and p is the number of priority levels then,

and tasks with periods up to k are assigned to highest priority, tasks with periods from k to k^2 are assigned to next highest priority, tasks with periods from k^2 to k^3 are assigned to next highest priority and so on.

Please Login to comment...

Similar reads.

• Operating Systems-CPU Scheduling
• Operating Systems

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

Asking the better questions that unlock new answers to the working world's most complex issues.

Trending topics

AI insights

EY podcasts

EY webcasts

Operations leaders

Technology leaders

Marketing and growth leaders

Cybersecurity and privacy leaders

Risk leaders

EY Center for Board Matters

EY helps clients create long-term value for all stakeholders. Enabled by data and technology, our services and solutions provide trust through assurance and help clients transform, grow and operate.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Strategy, transaction and transformation consulting

Technology transformation

Tax function operations

Climate change and sustainability services

EY Ecosystems

Supply chain and operations

EY Partner Ecosystem

Explore Services

We bring together extraordinary people, like you, to build a better working world.

Experienced professionals

MBA and advanced-degree students

Student and entry level programs

Contract workers

EY-Parthenon careers

Discover how EY insights and services are helping to reframe the future of your industry.

Case studies

Energy and resources

How data analytics can strengthen supply chain performance

13-Jul-2023 Ben Williams

How Takeda harnessed the power of the metaverse for positive human impact

26-Jun-2023 Edwina Fitzmaurice

Banking and Capital Markets

How cutting back infused higher quality in transaction monitoring

11-Jul-2023 Ron V. Giammarco

At EY, our purpose is building a better working world. The insights and services we provide help to create long-term value for clients, people and society, and to build trust in the capital markets.

EY is now carbon negative

19-Sep-2022 Carmine Di Sibio

Our commitment to audit quality

13-Nov-2023 Julie A. Boland

No results have been found

Recent Searches

BEPS 2.0: as policies evolve, engagement is key

It remains to be seen whether the US will align its tax law with the OECD/G20’s global BEPS 2.0 rules. MNEs will feel the impact in 2024. Learn more.

How GenAI strategy can transform innovation

Companies considering or investing in a transformative GenAI strategy should tie generative artificial intelligence use cases to revenue, cost and expense. Learn more

Top five private equity trends for 2024

Read about the five key trends private equity firms will emphasize in 2024 as they create value

Select your location

close expand_more

EY survey reveals innovation remains a major business priority for technology companies, despite economic disruption

Press contact

Multidisciplinary professional services organization

• Send e-mail to EY Americas
• Seventy-three percent of tech leaders believe today’s economic uncertainty will have a positive impact on their organizations’ ability to innovate
• Amid recent economic and financial uncertainty, 94% of tech executives have plans to increase their investment in IT or emerging technologies over the next year

NEW YORK, May 18, 2023 /PRNewswire/ —  Ernst & Young LLP  (EY US) today announced the release of its new pulse poll examining technology leaders’ perspectives on the role of innovation during current economic uncertainty. The poll, which was conducted in late April and surveyed more than 250 leaders in the technology industry, reveals how business leaders are rethinking traditional strategies to adapt to uncertain times – and which technologies are helping them get there.

On the heels of three major bank failures, ongoing tech layoffs and a growing interest in advanced artificial intelligence (AI), most tech executives surveyed (94%) indicate that company-wide innovation will help them come out of the current economic downturn a stronger company than before. Similarly, 94% of respondents still have plans to increase investment in IT or emerging technologies over the next year, with 52% stating they plan to prioritize metaverse technologies.

“The technology industry manages to remain resilient, despite the headwinds of tech industry layoffs and the ongoing economic downturn,” says  Ken Englund, EY Americas Technology, Media and Telecommunications Leader . “As our most recent technology pulse poll points to, leaders are looking for the right balance between safeguarding their operations and driving ongoing innovation and growth.”

The EY survey also found that:

AI is here to stay.  More and more technology executives are focused on experimenting with AI-based technologies. In fact, 9 in 10 are focused on platforms like ChatGTP, Bing Chat and OpenAI. Further, 80% of tech executives indicate they will increase investment in AI in the next year. More than half of tech executives whose companies are experimenting with generative AI (56%) are doing so for economic savings.

Innovation isn't taking a back seat.  Despite a vast majority of tech executives (73%) thinking recent bank failures will have a trickle-down effect on the industry’s investments, 81% of tech executives report their company plans to make an innovation-related acquisition in the next six months.

The spotlight is on emerging cyber threats.  Seventy-eight percent of tech executives are more concerned about the cybersecurity threats of today compared to cybersecurity threats of one year ago. Additionally, tech executives at companies with plans to increase investments in IT or emerging technologies most often report having a plan to prioritize cybersecurity (74%), big data or analytics (62%), 5G (62%) and generative AI (58%).

“Our pulse poll reveals a positive outlook – with no signs of a lag in innovation for technology companies. The momentum and excitement around emerging technologies like generative AI marks a tectonic industry shift, one focused on effectiveness and efficiency,” says Ken Englund.

Survey methodology

EY US commissioned Atomik Research to conduct an online survey of 254 executives in the technology industry throughout the United States. The margin of error is +/- six percentage points with a confidence interval of 95%. Fieldwork took place between April 20, 2023 and April 27, 2023.  

EY exists to build a better working world, helping create long-term value for clients, people and society and build trust in the capital markets. Enabled by data and technology, diverse EY teams in over 150 countries provide trust through assurance and help clients grow, transform and operate.

Working across assurance, consulting, law, strategy, tax and transactions, EY teams ask better questions to find new answers for the complex issues facing our world today.

EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. Information about how EY collects and uses personal data and a description of the rights individuals have under data protection legislation are available via ey.com/privacy. EY member firms do not practice law where prohibited by local laws. For more information about our organization, please visit ey.com.

Ernst & Young LLP is a client-serving member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited operating in the US.

• Connect with us
• Our locations
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Legal and privacy
• Accessibility
• Open Facebook profile
• Open X profile
• Open LinkedIn profile
• Open Youtube profile

EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Mental health and the pandemic: What U.S. surveys have found

The coronavirus pandemic has been associated with worsening mental health among people in the United States and around the world . In the U.S, the COVID-19 outbreak in early 2020 caused widespread lockdowns and disruptions in daily life while triggering a short but severe economic recession that resulted in widespread unemployment. Three years later, Americans have largely returned to normal activities, but challenges with mental health remain.

Here’s a look at what surveys by Pew Research Center and other organizations have found about Americans’ mental health during the pandemic. These findings reflect a snapshot in time, and it’s possible that attitudes and experiences may have changed since these surveys were fielded. It’s also important to note that concerns about mental health were common in the U.S. long before the arrival of COVID-19 .

Three years into the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States , Pew Research Center published this collection of survey findings about Americans’ challenges with mental health during the pandemic. All findings are previously published. Methodological information about each survey cited here, including the sample sizes and field dates, can be found by following the links in the text.

The research behind the first item in this analysis, examining Americans’ experiences with psychological distress, benefited from the advice and counsel of the COVID-19 and mental health measurement group at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

At least four-in-ten U.S. adults (41%) have experienced high levels of psychological distress at some point during the pandemic, according to four Pew Research Center surveys conducted between March 2020 and September 2022.

Young adults are especially likely to have faced high levels of psychological distress since the COVID-19 outbreak began: 58% of Americans ages 18 to 29 fall into this category, based on their answers in at least one of these four surveys.

Women are much more likely than men to have experienced high psychological distress (48% vs. 32%), as are people in lower-income households (53%) when compared with those in middle-income (38%) or upper-income (30%) households.

In addition, roughly two-thirds (66%) of adults who have a disability or health condition that prevents them from participating fully in work, school, housework or other activities have experienced a high level of distress during the pandemic.

The Center measured Americans’ psychological distress by asking them a series of five questions on subjects including loneliness, anxiety and trouble sleeping in the past week. The questions are not a clinical measure, nor a diagnostic tool. Instead, they describe people’s emotional experiences during the week before being surveyed.

While these questions did not ask specifically about the pandemic, a sixth question did, inquiring whether respondents had “had physical reactions, such as sweating, trouble breathing, nausea, or a pounding heart” when thinking about their experience with the coronavirus outbreak. In September 2022, the most recent time this question was asked, 14% of Americans said they’d experienced this at least some or a little of the time in the past seven days.

More than a third of high school students have reported mental health challenges during the pandemic. In a survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from January to June 2021, 37% of students at public and private high schools said their mental health was not good most or all of the time during the pandemic. That included roughly half of girls (49%) and about a quarter of boys (24%).

In the same survey, an even larger share of high school students (44%) said that at some point during the previous 12 months, they had felt sad or hopeless almost every day for two or more weeks in a row – to the point where they had stopped doing some usual activities. Roughly six-in-ten high school girls (57%) said this, as did 31% of boys.

On both questions, high school students who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, other or questioning were far more likely than heterosexual students to report negative experiences related to their mental health.

Mental health tops the list of worries that U.S. parents express about their kids’ well-being, according to a fall 2022 Pew Research Center survey of parents with children younger than 18. In that survey, four-in-ten U.S. parents said they’re extremely or very worried about their children struggling with anxiety or depression. That was greater than the share of parents who expressed high levels of concern over seven other dangers asked about.

While the fall 2022 survey was fielded amid the coronavirus outbreak, it did not ask about parental worries in the specific context of the pandemic. It’s also important to note that parental concerns about their kids struggling with anxiety and depression were common long before the pandemic, too . (Due to changes in question wording, the results from the fall 2022 survey of parents are not directly comparable with those from an earlier Center survey of parents, conducted in 2015.)

Among parents of teenagers, roughly three-in-ten (28%) are extremely or very worried that their teen’s use of social media could lead to problems with anxiety or depression, according to a spring 2022 survey of parents with children ages 13 to 17 . Parents of teen girls were more likely than parents of teen boys to be extremely or very worried on this front (32% vs. 24%). And Hispanic parents (37%) were more likely than those who are Black or White (26% each) to express a great deal of concern about this. (There were not enough Asian American parents in the sample to analyze separately. This survey also did not ask about parental concerns specifically in the context of the pandemic.)

Looking back, many K-12 parents say the first year of the coronavirus pandemic had a negative effect on their children’s emotional health. In a fall 2022 survey of parents with K-12 children , 48% said the first year of the pandemic had a very or somewhat negative impact on their children’s emotional well-being, while 39% said it had neither a positive nor negative effect. A small share of parents (7%) said the first year of the pandemic had a very or somewhat positive effect in this regard.

White parents and those from upper-income households were especially likely to say the first year of the pandemic had a negative emotional impact on their K-12 children.

While around half of K-12 parents said the first year of the pandemic had a negative emotional impact on their kids, a larger share (61%) said it had a negative effect on their children’s education.

• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Happiness & Life Satisfaction
• Medicine & Health
• Teens & Youth

How Americans View the Coronavirus, COVID-19 Vaccines Amid Declining Levels of Concern

Online religious services appeal to many americans, but going in person remains more popular, about a third of u.s. workers who can work from home now do so all the time, how the pandemic has affected attendance at u.s. religious services, economy remains the public’s top policy priority; covid-19 concerns decline again, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

A survey of priority rule-based scheduling

• Published: March 1989
• Volume 11 , pages 3–16, ( 1989 )

Cite this article

• R. Haupt 1  

2365 Accesses

345 Citations

Explore all metrics

In this paper, we survey the literature on heuristic priority rule-based job shop scheduling. Priority rules have been intensively investigated over the last 30 years by means of simulation experiments. They are also used in Shop Floor Control software systems. We present a classification, a characterization, and an evaluation of elementary priority rules. Some priority rule-related model extensions are discussed.

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Beitrag wird ein Überblick über heuristische, prioritätsregelgestützte Auftragsreihenfolgeplanung gegeben. Prioritätsregeln sind in den letzten 30 Jahren eingehend anhand von Simulations-Experimenten untersucht worden. Sie haben ebenso in Programmsysteme zur Produktionsplanung und-steuerung Eingang gefunden. Der Beitrag bemüht sich um eine Klassifizierung, Charakterisierung und Beurteilung von elementaren Prioritätsregeln. Abschließend werden einige prioritätsregelrelevante Modellerweiterungen angeschnitten.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Scheduling Heuristics

A state of the art review of intelligent scheduling

Mohammad Hossein Fazel Zarandi, Ali Akbar Sadat Asl, … Oscar Castillo

Adam D (1987) Ansätze zu einem integrierten Konzept der Fertigungssteuerung bei Werkstattfertigung. In: Adam D (Hrsg) Neuere Entwicklungen in der Produktions- und Investitionspolitik. Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Herbert Jacob. Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 17–52

Google Scholar  

Adam D (1988) Die Eignung der belastungsorientierten Auftragsfreigabe fur die Steuerung von Fertigungsprozessen mit diskontinuierlichem Materialfluß. Z Betriebsw 58:98–115

Adam N, Bertrand JWM, Surkis J (1984) Effective priority rules related to due date performance in multi-level assembly jobs. Paper presented at the TIMS XXVI meeting, Copenhagen, TB 11.1

Adam N, Surkis J (1980) Priority update intervals and anomalies in dynamic ratio type job shop scheduling rules. Manag Sci 26:1227–1237

Aggarwal SC, McCarl BA (1974) The development and evaluation of a cost-based composite scheduling rule. Nav Res Log Q 21:155–169

Aggarwal SC, Wyman FP, McCarl BA (1973) An investigation of a cost-based rule for job-shop scheduling. Int J Prod Res 11:247–261

Arumugam V, Ramani S (1980) Evaluation of value time sequencing rules in a real world job shop. J Op Res Soc 31: 895–904

Baker CT, Dzielinsky BP (1960) Simulation of a simplified job shop. Manag Sci 6:311–323

Baker KR (1968) Priority dispatching in the single channel queue with sequence-dependent setups. J Ind Eng:203–206

Baker KR (1974) Introduction to sequencing and scheduling. Wiley, New York

Baker KR (1984) Sequencing rules and due-date assignments in a job shop. Manag Sci 30:1093–1104

Baker KR, Bertrand JWM (1981) An investigation of duedate assignment rules with constrained tightness. J Op Manag 1:109–120

Baker KR, Bertrand JWM (1982) A dynamic priority rule for sequencing against due dates. J Op Manag 3:37–42

Baker KR, Kanet JJ (1983) Job shop scheduling with modified due dates. J Op Manag 4:11–22

Baker KR, Kanet JJ (1984) Improved decision rules in a combined system for minimizing job tardiness. Int J Prod Res 22:917–921

Berg CC (1979) Prioritätsregeln in der Reihenfolgeplanung. In: Kern W (Hrsg) HWProd, Poeschel, Stuttgart, pp 1425–1433

Berr U, Tangermann HP (1976) Einfluß von Prioritätsregeln auf die Kapazitätsterminierung der Werkstattfertigung. Wt-Z Ind Fertig 66:7–12

Berry WL, Finley RA (1976) Critical ratio scheduling with queue waiting information: an experimental analysis. AIIE-Transact 8:161–168

Berry WL, Rao V (1975) Critical ratio scheduling: an experimental analysis. Manag Sci 22:192–201

Bertrand JWM (1983) The effect of workload dependent due-dates on job shop performance. Manag Sci 29:799–816

Biendl P (1984) Ablaufsteuerung von Montagefertigungen. Haupt, Bern Stuttgart

Biggs JR (1979) Heuristic lot-sizing and sequencing rules in a multistage production-inventory system. Dec Sci 10: 96–115

Biggs JR (1985) Priority rules for shop floor control in a material requirements planning system under various levels of capacity. Int J Prod Res 23:33–46

Blackstone JH Jr, Phillips DT, Hogg GL (1982) A state-of-the-art survey of dispatching rules for manufacturing job shop operations. Int J Prod Res 20:27–45

Brown RG (1968) Simulations to explore alternative sequencing rules. Nav Res Log Q 15:281–286

Browne J, Davies BJ (1984) The design and validation of a digital simulation model for job shop control decision making. Int J Prod Res 22:335–357

Bulkin MH, Colley JL, Steinhoff HW (1967) Load forecasting, priority sequencing, and simulation in a job shop control system. Manag Sci 13:B29-B51

Bunnag P, Smith SB (1985) A multifactor priority rule for jobshop scheduling using computer search. IIE-Transact 17:141–146

Buzi K (1971) Die Simulation optimaler Prioritätsregeln für die Ablaufplanung in der Werkstattfertigung. Westdeutscher Verlag, Köln Opladen

Caroll DC (1965) Heuristic sequencing of single and multiple component jobs. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge/Mass

Cheng TCE (1986) Optimal due-date assignment in a job shop. Int J Prod Res 24:503–515

Colley JL Jr (1968) Principles for scheduling job shops. Syst Proced J 19, No 4

Conway RW (1965) Priority dispatching and work-in-process inventory in a job shop. J Ind Eng 16:123–130

Conway RW (1965) Priority dispatching and job lateness in a job shop. J Ind Eng 16:228–237

Conway RW, Maxwell WL (1962) Network dispatching by the shortest operation discipline. Oper Res 10:51–73

Conway RW, Maxwell WL, Miller LW (1967) Theory of scheduling. Addison-Wesley, Reading/Mass

Conway RW, Maxwell WL, Oldziey JW (1966) Sequencing against due-dates. In: Hertz DB, Melèse J (eds) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Operational Research. Wiley, New York, pp 599–617

Day JE, Hottenstein MP (1970) Review of sequencing research. Nav Res Log Q 17:11–39

Deane RH, Moodie CL (1972) A dispatching methodology for balancing workload assignments in a job shop production facility. AIIE-Transact 4:277–283

Dörken W (1973) Simulationsmodelle und ihre Anwendung bei der Analyse von Prioritätsregeln zur Maschinenbelegungsplanung. Arbeitsvorb 10:89–95, 115–122

Dornia M (1976) Aufbau- und ablauforientierte Untersuchungen an einem Simulationsmodell der Mehrstellenbedienung. Dissertation, Köln

Eilon S (1973) Research note: The job shop simulation programme. Int J Prod Res 11:299–300

Eilon S (1979) Production scheduling. In: Haley KB (ed) OR '78. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 237–266

Eilon S, Chowdhury IG (1976) Due dates in job shop scheduling. Int J Prod Res 14:223–237

Eilon S, Chowdhury IG, Serghiou SS (1975) Experiments with the SI rules in job-shop scheduling. Simulation 24: 45–48

Eilon S, Cotterill DJ (1968) A modified SI rule in job shop scheduling. Int J Prod Res 7:135–145

Eilon S, Hodgson RM (1967) Job shops scheduling with due dates. Int J Prod Res 6:1–13

Ellinger T (1976) Reihenfolgeplanung. In: Grochla E, Wittmann W (eds) HWB 4. Aufl, Poeschel, Stuttgart, pp 3412–3420

Ellinger T, Schmitz P, Goldbecker H, Haupt R, Oellers B (1978) Simulationssystem für Reihenfolgeprobleme der industriellen Fertigung. Rationalisierung 29:17–21, 43–45

Elmaghraby SE (ed) (1973) Symposium on the theory of scheduling and its applications. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

Elvers DA (1973) Job shop dispatching using various due date setting criteria. Prod Inv Manag 14:62–69

Elvers DA (1974) The sensitivity of the relative effectiveness ob job shop dispatching rules with respect to various arrival distributions. AIIE-Transact 6:41–49

Elvers DA, Taube LR (1983) Deterministic/stochastic assumptions in job shops. Eu J Oper Res 14:89–94

Elvers DA, Taube LR (1983) Time completion for various dispatching rules in job shops. Omega 11:81–89

Fabrycky WJ, Shamblin JE (1966) A probability based sequencing algorithm. J Ind Eng 17:308–312

Farn CK, Muhlemann AP (1979) The dynamic aspects of a production scheduling problem. Int J Prod Res 17:15–21

Fischer H, Thompson GL (1963) Probabilistic learning combinations of local job shop scheduling rules. In: Muth JF, Thompson GL (eds) Industrial scheduling, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, chap 15

Fleischmann B (1987) Operations-Research-Modelle und -Verfahren in der Produktionsplanung (Übersichtsvortrag). In: Isermann H et al. (eds) Operations Research Proceedings 1986. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 278–285

French S (1982) Sequencing and scheduling. An introduction to the mathematics of the job-shop. Horwood, Chichester

Gere WS (1966) Heuristics in job shop scheduling. Manag Sci 13:167–190

Goodwin JS, Goodwin JC Jr (1982) Operating policies for scheduling assembled products. Dec Sci 13:585–603

Goodwin JS, Weeks JK (1986) Evaluating scheduling policies in a multi-level assembly system. Int J Prod Res 24:247–257

O'Grady PJ, Harrison C (1985) A general search sequencing rule for job shop sequencing. Int J Prod Res 23:961–973

Gräßler D (1968) Der Einfluß von Auftragsdaten und Entscheidungsregeln auf die Ablaufplanung von Fertigungsstraßen. Dissertation, TH Aachen

Graves SC (1977) A note on “Critical ratio scheduling: an experimental analysis” (Note). Manag Sci 23:1358–1359

Graves SC (1981) A review of production scheduling. Oper Res 29:646–675

Green GI, Appel LB (1981) An empirical analysis of job shop dispatch rule selection. J Oper Manag 1:197–203

Hauk W (1972) Beitrag zur Lösung des Reihenfolgeproblems bei der Auftragsplanung. Z Wirtsch Fert 67:45–49

Hauk W (1973) Einplanung von Produktionsaufträgen nach Prioritätsregeln. Eine Untersuchung von Prioritätsregeln mit Hilfe der Simulation. Beuth, Berlin Köln Frankfurt

Haupt R (1977) Reihenfolgeplanung im Sondermaschinenbau. Gabler, Wiesbaden

Haupt R (1978) Simulationsuntersuchungen zur Reihenfolgeplanung unter dem Einfluß von Vereinheitlichungs-Elementen in der Produktion. In: Brockhoff K et al. (eds) Proceedings in Operations Research 7. Physica, Würzburg Wien, pp 247–256

Haupt R (1987) Produktionstheorie und Ablaufmanagement. Zeitvariable Faktoreinsätze und ablaufbezogene Dispositionen in Produktionstheorie- und -planungs-Modellen. Poeschel, Stuttgart

Hershauer JC, Ebert RJ (1975) Search and simulation selection of a job shop sequencing rule. Manag Sci 21:833–843

Hoffmann TR, Scudder GD (1983) Priority scheduling with cost considerations. Int J Prod Res 21:881–889

Hollier RH (1986) A simulation study of sequencing in batch production. Oper Res Q 19:389–407

Huang PY (1984) A comparative study of priority dispatching rules in a hybrid assembly job shop. Int J Prod Res 22:375–387

Jackson JR (1957) Simulation research on job shop production. Nav Res Log Q 4:287–295

Jones CH (1973) An economic evaluation of job shop dispatching rules. Manag Sci 20:293–307

Kanet JJ (1982) On anomalies in dynamic ratio type scheduling rules: a clarifying analysis. Manag Sci 28: 1337–1341

Kanet JJ, Hayya JC (1982) Priority dispatching with operation due-dates in a job shop. J Oper Manag 2:155–163

Kettner H, Bechte W (1981) Neue Wege der Fertigungssteuerung durch belastungsorientierte Auftragsfreigabe. VDI-Z 123:459–465

Knolmayer G, Holdhof J (1986) BORA versus DORA: Ein Vergleich zweier Terminplanungsverfahren. Arbeitsvorbereitung 23:163–165

Le Grande E (1963) The development of a factory simulation system using actual operating data. Manag Tech 3: 1–19

Maxwell WL (1969) Priority dispatching and assembly operations in a job shop. The RAND Corp Memorandum RM-5370-PR, Santa Monica/Cal

Maxwell WL, Mehra M (1968) Multiple-factor rules for sequencing with assembly constraints. Nav Res Log Q 15:241–254

Mellor P (1966) A review of job shop scheduling. Oper Res Q 17:161–171

Miller LW, Ginsberg AS, Maxwell WL (1975) An experimental investigation of priority dispatching in a simple assembly shop. In: Geisler MA (ed) Logistics, TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, vol 1. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 125–142

Miyazaki S (1981) Combined scheduling system for reducing job tardiness in a job shop. Int J Prod Res 19:201–211

Moodie CL, Novotny DJ (1968) Computer scheduling and control systems for discrete part production. J Ind Eng 19:336–341

Moodie CL, Roberts SD (1968) Experiments with priority dispatching rules in a parallel processor shop. Int J Prod Res 6:303–312

Moore JM, Wilson RC (1967) A review of simulation research in job shop scheduling. Prod Inv Manag 8:1–10

Mosier CT, Elvers DA, Kelly D (1984) Analysis of group technology scheduling heuristics. Int J Prod Red 22:857–875

Müller A (1987) Produktionsplanung und Pufferbildung bei Werkstattfertigung. Gabler, Wiesbaden

Müller G (1978) Job-Shop-Simulation auf dem Minicomputer: Ein Instrument zur Reihenfolge- und Terminplanung in der Textillohnveredelungsindustrie. Dissertation, Universität Zürich

Müller-Merbach H (1979) Ablaufplanung, Optimierungsmodelle zur. In: Kern W (Hrsg) HWProd, Poeschel, Stuttgart, pp 38–52

Muhlemann AP, Lockett AG, Farn CI (1982) Job shop scheduling heuristics and frequency of scheduling. Int J Prod Res 20:227–241

Nanot YR (1963) An experimental investigation and comparative evaluation of priority disciplines in job shoplike queuing networks. Manag Sci Res Proj, UCLA, Report No 87-1963

Nelson RT (1967) Labor and machine limited production systems. Manag Sci 13:648–671

New CC (1975) Job shop scheduling: is manual application of dispatching rules feasible? Oper Res Q 21:35–43

Oral M, Malouin JL (1973) Evaluation of the shortest processing time scheduling rule with truncation process. AIIE-Transact 5:357–365

Ow PS (1985) Focused scheduling in proportionate flowshops. Manag Sci 31:852–869

Pabst HJ (1985) Analyse der betriebswirtschaftlichen Effizienz einer computergestützten Fertigungssteuerung mit CAPOSS-E in einem Maschinenbauunternehmen mit Einzel- und Kleinserienfertigung. Lang, Frankfurt Bern New York

Pai AR, McRoberts KL (1971) Simulation research in interchangeable part manufacturing. Manag Sci 17:B732-B743

Panwalkar SS, Iskander W (1977) A survey of scheduling rules. Oper Res 25:45–61

Papendieck AJ (1971) Reihenfolgen und Losgroen in der Serienfertigung, untersucht an einem praxisbezogenen Simulationsmodell. Dissertation TH Braunschweig

Paulik R (1984) Kostenorientierte Reihenfolgeplanung in der Werkstattfertigung. Haupt, Bern Stuttgart

Pinto PA, Khumawala BM, Susko JA (1983) Application of a heuristic scheduling rule for a tyre testing department. J Opl Res Soc 34:243–248, 910

Putnam AO, Everdell R, Dormann GH, Cronan RR, Lindgren LH (1971) Updating critical ratio and slack time priority scheduling rules. Prod Inv Manag 12:51–73

Ragatz GL, Mabert VA (1984) A framework for the study of due date management in job shops. Int J Prod Res 22: 685–695

Reiter S (1966) A system for managing job shop production. J Business 39:371–393

Rinnooy Kan AHG (1976) Machine scheduling problems. Classification, complexity and computations. Nijhoff, Den Haag

Rochette R, Sadowski RP (1976) A statistical comparison of the performance of simple dispatching rules for a particular set of job shop. Int J Prod Res 14:63–75

Rowe AJ (1960) Toward a theory of scheduling. J Ind Eng 11:125–136

Russell RS, Taylor BW (1985) An evaluation of scheduling policies in a dual resource constrained assembly shop. IIE-Transact 17:219–232

Sägesser R (1976) Analytische und heuristische Methoden zur Lösung des Reihenfolgeproblems mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Werkstattfertigung. Dissertation, Sankt Gallen

Sammler A (1970) Diskussion von Vorrangregeln (Prioritäten) zur Lösung des Reihenfolgeproblems in der Planung und Lenkung der Einzelteilefertigung. Fertigungstechnik Betrieb 20:408–411

Scudder GD (1984) Priority scheduling and spares stocking policies for a repair shop: the multiple failure case. Manag Sci 30:739–749

Scudder GD (1986) Scheduling and labor-assignment policies for a dual-constrained repair shop. Int J Prod Res 24:623–634

Scudder GD, Hoffmann TR (1985) An evaluation of value based dispatching rules in a flow shop. E J Oper Res 22: 310–318

Scudder GD, Hoffmann TR (1985) Composite cost-based rules for priority scheduling in a randomly routed job shop. Int J Prod Res 23:1185–1195

Sculli D (1980) Priority dispatching rules in job shops with assembly operations and random delays. Omega 8: 227–234

Sen T, Gupta SK (1984) A state-of-art survey of static scheduling research involving due dates. Omega 12:63–76

Siegel GB (1971) An investigation of job shop scheduling for jobs with assembly constraints. PhD Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca/NY

Sprotte HG (1970) Simultane Termin- und Reihenfolgeplanung bei Mehrproduktunternehmen mit Auftragsfertigung und stochastischem Auftragseingang. Dissertation, Universität Köln

Stecke KE, Solberg JJ (1981) Loading and control policies for a flexible manufacturing system. Int J Prod Res 19: 481–490

Subramanyam S, Askin RG (1986) An expert systems approach to scheduling in flexible manufacturing systems. In: Kusiak A (ed) Flexible manufacturing systems: Methods and Studies. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 243–256

Tangermann HP (1973) Auftragsreihenfolgen und Losgrößen als Instrument der Fertigungsterminplanung, untersucht an einem praxisbezogenen Simulationsmodell. Dissertation, TH Braunschweig

Trilling DR (1966) Job-shop simulation of orders that are networks. J Ind Eng 17:59–71

Vepsalainen APJ, Morton TE (1987) Priority rules for job shops with weighted tardiness costs. Manag Sci 33:1035–1047

Weeks JK (1979) A simulation study of predictable duedates. Manag Sci 25:363–373

Weeks JK, Fryer JS (1976) A simulation study of operating policies in a hypothetical dual-constrained job shop. Manag Sci 22:1362–1371

Weeks JK, Fryer JS (1977) A methodology for assigning minimum cost due-dates. Manag Sci 23:872–881

Wegner N (1978) Simulation von Einplanungs- und Abfertigungsstrategien bei Werkstattfertigung. Dissertation, TU Hannover

Wiendahl HP (1987) Die belastungsorientierte Fertigungssteuerung. Oldenbourg, München Wien

Wiendahl HP, Buchmann W (1984) Realisierung alternativer Fertigungssteuerungsstrategien. VDI-Z 126:327–334

Worrall BM, Mert B (1980) Application of dynamic scheduling rules in maintenance planning and scheduling. Int J Prod Res 18:57–74

Zijm WHM (1988) Flexible Manufacturing Systems: background, examples, and models. In: Schellhaas H et al. (ed) Operations Research Proceedings 1987. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 142–161

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Lehrstuhl für Personalwirtschaft, Universität zu Köln, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-5000, Koln 41, Federal Republic of Germany

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Haupt, R. A survey of priority rule-based scheduling. OR Spektrum 11 , 3–16 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01721162

Download citation

Received : 02 February 1988

Accepted : 30 June 1988

Issue Date : March 1989

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01721162

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Simulation Experiment
• Model Extension
• Priority Rule
• Control Software
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research