Planning home-care visits Personal proposal by Per-Arne Andersen H6 · Spring 2027 https://thesis.uya.no/proposals/familiar-faces-better-routes/ Schedule home-care visits while balancing travel time and returning the same carer to a patient. TECHNICAL - Generate visit, staff and travel-time CSV files with fixed time windows and a shared depot. - Implement one OR-Tools planner with continuity penalties of 0, 10 and 30 equivalent travel minutes per additional carer. DATA (planned) 30 patients, 8 carers, 5 days; seeds 1–20 Two 20-minute visits/day, windows 08–11 and 13–16; 08–16 shifts with 12–12:30 breaks and depot at (5,5) km. Uniform patient locations on a 10 km square; travel at 30 km/h. METHOD Same solver, constraints and time limit for all 3 penalties. Compare 20 shared instances on unfilled visits, travel and carers/patient. Six coordinators then revise 3 disjoint schedule pairs; record reasons and time. OUTPUT Scheduling board, reproducible generator and planning/coordination results. BACHELOR Task: Build a visit-planning interface using an established OR-Tools routing model. Data: 30 patients, 8 carers, 5 days; seeds 1–20 (planned) Two 20-minute visits/day, windows 08–11 and 13–16; 08–16 shifts with 12–12:30 breaks and depot at (5,5) km. Uniform patient locations on a 10 km square; travel at 30 km/h. Requires: Recruit coordinators; solver time limits and infeasible cases must be reported. Method: Use the synthetic schedules; check visit windows, shift limits and unfilled visits, then run coordinator walkthroughs. Plan 4 participant sessions. Output: A scheduling prototype with constraint tests and usability findings. Use relevant literature to justify the established approach; a new research contribution is not the aim of this proposal. MASTER Investigate the continuity–travel trade-off under staffing pressure. Derive objectives from scheduling research; compare the same solver with/without continuity penalties and repeat under reduced staffing, then study coordinators’ interpretation. Intended contribution: A bounded trade-off analysis and decision-support requirements for continuity-aware planning. STARTING PAPERS Weekly home-care routing with continuity (2024): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221471602400006X Identify continuity objectives and constraints before choosing a routing comparator. Vessey & Galletta (1991) — Cognitive Fit: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/isre.2.1.63 Test whether a representation helps one kind of task more than another. Search Scopus or Web of Science and ACM Digital Library using the topic query, then follow citations to the thesis start date. Record searches and compare methods, data, findings and limitations in literature-matrix.csv. Use that review to confirm or revise the gap and choose a current comparator. The linked papers are starting points. START HERE Tools: Python, pandas, OR-Tools, Streamlit 1. Write the generator for one day and draw the patient locations to check travel distances. 2. Set hard constraints, a 30-second solver limit per instance and penalties 0/10/30. Validate one hand-made feasible schedule. 3. Run penalty 0 first, then change only the penalty. Pilot a schedule-revision task with one coordinator before recruitment. Literature search: home care scheduling continuity care decision support Study controls: - Before collecting participant data, agree consent, storage and withdrawal handling with the supervisor. Use participant codes, not names, in study files. - Separate silent timed tasks from retrospective interviews. Timing during think-aloud sessions is descriptive, not an isolated interface-speed effect. - Include 12:00–12:30 breaks and non-overlapping morning/afternoon visit windows. Repeat the same instances with 4 rather than 8 carers to test staffing pressure; report infeasibility and unfilled visits before travel gains. Do not claim optimality from a timed solver. - For the master’s study, use the research task above to define the factors and comparisons in this pilot plan. Preregister one primary outcome and feasible scope after the literature review; do not add every possible model or interface variant. REQUIRES Recruit 6 coordinators; solver time limits and infeasible cases must be reported. -------------------- NON-TECHNICAL - Create paper schedules with different travel and carer-continuity totals. - Ask coordinators to rank them and explain which assignments they would change. DATA (planned) 6 schedule pairs + 8 coordinator interviews Create pairs for the same 10 patients and 4 carers, varying travel by 20–60 minutes and carers per patient from 1–3. METHOD 45-minute interviews; code priorities and override reasons. Compare rankings across the 6 controlled trade-offs. OUTPUT Ranked schedules and rules coordinators use when revising plans. BACHELOR Task: Document coordinators’ requirements for a usable weekly schedule. Data: 6 schedule pairs (planned) Create pairs for the same 10 patients and 4 carers, varying travel by 20–60 minutes and carers per patient from 1–3. Requires: Recruit home-care coordinators. Method: Discuss the paper schedule pairs with 4 coordinators; summarise preferred layouts and unacceptable arrangements. Output: A schedule template and prioritised requirements list. Use relevant literature to justify the established approach; a new research contribution is not the aim of this proposal. MASTER Explain when coordinators reject an efficient schedule. Analyse continuity, service obligations and perceived system purpose across controlled schedule pairs; challenge the explanation with contradictory choices. Intended contribution: A theory-based account of acceptable trade-offs and its limits. STARTING PAPERS Weekly home-care routing with continuity (2024): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221471602400006X Identify continuity objectives and constraints before choosing a routing comparator. Orlikowski & Gash (1994) — Technological Frames: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/196734.196745 Compare how roles interpret the purpose, operation and use of the same system. Search Scopus or Web of Science and ACM Digital Library using the topic query, then follow citations to the thesis start date. Record searches and compare methods, data, findings and limitations in literature-matrix.csv. Use that review to confirm or revise the gap and choose a current comparator. The linked papers are starting points. START HERE Tools: LibreOffice Writer/Calc, audio recorder with consent; no programming required. 1. Prepare a pilot with 2 examples from: 6 schedule pairs + 8 coordinator interviews. Write the task questions and a reference answer sheet. 2. Write a recruitment message, information sheet and consent form for the participants named above. Agree privacy handling with the supervisor before contact. 3. Pilot one session after approval; revise unclear questions, freeze the task sets and coding categories, then recruit the planned sample. Literature search: home care scheduling continuity care decision support qualitative scenario study Study controls: - Before collecting participant data, agree consent, storage and withdrawal handling with the supervisor. Use participant codes, not names, in study files. - Pilot separately, then freeze the questions and coding plan. Check objective answer keys independently; keep an audit trail of coding, including disagreements. - For comparisons, counterbalance order and case assignment; do not show a person both versions of one case. Report participant-level findings, not repeated tasks as independent people. - Vary daily travel per carer and weekly distinct carers per patient independently; hold completed visits, service time and visit windows constant in paper comparisons. REQUIRES Recruit 8 home-care coordinators. Bachelor: apply established methods and evaluate a practical solution or study. Master: position a research question in current scientific literature, investigate a mechanism or unresolved problem, and explain the contribution. Final scope is agreed with me. Study sizes are proposed; participant recruitment and planned materials are not already arranged.