Sharing surplus food Personal proposal by Per-Arne Andersen D4 · Spring 2027 https://thesis.uya.no/proposals/good-food-better-shared/ Match surplus-food donations to receiving organisations before food expires. TECHNICAL - Generate donation, demand and transport-capacity CSV files. - Build a daily allocation tool using linear programming with manual reassignment. DATA (planned) 20 simulated 7-day weeks; seeds 1–20 10 donors, 5 recipients, 3 food types. Record lot kg, availability/expiry, accepted types, demand, pickup slots and capacity. Fix routes; allow divisible kilograms. METHOD Compare LP maximising delivered kg with capacity-feasible first-expiring-first, tie-breaking by unmet demand. Report expiry, unmet demand, recipient fill rates and violations. Six coordinators revise 4 disjoint cases and explain overrides. OUTPUT Allocation tool, generator and comparison table. BACHELOR Task: Build a surplus-food matching tool using a fixed expiry-first allocation rule. Data: 20 simulated 7-day weeks; seeds 1–20 (planned) 10 donors, 5 recipients, 3 food types. Record lot kg, availability/expiry, accepted types, demand, pickup slots and capacity. Fix routes; allow divisible kilograms. Requires: Recruit food-redistribution coordinators; the simulation uses declared assumptions. Method: Use the synthetic offers and requests; check expiry/capacity constraints and observe coordinator tasks. Plan 4 participant sessions. Output: A matching prototype with constraint tests and workflow feedback. Use relevant literature to justify the established approach; a new research contribution is not the aim of this proposal. MASTER Investigate fairness–waste trade-offs when food availability changes. Compare expiry-first matching with constrained allocation on the same revealed offers; analyse who loses allocations and whether coordinators can explain those decisions. Intended contribution: Evaluated allocation principles that expose efficiency and recipient trade-offs. STARTING PAPERS 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. Wang & Strong (1996) — Beyond Accuracy: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07421222.1996.11518099 Distinguish accuracy, completeness, representation and fitness for the task. 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 one day of donor, recipient and transport CSVs with units stated. 2. Hand-check a feasible allocation and explicitly define what expires at day end. 3. Implement the first-expiring-first baseline and verify total kilograms before running the full simulation. Literature search: surplus food redistribution allocation coordination information systems Study controls: - Both methods see only announced supply and the same cancellation information. Vehicle routing is outside scope. - Treat disagreement about fairness as a finding, not automatically a planning error. - Before collecting participant data, agree consent, storage and withdrawal handling with the supervisor. Use participant codes, not names, in study files. - 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 food-redistribution coordinators; the simulation uses declared assumptions. -------------------- NON-TECHNICAL - Prepare donation and demand sheets for a distribution hub. - Ask coordinators to allocate food and respond to one cancelled pickup. DATA (planned) 6 allocation cases + 6 food-redistribution coordinators Each case has 5 donors, 3 recipients and quantities/expiry dates; include one competing-demand case and one transport shortage. METHOD Scenario interviews; record allocations and code fairness, expiry, transport and trust as reasons for decisions. OUTPUT Allocation criteria and an improved handover spreadsheet. BACHELOR Task: Map how a coordinator matches a food offer to a recipient. Data: 6 allocation cases (planned) Each case has 5 donors, 3 recipients and quantities/expiry dates; include one competing-demand case and one transport shortage. Requires: Recruit coordinators from food-redistribution organisations. Method: Use the paper scenarios in 4 interviews; document required fields, hand-offs and common exceptions. Output: An operational checklist and matching requirements. Use relevant literature to justify the established approach; a new research contribution is not the aim of this proposal. MASTER Explain competing definitions of a fair allocation. Compare donor and recipient priorities represented in the scenarios; analyse role expectations and information needs, including decisions that contradict the initial fairness categories. Intended contribution: An explanatory account of allocation disagreements and governance requirements. STARTING PAPERS 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. Wang & Strong (1996) — Beyond Accuracy: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07421222.1996.11518099 Distinguish accuracy, completeness, representation and fitness for the task. 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 allocation cases + 6 food-redistribution coordinators. 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: surplus food redistribution allocation coordination information systems 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. REQUIRES Recruit coordinators from food-redistribution organisations. 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.