Evaluating labour requirements within a

1
Evaluating labour requirements within a
multi-objective land use planning tool
Keith Matthews, Kevin Buchan, Andy Dalziel MODSIM
2003
2
Introduction
Multi-functional land management Roles for
research and decision support systems
(DSS) Resource Scheduling Tool
(RST) Importance of labour and capital
equipment Financial viability of alternative
land use strategies Social impacts amount and
quality of employment Social sustainability
3
Pareto-optimality
4
Comparing DSS with practitioner allocations
F-2 (Diversity)
AG-2 (Closest)
E1-2 (Financial)
5
Resource Scheduling Tool (RST)
Schedules of resource use for land use
plans Resources labour and capital
equipment Labour Full-, part-,
seasonal- Normal-time, over-time,
limits(?) Wage cost Skills determining tasks
that can undertake Capital equipment Determines
work rates Compatibility constraints Replacement
lifespan, depreciation Repair, running and
legal costs
6
Resource Scheduling Tool (RST)
Schedules of tasks performed by or using the
resources Tasks defined from the pattern of
land use and management Magnitude Land area,
weight of material or numbers of
livestock Prerequisites Chaining tasks e.g.
preparation for arable crops Start-to-start
relationships Resources required Part of the
definition of the management regimen Can be all
or part contracted Prioritised Animal welfare,
high financial impacts, maintenance Time-windows
Fixed start and completion dates, weather
effects Earliest completion with normal-time
7
RST Architecture
8
RST operations
Implemented as steps, transitions and transfers
9
RST operations
Tasks allocated resources in steps 2-7
10
RST operations
Tasks in ready queue depend on the scheduler
clock
Clock steps by week Time taken sub hour When
within week not determined Sub-hourly
precision but weekly resolution Tasks that can
be completed in the week allowing for
inefficiency ()
11
RST operations
Within the week tasks scheduled by priority
Base and Variable Base from task type Variable
heuristics Tasks less complete Tasks closer to
deadlines Variable is float so no tie breaking
12
RST operations
Resources allocated to prioritised tasks -
heuristics
Labour with most unallocated time Prime movers
of minimum size Implements with fastest work
rates Maximum single allocation
parameter Minimum allocation other than to
complete.
13
RST operations
Task blocking through lack of resources for
prerequisites
Prerequisite cannot be completed, so partially
contracted at the earliest date The follow-on
tasks are then be reconsidered For example a
three man task may block a two man unnecessarily
Rollback where resource constraints within
windows can be problematical
14
RST Raw Outputs
WORK done by resources Date Sub-schedule Job ID
Units Wrkd Total Units Cost Resource Hrs
Worked Res Cost NT/OT 01/01/2003 Upland Sheep
(Inside Feeding) Silage Feed Inside 191716 193.036
193.04 35.69 Upland Sheep Silage
4.5 0 NT 01/01/2003 Upland Sheep (Inside
Feeding) Silage Feed Inside 191716 193.036 193.04
35.69 Full Time Shepherd 4.5 35.69 NT 01/01/2003
Suckler Cattle (Spring Calving) Silage
Feeding 191717 284.004 284 307.79 75hp
Tractor 19.87 150.22 NT 01/01/2003 Suckler
Cattle (Spring Calving) Silage Feeding 191717 284.
004 284 307.79 Full Time Stockman 19.87 157.57 NT
01/01/2003 Suckler Cattle (Spring
Calving) Silage Feeding 191717 284.004 284 307.79
Loader (Attachment) 19.87 0 NT 01/01/2003 Suckler
Cattle (Spring Calving) Silage
Feeding 191717 284.004 284 307.79 Sucker Cattle
Silage 19.87 0 NT 01/01/2003 Spring
Barley Ploughing 191718 9 15.25 899.4 Full Time
30 237.9 NT 01/01/2003 Spring
Barley Ploughing 191718 9 15.25 899.4 Plough (2
furrow) 30 434.7 NT 01/01/2003 Spring
Barley Ploughing 191718 9 15.25 899.4 75hp
Tractor 30 226.8 NT 01/01/2003 Spring
Barley Ploughing 191719 6.254 15.25 625.09 Full
Time Shepherd 20.85 165.34 NT 01/01/2003 Spring
Barley Ploughing 191719 6.254 15.25 625.09 Plough
(2 furrow) 20.85 302.12 NT 01/01/2003 Spring
Barley Ploughing 191719 6.254 15.25 625.09 75hp
Tractor 20.85 157.63 NT 08/01/2003 Upland Sheep
(Inside Feeding) Silage Feed Inside 191720 193.036
193.04 35.69 Upland Sheep Silage
4.5 0 NT 08/01/2003 Upland Sheep (Inside
Feeding) Silage Feed Inside 191720 193.036 193.04
35.69 Full Time Stockman 4.5 35.69 NT 08/01/2003
Suckler Cattle (Spring Calving) Silage
Feeding 191721 284.004 284 307.79 Sucker Cattle
Silage 19.87 0 NT 08/01/2003 Suckler Cattle
(Spring Calving) Silage Feeding 191721 284.004 284
307.79 Loader (Attachment) 19.87 0 NT 08/01/2003
Suckler Cattle (Spring Calving) Silage
Feeding 191721 284.004 284 307.79 75hp
Tractor 19.87 150.22 NT 08/01/2003 Suckler
Cattle (Spring Calving) Silage Feeding 191721 284.
004 284 307.79 Full Time 19.87 157.57 NT 08/01/2
003 Upland Sheep (General) Scanning 191722 193.036
193.04 47.1 Full Time Shepherd 5.94 47.1 NT 08/0
1/2003 Upland Sheep (General) Scanning 191722 193.
036 193.04 47.1 Scanning Equipment 5.94 0 NT 15/0
1/2003 Upland Sheep (Inside Feeding) Silage Feed
Inside 191723 193.036 193.04 35.69 Full Time
Stockman 4.5 35.69 NT 15/01/2003 Upland Sheep
(Inside Feeding) Silage Feed Inside 191723 193.036
193.04 35.69 Upland Sheep Silage
4.5 0 NT 15/01/2003 Suckler Cattle (Spring
Calving) Silage Feeding 191724 284.004 284 307.79
75hp Tractor 19.87 150.22 NT 15/01/2003 Suckler
Cattle (Spring Calving) Silage Feeding 191724 284.
004 284 307.79 Full Time 19.87 157.57 NT 15/01/2
003 Suckler Cattle (Spring Calving) Silage
Feeding 191724 284.004 284 307.79 Loader
(Attachment) 19.87 0 NT 15/01/2003 Suckler
Cattle (Spring Calving) Silage Feeding 191724 284.
004 284 307.79 Sucker Cattle Silage
19.87 0 NT 15/01/2003 Upland Sheep
(General) Trimming 191725 193.036 193.04 51.07 Upl
and Sheep Foot 6.44 0 NT 15/01/2003 Upland
Sheep (General) Trimming 191725 193.036 193.04 51.
07 Full Time Shepherd 6.44 51.07 NT
15
RST Application
Hartwood Farm research station N.
Lanarkshire, Scotland. 350 cattle, 1200 sheep, 15
ha arable, 23 ha broadleaves
16
RST Results
Dominant demand by labour intensive cattle
operations Front loading of schedule and
conflict between cattle and sheep
enterprises Low overall utilisation (60) but
peaking Woodlands possibly significant Alternat
ive cattle regimens
17
Resource trade-offs E1-2 Estate Owner
18
Resource trade-offs BA1 Bank Advisor
19
Resource trade-offs G1-2 - Extensification
20
RST Conclusions
Significant potential for RST especially when
linked to multi- objective land use planning
tools Roles in counter-factual analysis, social
learning or conflict resolution Land use
planning is highly multi-objective and any system
should be able to evaluate the trade-off between
objectives and present a range of
alternatives Assessing the significant metrics
can be difficult