Space Allocation Optimization at NASA Langley Research Center

1. Space Allocation Optimizationat NASA Langley Research Center Rex K. Kincaid, College of William & MaryRobert Gage, NASA Langley Research CenterRaymond Gates, NASA Langley Research Center

2. Goals • Integrated planning system • Schedule allocation of office and technical space based on current and projected organizational and project requirements • Maintain organizational synergy by co-locating within/between related organizations • Comply with space guidelines/requirements • Plan for changes in available space due to new construction, demolition, rehab, lease • Minimize moves • Save money

3. Center Characteristics • 3,500 employees • 6,200 rooms • 1,600 labs • 300 buildings

4. Visualization • Problems • Buildings are sparsely distributed • Disjoint E/W areas • Floors overlay • Difficult to provide a single image that conveys all the details necessary

5. Visualization • Spatial Subdivision Diagram • Permits display of large amounts of information in a compact form • Rectangular features are proxies for the actual spatial entities such as buildings • Features are scaled relatively to represent any quantity such as gross area, office area, or capacity

11. System Architecture User Interface High Level Algorithmic Components Mid Level Algorithmic Components Low Level Algorithmic Components Data Analysis / Preparation Data Sources

12. User Interface High Level Algorithmic Components Mid Level Algorithmic Components Low Level Algorithmic Components Data Analysis / Preparation Data Sources • Existing Data • Personnel • Space Utilization • GIS Center and Floor Plan Spatial Data • New Data • Technical Space Features • Technical Function Requirements

13. User Interface High Level Algorithmic Components Mid Level Algorithmic Components Low Level Algorithmic Components Data Analysis / Preparation Data Sources • Dynamic • Inconsistent and continually changing • Planned and unplanned changes • Planning based on snapshots • Need to be reconciled often

14. Monthly Move Data Histogram

15. Monthly Move Data Histograms

16. Time Period A: 8 months (July 2004—February 2005) - 1,791 total moves - 335 moves within same building Time Period B: 22 months (March 2005—December 2006) - 455 total moves - 7% of employees move each year - 13 moves within same building Details of Move Data

17. User Interface High Level Algorithmic Components Mid Level Algorithmic Components Low Level Algorithmic Components Data Analysis / Preparation • Filter and Classify Input Data • Problem Domain Reduction • Examples • Classify Personnel for Space Requirements • Determine Pools of Compatible Space Data Sources

18. User Interface High Level Algorithmic Components Mid Level Algorithmic Components Low Level Algorithmic Components • Components for modeling aspects of optimization problem • Examples • Space represents areas to be assigned, i.e. rooms • Consumers represent any function that consumes space, i.e. people, technical functions, conference areas Data Analysis / Preparation Data Sources

19. User Interface High Level Algorithmic Components Mid Level Algorithmic Components • Components for modeling requirements and goals of optimization problem • Constraints • Minimum necessary conditions • May reduce problem domain • Metrics • Define the measures for an optimal solution • Use a cost-based minimization approach Low Level Algorithmic Components Data Analysis / Preparation Data Sources

20. User Interface High Level Algorithmic Components Mid Level Algorithmic Components • Examples • Constraints • Space Compatibility • Minimal Area Requirements • Consumer Compatibility • Metrics • Move Cost • Office Area Per Person • Synergy Low Level Algorithmic Components Data Analysis / Preparation Data Sources

21. System Architecture • Synergy Metric • Hierarchical, flat interaction model assumes equal interaction between peers in each organization • Reality is different • Organizations self-organize • Use current allocation to find probable interactions

22. User Interface High Level Algorithmic Components • Components for modeling techniques for searching problem domain • Examples • Local Greedy Heuristic • Random Search, Tabu Search, Simulated Annealing, Genetic Algorithms, Hybrid Techniques Mid Level Algorithmic Components Low Level Algorithmic Components Data Analysis / Preparation Data Sources

23. Search Techniques • Large Search Space • Exhaustive Search not possible • Find the best local optima in a limited amount of time

24. Search Techniques • Greedy Approach • From a random starting point, proceed in the most downhill direction • compare features of local optima • Beyond Greedy • implement simple tabu search

25. Current NASA configuration

26. Local Optimum: NASA Space Allocation

27. Status • Visualization tools largely complete • Primary metrics and constraints for personnel defined and implemented • Greedy Heuristic implemented to search from any initial state to a local optimum • Continuing to tune heuristic to improve speed and adjust definition of local neighborhood with new operators

28. Status • Plan to extend local search by including simple tabu search features • Plan to experiment with long term memory by keeping track of high (low) quality partial solutions