Network resource allocation with support of a fuzzy expert system

Chang, T C; William, C and Crandall, K C (1990) Network resource allocation with support of a fuzzy expert system. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 116(2), pp. 239-260. ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

Critical path method and program evaluation and review technique (CPM/PERT) without resource allocation are totally inadequate for control of major projects. Resource allocation has been a major concern of research and actual application development since the advent of the CPM/PERT network scheduling techniques. Many algorithms have been developed including theoretical optimization and heuristic rules since early 1960. The theoretical approaches generate too many combinations and are, therefore, quite expensive to use. The heuristic approaches provide a reasonable solution to the “too expensive” problem. However, none of these algorithms has the capability to resolve the impacts of a variety of external forces, such as weather conditions and resource availability, that are unavoidable in any real-life project. This paper proposes a practical algorithm to implement resource allocation. The proposed algorithm uses the output from an expert system called priority ranking, which uses possibility theory and the generalized modus ponens logic inference rule to determine the priority ranking. In addition, both network-related and project-related factors are included in the algorithm.

Item Type: Article
Index terms: heuristic, major project, expert system, weather, network scheduling, programme evaluation and review technique, critical path method, resource allocation
Subjects: strategic project management, operations research, resource management, air quality, risk assessment, data management
Topics: Project Management, Site Management, Digital Applications, Time Control, Sustainability, Risk Management
Descriptive scope: 2 PC

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here