Packing method for resource leveling (PACK)

Harris, R B (1990) Packing method for resource leveling (PACK). Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 116(2), pp. 331-350. ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

A new heuristic for resource leveling based upon the critical path method is developed. The minimum moment of the resource histogram is used to measure the level of resources. The heuristic assigns project activities to specific days so that the final resource histogram approaches a rectangle and its moment approaches a minimum value. Activities are listed in a priority order and all possible assignments for each are determined. Incremental moments contributed by the activity’s resource rate and penalties that recognize network interactions are calculated. Each activity is positioned in the time span where the sum of these quantities is a minimum. The histogram is thereby built step-by-step until all activities have been positioned within the constraints of a CPM or PERT network. The resulting leveled histogram is the same as, or very close to, that produced by other optimization or heuristic methods. The method is clear, logical, and computationally efficient whether the leveling is done manually or by computer. An example is solved to show the method’s details and an appendix provides a concise outline of the process.

Item Type: Article
Index terms: critical path method, penalty, interaction, resource levelling, heuristic
Subjects: behavioral psychology, regulatory law, risk assessment, resource management, operations research
Topics: Legal Issues, Site Management, Time Control, Research Practice, 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