Kim, K and De La Garza, J M (2003) Phantom float. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(5), pp. 507-517. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper presents a resource-constrained critical path method (RCPM) technique that capitalizes on and improves the existing critical path method (CPM) and resource-constrained scheduling (RCS) techniques. A traditional CPM schedule is not realistic, because it assumes unlimited resources, some of which are highly limited in practice. Although traditional RCS techniques can consider resource limitations, they do not provide the correct floats and critical path, as the CPM does. The difference between the theoretical remaining total float and the real remaining total float is referred to as "phantom float" in this study. Work sequence in a resource-constrained schedule could also be considerably changed with a schedule update, resulting in high costs to reorganize it. This is because in addition to technological relationships, a resource-constrained schedule contains resource dependencies between activities that are neglected in traditional RCS techniques. This study proposes a step-by-step RCPM procedure to consider those resource-constrained relationships. Hence, the method can identify real floats and correct critical paths considering both technological and resource relationships, making late start and late finish times more meaningful. In addition, because of identified resource relationships, the RCPM also provides a certain level of stability with a schedule update.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | algorithms; change orders; critical path method; resource allocation; scheduling |
| Index terms: | stability, critical path, critical path method, resource allocation, scheduling, change order |
| Subjects: | resource management, structural engineering, contractual condition, operations research |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Site Management, Contract Administration, Time Control |
| 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