Evaluation of the resource-constrained critical path method algorithms

Kim, K and De La Garza, J M (2005) Evaluation of the resource-constrained critical path method algorithms. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(5), pp. 522-532. ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

This study evaluates the resource-constrained critical path method (RCPM), which the writers have recently proposed. RCPM establishes a critical path method (CPM)-like, resource-constrained schedule by resource-dependent activity relationships (or resource links) that the five-step RCPM technique identifies. With its CPM-like feature, RCPM provides the critical path and float data that are not available in traditional resource-constrained scheduling techniques. In addition, RCPM provides more flexibility to the schedule through identified alternative schedules, which allow certain activities to be executed beyond their late finish times without delaying the project completion. This paper evaluates the RCPM's performance by comparing it with five related previous studies. A brief review of each study is also included in this paper. This comparison shows that RCPM performs well in identifying resource links and alternative schedules, compared to other methods. This study is of interest to academics because it highlights the advantages and disadvantages of different algorithms that have attempted to overcome present problems in traditional resource-constrained scheduling techniques.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: construction management; critical path method; resource allocation; scheduling
Index terms: critical path method, scheduling, critical path, resource allocation
Subjects: resource management, operations research
Topics: Site Management, 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