Bashir, H A (2010) Removal of redundant relationships in an AON project network for evaluating schedule complexity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(7), pp. 787-793. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Since redundant relationships in an activity-on-node (AON) project network indicate that the schedule is more complex than it actually is, they should not be considered when evaluating the schedule complexity. However, identifying the relationships that can be removed while maintaining the project logic is not an easy task. For this purpose, this paper proposes a methodology, adapted from interpretive structural modeling, that basically transforms an AON project network into a network called minimum-edge diagraph which contains no redundant relationships. The methodology steps are explained through a demonstrative example of a simple hypothetical project. The application of the methodology to the AON network of a real construction project shows that it is easy to use yet effective in removing redundant relationships.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | aon project network; graph theory; interpretive structural modeling; minimum-edge diagraph; project schedule complexity |
| Index terms: | methodology, complexity, project network, construction project, graph theory, interpretive structural modelling |
| Subjects: | production management, data analysis and analytics, theoretical framing, project planning, research methods, systems engineering |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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