Pinto Langoni, C R (1987) A decomposition approach for the project scheduling problem (network analysis). PhD thesis, Texas A&M University, USA.
Abstract
The problem addressed in this research is the project scheduling problem. Two types of solution methodologies commonly discussed in the literature are optimization procedures and heuristic ranking procedures. Optimization procedures are only capable of solving problems of moderate size. Heuristic ranking procedures, on the other hand, can handle problems of virtually any size. However, results reported in the literature demonstrate that no single priority rule is a consistent best performer when applied to problems with different characteristics. Based on this research, a heuristic decomposition procedure which shows promise as a more consistent performer than heuristic ranking procedures is developed. In this procedure, a sequence of subproblems is generated and resource conflicts among activities in each subproblem are optimally resolved. Some limited computational experience with the method is reported.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | optimization; conflicts; scheduling; heuristic |
| Index terms: | project scheduling, scheduling, methodology, heuristic, network analysis |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, operations research, risk assessment, project controls, research methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Risk Management, Time Control |
| 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