Tsai, D M and Chiu, H N (1996) Two heuristics for scheduling multiple projects with resource constraints. Construction Management and Economics, 14(4), pp. 325-340. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to develop two efficient heuristic priority rules for the resource-constrained multiproject scheduling problem. The aptness of the two heuristic rules is analysed in terms of several dynamic characteristics of the scheduling problem. Fifteen heuristic rules presented in previous studies are used for comparison with the two heuristic rules on 4941 test problems which were generated by combining two, three or four projects from seven typical networks. The results indicate that the two proposed heuristics are superior to the other scheduling rules under the performance criteria of the minimum total project delay and the maximum number of times that a scheduling rule can obtain the best solution. Encouragingly, the two heuristic rules are proven to be adaptive and stable enough for scheduling under different problem sizes, network structures and degrees of resource tightness. As a result, the two proposed rules are the best representatives of the single priority rule method and the weighted combination search method, respectively. This study also includes a categorization process on which a project summary measure is based and then provides project schedulers with a convenient scheme to adopt appropriate scheduling rules.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | delay; heuristic rules; multiproject scheduling; resource allocation; scheduling |
| Index terms: | performance criteria, scheduler, scheduling, project delay, resource constraint, resource allocation, heuristic |
| Subjects: | project controls, performance measurement, resource management, operations research, operations management, practitioner, risk assessment |
| Topics: | Project Management, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Quality Management, 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