Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Comparing optimization modeling approaches for the multi-mode resource-constrained multi-project scheduling problem

Comparing optimization modeling approaches for the multi-mode resource-constrained multi-project... Construction firms keep minimal resources to maintain productive working capital. Hence, resources are constrained and have to be shared among multiple projects in an organization. Optimal allocation of resources is a key challenge in such situations. Several approaches and heuristics have been proposed for this task. The purpose of this paper is to compare two approaches for multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling in a multi-project environment. These are the single-project approach (portfolio optimization) and the multi-project approach (each project is optimized individually, and then heuristic rules are used to satisfy the portfolio constraint).Design/methodology/approachA direct search algorithm called Probabilistic Global Search Lausanne is used for schedule optimization. Multiple solutions are generated that achieve different trade-offs among the three criteria, namely, time, cost and quality. Good compromise solutions among these are identified using a multi-criteria decision making method, Relaxed Restricted Pareto Version 4. The solutions obtained using the single-project and multi-project approaches are compared in order to evaluate their advantages and disadvantages. Data from two sources are used for the evaluation: modified multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling problem data sets from the project scheduling problem library (PSPLIB) and three real case study projects in India.FindingsComputational results prove the superiority of the single-project approach over heuristic priority rules (multi-project approach). The single-project approach identifies better solutions compared to the multi-project approach. However, the multi-project approach involves fewer optimization variables and is faster in execution.Research limitations/implicationsIt is feasible to adopt the single-project approach in practice; realistic resource constraints can be incorporated in a multi-objective optimization formulation; and good compromise solutions that achieve acceptable trade-offs among the conflicting objectives can be identified.Originality/valueAn integer programming model was developed in this research to optimize the multiple objectives in a multi-project environment considering explicit resource constraints and maximum daily costs constraints. This model was used to compare the performance of the two multi-project environment approaches. Unlike existing work in this area, the model used to predict the quality of activity execution modes is based on data collected from real construction projects. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Engineering Construction & Architectural Management Emerald Publishing

Comparing optimization modeling approaches for the multi-mode resource-constrained multi-project scheduling problem

Download PDF
24 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/comparing-optimization-modeling-approaches-for-the-multi-mode-resource-1SIvybsNgX

References (56)

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
© Emerald Publishing Limited
ISSN
0969-9988
DOI
10.1108/ecam-03-2019-0156
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Construction firms keep minimal resources to maintain productive working capital. Hence, resources are constrained and have to be shared among multiple projects in an organization. Optimal allocation of resources is a key challenge in such situations. Several approaches and heuristics have been proposed for this task. The purpose of this paper is to compare two approaches for multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling in a multi-project environment. These are the single-project approach (portfolio optimization) and the multi-project approach (each project is optimized individually, and then heuristic rules are used to satisfy the portfolio constraint).Design/methodology/approachA direct search algorithm called Probabilistic Global Search Lausanne is used for schedule optimization. Multiple solutions are generated that achieve different trade-offs among the three criteria, namely, time, cost and quality. Good compromise solutions among these are identified using a multi-criteria decision making method, Relaxed Restricted Pareto Version 4. The solutions obtained using the single-project and multi-project approaches are compared in order to evaluate their advantages and disadvantages. Data from two sources are used for the evaluation: modified multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling problem data sets from the project scheduling problem library (PSPLIB) and three real case study projects in India.FindingsComputational results prove the superiority of the single-project approach over heuristic priority rules (multi-project approach). The single-project approach identifies better solutions compared to the multi-project approach. However, the multi-project approach involves fewer optimization variables and is faster in execution.Research limitations/implicationsIt is feasible to adopt the single-project approach in practice; realistic resource constraints can be incorporated in a multi-objective optimization formulation; and good compromise solutions that achieve acceptable trade-offs among the conflicting objectives can be identified.Originality/valueAn integer programming model was developed in this research to optimize the multiple objectives in a multi-project environment considering explicit resource constraints and maximum daily costs constraints. This model was used to compare the performance of the two multi-project environment approaches. Unlike existing work in this area, the model used to predict the quality of activity execution modes is based on data collected from real construction projects.

Journal

Engineering Construction & Architectural Management – Emerald Publishing

Published: Apr 6, 2020

Keywords: Optimization; Scheduling; Project management; Decision support systems; Construction planning

There are no references for this article.