Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Project portfolio selection and scheduling under a fuzzy environment

  • Regular Research Paper
  • Published:
Memetic Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The problem of integrated project portfolio selection and scheduling (PPSS) is among the most important and highly pursed subjects in project management. In this study, a mathematical model and algorithm are designed specifically to assist decision makers decide which projects are to be chosen and when these projects are to be undertaken. More specifically, the PPSS problem is first formulated as a nonlinear multi-objective model with simultaneous consideration of benefit and risk factors. Due to the complexity and uncertainty involved in most real life situations, fuzzy numbers are incorporated into the model, which can provide decision makers with more flexibility. Then, an inverse modeling based multi-objective evolutionary algorithm using a Gaussian Process is presented to obtain the Pareto set. Finally, an illustrative example is used to demonstrate the high efficacy of the foregoing approach, which can provide decision makers with valuable insights into the PPSS process. The proposed algorithm is found to be more effective compared with two other popular algorithms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hall NG, Long DZ, Qi J, Sim M (2015) Managing underperformance risk in project portfolio selection. Oper Res 63(3):660–675

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Starkey A, Hagras H, Shakya S, Owusu G, Mohamed A, Alghazzawi D (2016) A cloud computing based many objective type-2 fuzzy logic system for mobile field workforce area optimization. Memet Comput 8(4):269–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Zhang X, Ge B, Jiang J, Tan Y (2016) Consensus building in group decision making based on multiplicative consistency with incomplete reciprocal preference relations. Knowl Based Syst 106:96–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kitayama S, Yamazaki K (2012) Compromise point incorporating trade-off ratio in multi-objective optimization. Appl Soft Comput 12(8):1959–1964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Vetschera R, De Almeida AT (2012) A PROMETHEE-based approach to portfolio selection problems. Comput Oper Res 39(5):1010–1020

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Tavana M, Keramatpour M, Santos-Arteaga FJ, Ghorbaniane E (2015) A fuzzy hybrid project portfolio selection method using data envelopment analysis, TOPSIS and integer programming. Expert Syst Appl 42(22):8432–8444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Morton A, Keisler JM, Salo A (2016) Multicriteria portfolio decision analysis for project selection. Multiple criteria decision analysis. Springer, New York, NY, pp 1269–1298

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Jha P, Bali S, Kumar UD, Pham H (2014) Fuzzy optimization approach to component selection of fault-tolerant software system. Memet Comput 6(1):49–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hassanzadeh F, Nemati H, Sun M (2014) Robust optimization for interactive multiobjective programming with imprecise information applied to R&D project portfolio selection. Eur J Oper Res 238(1):41–53

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Schaeffer S, Cruz-Reyes L (2016) Static R&D project portfolio selection in public organizations. Decis Support Syst 84:53–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sefair JA, Méndez CY, Babat O, Medaglia AL, Zuluaga LF (2017) Linear solution schemes for Mean-SemiVariance Project portfolio selection problems: an application in the oil and gas industry. Omega 68:39–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen W, Lei L, Wang Z, Teng M, Liu J (2018) Coordinating supplier selection and project scheduling in resource-constrained construction supply chains. Int J Prod Res 56(19):6512–6526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rostami S, Creemers S, Leus R (2018) New strategies for stochastic resource-constrained project scheduling. J Sched 21(3):349–365

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang X, Ning Y (2018) Uncertain chance-constrained programming model for project scheduling problem. J Oper Res Soc 69(3):384–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Leyman P, Vanhoucke M (2017) Capital-and resource-constrained project scheduling with net present value optimization. Eur J Oper Res 256(3):757–776

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Esparcia-Alcázar AI, Almenar F, Vos TE, Rueda U (2018) Using genetic programming to evolve action selection rules in traversal-based automated software testing: results obtained with the TESTAR tool. Memet Comput 10(3):257–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yassine AA, Mostafa O, Browning TR (2017) Scheduling multiple, resource-constrained, iterative, product development projects with genetic algorithms. Comput Ind Eng 107:39–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Xiong J, Leus R, Yang Z, Abbass HA (2016) Evolutionary multi-objective resource allocation and scheduling in the Chinese navigation satellite system project. Eur J Oper Res 251(2):662–675

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Kumar M, Mittal M, Soni G, Joshi D (2018) A hybrid TLBO-TS algorithm for integrated selection and scheduling of projects. Comput Ind Eng 119:121–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Perez F, Gomez T (2016) Multiobjective project portfolio selection with fuzzy constraints. Ann Oper Res 245:7–29

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Tanaka H (1984) A formulation of fuzzy linear programming problem based on comparison of fuzzy numbers. Control cybern 3:185–194

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Cheng R, Jin Y, Narukawa K, Sendhoff B (2015) A multiobjective evolutionary algorithm using Gaussian process-based inverse modeling. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 19(6):838–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Karshenas H, Santana R, Bielza C, Larranaga P (2014) Multiobjective estimation of distribution algorithm based on joint modeling of objectives and variables. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 18(4):519–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Liu H-L, Gu F, Zhang Q (2014) Decomposition of a multiobjective optimization problem into a number of simple multiobjective subproblems. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 18(3):450–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Yang Z, Tang K, Yao X (2008) Large scale evolutionary optimization using cooperative coevolution. Inf Sci 178(15):2985–2999

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Campigotto P, Passerini A, Battiti R (2014) Active learning of Pareto fronts. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 25(3):506–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cheng R, Jin Y, Olhofer M, Sendhoff B (2016) A reference vector guided evolutionary algorithm for many-objective optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 20(5):773–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang Q, Li H (2007) MOEA/D: A multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 11(6):712–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rudnik K, Kacprzak D (2017) Fuzzy TOPSIS method with ordered fuzzy numbers for flow control in a manufacturing system. Appl Soft Comput 52:1020–1041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang H, Olhofer M, Jin Y (2017) A mini-review on preference modeling and articulation in multi-objective optimization: current status and challenges. Complex Intell Syst 3(4):233–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants 71690233, 71501182, and 71571185. The authors would like to thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments that helped us to improve the quality of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Sixty-third Research Institute, National University of Defense Technology, Nanjing, 210007, Jiangsu, China

    Xiaoxiong Zhang

  2. Department of Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

    Xiaoxiong Zhang & Keith W. Hipel

  3. Centre for International Governance Innovation, Waterloo, ON, N2L 6C2, Canada

    Keith W. Hipel

  4. Balsillie School of International Affairs, Waterloo, ON, N2L 6C2, Canada

    Keith W. Hipel

  5. College of Systems Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, 410073, Hunan, China

    Xiaoxiong Zhang & Yuejin Tan

Authors
  1. Xiaoxiong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keith W. Hipel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuejin Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaoxiong Zhang.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, X., Hipel, K.W. & Tan, Y. Project portfolio selection and scheduling under a fuzzy environment. Memetic Comp. 11, 391–406 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12293-019-00282-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12293-019-00282-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation