Effects of project size and resource constraints on project duration through priority rule-base heuristics

  • Recep Kanit
  • Omer Ozkan
  • Murat GunduzEmail author


Priority rules are one of the frequently used methods in project programming with resource-constraints. In this paper, the effects of project size and number of resource constraints on project duration are compared to the performances of pre-selected priority rules. Ten projects in different sizes have been programmed with 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 limited-resource conditions by means of MRPL (Maximum Remaining Path Length), LFT (Latest Finish Time), MNSLCK (Minimum Slack Time), EFT (Earliest Finish Time), and LST (Latest Start Time) priority rules. When the number of resource constraints is low, the performance of MRPL is generally observed to be higher. As the number of resource constraints increases, a decrease in the performance of MRPL is observed in contrast with an increase in the performance of LFT.


Heuristic Priority rules Project programming Resource constraints 


  1. Abbasi GY, Arabiat YA (2000) A Heuristic to maximize the net present value for resource-constrained project scheduling problems. Proj Manage J 32(2): 17–24Google Scholar
  2. Ahuja HN (1976) Construction performance control by network. Wiley Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooks GH, White CR (1965) An algorithm for finding optimal or near optimal solutions to the production scheduling problem. J Ind Eng 16: 34–40Google Scholar
  4. David EW (1973) Project scheduling under resource constraints—historical review and categorization of procedures. AIIE Trans 5(4): 297–312Google Scholar
  5. David EW, Patterson JH (1975) A comparison of heuristic and optimum solutions in resource-constrained project scheduling. Manage Sci 21: 944–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elmaghraby SE (1977) Activity networks. Wiley Publishing, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Elsayed EA (1982) Algorithms for project scheduling with resource constraints. Int J Prod Res 20: 95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Klein R (2000) Project scheduling with time-varying resource constraints. Int J Prod Res 38(16): 3937–3952zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Leu SS, Chen AT, Yang CH (1999) Fuzzy optimal model for resource-constrained construction scheduling. J Comput Civil Eng 13(3): 207–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Morse L, Whitehouse G (1988) A study of combining heuristics for scheduling projects with limited multiple resources. Comput Ind Eng 15(1–4): 153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ozdamar L, Ulusoy G (1996) A note on an iterative forward/backward scheduling technique with reference to a procedure by Li and Willis. Eur J Oper Res 89: 400–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schirmer A (1999) Resource constrained project scheduling: an evaluation of adaptive control schemes for parameterized sampling Heuristic. Int J Prod Res 39(7): 1343–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sung CS, Lim SK (1997) A scheduling procedure for a general class of resource-constrained projects. Comput Ind Eng 32(1): 9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Talbot FB (1982) Resource-constrained project scheduling with time-resource tradeoffs: the non-preemptive case. Manage Sci 28: 1197–1210zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tsai DM, Chiu HN (1996) Two Heuristics for scheduling multiple projects with resource constraints. Constr Manage Econ 14: 325–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Whitehouse GE, Brown JR (1979) GENRES: an extension of Brooks algorithm for project scheduling with resource constraints. Comput Ind Eng 3: 261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Technical EducationGazi UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Construction DepartmentSakarya UniversitySakaryaTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations