Firework-based software project scheduling method considering the learning and forgetting effect

  • Yinan Guo
  • Jianjiao Ji
  • Junhua Ji
  • Dunwei Gong
  • Jian Cheng
  • Xiaoning Shen
Methodologies and Application


The learning and forgetting ability, as the inherent characteristics of the employees, have a great impact on the software development process. By using the idea of WLC learning and VRVF forgetting models, an novel learning and forgetting model is constructed for software project scheduling problem to measure the dynamic skill levels. Taking the cost and duration as the optimization objectives, corresponding software project scheduling model considering the learning and forgetting effect is formed. The improved multi-objective firework algorithm with a novel encoding scheme is present. The crossover-explosion operator is introduced to enhance the information exchange between the better sparks or fireworks. A novel reservation strategy with two archives is proposed to avoid the ineffective search around the local optimum. Experimental results indicate that the learning ability plays a positive role on the optimal scheduling schemes and the forgetting effect is the opposite. The duration and cost of the project are inversely proportional to the learning coefficient and directly proportional to forgetting coefficient. By comparing the scheduling schemes from NSGA-II and original FA, the proposed method shows the better scheduling performances.


Firework algorithm Learning effect Forgetting effect Software project scheduling 



This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61573361, National Key Research and Development Program under Grant 2016YFC0801406, National Basic Research Program of China under Grant 2014CB046300, Innovation Team of China University of Mining and Technology under Grant 2015QN003, Key Laboratory of Machine Intelligence and Advanced Computing (SunYat-sen University), Ministry of Education under Grant MSC20170A and Research Program of Frontier Discipline of CUMT under Grant 2015XKQY19. Also, thank you for the support from Collaborative Innovation Center of Intelligent Mining Equipment, CUMT. Six talent peaks project in Jiangsu Province under Grant No. 2017-DZXX-046.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. Adler PS, Clark KB (1991) Behind the learning curve: a sketch of the learning process. Manag Sci 37(3):267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alba E, Chicano JF (2007) Software project management with gas. Inf Sci 177(11):2380–2401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baccarini D, Salm G, Love PED (2004) Management of risks in information technology projects. Ind Manag Data Syst 104(4):286–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cao L, Ye C, Huang X (2016) Applying chaotic fireworks algorithm in solving permutation flow shop problem. Comput Appl Softw 33(11):188–192Google Scholar
  5. Carlson JG, Rowe AJ (1976) How much does forgetting cost? Ind Eng 8(9):40–47Google Scholar
  6. Carr GW (1946) Peacetime cost estimating requires new learning curves. In: AviationGoogle Scholar
  7. Crawford B, Soto R, Johnson F, Monfroy E, Paredes F (2014) A maxcmin ant system algorithm to solve the software project scheduling problem. Expert Syst Appl 41(15):6634–6645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cule PE, Schmidt RC, Lyytinen K, Keil M, Cule PE (2000) Strategies for heading off is project failure. Inf Syst Manag 17(17):1–9Google Scholar
  9. Dar EM (1991) Using learning theory in assembly lines for new products. Int J Prod Econ 25(1–3):103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidovitch L, Parush A, Shtub A (2008) Simulation-based learning: the learningcforgettingcrelearning process and impact of learning history. Comput Educ 50(3):866–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ebbinghaus H (1885) Untersuchungen zur experimentellen psychologie sur la memoire, recherches de psychologie experimentale. Revue Philosophique De La France Et De LetrangerGoogle Scholar
  13. Elm’Aghraby SE (1990) Economic manufacturing quantities under conditions of learning and forgetting (EMQ/LAF). Prod PlanControl 1:196–208Google Scholar
  14. Gao H, Diao M (2011) Cultural firework algorithm and its application for digital filters design. Int J Model Identif Control 14(4):324–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holland JH (1992) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Imran AM, Kowsalya M (2014) A new power system reconfiguration scheme for power loss minimization and voltage profile enhancement using fireworks algorithm. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 62(62):312–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jaber MY, Bonney M (1996) Production breaks and the learning curve: the forgetting phenomenon. Appl Math Model 20(2):162–169CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Luna F, Gonzlez-lvarez DL, Chicano F, Vega-Rodrguez MA (2014) The software project scheduling problem: a scalability analysis of multi-objective metaheuristics. Appl Soft Comput 15(2):136–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mazur JE, Hastie R (1978) Learning as accumulation: a reexamination of the learning curve. Psychol Bull 85(6):1256–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Minku LL, Sudholt D, Yao X (2014) Improved evolutionary algorithm design for the project scheduling problem based on runtime analysis. IEEE Trans Software Eng 40(1):83–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Narayanan S, Swaminathan JM (2009) A matter of balance: specialization, task variety, and individual learning in a software maintenance environment. Manag Sci 55(11):1861–1876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nembhard DA, Uzumeri MV (2000) Experiential learning and forgetting for manual and cognitive tasks. Int J Ind Ergon 25(4):315–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Neves SM, Da Silva CES, Salomon VAP, Da Silva AF (2014) Risk management in software projects through knowledge management techniques: cases in Brazilian incubated technology-based firms. Int J Proj Manag 32(1):125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ngwenyama O, Guergachi A, Mclaren T (2007) Using the learning curve to maximize it productivity: a decision analysis model for timing software upgrades. Int J Prod Econ 105(2):524–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Plaza M (2008) Team performance and information system implementation. Inf Syst Front 10(3):347–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Qin S, Liu S, Kuang H (2016) Piecewise linear model for multiskilled workforce scheduling problems considering learning effect and project quality. Math Probl Eng 2016(4):1–11MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Rekha JH, Parvathi R (2015) Survey on software project risks and big data analytics. Procedia Comput Sci 50:295–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sarigiannidis L, Chatzoglou PD (2014) Quality vs risk: an investigation of their relationship in software development projects. Int J Project Manag 32(6):1073–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schott JR (1995) Fault tolerant design using single and multicriteria genetic algorithm optimization. Cell Immunol 37(1):1V13MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. Shen XN, Minku L, Bahsoon R, Yao X (2016) Dynamic software project scheduling through a proactive-rescheduling method. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 1:658–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shendil K, Madhavji NH (1994) Personal ‘progress functions’ in the software process. In: Proceedings of the ninth international software process workshop, 1994, pp 117–121Google Scholar
  32. Smunt TL, Watts CA (2003) Improving operations planning with learning curves: overcoming the pitfalls of messy shop floor data. J Oper Manag 21(1):93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tan Y, Zhu Y (2010) Fireworks algorithm for optimization. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van DA, Gary V, Lamont B (1998) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithm research: a history and analysis. Evol Comput 8(2):125–147Google Scholar
  35. Van Peteghem V, Vanhoucke M (2015) Influence of learning in resource-constrained project scheduling. Comput Ind Eng 87:569–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wright TP (1936) Factors affecting the cost of airplanes. J Aeronaut Sci 3(4):122–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wu MC, Sun SH (2006) A project scheduling and staff assignment model considering learning effect. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 28(11–12):1190–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Xiao J, Ao XT, Tang Y (2013) Solving software project scheduling problems with ant colony optimization. Comput Oper Res 40(1):33–46MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Zha H, Zhang L (2014) Scheduling projects with multiskill learning effect. Sci World J 2014(1C4):731081–731081Google Scholar
  40. Zheng S, Tan Y (2013) A unified distance measure scheme for orientation coding in identification. In: IEEE third international conference on information science and technology, pp 979–985Google Scholar
  41. Zheng YJ, Song Q, Chen SY (2013) Multiobjective fireworks optimization for variable-rate fertilization in oil crop production. Appl Soft Comput 13(11):4253–4263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zitzler E, Thiele L (1999) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength pareto approach. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3(4):257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yinan Guo
    • 1
  • Jianjiao Ji
    • 1
  • Junhua Ji
    • 1
  • Dunwei Gong
    • 1
  • Jian Cheng
    • 1
  • Xiaoning Shen
    • 2
  1. 1.China University of Mining and TechnologyXuzhouChina
  2. 2.Nanjing University of Information Science and TechnologyNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations