Journal of Scheduling

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 15–27 | Cite as

Nash equilibria for the multi-agent project scheduling problem with controllable processing times

  • Alessandro Agnetis
  • Cyril Briand
  • Jean-Charles Billaut
  • Přemysl Šůcha
Article

Abstract

This paper considers a project scheduling environment in which the activities of the project network are partitioned among a set of agents. Activity durations are controllable, i.e., every agent is allowed to shorten the duration of its activities, incurring a crashing cost. If the project makespan is reduced with respect to its normal value, a reward is offered to the agents and each agent receives a given ratio of the total reward. Agents want to maximize their profit. Assuming a complete knowledge of the agents’ parameters and of the activity network, this problem is modeled as a non-cooperative game and Nash equilibria are analyzed. We characterize Nash equilibria in terms of the existence of certain types of cuts on the project network. We show that finding one Nash equilibrium is easy, while finding a Nash strategy that minimizes the project makespan is NP-hard in the strong sense. The particular case where each activity belongs to a different agent is also studied and some polynomial-time algorithms are proposed for this case.

Keywords

Multi-agent project scheduling  Nash equilibria Flow networks 

References

  1. Adhau, S., Mittal, M. L., & Mittal, A. (2012). A multi-agent system for distributed multi-project scheduling: An auction-based negotiation approach. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 25(8), 1738–1751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agnetis, A., Mirchandani, P. B., Pacciarelli, D., & Pacifici, A. (2004). Scheduling problems with two competing agents. Operations Research, 52, 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahuja, R. K., Magnanti, T. L., & Orlin, J. B. (1993). Network flows. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Bachelet, B., & Mahey, P. (2003). Minimum convex-cost tension problems on series-parallel graphs. RAIRO Operations Research, 37–4, 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brânzei, R., Ferrari, G., Fragnelli, V., & Tijs, S. (2002). Two approaches to the problem of sharing delay costs in joint projects. Annals of Operations Research, 109, 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ciurea, E., & Ciupalâ, L. (2004). Sequential and parallel algorithms for minimum flows. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing, 15, 53–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Confessore, G., Giordani, S., & Rismondo, S. (2007). A market-based multi-agent system model for decentralized multi-project scheduling. Annals of Operations Research, 150, 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Demeulemeester, E. L., & Herroelen, W. S. (2002). Project scheduling—a research handbook. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Estévez-Fernández, A. (2012). A game theoretical approach to sharing penalties and rewards in projects. European Journal of Operational Research, 216(3), 647–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evaristo, R., & van Fenema, P. C. (1999). A typology of project management: Emergence and evolution of new forms. International Journal of Project Management, 17(5), 275–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garey, M. R., & Johnson, D. S. (1979). Computers and intractability: A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
  12. Homberger, J. (2012). A (mu, lambda)-coordination mechanism for agent-based multi-project scheduling. OR Spectrum, 34(1), 107–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Knotts, G., & Dror, M. (2003). Agent-based project scheduling: Computational study of large problems. IIE Transactions, 35(2), 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Knotts, G., Dror, M., & Hartman, B. C. (2000). Agent-based project scheduling. IIE Transactions, 32(5), 387–401.Google Scholar
  15. Lau, J. S. K., Huang, G. Q., Mak, K. L., & Liang, L. (2005a). Distributed project scheduling with information sharing in supply chains: Part I an agent-based negotiation model. International Journal of Production Research, 43(22), 4813–4838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lau, J. S. K., Huang, G. Q., Mak, K. L., & Liang, L. (2005b). Distributed project scheduling with information sharing in supply theoretical analysis and computational study. International Journal of Production Research, 43(23), 4899–4927. Google Scholar
  17. Leung, J. Y.-T., Pinedo, M. L., & Wan, G. (2010). Competitive two-agent scheduling and its applications. Operations Research, 58, 458–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li, Z., & Zhou, H. (2012). Coordination mechanism of economic lot and delivery scheduling problem. Industrial Engineering Journal, 15, 18–22.Google Scholar
  19. Phillips, S., & Dessouky, M. I. (1977). Solving the project time/cost tradeoff problem using the minimal cut concept. Management Science, 24(4), 393–400.Google Scholar
  20. Wang, L., Zhan, D., Nie, L., & Xu, X. (2011). Research framework for decentralized multi-project scheduling problem. In 2011 International Conference on Information Science and Technology, ICIST 2011, pp. 802–806.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Agnetis
    • 1
  • Cyril Briand
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jean-Charles Billaut
    • 4
  • Přemysl Šůcha
    • 2
    • 5
  1. 1.Università di SienaSienaItaly
  2. 2.CNRS, LAASToulouseFrance
  3. 3.Univ de Toulouse, UPS, LAASToulouseFrance
  4. 4.Laboratoire d’InformatiqueUniversité Francois Rabelais ToursToursFrance
  5. 5.Faculty of Electrical EngineeringCzech Technical University in PraguePrague 2Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations