Exact and Heuristic Methods for the Resource-Constrained Net Present Value Problem

  • Hanyu GuEmail author
  • Andreas Schutt
  • Peter J. Stuckey
  • Mark G. Wallace
  • Geoffrey Chu
Part of the International Handbooks on Information Systems book series (INFOSYS)


An important variant of the resource-constrained project scheduling problem is to maximise the net present value. Significant progress has been made recently on this problem for both exact and inexact methods. The lazy clause generation based constraint programming approach is the state of the art among the exact methods and is briefly discussed. The performance of the Lagrangian relaxation based decomposition method is greatly improved when the forward-backward improvement heuristic is employed. A novel decomposition approach is designed for very large industrial problems which can make full use of the parallel computing capability of modern personal computers. Computational results are also presented to compare different approaches on both difficult benchmark problems and large industrial applications.


Constraint programming Lagrangian relaxation Net present value Project scheduling Resource constraints 



NICTA is funded by the Australian Government as represented by the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the Australian Research Council through the ICT Centre of Excellence program.


  1. Aggoun A, Beldiceanu N (1993) Extending CHIP in order to solve complex scheduling and placement problems. Math Comput Model 17(7):57–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baroum S, Patterson J (1996) The development of cash flow weight procedures for maximizing the net present value of a project. J Oper Manag 14(3):209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brucker P, Drexl A, Möhring R, Neumann K, Pesch E (1999) Resource-constrained project scheduling: notation, classification, models, and methods. Eur J Oper Res 112(1):3–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chaudhuri S, Walker R, Mitchell J (1994) Analyzing and exploiting the structure of the constraints in the ILP approach to the scheduling problem. IEEE Trans VLSI Syst 2(4):456–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Debels D, Vanhoucke M (2007) A decomposition-based genetic algorithm for the resource-constrained project-scheduling problem. Oper Res 55(3):457–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Demeulemeester EL, Herroelen WS (1992) A branch-and-bound procedure for the multiple resource-constrained project scheduling problem. Manag Sci 38(12):1803–1818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Demeulemeester EL, Herroelen WS (1997) New benchmark results for the resource-constrained project scheduling problem. Manag Sci 43(11):1485–1492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doersch R, Patterson J (1977) Scheduling a project to maximize its present value: a zero-one programming approach. Manag Sci 23(8):882–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dósa G (2004) Graham’s example is the only tight one for P | | Cmax. Ann Univ Sci Budapest Sec Math 47:207–210Google Scholar
  10. Fisher M (1981) The lagrangian relaxation method for solving integer programming problems. Manag Sci 27(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gu HY (2008) Computation of approximate alpha-points for large scale single machine scheduling problem. Comput Oper Res 35(10):3262–3275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gu H, Xi Y, Tao J (2007) Randomized Lagrangian heuristic based on Nash equilibrium for large scale single machine scheduling problem. In: Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE international symposium on intelligent control, pp 464–468Google Scholar
  13. Gu H, Stuckey P, Wallace M (2012) Maximising the net present value of large resource-constrained projects. In: Milano M (ed) CP 2012. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7514. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 767–781Google Scholar
  14. Gu H, Schutt A, Stuckey P (2013) A Lagrangian relaxation based forward-backward improvement heuristic for maximising the net present value of resource-constrained projects. In: Gomes C, Sellmann M (eds) CPAIOR 2013. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7874. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 340–346Google Scholar
  15. Hartmann S, Briskorn D (2010) A survey of variants and extensions of the resource-constrained project scheduling problem. Eur J Oper Res 207(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hartmann S, Kolisch R (2000) Experimental evaluation of state-of-the-art heuristics for resource constrained project scheduling. Eur J Oper Res 127(2):394–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harvey W, Stuckey PJ (2003) Improving linear constraint propagation by changing constraint representation. Constraints 8(2):173–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Icmeli O, Erengüç SS (1996) A branch and bound procedure for the resource constrained project scheduling problem with discounted cash flows. Manag Sci 42(10):1395–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson E, Mehrotra A, Nemhauser G (1993) Min-cut clustering. Math Program 62(1–3):133–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karypis G (2011) METIS: A software package for partitioning unstructured graphs, partitioning meshes, and computing fill-reducing orderings of sparse matrices, Version 5.0. URL
  21. Kimms A (2001) Maximizing the net present value of a project under resource constraints using a Lagrangian relaxation based heuristic with tight upper bounds. Ann Oper Res 102(1–4):221–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kolisch R, Hartmann S (2006) Experimental investigation of heuristics for resource-constrained project scheduling: an update. Eur J Oper Res 174(1):23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li K, Willis R (1992) An iterative scheduling technique for resource-constrained project scheduling. Eur J Oper Res 56(3):370–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Möhring RH, Schulz AS, Stork F, Uetz M (2003) Solving project scheduling problems by minimum cut computations. Manag Sci 49(3):330–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Neumann K, Zimmermann J (2002) Exact and truncated branch-and-bound procedures for resource-constrained project scheduling with discounted cash flows and general temporal constraints. Cent Eur J Oper Res 10(4):357–380Google Scholar
  26. Ohrimenko O, Stuckey PJ, Codish M (2009) Propagation via lazy clause generation. Constraints 14(3):357–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Padman R, Smith-Daniels DE, Smith-Daniels VL (1997) Heuristic scheduling of resource-constrained projects with cash flows. Nav Res Log 44(4):365–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Russell AH (1970) Cash flows in networks. Manag Sci 16(5):357–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Savelsbergh M, Uma R, Wein J (2005) An experimental study of LP-based approximation algorithms for scheduling problems. INFORMS J Comput 17(1):123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schulte C, Stuckey PJ (2008) Efficient constraint propagation engines. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst 31(1):1–43 (Article No. 2)Google Scholar
  31. Schutt A, Feydy T, Stuckey PJ, Wallace MG (2011) Explaining the cumulative propagator. Constraints 16(3):250–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schutt A, Chu G, Stuckey PJ, Wallace MG (2012) Maximizing the net-present-value for resource constrained project scheduling. In: Beldiceanu N, Jussien N, Pinson E (eds) CPAIOR 2012. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7298. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 362–378Google Scholar
  33. Selle T, Zimmermann J (2003) A bidirectional heuristic for maximizing the net present value of large-scale projects subject to limited resources. Nav Res Log 50(2):130–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Siek JG, Lee LQ, Lumsdaine A (2001) The boost graph library: user guide and reference manual. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  35. Sprecher A, Kolisch R, Drexl A (1995) Semi-active, active, and non-delay schedules for the resource-constrained project scheduling problem. Eur J Oper Res 80(1):94–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vanhoucke M (2010) A scatter search heuristic for maximising the net present value of a resource constrained project with fixed activity cash flows. Int J Prod Res 48(7):1983–2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vanhoucke M, Demeulemeester EL, Herroelen WS (2001) On maximizing the net present value of a project under renewable resource constraints. Manag Sci 47(8):1113–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhao X, Luh PB (2002) New bundle methods for solving Lagrangian relaxation dual problems. J Optim Theory App 113(2):373–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhu D, Padman R (1999) A metaheuristic scheduling procedure for resource-constrained projects with cash flows. Nav Res Log 46(8):912–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hanyu Gu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andreas Schutt
    • 2
  • Peter J. Stuckey
    • 2
  • Mark G. Wallace
    • 3
  • Geoffrey Chu
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Mathematical SciencesUniversity of TechnologySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.National ICT Australia & Computing and Information SystemsUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Faculty of Information TechnologyMonash UniversityCaulfieldAustralia

Personalised recommendations