Resource Constrained Multi-project Scheduling: A Priority Rule Based Evolutionary Local Search Approach

  • Ripon K. Chakrabortty
  • Ruhul A. Sarker
  • Daryl L. Essam
Conference paper
Part of the Proceedings in Adaptation, Learning and Optimization book series (PALO, volume 8)

Abstract

This paper considers a static resource constrained multi-project scheduling problem (RCMPSP) with two lateness objectives: project lateness and portfolio lateness. To solve the RCMPSP, we have proposed an evolutionary local search heuristic that uses a variable neighborhood (ELSH-VN) approach. The heuristic is further analyzed by incorporating different priority-rules. To judge the performance of these priority rule based heuristics, an extensive simulation-based analysis has been conducted with different scenario-based schedules. For the experimental study, we have considered a standard set of 77 generated RCMPSP test instances of 20 activities. The experimental analysis indicates that the proposed heuristic is able to solve multiple projects with reasonable computational burden. The influence of the variation of resource distribution and resource contention on the algorithm’s performance for different priority rules is also analyzed and discussed.

Keywords

Multi-project scheduling Heuristics Priority rules Resource constraints 

References

  1. 1.
    Payne, J.H., Management of multiple simultaneous projects: a state-of-the-art review. International journal of project management, 1995. 13(3): p. 163–168.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Browning, T.R. and A.A. Yassine, Resource-constrained multi-project scheduling: Priority rule performance revisited. International Journal of Production Economics, 2010. 126(2): p. 212–228.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blazewicz, J., J.K. Lenstra, and A. Kan, Scheduling subject to resource constraints: classification and complexity. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 1983. 5(1): p. 11–24.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drexl, A., Scheduling of project networks by job assignment. Management Science, 1991. 37(12): p. 1590–1602.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gonçalves, J.F., J.J. Mendes, and M.G. Resende, A genetic algorithm for the resource constrained multi-project scheduling problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 2008. 189(3): p. 1171–1190.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mouthuy, S., et al., A Multistage Very Large-Scale Neighborhood Search for the Vehicle Routing Problem with Soft Time Windows. Transportation Science, 2015. 49(2): p. 223–238.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mladenovic, N., R. Todosijevic, and D. Urosevic, An efficient general variable neighborhood search for large travelling salesman problem with time windows. Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research ISSN: 0354–0243 EISSN: 2334-6043, 2012. 23(1).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Talbot, F.B., Resource-constrained project scheduling with time-resource tradeoffs: The nonpreemptive case. Management Science, 1982. 28(10): p. 1197–1210.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kolisch, R., Serial and parallel resource-constrained project scheduling methods revisited: Theory and computation. European Journal of Operational Research, 1996. 90(2): p. 320–333.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kolisch, R., Efficient priority rules for the resource-constrained project scheduling problem. Journal of Operations Management, 1996. 14(3): p. 179–192.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kolisch, R. and S. Hartmann, Experimental investigation of heuristics for resource-constrained project scheduling: An update. European journal of operational research, 2006. 174(1): p. 23–37.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patterson, J.H., Alternate methods of project scheduling with limited resources. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 1973. 20(4): p. 767–784.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alvarez-Valdes, R. and J.M. Tamarit, Heuristic algorithms for resource-constrained project scheduling: A review and an empirical analysis, in Advances in project scheduling. 1989, Elsevier Amsterdam. p. 113–134.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kurtulus, I.S. and S.C. Narula, Multi-project scheduling: Analysis of project performance. IIE transactions, 1985. 17(1): p. 58–66.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davis, E.W. and J.H. Patterson, A comparison of heuristic and optimum solutions in resource-constrained project scheduling. Management science, 1975. 21(8): p. 944–955.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Browning, T.R. and A.A. Yassine, A random generator of resource-constrained multi-project network problems. Journal of scheduling, 2010. 13(2): p. 143–161.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kurtulus, I. and E. Davis, Multi-project scheduling: Categorization of heuristic rules performance. Management Science, 1982. 28(2): p. 161–172.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zimmerman, D.W. and B.D. Zumbo, Relative power of the Wilcoxon test, the Friedman test, and repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1993. 62(1): p. 75–86.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gehan, E.A., A generalized Wilcoxon test for comparing arbitrarily singly-censored samples. Biometrika, 1965. 52(1–2): p. 203-223.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ripon K. Chakrabortty
    • 1
  • Ruhul A. Sarker
    • 1
  • Daryl L. Essam
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Engineering and Information TechnologyUniversity of New South WalesCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations