Disruption-Driven Resource Rescheduling in Software Development Processes

  • Junchao Xiao
  • Leon J. Osterweil
  • Qing Wang
  • Mingshu Li
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6195)


Real world systems can be thought of as structures of activities that require resources in order to execute. Careful allocation of resources can improve system performance by enabling more efficient use of resources. Resource allocation decisions can be facilitated when process flow and estimates of time and resource requirements are statically determinable. But this information is difficult to be sure of in disruption prone systems, where unexpected events can necessitate process changes and make it difficult or impossible to be sure of time and resource requirements. This paper approaches the problems posed by such disruptions by using a Time Window based INcremental resource Scheduling method (TWINS). We show how to use TWINS to respond to disruptions by doing reactive rescheduling over a relatively small set of activities. This approach uses a genetic algorithm. It is evaluated by using it to schedule resources dynamically during the simulation of some example software development processes. Results indicate that this dynamic approach produces good results obtained at affordable costs.


Incremental resource scheduling time window reactive rescheduling proactive rescheduling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alba, E., Chicano, J.F.: Software Project Management with GAs. Journal of Information Sciences 177, 2380–2401 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Xiao, J., Wang, Q., Li, M., Yang, Q., Xie, L., Liu, D.: Value-based Multiple Software Projects Scheduling with Genetic Algorithm. In: Wang, Q., Garousi, V., Madachy, R., Pfahl, D. (eds.) ICSP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5543, pp. 50–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biffl, S., Aurum, A., Boehm, B., Erdogmus, H., Grünbacher, P.: Value-Based Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barreto, A., Barros, M.d.O., Werner, C.M.L.: Staffing a software project: A constraint satisfaction and optimization-based approach. Computer & Operations Research 35, 3073–3089 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pham, D.-N., Klinkert, A.: Surgical case scheduling as a generalized job shop scheduling problem. European Journal of Operational Research 185, 1011–1025 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goncalves, J.F., Mendes, J.J.M., Resende, M.G.C.: A Genetic Algorithm for the Resource Constrained Multi-project Scheduling Problem. European Journal of Operational Research 189, 1171–1190 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peteghem, V.V., Vanhoucke, M.: A genetic algorithm for the preemptive and non-preemptive multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling problem. European Journal of Operational Research (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fowler, J.W., Monch, L., Rose, O.: Scheduling and Simulation. In: Herrmann, J.W. (ed.) Handbook of Production Scheduling, pp. 109–133. Springer, US (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pfeiffer, A.s., Kadar, B., Monostori, L.s.: Stability-oriented evaluation of rescheduling strategies, by using simulation. Computers in Industry 58, 630–643 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Herrmann, J.W.: Rescheduling Startegies, Policies, and Methods. In: Handbook of Production Scheduling, pp. 135–148Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herroelen, W., Leus, R.: Project Scheduling under Uncertainty: Survey and Research Potentials. European Journal of Operational Research 165, 289–306 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Antoniol, G., Penta, M.D., Harman, M.: A Robust Search–Based Approach to Project Management in the Presence of Abandonment, Rework, Error and Uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Software Metrics, pp. 172–183 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li, Z., Ierapetritou, M.G.: Robust Optimization for Process Scheduling Under Uncer-tainty. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 47, 4148–4157 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Al-Fawzan, M.A., Haouari, M.: A bi-objective model for robust resource-constrained project scheduling. International Journal of Production Economics 96, 175–187 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang, J.: A fuzzy robust scheduling approach for product development projects. European Journal of Operational Research 152, 180–194 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ghezail, F., Pierreval, H., Hajri-Gabouj, S.: Analysis of robustness in proactive scheduling: A graphical approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rangsaritratsamee, R., Ferrell Jr., W.G., Kurz, M.B.: Dynamic rescheduling that simulta-neously considers efficiency and stability. Computers & Industrial Engineering 46, 1–15 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yang, B.: Single Machine Rescheduling with New Jobs Arrivals and Processing Time Compression. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 34, 378–384 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xiao, J., Osterweil, L.J., Wang, Q., Li, M.: Dynamic Resource Scheduling in Disruption-Prone Software Development Environments. Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 UM-CS-2009-050 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Holland, J.H.: Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cass, A.G., Lerner, B.S., McCall, E.K., Osterweil, L.J., Stanley, J., Sutton, M., Wise, A.: Little-JIL/Juliette: A Process Definition Language and Interpreter. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Limerick, Ireland, pp. 754–757 (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wise, A.: Little-JIL 1.5 Language Report, Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst UM-CS-2006-51 (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xiao, J., Osterweil, L.J., Wang, Q., Li, M.: Dynamic Scheduling in Systems with Complex Resource Allocation Requirements. Department of Computer Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Technical report: UM-CS-2009-049 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Junchao Xiao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Leon J. Osterweil
    • 2
  • Qing Wang
    • 1
  • Mingshu Li
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratory for Internet Software Technologies, Institute of SoftwareChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  3. 3.Key Laboratory for Computer Science, Institute of SoftwareChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations