Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling:Computing Lower Bounds by Solving Minimum Cut Problems

  • Rolf H. Möhring
  • Andreas S. Schulz
  • Frederik Stork
  • Marc Uetz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1643)

Abstract

We present a novel approach to compute Lagrangian lower bounds on the objective function value of a wide class of resource-constrained project scheduling problems. The basis is a polynomial-time algorithm to solve the following scheduling problem: Given a set of activities with start-time dependent costs and temporal constraints in the form of time windows, find a feasible schedule of minimum total cost. In fact, we show that any instance of this problem can be solved by a minimum cut computation in a certain directed graph.

We then discuss the performance of the proposed Lagrangian approach when applied to various types of resource-constrained project scheduling problems. An extensive computational study based on different established test beds in project scheduling shows that it can significantly improve upon the quality of other comparably fast computable lower bounds.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. Bartusch, R. H. Möhring, and F. J. Radermacher. Scheduling project networks with resource constraints and time windows. Annals of Operations Research, 16:201–240, 1988.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Brucker, A. Drexl, R. H. Möhring, K. Neumann, and E. Pesch. Resource-constrained project scheduling: Notation, classification, models, and methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 112:3–41, 1999.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Brucker and S. Knust. A linear programming and constraint propagation-based lower bound for the RCPSP. Technical Report 204, Osnabrücker Schriften zur Mathematik, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. C. B. Cavalcante, C. C. De Souza, M. W. P. Savelsbergh, Y. Wang, and L. A. Wolsey. Scheduling projects with labor constraints. CORE Discussion Paper 9859, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Chaudhuri, R. A. Walker, and J. E. Mitchell. Analyzing and exploiting the structure of the constraints in the ILP approach to the scheduling problem. IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems, 2:456–471, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Cherkassky and A. V. Goldberg. On implementing push-relabel method for the maximum flow problem. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization, pages 157–171, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. Christofides, R. Alvarez-Valdes, and J. Tamarit. Project scheduling with resource constraints: A branch-and-bound approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 29:262–273, 1987.CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Drexl and A. Kimms. Optimization guided lower and upper bounds for the Resource Investment Problem. Technical Report 481, Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. V. Goldberg and R. E. Tarjan. A new approach to the maximum-flow problem. Journal of the ACM, 35:921–940, 1988.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. C. Golumbic. Algorithmic Graph Theory and Perfect Graphs. Academic Press, NewYork, 1980.MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 12.
    J. Kallrath and J. M. Wilson. Business Optimisation using Mathematical Programming. Macmillan Business, London, U.K., 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    R. Kolisch and A. Sprecher. PSPLIB-a project scheduling problem library. European Journal of Operational Research, 96:205–216, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 14.
    A. Mingozzi, V. Maniezzo, S. Ricciardelli, and L. Bianco. An exact algorithm for the multiple resource-constraint project scheduling problem based on a new mathematical formulation. Management Science, 44:714–729, 1998.MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 15.
    R. H. Möhring. Minimizing costs of resource requirements subject to a fixed completion time in project networks. Operations Research, 32:89–120, 1984.MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 16.
    R. H. Möhring. Algorithmic aspects of comparability graphs and interval graphs. In I. Rival, editor, Graphs and Order, pages 41–101. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, 1985.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    R. H. Möhring, A. S. Schulz, F. Sork, and M. Uetz. In preparation, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    A. A. B. Pritsker, L. J. Watters, and P. M. Wolfe. Multi project scheduling with limited resources: A zero-one programming approach. Management Science, 16:93–108, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 19.
    M. W. P. Savelsbergh, R. N. Uma, and J. Wein. An experimental study of LP-based approximation algorithms for scheduling problems. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 453–462, 1998.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    M. Schäffter. Scheduling with respect to forbidden sets. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 72:141–154, 1997.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 21.
    C. Schwindt. Generation of resource constrained project scheduling problems with minimal and maximal time lags. Technical Report 489, WIOR, University of Karlsruhe, Germany, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rolf H. Möhring
    • 1
  • Andreas S. Schulz
    • 2
  • Frederik Stork
    • 1
  • Marc Uetz
    • 1
  1. 1.Technische Universität Berlin, Fachbereich MathematikBerlinGermany
  2. 2.MIT, Sloan School of Management and Operations Research CenterCambridge

Personalised recommendations