Advertisement

A Risk Integrated Methodology for Project Planning Under Uncertainty

  • Willy HerroelenEmail author
Chapter
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 200)

Abstract

In this chapter we describe a risk integrated methodology for tactical and operational project planning under uncertainty. The methodology integrates quantitative risk analysis with reliable proactive/reactive project scheduling procedures. The integrated methodology relies on an iterative two-phase process. In phase 1 we determine the number of regular renewable resource units to be allocated to the project and the so-called internal project due date. Phase 2 implements a proactive/reactive schedule generation methodology. The proactive schedule to be used as a guideline during actual project execution is itself generated using a two-step procedure. In the first step, a precedence and resource feasible project schedule is constructed with acceptable project makespan. In a second step, the schedule is protected against disruptions that may occur during the execution of the project through the insertion of resource and/or time buffers into the schedule. A sufficient number of schedule executions are then simulated using the quantitative risk analysis information about possible resource breakdowns and the variability of activity durations. When the schedule becomes infeasible, it may be repaired by (a) preempting one or more of the active activities and rescheduling activities that are planned in the future but are affected by the preemption through precedence relations or the use of shared resources, or (b) by hiring irregular renewable resource capacity at an additional irregular capacity cost. The mean-variance function of the schedule execution costs may then used to evaluate the chosen resource and internal due date decisions made in phase 1. The final proactive schedule can then be deployed as a baseline during actual project execution in combination with a workable reactive scheduling procedure to be invoked when, despite the built-in protection, the baseline schedule becomes infeasible.

Keywords

Project Schedule Time Buffer Baseline Schedule Tabu Search Procedure Project Execution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgement

We are much indebted to Olivier Lambrechts, who developed the tabu search procedure for optimizing the resource allocation and due date setting decisions and extensively experimented with the two-phase procedure (Lambrechts 2007). We also benefited from the insights developed during the two research projects on Risk Management in the Construction Industry I-II, sponsored by the Flemish Government Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology.

References

  1. Chapman, C., & Ward, S. (1997). Project risk management—Processes, techniques and insights. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Creemers, S., Demeulemeester, E., & Van de Vonder, S. (2010). A new approach for quantitative risk analysis, Research Report KBI 1029, Department of Decision Sciences and Information Management, K.U.Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
  3. Deblaere, F., Demeulemeester, E., & Herroelen, W. (2011). Reactive scheduling in the multi-mode RCPSP. Computers & Operations Research, 38(1), 63–74.Google Scholar
  4. Demeulemeester, E., Deblaere, F., Herbots, J., Lambrechts, O., & Van de Vonder, S. (2007). A multi-level approach to project management under uncertainty. Tijdschrift voor Economie en Management, LII(3), 391–409.Google Scholar
  5. Demeulemeester, E., & Herroelen, W. (2002). Project scheduling—A research handbook. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. Demeulemeester, E., & Herroelen, W. (2010). Robust project scheduling. Foundations and Trends in Technology, Information and Operations Management, 3(3-4), 201–376.Google Scholar
  7. Elmaghraby, S. E. E. (1977). Activity networks—Project planning and control by network models. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., & Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gather, T., Zimmermann, J., & Bartels, J. H. (2010). Exact methods for the resource leveling problem. Journal of Scheduling, to appear.Google Scholar
  10. Hagstrom, J. N. (1988). Computational complexity of PERT problems. Networks, 18(2), 139–147.Google Scholar
  11. Hartmann, S., & Briskorn, D. (2010). A survey of variants and extensions of the resource-constrained project scheduling problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  12. Herroelen, W. (2005). Project scheduling-Theory and practice. Production and Operations Management, 14, 413–432.Google Scholar
  13. Herroelen, W. (2007). Generating robust project baseline schedules. Tutorials In Operations Research-OR Tools and Applications: Glimpses of Future Technologies, Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS). Chapter, 7, 124–144.Google Scholar
  14. Herroelen, W., & Leus, R. (2005). Project scheduling under uncertainty: Survey and research potentials. European Journal of Operational Research, 165(2), 289–306.Google Scholar
  15. Hulett, D. (2009). Practical schedule risk analysis. Farnham: Gower Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  16. Lambrechts, O. (2007). Robust project scheduling subject to resource breakdowns, Ph. D. thesis, K.U.Leuven.Google Scholar
  17. Lambrechts, O., Demeulemeester, E., & Herroelen, W. (2008). Proactive and reactive strategies for resource-constrained project scheduling with uncertain resource availabilities. Journal of Scheduling, 11(2), 121–136.Google Scholar
  18. Lambrechts, O., Demeulemeester, E., & Herroelen, W. (2011). Time-slack based techniques for robust project scheduling subject to resource uncertainty. Annals of Operations Research, 186(1), 443–464.Google Scholar
  19. Leus, R., & Herroelen, W. (2004). Stability and resource allocation in project planning. IIE Transactions, 36(7), 667–682.Google Scholar
  20. Leus, R., Hans, E., Herroelen, W., & Wullink, G. (2007). A hierarchical approach to multiproject planning under uncertainty. Omega, 35(5), 563–577.Google Scholar
  21. Neumann, K., & Zimmermann, J. (2000). Procedures for resource leveling and net present value problems in project scheduling with temporal and resource constraints. European Journal of Operational Research, 127, 425–443.Google Scholar
  22. PMI (2008). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®Guide), Fourth Edition, Project Management Institute.Google Scholar
  23. Ross, S. (1983). Stochastic processes. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Schatteman, D., Herroelen, W., Boone, A., & Van de Vonder, S. (2008). A methodology of integrated risk management and proactive scheduling of construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(11), 885–895.Google Scholar
  25. Standish Group International, 2004, CHAOS Report in year 2004: CHAOS chronicles, http://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research.
  26. Van de Vonder, S., Demeulemeester, E., & Herroelen, W. (2006). Proactive-reactive project scheduling trade-offs and procedures. In Jozefowska, J. & Weglarz, J. (Eds.), Perspectives in Modern Project Scheduling, Springer’s International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Chapter 2, 25–51.Google Scholar
  27. Van de Vonder, S., Ballestin, F., Demeulemeester, E., & Herroelen, W. (2007). Heuristic procedures for reactive project scheduling. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 52(1), 11–28.Google Scholar
  28. Van de Vonder, S., Demeulemeester, E., & Herroelen, W. (2008). Proactive heuristic procedures for robust project scheduling: An experimental analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 189(3), 723–733.Google Scholar
  29. Van de Vonder, S., Creemers, S., & Meulyzer, E. (2010). Risicomanagement in de bouw, WTCB-IWT-K.U.Leuven.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Center for Operations Management, Department of Decision Sciences and Information Management, Faculty of Business and EconomicsKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations