A Proactive Heuristic for Task-Resource Allocation with Resource Uncertainty

  • Yuanzi Xu
  • Yingxin ZhangEmail author
  • Kungang Yuan
  • Zhiwei Zhang
  • Ning Ji
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 905)


Course of Action (COA) planning is a complex problem which involves allocating limited resources to a given set of tasks. A rule-based schedule heuristic is proposed to solve the COA planning problem. In the heuristic, a resource buffering strategy is adopted to resolve the resource uncertainty, i.e. extra resources are adopted to absorb the unexpected resource breakdowns. To decide where and how much resource slacks to insert in the schedule, a resource uncertainty metric namely reliable resource capability is introduced. For illustration, a joint-task-force test scenario is utilized to show the feasibility of the heuristic in solving the COA planning problem. Empirical results validated that the proposed heuristic for the COA planning problem is available, and the resource buffering strategy can effectively absorb the resource uncertainty breakdowns.


Course of Action Task-resource allocation Proactive heuristic 


  1. 1.
    Boukhtouta, A., Bouak, F., Berger, J.: Description and analysis of military planning systems. Defence Research and Development Canada (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Levchuk, G.M., Levchuk, Y.N., Luo, J., Pattipati, K.R., Kleinman, D.L.: Normative design of organizations. I. Mission planning. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 32(3), 346–359 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheng, K., Zhang, H., Zhang, R.: A task-resource allocation method based on effectiveness. Knowl.-Based Syst. 37, 196–202 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belfares, L., Klibi, W., Lo, N.: Multi-objectives Tabu search based algorithm for progressive resource allocation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 177(3), 1779–1799 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yu, F., Tu, F., Pattipati, K.R.: Integration of a holonic organizational control architecture and multiobjective evolutionary algorithm for flexible distributed scheduling. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 38(5), 1001–1017 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bui, L.T., Michalewicz, Z., Parkinson, E., Abello, M.B.: Adaptation in dynamic environments: a case study in mission planning. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 16(2), 190–209 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kewley, R.H., Embrechts, M.J.: Computational military tactical planning system. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C Appl. Rev. 32(2), 161–171 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zou, Z., Che, W., Wang, S., Bai, Y., Fan, C.: Role-based approaches for operational tasks modelling and flexible decomposition. J. Syst. Eng. Electron. 27(6), 1191–1206 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li, N., Huai, W., Wang, S.: The solution of target assignment problem in command and control decision-making behaviour simulation. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 11(7), 1059–1077 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bao, Y.W., Zhang, W.X., Zhang, S.M.: An improved task and role-based access control model with multi-constraint. Appl. Mech. Mater. 32(6), 713–715 (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lambrechts, O., Demeulemeester, E., Herroelen, W.: Proactive and reactive strategies for resource-constrained project scheduling with uncertain resource availabilities. J. Sched. 11(2), 121–136 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuanzi Xu
    • 1
  • Yingxin Zhang
    • 2
    Email author
  • Kungang Yuan
    • 1
  • Zhiwei Zhang
    • 1
  • Ning Ji
    • 1
  1. 1.Air Force Command CollegeBeijingChina
  2. 2.Unit 31002 of the PLABeijingChina

Personalised recommendations