Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Optimizing time–cost trade-offs in product development projects with a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Research in Engineering Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Time–cost trade-offs arise when organizations seek the fastest product development (PD) process subject to a predefined budget, or the lowest-cost PD process within a given project deadline. Most of the engineering and project management literature has addressed this trade-off problem solely in terms of crashing—options to trade cost for time at the individual activity level—and using acyclical networks. Previously (Meier et al. in IEEE Trans Eng Manag 62(2):237–255, 2015), we presented a rich model of the iterative (cyclical) PD process that accounts for crashing, overlapping, and stochastic activity durations and iterations. In this paper, we (1) propose an optimization strategy for the model based on a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm, called ε-MOEA, which identifies the Pareto set of best time–cost trade-off solutions, and (2) demonstrate the approach using an automotive case study. We find that, in addition to crashing, activity overlapping, process architecture, and work policy provide further managerial levers for addressing the time–cost trade-off problem. In particular, managerial work policies guide process cost and duration into particular subsets of the Pareto-optimal solutions. No work policy appeared to be superior to the others in both the cost and duration dimensions; instead, a time–cost trade-off arises due to the choice of work policy. We conclude that it is essential for managers to consider all of the key factors in combination when planning and executing PD projects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The entire GA run time for the case study took around 15 min on a workstation equipped with Intel i7 quad-core CPU and 16 GB RAM.

  2. However, the exact values of time and cost differ in both figures due to the difference in activity durations (and rework probabilities and impacts) between the hood development process and the artificial processes.

References

  • Abdelsalam HME, Bao HP (2007) Re-sequencing of design processes with activity stochastic time and cost: an optimization-simulation approach. J Mech Des 129(2):150–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler P, Mandelbaum A, Nguyen V, Schwerer E (1995) From project to process management: an empirically-based framework for analyzing product development time. Manag Sci 41(3):458–484

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin AN, Austin S, Hassan TM, Thorpe A (1999) Modelling information flow during the conceptual and schematic stages of building design. Constr Manag Econ 17:155–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bean JC (1994) Genetic algorithms and random keys for sequencing and optimization. J Comput 6(2):154–160

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Berthaut F, Pellerin R, Perrier N, Hajji A (2014) Time-cost trade-offs in resource-constraint project scheduling problems with overlapping modes. Int J Proj Organ Manag 6(3):215–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Browning TR (2001) Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 48(3):292–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browning TR, Eppinger SD (2002) Modeling impacts of process architecture on cost and schedule risk in product development. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 49(4):428–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browning TR, Ramasesh RV (2007) A survey of activity network-based process models for managing product development projects. Prod Oper Manag 16(2):217–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browning TR, Yassine AA (2016) Managing a portfolio of product development projects under resource constraints. Decis Sci (forthcoming)

  • Brucker P, Drexl A, Mohring R, Neumann K, Pesch E (1999) Resource-constrained project scheduling: notation, classification, models, and methods. Eur J Oper Res 112:3–41

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bruni ME, Beraldi P, Guerriero F (2015) The stochastic resource-constrained project scheduling problem. In: Schwindt C, Zimmermann J (eds) Handbook on project management and scheduling, vol 2. Springer, Berlin, pp 811–835

  • Cho S-H, Eppinger SD (2005) A simulation-based process model for managing complex design projects. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 52(3):316–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coello CAC, Pulido GT, Lechuga MS (2004) Handling multiple objectives with particle swarm optimization. Evol Comput IEEE Trans 8(3):256-279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coello CAC, Van Veldhuizen DA, Lamont GB (2002) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems, vol 242. Kluwer Academic, New York

  • Cohen I, Golany B, Shtub A (2007) The stochastic time–cost tradeoff problem: a robust optimization approach. Networks 49(2):175–188

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper KG (1993) The rework cycle: benchmarks for the project manager. Proj Manag J 24(1):17–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Coverstone-Carroll V, Hartmann JW, Mason WJ (2000) Optimal multi-objective low-thrust spacecraft trajectories. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 186(2–4):387–402

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • De P, Dunne EJ, Ghosh JB, Wells CE (1995) The discrete time-cost trade off problem revisited. Eur J Oper Res 81:225–238

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Deb K (2009) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley, Chichester

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deb K, Mohan M, Mishra S (2003) Towards a quick computation of well-spread pareto-optimal solutions. In: Evolutionary multi-criterion optimization. Second international conference, EMO 2003, pp 222–236

  • Deb K, Mohan M, Mishra S (2005) Evaluating the ε-domination based multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for a quick computation of Pareto-optimal solutions. Evol Comput 13(4):501–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deckro RF, Hebert JE, Verdini WA, Grimsrud PH, Venkateshwar S (1995) Nonlinear time/cost tradeoff models in project management. Comput Ind Eng 28(2):219–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doerner KF, Gutjahr WJ, Hartl RF, Strauss C, Stummer C (2008) Nature-inspired metaheuristics for multiobjective activity crashing. Omega 36(6):1019–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eppinger SD, Browning TR (2012) Design structure matrix methods and applications. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca CM, Fleming PJ (1998) Multiobjective optimization and multiple constraint handling with evolutionary algorithms-part1: a unified formulation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet Part A Syst Hum 28(1):26–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujita K, Hirokawa N, Akagi S, Kitamura S, Yokohata H (1998) Multi-objective optimal design of automotive engine using genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of 1998 ASME design engineering technical conferences

  • Gerk JEV, Qassim RY (2008) Project acceleration via activity crashing, overlapping, and substitution. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 55(4):590–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE, Deb K (1991) A comparative analysis of selection schemes used in genetic algorithms. In: Foundations of genetic algorithms, vol 1, pp 69–93

  • Goldberg DE, Deb K, Thierens D (1991) Toward a better understanding of mixing in genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on genetic algorithms

  • Hanne T (1999) On the convergence of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. Eur J Oper Res 117(3):553–564

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann S, Briskorn D (2010) A survey of variants and extensions of the resource-constrained project scheduling problem. Eur J Oper Res 207(1):1–14

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hazır Ö, Erel E, Günalay Y (2011) Robust optimization models for the discrete time/cost trade-off problem. Int J Prod Econ 130(1):87–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazır Ö, Haouari M, Erel E (2015) Robust optimization for the discrete time-cost tradeoff problem with cost uncertainty. In: Schwindt C, Zimmermann J (eds) Handbook on project management and scheduling, vol 2. Springer, Berlin, pp 865–874

  • Helbig S, Pateva D (1994) On several concepts for ε-efficiency. OR Spektrum 16(3):179–186

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Herroelen W, Leus R (2005) Project scheduling under uncertainty: survey and research potentials. Eur J Oper Res 165:289–306

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Huang E, Chen S-JG (2006) Estimation of project completion time and factors analysis for concurrent engineering project management: a simulation approach. Concurr Eng 14(4):329–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karniel A, Reich Y (2009) From DSM based planning to design process simulation: a review of process scheme verification issues. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 56(4):636–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline SJ (1985) Innovation is not a linear process. Res Manag 28(2):36–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Knjazew D (2002) OmeGA: a competent genetic algorithm for solving permutation and scheduling problems. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Norwell

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan V, Ulrich KT (2001) Product development decisions: a review of the literature. Manag Sci 47(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan V, Eppinger SD, Whitney DE (1997) A model-based framework to overlap product development activities. Manag Sci 43(4):437–451

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar R, Rockett P (2002) Improved sampling of the pareto-front in multiobjective genetic optimizations by steady-state evolution: a pareto converging genetic algorithm. Evol Comput 10(3):283–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laumanns M, Thiele L, Deb K, Zitzler E (2002) Combining convergence and diversity in evolutionary multiobjective optimization. Evol Comput 10(3):263–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lévárdy V, Browning TR (2009) An adaptive process model to support product development project management. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 56(4):600–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liberatore MJ, Pollack-Johnson B (2009). Quality, time, and cost tradeoffs in project management decision making. In: Portland international conference on management of engineering & technology, 2009. PICMET 2009, pp 1323–1329

  • Meier C (2011) Time-cost tradeoffs in product development processes, Doktor-Ingenieurs (Dr.-Ing.) thesis, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

  • Meier C, Yassine AA, Browning TR (2007) Design process sequencing with competent genetic algorithms. J Mech Des 129(6):566–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier C, Browning TR, Yassine AA, Walter U (2015) The cost of speed: work policies for crashing and overlapping in product development projects. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 62(2):237–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nasr W, Yassine A, Abou Kasm O (2015) An analytical approach to estimate the expected duration and variance for iterative product development projects. Res Eng Des 27(1):55–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poloni C, Giurgevich A, Onesti L, Pediroda V (2000) Hybridization of a multi-objective genetic algorithm, a neural network and a classical optimizer for complex design problems in fluid dynamics. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 186(2–4):403–420

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Roemer TA, Ahmadi R (2004) Concurrent crashing and overlapping in product development. Oper Res 52(4):606–622

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Roemer TA, Ahmadi R, Wang RH (2000) Time-cost trade-offs in overlapped product development. Oper Res 48(6):858–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph G, Agapie A (2000) Convergence properties of some multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. In: Congress on evolutionary computation (CEC 2000), pp 1010–1016

  • Sargent RG (1999) Validation and verification of simulation models. In: Winter simulation conference, Phoenix, AZ, 5–8 Dec

  • Shaja AS, Sudhakar K (2010) Optimized sequencing of analysis components in multidisciplinary systems. Res Eng Des 21(3):173–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith RP, Eppinger SD (1997) Identifying controlling features of engineering design iteration. Manag Sci 43(3):276–293

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Smith RP, Morrow JA (1999) Product development process modeling. Des Stud 20(3):237–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivas N, Deb K (1994) Multiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evol Comput 2(3):221–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavares VL, Ferreira JA, Coelho JS (2002) A comparative morphologic analysis of benchmark sets of project networks. Int J Project Manag 20(6):475–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhoucke M (2015) Generalized discrete time-cost tradeoff problems. In: Schwindt C, Zimmermann J (eds) Handbook on project management and scheduling, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, pp 639–658

  • Wolpert DH, Macready WG (1997) No free lunch theorems for search. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 1(1):67–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yassine A, Braha D (2003) Complex concurrent engineering and the design structure matrix method. Concurr Eng Res Appl 11(3):165–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yassine A, Whitney D, Lavine J, Zambito T (2000) Do-it-right-first-time (DRFT) approach to DSM restructuring. In: ASME international design engineering technical conferences (Design theory & methodology conference), Baltimore, MD, 10–13 Sept

  • Zambito T (2000) Using the design structure matrix to structure automotive hood system development. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA

  • Zhuang M, Yassine AA (2004) Task scheduling of parallel development projects using genetic algorithms. In: ASME international design engineering technical conferences. (Design automation conference), Salt Lake City, Sept 28–Oct 2

  • Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Thiele L (2002) SPEA2: improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization. In: Evolutionary methods for design, optimisation, and control, Barcelona, Spain, pp 19–26

Download references

Acknowledgment

The first author would like to thank the Bavarian Science Foundation. The second author is grateful for support from the University Research Board (URB) program at the American University of Beirut. The third author is grateful for support from the Neeley Summer Research Award Program from the Neeley School of Business at TCU.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Astronautics, Technische Universität München, 85748, Garching, Germany

    Christoph Meier & Ulrich Walter

  2. Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

    Ali A. Yassine

  3. Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, TCU Box 298530, Fort Worth, TX, USA

    Tyson R. Browning

Authors
  1. Christoph Meier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali A. Yassine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tyson R. Browning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ulrich Walter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali A. Yassine.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 140 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meier, C., Yassine, A.A., Browning, T.R. et al. Optimizing time–cost trade-offs in product development projects with a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm. Res Eng Design 27, 347–366 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-016-0222-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-016-0222-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation