International Journal of Production Research

ISSN: 0020-7543 (Print) 1366-588X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

Project management for uncertainty with multiple

objectives optimisation of time, cost and reliability
Angus Jeang
To cite this article: Angus Jeang (2015) Project management for uncertainty with multiple
objectives optimisation of time, cost and reliability, International Journal of Production
Research, 53:5, 1503-1526, DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2014.952792
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.952792

Published online: 09 Sep 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 534

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tprs20
Download by: [University Of South Australia Library]

Date: 19 August 2016, At: 18:23

International Journal of Production Research, 2015

Vol. 53, No. 5, 15031526, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.952792

Project management for uncertainty with multiple objectives optimisation of

time, cost and reliability
Angus Jeang*
Department of Industrial Engineering and Systems Management, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, ROC
(Received 18 May 2012; accepted 3 August 2014)
This research adopts an approach that uses computer simulation and statistical analysis of uncertain activity time, activity
cost, due date and project budget to address quality and the learning process with regard to project scheduling. Since the
learning process affects the scheduling problem, a CobbDouglas multiplicative power model is used to represent the
relationship between the dependent variable, which is the standard deviation of activity time, and the independent variables, which are the cumulative trials and the mean of activity time. The mean value and standard deviation are used to
randomly generate activity times for project scheduling analysis. Response surface methodology (RSM) is used in order
to develop a rationale of the time-cost trade-off problem. The solutions found with RSM are optimised only for a single
objective, such as project completion time, total project cost, completion time probability and total cost probability. Thus,
multiple objectives for further optimisation become necessary and a limited project budget, restricted completion time,
allowable total cost probability and acceptable completion time probability have to be considered at the same time as the
learning effect. With response functions from RSM, compromise programming is adopted in order to formulate the proposed project scheduling problem for multi-objective optimisation.
Keywords: project scheduling; uncertainty; response surface methodology; learning effect; compromise programming;
multi-objective optimisation

1. Introduction
Conventionally, determined durations and costs are assumed when using the Critical path method (CPM), whereas
stochastic durations are assumed when using the programme evaluation review technique (PERT). Many applications, such as that used by Hill, Thomas and Allen (2000) and Lipke et al. (2009), show that project scheduling
problems have a highly stochastic nature with regards to activity time and corresponding costs. Trietsch and Baker
(2011), Deblaere, Demeulemeester, and Herroelen (2011) consider the need to combine the CPM optimisation
approach with the PERT stochastic modelling approach in relation to project scheduling. The present research
intends to develop an approach to resolve the stochastic time-cost trade-off problem using a combined CPM and
PERT approach (Gilles 2013).
In order to address this issue, several stochastic models have been developed for dealing with timecost trade-off
problems with uncertain activity durations, such as those developed by Wollmer (1985), Golenko-Ginzburg (1988),
Golenko-Ginzburg, Gonik, and Kesler (1996), Golenko-Ginzburg and Goink (1997, 1998), Golenko-Ginzburg, Gonik,
and Sitniakovski (2000), Aghaie and Mokhtari (2009), Chen and Tsai (2011), Maravas and Pantouvakis (2011). Their
research is primarily focused on either maximising the probability that a project will be completed before the scheduled
date under budget constraints, or minimising total project costs under the chance constraint of a scheduled date. Yang
(2005a, 2005b), Ke, Ma, and Ni (2009) considered nancial feasibility to be a stochastic constraint expressed as a
specied condence level in formulating the timecost trade-off problem, and proposed two stochastic models, chanceconstrained programming and dependent-chance programming, in order to address the timecost trade-off problem. This
research used a genetic algorithm in order to solve the proposed models. Aghaie and Mokhtari (2009) introduced an
approach based on ant colony optimisation and the Monte Carlo simulation technique. Chen and Tsai (2011), Maravas
and Pantouvakis (2011), presented another approach to analyse the timecost trade-off problem in fuzzy environments.
Azaron, Perkgoz, and Sakawa (2005) developed a multi-objective model for the timecost trade-off problem using a
genetic algorithm. Azaron and Tavakkoli-Moghaddam (2006) further developed a multi-objective model for the resource
allocation problem in a dynamic network environment.

*Email: akjeang@gmail.com
2014 Taylor & Francis

1504

A. Jeang

A learning curve is a mathematical description of workers performance involving repetitive tasks (Wright 1936;
Teplitz 1991; Badiru 1992; Argote 1999; Fioretti 2007). As repetitions take place, workers tend to need less time to perform tasks due to their increasing familiarity with the operations and tools and as shortcuts to task execution are found
(Wright 1936; Teplitz 1991; Dar-El 2000). The way in which workers improve their performance, as repetitions of a
manual-based task take place, has been studied in the electronic, automotive, construction, software and chemical industries (Chen 2009; Jarkas 2010; Weber and Fayed 2010). However, other than productivity improvement, the primary
problem addressed in the robust design of a production system is determining how to reduce the variance of produced
quality values (Jaber and Guiffrida 2008). Previous work on the learning process for quality-related activities has failed
to consider this aspect. Thus, we will not only be concerned with time reduction in the production learning process, but
also with variance reduction in the quality learning process. In this study, the quality of concern in the learning process
is the standard deviation of measured quality values. The proposed learning curves, a CobbDouglas multiplicative
power model, assume that the standard deviation acts both as a power function for the operating time required to produce a unit and for the production of cumulative units simultaneously (Anzanello and Fogliatto 2011).
The fact that timecost trade-off problems are stochastic in nature means that there is a need to ensure that the project must be completed before the due date and that associated costs must be below budget. In order to create a practical
exercise based on uncertainty, we assume that the due date and budget are stochastic in nature (Zappa, Malavasi, and
Negri 2013). Because of uncertainty, the proposed approach requires that the project schedule be insensitive to the
impact of cost variations and time spent on activities; therefore, a robust design for project scheduling is necessary.
Thus, project completion time, project total cost, the probability of nishing the project before the due date and the
probability of carrying out the project below the planned budget are the criteria that are considered simultaneously for
project scheduling evaluation in the proposed approach. These criteria are all stochastic in nature in an uncertain environment. Thus, an approach for robust project scheduling under uncertain conditions is necessary to ensure that project
scheduling is able to both withstand unexpected impact resulting from environmental uncertainty and accomplish the
projects objectives within the desired date and budget with maximum probability. One possible way to realise this
objective is via the integrated performance of computer simulations, statistical methods and optimisation techniques. In
order to avoid issues arising from the limited data available for problem analysis and to create a robust project schedule
in an uncertain time and cost environment, Monte Carlo simulation and response surface methodology (RSM; Myers
1991; Myers, Montgomery, and Anderson-Cook 2009) are adopted for robust analysis, and mathematical programming
(Arora 1989) is used for optimisation.
In order to carry out the proposed approach, a set of experimental data for statistical analysis needs to be generated.
The data required are the project completion time and costs spent on the project. In addition, because of uncertainty surrounding the time and costs needed to complete the project, we also consider the probability of meeting the due date
and the chance of satisfying budget requirements. In order to analyse the data effectively, statistical methods such as
RSM are adopted (Myers 1991; Myers, Montgomery, and Anderson-Cook 2009). Since the optimal solutions found with
RSM are statistically optimised with respect to a single objective of interest, an optimisation technique, for example,
compromise programming, is required to formulate multiple objectives into one problem. Hence, cooperation between
the statistical method, RSM and the optimisation technique, compromise programming, makes the statistical and multiple optimisation of the project scheduling problem vigorous and robust.
The paper is divided into the following sections: Section 1 introduces the proposed research. Section 2 addresses the
quality and productivity of the learning process. Section 3 denes the terminology used in the development of the
model, such as activity time, activity cost, completion time, total cost, completion time probability and total cost probability. Section 4 explains the model development including experimental data generation via computer simulation and
multi-objective optimisation via compromise programming. Section 5 provides an application to demonstrate the presented approach. The conclusion is given in Section 6.

2. Learning curves for quality and productivity

The learning curve was rst developed in the aircraft industry, when analysis led to the discovery that the direct labour
input per airplane declined with considerable regularity as the units of planes produced increased. The earliest learning
curve representation is a geometric progression that expresses the decreasing time required to complete a repetitive operation. In its most popular form, the theory states that as the total quantity of units produced doubles, the time per unit
declines by some constant percentage. Wrights learning curve (WLC) is, presently, the most widely used and accepted
version of the theory (Yelle 1979; Globerson 1980; Belkaoui 1986; Lieberman 1987; Badiru 1992; Jaber 2006a, 2006b;
Jaber and Guiffrida 2008).

International Journal of Production Research

1505

Figure 1. Curve representing the relationship between standard deviation and mean of activity time.

However, WLC only focuses on direct activity time per activity, which declines with considerable regularity as the
cumulative number of trials is completed. Thus, other than efciency improvement (activity time reduction), the primary
problem addressed in the robust design of a project schedule involves reducing the variance of activity time needed to
complete an activity. Previous work on the learning process for quality-related project scheduling failed to consider this
aspect. Thus, we will not only be concerned with reduction of the activity time in the learning process, but also with
variance reduction in project quality scheduling during the learning process. In this study, the quality of concern in project scheduling under the learning process is a standard deviation of activity time. We assume that the standard deviation
acts as a power function of activity time for completing an activity and of cumulative trials experienced simultaneously.
Because we expect that the standard deviation of activity time declines in the same way as WLC, the CobbDouglas
multiplicative power model is introduced to simultaneously describe the learning process for quality (reducing the standard deviation of activity time) and efciency (the mean of activity time). The CobbDouglas multiplicative power
model is provided below:
r C0 x1 b1 x2 b2

(1)

where the coefcients, C0, b1 and b2 are obtained by statistical regression analysis from real data.
The curve representing the relationship between the standard deviation, , the number of trials, x1, and the mean of
activity time, x2, is portrayed in Figure 1. Clearly, project managers can either operate with a longer mean time, x2(A),
in order to gain a smaller (B) (better quality) or a shorter mean time, x2(A), followed by a greater (A) (poorer
quality) results. These features disclose the fact that, instead of solely considering efciency in a conventional approach,

Figure 2. Standard deviation, , and mean time, x2, vs. experimental trials.

1506

Figure 3. Activity cost function, CXij

A. Jeang

bXij
d

Xij xij

balancing quality and efciency is necessary in project scheduling. As depicted in Figure 1, the standard deviation of
activity time, , is gradually reduced as the trials, x1, are cumulated and the mean of activity time, x2, is increased
(Jeang 2014). Clearly, besides activity time, the standard deviation of activity time, , can also be impacted by the learning process facilitated by repetitive operations (Jeang 2014). Similarly, as depicted in Figure 2, the trials are cumulated
and the mean activity time decreases under a given quality level (or standard deviation). In addition, Figure 2 shows that
both and x2 gradually decrease as the number of trials increases. Based on this phenomenon, there is a tendency to
improve efciency and quality simultaneously, with a smaller and x2 being rationally controlled within an allowable
range. In other words, the projects never operate with a very great (or x2) or an extremely small x2(or ) unless they
are directed to do so. Of course, the combination, and x2, must also satisfy the condition of the CobbDouglas power
model, as shown in Equation (1).
3. Activity time, activity cost, project completion time, project total cost, completion time probability and total
cost probability



We assume that activity time, Xij, acts as a random variable with a normal distribution, N UXij ; rXij 2 (Feng, Liu and
Burns 2000). The mean values, UXij , are control variables. The standard deviation, rXij , is given in this study. The function representing activity cost C(Xij ) is a normal distribution. The mean value of activity cost C(Xij ), UCXij , is


bXij
2
through the Monte Carlo
expressed as dxij . The activity cost C(Xij ) can be generated randomly from N UCXij ; rC X
ij
Xij
simulation, where UCXij and rCXij are the mean and standard deviation of activity cost corresponding to generated
activity time, Xij. The activity can be completed in more or less time depending on the cost spent. Figure 3 depicts the
cost functions dened in the aforementioned discussion. The cost coefcients, bXij and dXij , are obtained from statistical
regression analysis in the application. Since
 activity time,
 Xij, and activity cost, C(Xij ), are randomly generated from


2
2
normal distributions, N UXij ; rXij and N UCXij ; rC X , respectively, and the associated activity cost, C(Xij ), is in a
ij
stochastic relationship with Xij as depicted in Figure 4. Consequently, the total cost C and the completed time T for a
project are also uncertain values in the proposed approach.
The uncertain project completion time, T, and project total cost, C, are constrained by the due date for the completed
project, TU, and the maximum allowance as stated in the project budget, CU. TU and CU are uncertain as well. For
quality project scheduling under T, C, TU and CU, random variables portrayed with probabilistic distributions, such as
completion time probability and total cost probability, should also be considered (Menipaz and Ben-Yair 2002a, 2002b).
Since these probabilities are adopted in order to explain the uncertain behaviour of the project scheduling problem, they
should be used to identify the critical path during application.
4. Model development
Conventionally, in deterministic timecost trade-off problems, only certain values of the time and cost of options within
an activity, usually the mean values, are used in order to evaluate options. This is workable only if the variations in time
and cost are small. However, this assumption is not true for most cases. The effect of a false assumption causes many

International Journal of Production Research

Figure 4. Flow diagram for nding Xij and C(Xij ).

1507

1508

A. Jeang

failures, such as late delivery and the over or under budgeting of projects (Blackstone, Cox, and Schleier 2009). In
addition, it is possible that activity time is affected by the learning process. The combined effects of uncertainty and
learning not only inuence the length and stability of the activity time, but also affect the associated project cost and
completion time. Therefore, a robust approach with uncertain timing and costs for stochastic scheduling during the
learning process is considered in this study.
4.1 Generating experimental data for RSM analysis


Activity time, Xij, is generated from a normal distribution, N UXij ; r2 Xij , where rXij can be estimated from Equation (1)
with the control variable, UXij . For the purpose of performing the experimental trials with RSM, combinations of low,
middle and high levels of the control variable, UXij , are arranged according to the experimental design matrix for computer simulation. See the experimental design matrix provided in Appendix 1. Figure 4 is a ow diagram for creating
activity time, Xij, and activity cost CXij . Based on the understanding gained from Figure 4, we continue to use the
results, activity time, Xij, and activity cost, CXij , in order to identify response values, such as completion time, total
cost, the probability of project completion time and the probability of total cost. The details will be introduced below.
As in the previous discussion, given that in the ith trial under during the learning process, the input factors consist
of the mean value, UXij , of n activity times, Xij. There are n controllable variables in each run. Afterwards, the completion time and completion cost of the project are determined for each run. The uncertain completion time, T, in the run is
based on the longest time spent on the network. The uncertain project total cost, C, in each run can be obtained summing CXij through the network. With the same level combination, each experimental run is repeated 30 times in this
study in order to ensure the normality assumption. From these 30 outputs, the mean value, UT, and the standard deviation, rT , of the project completion time, T, are obtained. Similarly, for total project total cost, C, the mean value, UC,
and the standard deviation, rC , are also found. Subsequently, T and C form a normal distribution with T  N UT ; r2T
and C  N UC ; r2C , respectively. Assume that TU and CU also have a normal distribution with N UTu ; r2Tu ) and
N UCu ; r2Cu ). Facets of the normal distributions of T, C, TU and CU were used in order to determine the probability of
project completion time, RT, and the probability of project total cost, RC, for each experimental run. For example, a
value generated from the TU normal distribution was used as an upper bound for distribution N UY ; rY in order to nd
probability, RT. Then, the responses, T, C, RC and RT, were further analysed using RSM. Based on the results obtained
from the RSM statistical analysis, critical activities can be identied for attention in project management by referring to
the important ranking provided by the statistical outputs. These rankings can be used as a suggestion for the possibility
of quality scheduling improvement. Additional ndings, such as response functions, were formulated for multiple objective problems. Let us take the partial derivative of the individual response functions of T, C, RC and RT from RSM with
respect to each control variable and nd the corresponding change rate of the optimal solutions through the above partial derivative. The change rates combined with the RSM rankings were used for further optimal improvement. Subsequently, the integration of statistical analysis and the optimisation techniques makes possible the robust optimisation of
project scheduling for time, cost and probability possible.
4.2 Multi-objective optimisation via compromise programming
Multi-objective optimisation problems are generally solved by combining multiple objectives into one common scalar
objective, whose solution is a Pareto optimal point for a multi-objective optimisation problem. Most of these combinations are either linear or in the form of distance derivatives (Goicoechea, Hansen, and Duckstein 1982; Zeleny 1982;
Tabucanon 1988). Some of the important methods used in this relation are weighted aggregation, global criteria,
minimum deviation and compromise programming.
Decisions are often confronted by optimising different criteria simultaneously. Decision-makers want to minimise
costs and maximise utilisation, while also minimising waiting time and maximising service quality and so on.
Mathematically, a problem with weights for multiple criteria or objectives may be expressed as Equations 2 and 3:
Min

f w1 f1 w2 f2    wnf fnf
s:t:

n
X

wi 1

(2)
(3)

i1

Another popular approach for handling multiple objectives is to designate one of the objectives as the primary
objective and the other objectives as constraints. The expressions are as Equations (4)(7):

International Journal of Production Research

Min

1509

f1

(4)

s:t: f2  C2

(5)

f3  C 3

(6)

..
.
fn  Cn

(7)

The objectives may be of different dimensions, so the distance measured needs to be corrected or normalised to make
the individual objectives mutually commensurable. It is, therefore, necessary to use relative rather than absolute
deviations for multi-objective optimisations. The method of compromise programming is similar to other distance-based
techniques (Goicoechea, Hansen, and Duckstein 1982; Zeleny 1982; Tabucanon 1988). The identied solutions are said
to be closest to the ideal solution as determined by some measure of distance. Thus, compromise programming is
adopted as a tool for multi-objective optimisation in the present research. For compromise programming, the overall
multi-objective minimization is expressed as Equations (8)(10):
(
)
n
X
fe  fe
Min Fx
ae
(8)
fe;max  fe
e1
s:t: gx  0

(9)

hx 0

(10)

is the optimal value of fe. When attempting to nd the corresponding optimal values,
for all objective functions,
e, is 1, 2, 3n and identical constraints are required. fe,max is the worst value, which is the obtained basis for comparison of all the objective functions at the optimal values of control variables under the optimal fe*. e is the weight corresponding to the individual objective function. The compromise programming method is adopted for multi-objective
optimisation in the project scheduling problem.
fe*

fe*,

5. The application
Twelve activities with times X12 , X23 , X25 , X24 , X36 , X35 , X58 , X45 , X47 , X68 , X78 and X89 are depicted in Figure 5 for the
demonstration. The control variables, UX 12 ; UX 23 ; UX 25 ; UX 24 ; UX 36 ; UX 35 ; UX 58 ; UX 45 ; UX 47 ; UX 68 ; UX 78 ; and UX 89
are the mean values of activity times, which need to be determined. For the purpose of comparison, two cases will be
presented. They are Case 1 and Case 2, and represent the rst project scheduling trial (without the learning effect) and
the fth project scheduling trial (with the learning effect). In fact, the key theme for Case 1 and Case 2 is identical
except for the fact that the impact of the learning effect is considered in Case 2. Thus, the fundamental exercise of the

Figure 5. Network of Example.

1510

A. Jeang

proposed approach will be performed and demonstrated in Case 1. Moreover, based on a similar exercise to that done
in Case 1, an extension with the learning effect is considered in Case 2.
5.1 Case 1: project scheduling without the learning effect
Three levels of control variable, UX  ij , with associated standard deviation, rXij , are listed in Tables 1 and 3. These are
derived from the rst trial at the beginning of the learning process. Since it is the rst trial, the learning effect is not
applicable to the project scheduling problem. The three levels in Table 1 are combined for RSM analysis, following the
1 b2
experimental design matrix in Appendix 1. The standard deviation, rXij , in Table 3 is estimated from C0 xb
1 x2 , where
the coefcients, C0, b1 and b2 in Table 2 are 1.00, 0.0347 and 0.15, respectively. These coefcients are obtained
using statistical regression analysis from real data. The expression, x1, is 1 and represents
the


 rst trial. Assume that
activity time and activity cost have approximately normal distributions with N UXij ; r2 Xij and N UCXij ; r2C X .
ij



2
Activity time, Xij , of activity ij is generated randomly from N UXij ; r Xij . Activity cost CXij is generated randomly


from N UCXij ; r2CXij , where UCXij is the cost corresponding to activity time, Xij , through the activity cost function
bXij
d

Xij xij

. In this example, the associated standard deviations of activity cost rCX 12 , rCX 23 , rCX 25 , rC X 24 , rCX 36 ,

rCX 35 , rCX 58 , rCX 45 , rCX 47 , rCX 68 , rCX 78 , rC X 89 are 900, 1700, 2500, 1700, 1500, 800, 1800, 800, 1300,
1100, 1400 and 800, respectively. The cost coefcients, bXij and dXij , obtained using statistical regression analysis are
shown in Table 3. They are xed as given conditions. The example shown in Table 4 shows partial experimental data
from 204 experimental runs based on Appendix 1. For example, based on the level UX 12 14:00 from Table 4 with the
associated rX 12 0:6731 from Table 2 for the fourth experimental run, the output, X12 = 13.9409, can be generated by



following the normal distribution, N 14; 0:67312 . Then, in Figure 3, the mean value of activity cost,
UCX12 10557:43, is the cost with respect to X12 = 13.9409. If the mean value, UCX12 11620:47 and the standard
deviation, rCX12 900 are provided in the above statements, as depicted in Figure 3, the activity cost C X12 is



$11593.6, which is randomly generated from N 11620:47; 9002 .

Conducting similar work as activity X12, the rest of Xij and C Xij in the fourth run can be obtained for the entire
network. Then, the identical level combination in the fourth run will be repeated 30 times in order to identify the mean
value and standard deviation of the projects completion time, T, and total cost, C. They are UT, rT , UC and rC . For the
practical exercise, the upper limits of TU and CU are also considered to be uncertain (Zappa, Malavasi, and Negri 2013),
and are obtained by random generation from normal distributions with N(87, 1.52) and N(157,000, 10002). The statistical values TU and CU are further applied to nd the probability of RT and RC, representing the area below TU and CU.
They are 84.1776 and 170,996 in the fourth run. Using the same method for 204 runs, Table 4 shows the outputs, T, C,
RT and RC, which are seen as response values and are used for statistical analyses. The DOE statistical method adopted
in this study is RSM, which is used to perform step-wise statistical analysis via SAS or design-expert software (SAS
Institute 2001; STAT-Ease 2010).
Tables 58 and Figures 6 and 7 show the results of the RSM analysis for the response values, T, C, RT and RC. An
examination of the analyses of variance and the plots of residuals indicate that there are neither model inadequacies nor

Table 1. Three levels of controllable variables UXij .

Activity time
UX12
UX23
UX25
UX24
UX36
UX35
UX58
UX45
UX47
UX68
UX78
UX89

Low level

Middle level

High level

14
16
26
15
12
9
16
12
12
15
18
12

17
19
30
17
16
12
21
15
15
18
21
14

20
22
34
19
20
15
26
18
18
21
24
16

International Journal of Production Research

1511

Table 2. The standard deviation rXij associated with three levels of controllable variables UXij .
Activity time
X12
X23
X25
X24
X36
X35
X58
X45
X47
X68
X78
X89

Low level

Middle level

High level

0.6731
0.6417
0.5938
0.6142
0.7608
0.7192
0.6783
0.7239
0.7239
0.7032
0.6482
0.6554

0.6538
0.6243
0.5803
0.6005
0.7371
0.6888
0.6530
0.7032
0.7032
0.6868
0.6334
0.6385

0.6380
0.6098
0.5688
0.5886
0.7193
0.6662
0.6337
0.6868
0.6868
0.6731
0.6208
0.6242

Table 3. The coefcients of activity cost and tolerance cost functions.

Activities
12
23
25
24
36
35
58
45
47
68
78
89

bXij

dXij

C0

b1

b2

162,000
340,000
750,000
289,000
240,000
96,000
432,000
120,000
195,000
220,000
308,000
112,000

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

0.0347
0.0347
0.0347
0.0347
0.0347
0.0347
0.0347
0.0347
0.0347
0.0347
0.0347
0.0347

0.15
0.16
0.16
0.18
0.11
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.17

assumption violations. Thus, the second-order models provide an excellent t in terms of representing the responses, T,
C, RT and RC.
Although RSM is able to suggest optimal solutions, these are only based on an individual characteristic, a single
objective. Since more than one quality characteristic of interest needs to be optimised at the same time, the problem has
to be formulated in a multiple objective manner and must be simultaneously optimised for multiple objectives. In the
present study, the multiple quality characteristics of interest are completion time, T, total cost, C, probability of completion time, RT, and probability of total cost, RC. The response functions that represent these characteristics are listed in
Table 9. Because various characteristics have to be normalised as a common representative measurement during multiobjective optimisation, the proposed project scheduling problem is formulated via compromise programming in this
study. They are:
min

Z1 T

(11)

min

Z2 C

(12)

min

Z3 RT

(13)

UX12

14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
..
.
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00

Runs

1
2
3
4
5
6.
..
200
201
202
203
204

16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
22.00
22.00
..
.
19.00
19.00
19.00
19.00
19.00

UX23

30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
..
.
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00

UX25
17.00
17.00
17.00
17.00
17.00
17.00
..
.
17.00
17.00
17.00
17.00
17.00

UX24
12.00
12.00
20.00
20.00
12.00
12.00
..
.
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00

UX36

Table 4. The partial experimental data from 204 runs.

12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
..
.
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00

UX35
16.00
26.00
16.00
26.00
16.00
26.00
..
.
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00

UX58
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
..
.
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00

UX45
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
..
.
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00

UX47
18.00
18.00
18.00
18.00
18.00
18.00
..
.
18.00
18.00
18.00
18.00
18.00

UX68
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
..
.
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00

UX78
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
..
.
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00

UX89

84.1776
88.0671
88.3049
88.3856
86.4707
89.9022
..
.
88.7709
88.5883
89.0384
88.8543
88.8885

170,996
169,377
164,954
159,739
169,729
165,653
..
.
163,510
165,389
163,259
161,925
163,245

0.9999
0.8919
0.5342
0.2027
0.2038
0.8782
..
.
0.7431
0.5352
0.0983
0.0311
0.3590

RT

0.4784
0.4496
0.9349
0.9817
0.5142
0.8321
..
.
0.8796
0.7429
0.8825
0.9527
0.9386

RC

1512
A. Jeang

International Journal of Production Research

1513

Table 5. Response Surface Analysis of complete time T.

Response surface for variable T
Std. dev.
Mean
C.V. %
PRESS
R-squared
Adj R-squared
Pred R-squared
Adeq precision

0.465254
79.51586
0.585108
65.31879
0.977452
0.969687
0.954941
60.98636

Source
Linear
2FI
Quadratic
Cubic

Sequential p-value
<0.0001
0.0007
<0.0001
<0.0001

Lack of t p-value
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.0044
0.2365

Adjusted R-squared
0.838281
0.878087
0.967196
0.989476

Predicted R-squared
0.828396
0.828304
0.936307
0.877161

Suggested
Aliased

Note: Stepwise regression with alpha to enter = 0.100, alpha to exit = 0.100.

min

Z4 RC

Then, the multi-objective function is as Equation (15):

 







Z1  Z1
Z2  Z2
Z3  Z3
Z4  Z4
min Z a1

a
2
3
4
Z1;max  Z1
Z2;max  Z2
Z3;max  Z3
Z4;max  Z4

(14)

(15)

The constraints are:

0  T  87

(16)

140; 000  C  157; 000

(17)

0  RT  1

(18)

0  RC  1

(19)

14  UX 12  20

(20)

16  UX 23  22

(21)

26  UX 25  34

(22)

15  UX 24  19

(23)

12  UX 36  20

(24)

9  UX 35  15

(25)

1514

A. Jeang

Table 6. Variance analysis for complete time T model.

ANOVA for response surface reduced quadratic model
Analysis of variance table [partial sum of squares Type III]
Source
Model
UX12
UX23
UX25
UX24
UX36
UX35
UX58
UX45
UX47
UX68
UX78
UX89
UX23*UX25
UX23*UX24
UX23*UX36
UX23*UX35
UX23*UX45
UX23*UX47
UX23*UX68
UX23*UX78
UX25*UX24
UX25*UX58
UX25*UX47
UX25*UX68
UX24*UX36
UX24*UX35
UX24*UX45
UX24*UX47
UX24*UX68
UX24*UX78
UX36*UX35
UX36*UX58
UX36*UX68
UX36*UX78
UX35*UX58
UX58*UX45
UX58*UX47
UX58*UX68
UX58*UX78
UX45*UX47
UX47*UX68
UX47*UX78
UX23^2
UX25^2
UX24^2
UX36^2
UX35^2
UX58^2
UX45^2
UX47^2
UX68^2
UX78^2
Residual

Sum of squares

df

Mean square

F0 value

p-value

1416.931
494.6125
1.973852
0.07648
7.01901
0.015152
0.255039
11.53061
0.483164
2.611621
0.404138
0.22052
226.2802
0.85444
5.215242
5.310725
3.087325
3.688284
2.851212
3.772002
2.084953
1.339824
1.093058
0.625097
0.113018
2.170129
2.932636
0.636823
1.311917
1.703039
1.362662
0.963561
5.942803
10.09974
1.340392
3.208678
8.950644
9.11366
2.613796
8.266526
3.37378
0.906805
11.0497
9.795597
6.038337
1.546319
11.78805
4.034291
67.56671
5.617106
6.139735
9.425797
6.960296
32.6856

52
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
1

27.24867
494.6125
1.973852
0.07648
7.01901
0.015152
0.255039
11.53061
0.483164
2.611621
0.404138
0.22052
226.2802
0.85444
5.215242
5.310725
3.087325
3.688284
2.851212
3.772002
2.084953
1.339824
1.093058
0.625097
0.113018
2.170129
2.932636
0.636823
1.311917
1.703039
1.362662
0.963561
5.942803
10.09974
1.340392
3.208678
8.950644
9.11366
2.613796
8.266526
3.37378
0.906805
11.0497
9.795597
6.038337
1.546319
11.78805
4.034291
67.56671
5.617106
6.139735
9.425797
6.960296
0.216461

125.8827
2284.997
9.118745
0.353322
32.42623
0.069997
1.178221
53.26879
2.232109
12.06509
1.867024
1.018752
1045.363
3.947317
24.09323
24.53434
14.26274
17.03903
13.17195
17.42579
9.632006
6.189682
5.049677
2.887804
0.522117
10.0255
13.54811
2.941976
6.060757
7.867651
6.295189
4.451432
27.4544
46.65849
6.192308
14.82336
41.34993
42.10303
12.07514
38.18947
15.58609
4.189234
51.04709
45.25342
27.89574
7.143642
54.45809
18.6375
312.1428
25.94975
28.36418
43.54503
32.15498

< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.0030
0.5531
< 0.0001
0.7917
0.2794
< 0.0001
0.1373
0.0007
0.1738
0.3144
< 0.0001
0.0488
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.0002
< 0.0001
0.0004
< 0.0001
0.0023
0.0139
0.0261
0.0913
0.4711
0.0019
0.0003
0.0884
0.0149
0.0057
0.0132
0.0365
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.0139
0.0002
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.0007
< 0.0001
0.0001
0.0424
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.0084
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001

signicant

(Continued)

International Journal of Production Research

Table 6.

1515

(Continued).

ANOVA for response surface reduced quadratic model

Analysis of variance table [partial sum of squares Type III]
Source

Sum of squares

df

Mean square

Lack of Fit

32.06488

0.229035

Pure Error
Cor Total

0.620719
1449.617

14
0
11
20
3

F0 value
4.058812

p-value
0.0066

signicant

0.056429

Note: Stepwise regression with alpha to enter = 0.100, alpha to exit = 0.100.
Table 7. Response surface analysis of total cost C.
Response surface for variable C
Std. dev.
Mean
C.V. %
PRESS
R-squared
Adj R-squared
Pred R-squared
Adeq precision

863.4148
171069.3
0.504716
1.84E+08
0.980292
0.976186
0.971031
76.0724

Source
Linear
2FI
Quadratic
Cubic

Sequential p-value
< 0.0001
0.9063
< 0.0001
0.9215

Lack of t p-value
0.2877
0.2199
0.7552
0.4464

Adjusted R-squared
0.955352
0.951043
0.973615
0.964924

Predicted R-squared
0.953032
0.930902
0.95216
0.630899

Suggested
Suggested
Aliased

Note: Stepwise regression with alpha to enter = 0.100, alpha to exit = 0.100.

16  UX 58  26

(26)

12  UX 45  18

(27)

12  UX 47  18

(28)

15  UX 68  21

(29)

18  UX 78  24

(30)

12  UX 89  16

(31)

UXij  0

(32)

The values, ULij and UUij , are the upper and lower levels given in Table 1. The response functions of T, C, RT and
RC are dened in Table 9. The goal in Equations 16 and 17 is to set the upper bounds for completion time and total
cost. As previously discussed, the uncertain limits are generated randomly. Equation 32 ensures that all control variables

1516

A. Jeang

Table 8. Variance analysis for total cost C model.

ANOVA for response surface reduced quadratic model
Analysis of variance table [partial sum of squares Type III]
Source

Sum of squares

df

Mean square

F0 value

p-value

Model
UX12
UX23
UX25
UX24
UX36
UX35
UX58
UX45
UX47
UX68
UX78
UX89
UX12*UX45
UX12*UX78
UX23*UX35
UX23*UX47
UX23*UX78
UX25*UX35
UX25*UX89
UX24*UX58
UX24*UX45
UX36*UX35
UX58*UX89
UX45*UX78
UX12^2
UX23^2
UX25^2
UX24^2
UX36^2
UX35^2
UX58^2
UX45^2
UX47^2
UX68^2
UX78^2
Residual

6.23E+09
78,727,001
1.05E+08
1.64E+08
94,531,183
4.43E+08
16,986,829
5.16E+08
30,078,744
1.22E+08
1.1E+08
1.02E+08
5,977,308
3,359,960
4,564,570
2,308,268
5,515,123
4,543,304
3,033,231
2,489,620
4,015,535
2,556,245
4,585,403
4,102,936
2,406,147
12,293,640
4,667,911
22,350,020
2,541,515
29,319,731
15,615,831
44,564,639
6,035,274
3,722,745
9,153,613
13,947,135
1.25E+08

1.78E+08
78,727,001
1.05E+08
1.64E+08
94,531,183
4.43E+08
16,986,829
5.16E+08
30,078,744
1.22E+08
1.1E+08
1.02E+08
5,977,308
3,359,960
4,564,570
2,308,268
5,515,123
4,543,304
3,033,231
2,489,620
4,015,535
2,556,245
4,585,403
4,102,936
2,406,147
12,293,640
4,667,911
22,350,020
2,541,515
29,319,731
15,615,831
44,564,639
6,035,274
3,722,745
9,153,613
13,947,135
745485.1

238.7569
105.6051
141.0179
219.7795
126.8049
594.8403
22.78627
692.2345
40.34788
164.244
147.9408
136.338
8.018011
4.507079
6.122952
3.09633
7.398032
6.094425
4.068801
3.339597
5.386472
3.428968
6.150898
5.503712
3.227626
16.49079
6.261575
29.9805
3.40921
39.32973
20.94721
59.77938
8.095767
4.993721
12.27873
18.7088

< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.0052
0.0352
0.0143
0.0803
0.0072
0.0146
0.0453
0.0694
0.0215
0.0658
0.0141
0.0201
0.0742
< 0.0001
0.0133
< 0.0001
0.0666
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.0050
0.0268
0.0006
< 0.0001

signicant

Lack of Fit

1.14E+08

0.8321

not signicant

Pure Error
Cor Total

11,346,200
6.35E+09

35
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
8
15
7
11
20
3

725447.8

0.703313

1,031,473

Noe: Stepwise regression with alpha to enter = 0.100, alpha to exit = 0.100.

are non-negative values because of the nature of time. With the aid of GAMS software, the optimal solutions with
respect to Z1 (or T), Z2 (or C), Z3 (or RT ), Z4 (or RC ) and Z are listed in Table 10. The bold values in the bottom of
Columns Z1 (or T), Z2 (or C), Z3 (or RT ) and Z4 (or RC ), are the optimal solutions when individual T, C, RT and RC
(or one of Equations (11)(14)) are selected as the objective function and identical Equations (16)(32) are used as constraints. For example, column T is the optimal solution with completion time, T, as an objective function and with Equations (16)(32) as constraints. Beneath T, C, RT and RC are the values associated with the optimal solutions found in
column T.
The T value at the intersection between column Z1 (or T) and row T must be the best of the T values in row T. Similar conclusions are applied to other intersections, such as column Z2 (or C) and row C, column Z3 (or RT) and row RT,
and column Z4 (or RC) and row RC. The values T, C, RT and RC at the bottom of column Z do not have to be the best

International Journal of Production Research

1517

Figure 6. Normal probability plot of residuals for complete time T.

Figure 7. Residuals by predicted plot for complete time T.

when compared with the corresponding values in columns Z1 (or T), Z2 (or C), Z3 (or RT) and Z4 (or RC). However, it
is certain that these values are the best in terms of a simultaneously balanced view for T, C, RT and RC. In other words,
the corresponding values found, UXij, must be optimal values under a compromise decision.
The improved rates and F-ratios for T, C, RT and RC are summarised in Table 11 with xed budget limits, time limits
and the coefcients of the learning curve. For example, column (1) in Table 11 shows the control variables in order of
decreasing rate of optimal solution for completion time, T. These decreasing rates are the values of the rst derivative of
the T response function at an optimal solution. These optimal solutions are the solutions found through the minimisation
of completion time, T. They are shown in Table 10. Column (2) in Table 11 signies the order of the control variables
in order of F0 ratios derived from an ANOVA analysis. These orders indicate that the control variables require attention
to ensure stability when reducing the variance of completion time, T. A similar methodology can be applied to the other
columns. However, there is still a need to provide a collective importance order to have T, C, RT and RC evaluated concurrently in terms of improved rates and F-ratios. In this regard, Column (9) in Table 11 represents one of the possible
rankings of the control variables under simultaneous consideration from columns (1) to (8). Thus, column (9) of Table 11

R-square

0.9755

0.9803

0.5393

0.7461

Factors

RT

RC

+77.62868011+0.993543998*UX120.217316437*UX230.666806576*UX25+2.300399858*UX240.168247367*UX360.968165707*
UX350.919632619*UX58+0.297076317*UX450.205157334*UX472.610323748*UX681.595498925*UX78+0.967959799*UX89
0.024110642*UX23*UX250.11360847*UX23*UX24+0.073806237*UX23*UX36+0.037535455*UX23*UX350.055567714*UX23*U
X450.06225607*UX23*UX47+0.077548669*UX23*UX680.037445748*UX23*UX780.042110652*UX25*UX240.015754461*UX25*
UX36+0.018577912*UX25*UX580.021728251*UX25*UX450.047826713*UX24*UX360.064557381*UX24*UX35
+0.077442047*UX24*UX470.043396865*UX24*UX680.024548726*UX36*UX350.048385144*UX36*UX580.030251525*UX36
*UX450.037265879*UX36*UX47+0.096306975*UX36*UX680.031674905*UX36*UX78+0.031966805*UX35*UX58+0.064059623*UX58
*UX450.047465182*UX58*UX470.044037804*UX58*UX680.045145458*UX58*UX780.056174904*UX45*UX470.04290462*UX47
*UX68+0.088579739*UX47*UX78+0.072948113*UX23^2+0.035267648*UX25^2+0.081634031*UX24^2+0.049861329*UX36
^2+0.050791765*UX35^2+0.064259712*UX58^2+0.054646524*UX45*UX45+0.055362056*UX47*UX47+0.060765847*UX68
*UX68+0.064029497*UX78*UX78
+518892.33913277.183686*UX122216.145008*UX232698.467334*UX255329.637158*UX242233.452071*
UX36+248.2799291*UX353009.35354*UX581224.300646*UX45725.6964421*UX472685.434991*UX685069.654488*
UX78+1886.225745*UX8950.91720775*UX12*UX45+59.34681481*UX12*UX7842.20273597*UX23*UX3565.23416194*
UX23*UX47+59.20840797*UX23*UX7836.28369498*UX25*UX3549.30790629*UX25*UX89+50.09699689*UX24*
UX58+66.61775019*UX24*UX4544.61157269*UX36*UX3550.63926299*UX58*UX8943.08822478*UX45*
UX78+64.04083098*UX12^2+39.46190143*UX23^2+48.57112886*UX25^2+65.51573296*UX24^2+55.63130189*UX36^2+72.42215698*
UX35^2+43.89493467*UX58^2+44.87094327*UX45^2+35.24101033*UX47^2+55.2602664*UX68^2+68.21175312*UX78^2
10.397957610.334192135*UX120.08663823*UX230.160936345*UX25+0.518799728*UX24+0.240990298*UX36+0.396545682*
UX350.136659368*UX580.396334167*UX45+0.599333016*UX47+0.635528226*UX68+0.164031525*UX78+0.771470974*UX89+0.011383835*
UX12*UX230.012295774*UX12*UX68+0.01336344*UX23*UX25+0.020455657*UX23*UX240.013724251*UX23*UX360.018782248*UX23*
UX68+0.006340857*UX25*UX360.015190752*UX25*UX890.01727995*UX24*UX470.017516222*UX24*UX780.02415125*UX24*
UX89+0.008759286*UX36*UX450.017147226*UX36*UX68+0.006944325*UX36*UX78+0.007023697*UX58*UX47+0.01065998*UX58*
UX89+0.012097415*UX45*UX680.016706928*UX47*UX89+0.006958252*UX12^20.009158942*UX23^20.00550501*
UX36^20.01638755*UX35^20.0038336*UX58^20.00793228*UX47^2
+17.683604430.074005579*UX120.273969308*UX230.248643238*UX250.030791724*UX240.297422788*UX360.265189774*
UX350.316218746*UX580.230340464*UX450.140557634*UX470.024288835*UX680.095012632*UX78+0.004835223*
UX89+0.001838305*UX12*UX58+0.001959118*UX12*UX78+0.003272998*UX23*UX25+0.002661478*UX23*UX36+0.00353768*UX23*
UX35+0.002883071*UX23*UX58+0.002690154*UX23*UX45+0.001534342*UX25*UX36+0.00288652*UX25*UX35+0.001245473*
UX25*UX58+0.003097549*UX25*UX45+0.001467453*UX25*UX47+0.001843048*UX24*UX58+0.002050815*UX36*UX35+0.00222403*
UX36*UX58+0.001630155*UX36*UX45+0.001671381*UX36*UX47+0.001848617*UX36*UX68+0.001305189*UX36*
UX78+0.003484814*UX35*UX45+0.002235076*UX35*UX47+0.00127152*UX58*UX45+0.002448368*UX58*UX47+0.002263683*UX
58*UX78+0.000671405*UX25^2+0.00088997*UX36^2+0.00075306*UX58^2

Response functions of T, C, RT and RC

Table 9. Response functions of T, C, RT and RC.

1518
A. Jeang

International Journal of Production Research

1519

Table 10. Multi-objective optimisation via compromising programming.

Objective functions
Activity

Z1(or T)

Z2(or C)

Z3(or RT)

Z4(or RC)

UX12
UX23
UX25
UX24
UX36
UX35
UX58
UX45
UX47
UX68
UX78
UX89
T
C
RT
RC

14.00
22.00
34.00
19.00
20.00
15.00
21.21
17.76
18.00
16.70
22.15
12.00
85.6755
157,000
0.6705
0.5517

14.00
22.00
34.00
19.00
20.00
15.00
22.29
17.25
18.00
17.58
22.79
12.00
87.0000
155,097
0.5316
0.6054

14.00
20.20
34.00
17.32
20.00
14.09
22.71
18.00
18.00
18.18
24.00
12.00
87.0000
157,000
0.8015
0.5018

14.00
22.00
34.00
18.95
20.00
15.00
23.90
18.00
18.00
15.44
21.77
12.00
87.0000
156,591
0.6237
0.6646

14.00
22.00
34.00
19.00
20.00
15.00
21.99
18.00
18.00
15.93
22.27
12.00
85.8260
157,000
0.6831
0.5883

Note: The budget limit = $157,000, the complete time limit = 87 days.

is also a possible suggestion for ordering the control variables during project scheduling improvement efforts. The
collectively important paths are 12, 23, 36, 58 and 68, which may not coincide with the conventional denition
of a critical path in a project scheduling problem. Unlike the conventional approach, which is based purely on activity
time, the critical path proposed is justied statistically with importance rankings, improvement order for optimisation
techniques, and considers the multiple objectives of cost, time and probabilities. If an advance for project scheduling is
needed, these critical activities should be closely monitored and considered a high priority for enhancement.
5.2 Case 2: project scheduling with the learning effect
For the purpose of comparison, the difference between project scheduling without the learning effect (the rst trial) and
project scheduling with the learning effect (the fth trial), is selected for demonstration. That is, x1 is 1 and 5 for the
rst and fth trials, respectively, in this comparison example. However, before comparing the impact of the learning
effect between the rst and fth trials, the mean and standard deviation of activity time for the fth trial have to be estimated. For the sake of convenience, the approximated mean, UXij x1 5 and standard deviation, rXij x1 5, of activity time for the fth trial are expressed in Equations (33) and (34). As depicted in Figure 8, rXij x1 5 corresponds to
=
=
UXij x1 5, which is half of the sum of UXij x1 5 and UXij x1 1. The former, UXij x1 5 is the mean of activity
time, Xij, in the fth trial and the latter UXij x1 1 is the mean of activity time, Xij, in the rst trial.
=

UXij x1 1 UXij x1 5
UXij x1 5
2

(33)

rXij x1 5 C0 x1 5b1 UXij x1 5b2

(34)

Table 12 shows that response values, C, RT and RC in trial 5 are much better than the values in trial 1, due to a reduction in both the standard deviations and means of activity times. This reduction lessens and stabilises project costs. Consequently, a higher probability of project completion by the due date and within budget can be achieved. Table 13
shows the optimal values of objective functions T, C, RT and RC, and the optimal solutions of the control variables UXij
for 10 trials. The optimal solutions for some of the control variables are identical in most of the trials and vary in the
rest of the trials. Clearly, some of the control variables with identical solutions are indifferent to the effect of the learning process. Conversely, the rest of the control variables are sensitive to the inuence of the learning process. This feature can also help the project scheduler to identify the important paths that need to be noticed in terms of life cycle
application. Basically, the objective values, T, C, RT and RC are improved by the learning process, except for those that
jump unexpectedly due to their statistical nature. By repeating Table 11 to nd the suggested order from trials 1 to 10,

F0 ratio
(order) [2]
1896.13(01)
268.01(05)
26.0912(12)
208.883(06)
284.944(04)
40.4183(11)
1100.90(02)
117.609(09)
112.120(10)
156.539(07)
125.997(08)
799.882(03)

Decreased rate
(order) [1]

0.9935(12)
0.3338(05)
0.1031(02)
0.2490(04)
0.1868(03)
0.3667(06)
0.6417(10)
0.0955(01)
0.3786(07)
0.3926(08)
0.4007(09)
0.9679(11)

F0 ratio
(order) [4]
294.397(10)
709.350(04)
1137.26(03)
379.175(07)
1342.43(02)
294.842(09)
2246.41(01)
205.815(11)
636.904(05)
374.355(08)
397.464(06)
147.974(12)

Decreased rate
(order) [3]
1078.9(01)
968.50(02)
531.58(11)
539.28(10)
677.37(07)
633.39(09)
734.68(06)
15.625(12)
892.17(05)
924.84(03)
673.65(08)
903.80(04)

Total cost (C)

Note: The budget limit = $157,000, the complete time limit = 87 days.

U12
U23
U25
U24
U36
U35
U58
U45
U47
U68
U78
U89

Cont. var.

Completion time (T)

Table 11. The important order for controllable variables.

0.0847(03)
0.0609(05)
0.0775(12)
0.0221(11)
0.0263(10)
0.0950(02)
0.0509(07)
0.0284(09)
0.0605(06)
0.0750(04)
0.0298(08)
0.2702(01)

Decreased rate
(order) [5]
113.15(01)
27.036(04)
6.3580(08)
15.892(06)
26.331(05)
0.1130(12)
55.357(03)
15.864(07)
3.7936(11)
5.8094(09)
5.5028(10)
70.546(02)

F0 ratio
(order) [6]

Completion time probability

(RT)

0.0100(04)
0.0554(12)
0.0525(10)
0.0097(03)
0.0465(08)
0.0547(11)
0.0452(07)
0.0469(09)
0.0301(06)
0.0126(05)
0.0082(02)
0.0048(01)

Decreased rate
(order) [7]

20.8901(07)
27.3850(05)
37.2301(04)
15.8382(10)
95.4057(02)
17.9092(09)
96.2202(01)
10.2271(11)
26.4367(06)
18.9236(08)
47.1796(03)
5.32507(12)

F0 ratio
(order) [8]

Total cost Probability (RC)

2
4
10
9
3
11
1
12
8
6
7
5

Suggest order [9]

1520
A. Jeang

International Journal of Production Research

1521

Figure 8. The estimated mean value and standard deviation of activity time under learning effect.

Table 12. Comparison between project scheduling with learning effect and without learning effect.
Items

Trial (x1=1)

Trial (x1=5)

85.8260
157,000
0.6831
0.5883
2.6889

83.1776
142,938
1.0000
0.9932
1.8516

T
C
RT
RC
Z

Note: The budget limit = $157,000, the complete time limit = 87 days.

respectively, Table 14 lists all of the suggested orders for the 10 trials. Then, for the purpose of life-cycle application
under the effect of the learning process, the suggested ordering of the 10 trials are added together to obtain a collective
measurement, which is then used for ranking importance. The collective order in the last column of Table 14 is ranked
as the basis of the collective measurements from small to large values. Similar to Table 13, sensitive and insensitive
control variables with respective to degree of importance are observed in Table 14. Thus, the degree of sensitivity in
Tables 13 and 14 can be used simultaneously as a life cycle reference for project scheduling improvement during the
Table 13. The optimal solutions of controllable variables and the optimal objective values for each trial.
The optimal solutions and objective values for ten trials
Cont. var.
U12
U23
U25
U24
U36
U35
U58
U45
U47
U68
U78
U89
T
C
RT
RC

10

14.00
22.00
34.00
19.00
20.00
15.00
21.99
18.00
18.00
15.93
22.27
12.00
85.8260
157,000
0.6831
0.5883

14.00
22.00
34.00
19.00
20.00
15.00
24.57
18.00
18.00
20.37
24.00
12.00
83.0190
151,419
0.9476
0.7913

15.22
22.00
34.00
19.00
20.00
15.00
26.00
18.00
18.00
20.96
24.00
15.18
83.5830
145,924
1.0000
0.9167

17.13
22.00
34.00
19.00
20.00
15.00
26.00
18.00
18.00
19.99
24.00
16.00
83.8845
143,861
0.9999
0.9607

18.69
22.00
34.00
19.00
20.00
15.00
26.00
18.00
18.00
20.99
24.00
16.00
83.1776
142,938
1.0000
0.9932

18.95
22.00
34.00
19.00
20.00
15.00
26.00
18.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
16.00
81.2152
142,843
1.0000
0.9987

19.00
22.00
34.00
19.00
20.00
15.00
26.00
18.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
16.00
80.7472
142,829
1.0000
0.9996

18.6861
22.00
34.00
19.00
20.00
15.00
26.00
18.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
16.00
78.7323
142,941
1.0000
0.9930

19.01
22.00
34.00
19.00
20.00
15.00
26.00
18.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
16.00
78.1771
142,824
1.0000
1.0000

18.12
22.00
34.00
19.00
20.00
15.00
26.00
18.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
16.00
75.6682
143,170
1.0000
0.9815

Note: The budget limit = $157,000, the complete time limit = 87 days.

1522

A. Jeang

Table 14. Suggest order and collective order of controllable variables for 10 trials.
The suggest order and collective order for ten trials
Cont. var.

10

Collective order

U12
U23
U25
U24
U36
U35
U58
U45
U47
U68
U78
U89

2
4
10
9
3
11
1
12
8
6
7
5

2
3
8
6
5
11
1
12
4
10
7
9

3
9
7
8
5
11
1
12
2
10
6
4

5
10
4
7
1
11
2
12
3
9
6
8

7
6
5
4
1
11
2
12
3
10
8
9

8
6
4
5
2
11
3
12
1
7
10
9

6
10
2
5
1
11
4
12
3
7
9
8

7
10
4
9
2
11
3
12
1
5
6
8

6
10
3
8
2
11
4
12
1
5
7
9

8
10
4
5
1
11
2
12
3
6
7
9

5
9
4
6
1
11
2
12
3
8
7
10

Note: The budget limit = $157,000, the complete time limit = 87 days.
Table 15. The optimal values of controllable variables in average for 10 trials under various budget limits.
The averaged optimal values
T

RT

RC

80.2074
79.4169
79.5184
77.2294
74.5054

145,994
146,919
146,721
149,214
154,345

0.9486
0.9523
0.9630
0.9783
0.9797

0.2457
0.5063
0.9223
0.9621
1.0000

Budget limits ($)

153,000
155,000
157,000
159,000
161,000

Note: The complete time limit = 87 days.

Table 16. The optimal values of controllable variables in average for 10 trials under various time limits.
The averaged optimal objective values
Complete time (days)
85
86
87
88
89

RT

RC

80.7109
81.8889
81.4030
82.0823
82.3247

146,033
145,116
145,574
144,919
144,824

0.9090
0.9480
0.9630
0.9709
0.9832

0.8927
0.9263
0.9223
0.9395
0.9501

Note: The budget limit = $157,000.

Table 17. The optimal values of controllable variables in average for 10 trials under various coefcients of learning curve.
The averaged optimal objective values
The coefcients b2
0.11
0.15
0.15
0.17
0.19

RT

RC

78.6940
80.6170
81.4030
83.8807
83.9950

145,502
145,549
145,574
145,663
146,422

0.2047
0.9374
0.9630
0.9693
1.000

0.9039
0.9139
0.9223
0.9277
0.9447

Note: The budget limit = $157,000, the complete time limit = 87 days.

International Journal of Production Research

1523

learning process. A further study of the sensitivity analyses of varied budget limits, changed time limits and different
coefcients of the learning curve are shown in Tables 1517. For the sake of convenience, these analyses are called
Cases a, b and c. For Case a, the limit of T is varied under a xed C. Conversely, for Case b, the limit of C is changed
in xed T. For Case c, the coefcient of b2 of the learning curve differs with xed limits for T and C. Each combination
of T and C in Cases a, b and c is analysed 10 trials for learning process, as in Table 13, in order to obtain the average
values. The conclusions are:
Case a: As the limit of T is increased, on average over 10 trials, the optimal values of T increase, the optimal values
of C decrease, the optimal values of RT increase, and the optimal values of RC increase. This is because the loose limit
of T allows for less investment on activity efciency, which means that individual activity time and project completion
time T increase. Consequently, C decreases and RC increases. Because of the loose limit of T, the optimal RT increases
as expected.
Case b: As the limit of C increases, on average over 10 trials, the optimal values of T decrease, the optimal values
of C increase, the optimal values of RT increase, and the optimal values of RC increase as a whole. These phenomena
are explicable as the slack limit of C allows for additional investment in activity efciency to decrease individual
activity time and project completion time. Consequently, RT increases. Furthermore, because of the relaxed limit of C,
the optimal C and RC increase as expected.
Case c: As the coefcients b2 of the learning curve increase, on average over 10 trials, the optimal values of T, C,
RT and RC increase because a larger b2 leads to a larger variance in activity time, which in turn leads to a larger variance
in activity cost. Clearly, variances in project completion time and total project costs become greater. Consequently, the
optimal values of T, C, RT and RC are increased in order to cover the uncertainty resulting from a larger variance.
On the basis of the introduced timecost trade-off approach with RSM and the optimisation technique, we can
quantify, before project scheduling is actualised, the permissible risks of not meeting the activity time and activity cost
constraints. This allows us to adjust the performance pace in order to meet the intended objectives under these constraints. The adjustable limits of the acceptable range for completion time, total cost and associated reliabilities can be
as changeable as necessary to be sensitive to the constraining project scheduling problem. Thus, the developed approach
allows us trade-off decisions as needed while considering multiple objectives, which makes it possible to choose the
most favourable project schedule given uncertainty among alternatives.
For the early scheduling phase, or before the project is realised, there are many prototypes to be considered, and the
planner is faced with the task of choosing from the alternatives. The response functions found can be repeatedly applied
for comparison analysis in order to select the appropriate alternatives. The combined importance rankings listed in
Tables 11 and 14, together with the optimisation technique described above, can be used as references for scheduling
modications in order to expand the number of possible alternatives. These features are essential in an uncertain and
dynamic environment. The information drawn from conventional approaches is usually analysed under the assumption
that each input has been thoroughly studied and that remaining inputs are xed. Typically, these inputs are chosen randomly with no rationale as shown in Tables 11 and 1317. Consequently, conventional approaches are ineffective
because a pair-wise comparison is needed for each input until each input has been evaluated. Moreover, conventional
approaches do not inform the designer of how the effect of an input changes when other inputs are modied due to
interactions, particularly, project scheduling for multiple quality characteristics of interest. Furthermore, previous
approaches rarely provide a quantitative measurement for scheduling quality, which is captured in probability in the
present study. This study integrates RSM and optimisation techniques in order to extend previous scheduling problems
by taking into account the important aspect of quality, by investigating all possible inputs and by including the effect of
the learning process in order to maximise the possibility of obtaining the most favourable results for life cycle application in terms of quality and cost.
6. Conclusion
In most real applications, activity time, activity cost, due date and budget are non-deterministic. Decision-making about
determining activity time for project scheduling optimisation should not be based solely on a single characteristic. Thus,
the critical path for project scheduling improvement based on a determined activity time, as in the conventional
approach, is not applicable for multiple and non-determined characteristics in reality. Moreover, the objective values
(characteristic values) used to measure the performance of project scheduling in practical application are often presented
in various dimensions (measurements), which might bias the determination of the control variables. Furthermore, project
scheduling is a dynamic and evolutionary decision-making process, where repeat revision and modications are needed
during the real exercise. That is, for efcacy and validity, all of the decisions made about project scheduling must be in
statistical terms for uncertain applications and must be modiable given the unexpected impact. Thus, schedulers might

1524

A. Jeang

be interested in how reliable a product can be that is completed before the due date or comes in under budget before
the project is practically implemented. Another concern is that a reusable functional relationship between the control
variables and project performance (objective values) must be built in for possible modication because activity time can
be lengthened or shortened unexpectedly during practical application. In this regard, a statistical analysis method, such
as RSM, can be used to build a functional relationship between the control variables and project performances for
uncertainty. These functional relationships represent multi-objective functions, which are further used for multi-objective
optimisation in project scheduling. In this study, compromise programming is adopted in order to normalise the objective values into a common value for optimising the multi-objective project scheduling problem. The proposed approach
is built statistically not only to determine the optimal activity timeframe but also to identify the collective critical path
while considering multiple characteristics simultaneously with an F ratio and improved rate. However, there are a few
limitations to the proposed approach, which offer opportunities for future research. The limitations are: (1) the proposed
approach focuses more on techniques and engineering-related issues, which means that it ignores management-related
considerations. However, in project scheduling, project failures are often associated with the failure of project management. Most of these failures can be overcome by better management. (2) The proposed approach does not consider the
possibility of reworking for activity failure. For example, because of a failure in achieving the quality and specications
required in construction work, adding more concrete to the foundations or even replacing the present foundation can
occur. This type of rework due to failure is expensive and may mean that the project takes longer to complete. Thus,
other than the four objectives considered in the proposed approach, an additional objective concerning the expected
amount of rework due to failures should be included in the multiple objective optimisations. (3) The proposed approach
does not consider activity failure reduction during the learning process. Through the learning process, without mentioning the improvement of the entire projects performance, one can reduce failure, which not only improves the quality of
activity performance but also shortens the projects completion time. (4) The proposed approach does not consider multiple dependencies between activities and project revision because of later information assessment. For example, downstream activities may need to be revised because of revision done to their predecessors as a result of gaining additional
information at a later time. This occurs quite often, particularly during project scheduling for product development.

Acknowledgements
We are grateful for all of the suggestions made by the chief editor, associate editor and reviewers. They have signicantly improved
this paper.

References
Aghaie, A., and H. Mokhtari. 2009. Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm for Stochastic Project Crashing Problem in PERT Networks
Using MC Simulation. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 45 (1112): 10511067.
Anzanello, M. J., and F. S. Fogliatto. 2011. Learning Curve Models and Applications: Literature Review and Research Directions.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 41 (5): 573583.
Argote, L. 1999. Organizational Learning: Creating. Retaining and Transferring Knowledge. New York: Springer.
Arora, J. S. 1989. Introduction to Optimum Design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Azaron, A., and Reza Tavakkoli-Moghaddam. 2006. A Multi-objective Resource Allocation Problem in Dynamic PERT Networks.
Applied Mathematics and Computation 181 (1): 163174.
Azaron, A., C. Perkgoz, and M. Sakawa. 2005. A Genetic Algorithm Approach for the Time-cost Trade-off in PERT Networks.
Applied Mathematics and Computation 168: 13171339.
Badiru, A. B. 1992. Computational Survey of Univariate and Multivariate Learning Curve Models. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management 39 (2): 176188.
Belkaoui, A. R. 1986. The Learning Curve: A Management Accounting Tool. Bel Air, CA: Quorum Books.
Blackstone, J. H., J. F. Cox, and J. G. Schleier. 2009. A Tutorial on Project Management from a Theory of Constraints Perspective.
International Journal of Production Research 47 (24): 70297046.
Chen, T. 2009. Enhancing the Yield Competitiveness of a Semiconductor Fabrication Factory with Dynamic Capacity Re-allocation.
Computers & Industrial Engineering 57 (3): 931936.
Chen, S. P., and M. J. Tsai. 2011. Time-cost Trade-off Analysis of Project Networks in Fuzzy Environments. European Journal of
Operational Research 212 (2): 386397.
Deblaere, F., E. Demeulemeester, and W. Herroelen. 2011. Proactive Policies for the Stochastic Resource-constrained Project Scheduling
Problem. European Journal of Operational Research 214 (2): 308316.
Dar-El, E. M. 2000. Human Learning: From Learning Curves to Learning Organizations. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.

International Journal of Production Research

1525

Feng, C., L. Liu, and S. Burns. 2000. Stochastic Construction Time-cost Trade-off Analysis. Journal of Computing in Civil
Engineering 14 (2): 117126.
Fioretti, G. 2007. The Organizational Learning Curve. European Journal of Operational Research 177 (3): 13751384.
Gilles, G. 2013. A History of Project Management Models: From Pre-models to the Standard Models. International Journal of
Project Management 31 (5): 663669.
Globerson, S. 1980. The Inuence of Job Related Variables on the Predictability Power of Three Learning Curve Models. AIIE
Transactions 12 (1): 6469.
Golenko-Ginzburg, D. 1988. On the Distribution of Activity Time in PERT. Journal of the Operational Research Society 39 (8):
767771.
Golenko-Ginzburg, D., and A. Gonik. 1997. Stochastic Network Project Scheduling with Non-consumable Limited Resources.
International Journal of Production Economics 48 (1): 2937.
Golenko-Ginzburg, D., and A. Gonik. 1998. A Heuristic for Network Project Scheduling with Random Activity Durations Depending on the Resource Allocation. International Journal of Production Economics 55 (2): 149162.
Golenko-Ginzburg, D., A. Gonik, and S. Kesler. 1996. Hierarchical Decision-making Model for Planning and Controlling Stochastic
Projects. International Journal of Production Economics 4647 (1): 3954.
Golenko-Ginzburg, D., A. Gonik, and S. Sitniakovski. 2000. Resource Supportability Model for Stochastic Network Projects under a
Chance Constraint. Communication in Dependability and Quality Management 3 (1): 89102.
Goicoechea, A., D. R. Hansen, and L. Duckstein. 1982. Multiobjective Decision Analysis with Engineering and Business Applications.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hill, J., L. C. Thomas, and D. E. Allen. 2000. Experts Estimates of Task Durations in Software Development Projects. International Journal of Project Management 18 (1): 1321.
Jaber, Mohamad, Y. 2006a. Learning and Forgetting Models and Their Applications. Chap. 30 in Handbook of Industrial & Systems
Engineering, 12. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Jaber, Mohamad, Y. 2006b. Lot Sizing for an Imperfect Production Process with Quality Corrective Interruptions and Improvements
and Reduction in Setups. Computer & Industrial Engineering 51 (4): 781790.
Jaber, M. Y., and A. L. Guiffrida. 2008. Learning Curves for Imperfect Production Processes with Reworks and Process Restoration
Interruptions. European Journal of Operational Research 189 (1): 93104.
Jarkas, A. 2010. Critical Investigation into the Applicability of the Learning Curve Theory to Rebar Fixing Labor Productivity.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 136 (12): 12791288.
Jeang, A. 2014. Learning Curves for Quality and Productivity. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 32 (8).
Accepted for publication.
Ke, H., W. Ma, and Y. Ni. 2009. Optimization Models and a GA-based Algorithm for Stochastic Timecost Trade-off Problem.
Applied Mathematics and Computation 215 (1): 308313.
Lieberman, M. B. 1987. The Learning Curve, Diffusion, and Competitive Strategy. Strategic Management Journal 8 (5): 441452.
Lipke, W., O. Zwikael, K. Henderson, and F. Anbari. 2009. Prediction of Project Outcome. International Journal of Project
Management 27 (4): 400407.
Maravas, A., and J. P. Pantouvakis. 2011. Project Cash Flow Analysis in the Presence of Uncertainty in Activity Duration and Cost.
International Journal of Project Management 30 (3): 374384.
Menipaz, E., and A. Ben-Yair. 2002a. Three-parametrical Harmonization Model in Project Management by Means of Simulation.
Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 59 (5): 431436.
Menipaz, E., and A. Ben-Yair. 2002b. Harmonization Simulation Model for Managing Several Stochastic Projects. Mathematics
and Computers in Simulation 61 (1): 6166.
Myers, R. H. 1991. Response Surface Methodology in Quality Improvement. Communications in Statistics: Theory and Methods
20 (2): 457476.
Myers, R. H., D. C. Montgomery, and C. M. Anderson-Cook. 2009. Response Surface Methodology-process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, 3rded. New York: Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics.
SAS Institute. 2001. SAS/STAT Users Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
STAT-Ease. 2010. Design-Expert 8 Users Guide. Minneapolis, MN: Stat-Ease.
Tabucanon, M. T. 1988. Multiple Criteria Decision Making in Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.
Teplitz, C. J. 1991. The Learning Curve Desk Book: A Reference Guide to Theory, Calculations and Applications. New York, NY:
Quorum Books.
Trietsch, D., and K. R. Baker. 2011. PERT 21: Fitting PERT/CPM for Use in the 21st century. International Journal of Project
Management 30 (4): 490502.
Weber, C., and A. Fayed. 2010. Optimizing Your Position on the Operating Curve: How Can a Fab Truly Maximize Its Performance? IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 23 (1): 2129.
Wollmer, R. D. 1985. Critical Path Planning under Uncertainty. Mathematical Programming Study 25 (1): 164171.
Wright, T. 1936. Factors Affecting the Cost of Airplanes. Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences (Institute of the Aeronautical
Sciences) 3: 122128.

1526

A. Jeang

Yang, I. T. 2005a. Chance-constrained Timecost Tradeoff Analysis Considering Funding Variability. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 131 (9): 10021012.
Yang, I. T. 2005b. Impact of Budget Uncertainty on Project Time-cost Trade-off. Engineering Management 52 (2): 167174.
Yelle, L. E. 1979. The Learning Curve: Historical Review and Comprehensive Survey. Decision Sciences 10 (2): 302328.
Zappa, E., S. Malavasi, and M. Negri. 2013. Uncertainty Budget in PSV Technique Measurements. Flow Measurement and
Instrumentation 30: 144153.
Zeleny, M. 1982. Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Annual Meeting of AAAS, Washington, DC.

Appendix 1. Experimental design matrix of Box-Behnken design