Improved Critical Chain Project Management Framework

for Scheduling Construction Projects

Guofeng Ma 1; Aimin Wang 2; Nan Li, M.ASCE 3; Lingyun Gu 4; and Qi Ai 5

Abstract: Construction projects are subject to a wide range of constraints, such as project complexity, resource scarcity, and duration
uncertainty. The critical chain project management (CCPM) has emerged as a method for construction scheduling. This paper proposes
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Melbourne on 10/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

an improved CCPM framework to enhance the implementation of CCPM in construction project management practices. The framework
addresses two major challenges in CCPM-based construction scheduling, including buffer sizing and multiple resources leveling. Buffers
play a key role in ensuring successful schedule management. However, buffers generated by the existing sizing methods are either unnec-
essarily large, which wastes resources, or insufficiently robust against various uncertainties. Resource leveling is another critical challenge in
CCPM-based construction scheduling because it requires a fundamentally different approach from the resource leveling used in traditional
scheduling methods. The proposed framework improves buffer sizing by integrating into the buffer sizing process various uncertainties that
affect construction scheduling but are not factored in by current practice. These uncertainties are assessed in five dimensions with their
respective metrics developed in the framework. Furthermore, the framework explores the feasibility of multiple resources leveling in
CCPM-based construction scheduling, with a novel method that manages the trade-offs between activity duration and resource usages based
on a multimodal activity execution structure. Three case studies were undertaken in this paper. The results showed that the proposed frame-
work outperformed existing buffer sizing methods by generating buffers with reasonable sizes and sufficient robustness against uncertainties.
The results also proved the feasibility and effectiveness of performing multiple resources leveling in CCPM-based construction scheduling.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000908. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Critical chain project management; Construction management; Buffer sizing; Scheduling; Uncertainty; Multiple
resources leveling; Cost and schedule.

Introduction The CCPM develops a sound schedule using buffer management

Construction projects are subject to a wide range of constraints,
such as project complexity, resource scarcity, and duration uncer-
tainty. Failing to manage any of these constraints can create sched-
uling distortions. The critical path method (CPM) and the program
evaluation and review technique (PERT) are scheduling methods
that have been extensively researched and widely used to develop
and manage project schedules. These methods, however, are not
always justifiable and effective due to their reliance on certain
assumptions that become more questionable as projects become
increasingly complex and demands for resources grow (Kastor and
Sirakoulis 2009; Hall 2012). To address such challenges, the theory
of constraints (TOC), introduced by Glodratt (1997), was applied to
project management, resulting in the development of a new sched-
uling method called critical chain project management (CCPM).
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Construction Management and Real
Estate, Tongji Univ., Shanghai 200092, China.
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Innovation and Strategy, Shanghai Jiao
Tong Univ., Shanghai 200240, China.
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Construction Management, Tsinghua
Univ., Beijing 100084, China (corresponding author). E-mail: nanl@
usc.edu
4
Graduate Student, Dept. of Construction Management and Real Estate,
Tongji Univ., Shanghai 200092, China.
5
Graduate Student, Dept. of Construction Management and Real Estate,
Tongji Univ., Shanghai 200092, China.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 4, 2014; approved on
June 6, 2014; published online on July 3, 2014. Discussion period open
until December 3, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineer-
ing and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/04014055(12)/$25.00.
to avoid project overruns (Cohen et al. 2004). To manage the
project, the CCPM uses time buffers, a basic TOC tool, and
provides a simple tool for monitoring projects and setting realistic
deadlines (Rozenes et al. 2006). The main advantages of the CCPM
include its simplicity, its explicit protection against stochastic varia-
tion, and a set of reasonable control guidelines it provides (Trietsch
and Baker 2012). The CCPM has increasingly been used in con-
struction scheduling and the method has been subject to a number
of refinements and extensions (Ahlemann et al. 2013).
There are two major challenges with the implementation of
the CCPM, namely, buffer sizing and multiple resources leveling.
The CCPM does not assign safety time to each individual activity.
Instead, it generates an aggregated safety time and places it at
certain positions on the critical chain to act as a buffer. The use
of buffers, which takes into account both precedence constraints
and resource constraints, serves to shorten the project duration and
enhance the robustness of project scheduling. Buffers play a key
role in the CCPM (Raz et al. 2003), and sizing the buffers is crucial
to enhancing their effectiveness and, ultimately, to ensuring suc-
cessful project schedule management. Two methods are currently
used for buffer sizing: the cut and paste method (C&PM) and the
root square error method (RSEM). However, the C&PM adopts a
linear procedure and the size of the calculated buffer increases
linearly with the length of the critical chain, which often results
in unnecessarily long schedules and leads to waste of resources
(Herroelen and Leus 2001). The RSEM is less influenced than the
C&PM by the length of the critical chain (Tukel et al. 2006), but
may lead to schedules that are not sufficiently robust against
various uncertainties.
Moreover, resource leveling, which is important to successfully
implement construction schedules, has remained a significant

© ASCE 04014055-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

 challenge for the CCPM. Resource leveling problems arise when-
ever it is expedient to reduce the fluctuations in patterns of resource
utilization over time while maintaining compliance with the pre-
scribed project completion date. These problems are further com-
plicated when more than one type of resource is involved. CPM and
PERT base multiple resources leveling on adjusting the free floats
of individual activities. However, CCPM does not involve free
floats and its multiple resources leveling requires a fundamentally
different approach that has been barely examined in the literature.
In order to address the previous two challenges and enhance the
implementation of CCPM in construction project management
practices, this paper proposes an improved CCPM framework.
The framework introduces an uncertainty-aware method (UAM) to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Melbourne on 10/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
determine reasonable buffer sizes by taking into account various
factors that affect construction scheduling but are not factored in
by existing buffer sizing methods. The UAM is expected to outper-
form existing buffer sizing methods by generating buffers with
reasonable sizes and sufficient robustness. The framework also in-
tegrates a multimode-based method (MBM) that explores the fea-
sibility of multiple resources leveling in CCPM-based construction
scheduling, which has thus far remained a significant challenge
with a lack of effective methods. The MBM performs multiple re-
sources leveling by managing the trade-offs between maximizing
resource utilization and minimizing project duration that is made
possible with the introduction of a multimodal activity execution
structure.
Literature Review
Buffer Sizing for Critical Chain Scheduling
There are three types of buffers distinguished by their positions and
functions: the resource buffer (RB), the feeding buffer (FB), and the
project buffer (PB). RBs are set to protect the critical chain from the
scarcity of critical resources (Rand 2000). RBs are used as warn-
ings and do not consume any time. FBs are set to protect the critical
chain from the variation of tasks not on the critical chain and
are scheduled where noncritical and critical activities converge
(Bevilacqua et al. 2009). PBs are placed at the end of the critical
chain to protect against exceeding the project delivery date. The
key to the successful implementation of critical chain scheduling is
the proper determination of the size of the buffers. Two approaches
have been proposed in the previous literature: the C&PM and the
RSEM. The C&PM estimates the safety time of each activity based
on conventional methods, reduces the safety time of each activity
by 50%, and uses the sum of the safety times of all activities as a
buffer. The major advantage of this method is its simplicity.
However, the C&PM adopts a linear procedure, and the size of
the calculated buffer increases linearly with the length of the critical
chain. As a result, a schedule developed by the C&PM may contain
an unnecessarily large amount of protection, which may lead to
wasted resources, uncompetitive proposals, and in turn lost
business opportunities (Herroelen and Leus 2001). The RSEM
produces two estimates for each activity in the critical chain, a safe
estimate and an average estimate, and calculates the difference
between the two estimates. The square root of the sum of squares
of this difference for each activity is then used as the buffer
(Newbold 1998). The RSEM is less influenced than the C&PM
by the length of the critical chain. Tukel et al. (2006) reported that
compared with the C&PM, the RSEM has the distinct advantage of
not generating very large or very small buffer sizes; this advantage
becomes clearer as the problem size increases (Herroelen and
Leus 2001).
© ASCE 04014055-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
Some researchers have argued that buffer sizing is a nondeter-
ministic polynomial (NP) problem (Kolisch and Drexl 1997), and a
number of algorithms have been proposed to address this issue.
Long and Ohsato (2008) developed a fuzzy CCPM for project
scheduling under resource constraints and uncertainty. The size
of the project buffer is determined by computations with fuzzy
numbers. Zhao et al. (2010) developed a genetic algorithm to iden-
tify the critical chain and obtain the optimal start time of each
activity under the most optimistic duration of each activity and re-
source constraint. Hazir et al. (2010) proposed a two-stage robust
scheduling algorithm that concentrates on slack-based measures to
assess schedule robustness. The slack of an operation, which is de-
fined as the time by which an operation can be delayed without
slowing down performance of the entire schedule, is used as a
buffering time to absorb the effects of disruptions (Al-Hinai and
EIMekkawy 2011). Peng and Xu (2012) proposed an active critical
chain method. Unlike traditional methods, their method was de-
signed such that all activities, including those in noncritical chains,
are executed in the earliest possible manner.
The algorithms described offer feasible methods of buffer siz-
ing. However, there are limitations that have yet to be addressed.
The buffer is relevant both to the duration of the activity, which is
the main focus of these algorithms, and to managerial experience
and preference, project circumstances, past execution experience,
and the capabilities of personnel and equipment, which have yet
to be taken into consideration. To address this limitation, Shou and
Yao (2000) analyzed the different levels of uncertainty of activities
for different types of projects and management attitudes toward
risk, and proposed an enhanced method for estimating the size
of project buffers. Tukel et al. (2006) introduced two feeding buffer
sizing methods that integrate project characteristics into the formu-
lation. One of these approaches incorporates resource tightness,
whereas the other uses network complexity. Chu (2008) raised the
indicators of managers’ risk preferences. Bie et al. (2012) intro-
duced a method for determining buffer sizes with dependence
assumption between activities assuming that only one risk factor
is present in a given project.
Multiple Resources Leveling
The majority of the prior research on resource leveling is based on
the CPM and PERT methods. Early research assumed a single re-
source with an unlimited quantity, whereas later research began to
hone its focus on multiple resources with limited quantities shared
by multiple projects. Crandall (1985) made one of the earliest ef-
forts to address the resource leveling problem, defining the basic
concept of resource leveling as a procedure that allocates available
resources to activities that meet a set of project- and schedule-
related criteria. When multiple activities meet the applicable criteria
at a given time and compete for resources, Chang et al. (1990) pro-
posed weighting the criteria and prioritizing the activities using a
fuzzy system and an expert system. Their approaches also allowed
project teams to manage weights and priorities and to develop a
variety of schedules based on changing project environments. Easa
(1989) proposed an integer-linear optimization model for resource
leveling in construction projects that minimizes the absolute devia-
tions between resource requirements and a uniform resource level
between consecutive resource requirements and/or between
resource requirements and desirable nonuniform resource levels.
Leu et al. (1999) proposed another multiple resources leveling
method for projects that involve activities with uncertain durations.
Fuzzy theory is used to model the uncertainties of activity duration,
and a genetic-algorithms-based technique is used to search for the
optimal resource leveling indexes under decision makers’ different
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 risk levels. Jun and El-Rayes (2011) proposed a multiobjective op-
timization model for measuring and minimizing undesired resource
fluctuations that consists of three modules: a startup module, a
scheduling module, and a multiobjective genetic algorithm module.
Case studies have demonstrated the model’s ability to manage the
trade-offs between maximizing resource utilization and minimizing
project duration. Genetic-algorithm-based resource leveling models
were also proposed by Hegazy (1999) and Senouci and Eldin
(2004). Chen and Shahandashti (2009) argued that a genetic algo-
rithm could be integrated with a simulated annealing algorithm to
achieve improved applicability. Damci et al. (2013) proposed that
multiple resources leveling should be performed based on princi-
ples of optimum crew size that utilize a utility data curve and the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Melbourne on 10/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
principle of natural rhythm that allows the start times of an activity
to be shifted forward or backward at different units of production
by changing the number of crews employed. The model yielded a
smoother resource utilization histogram while maintaining opti-
mum productivity. Unlike most models that do not permit activities
to be split, Son and Mattila (2004) proposed a linear program
binary variable model for resource leveling that adds to project
teams’ flexibility in managing the resource balance by permitting
selected activities to stop and restart.
Research Objectives and Contributions
By proposing the improved CCPM framework, this paper aims to
achieve two specific objectives. First, the paper improves on current
buffer sizing practices in CCPM-based construction scheduling by
developing a sizing method that can generate buffers with reason-
able sizes and sufficient robustness against various uncertainties.
Buffers generated by existing sizing methods are either unneces-
sarily large, which results from overestimated uncertainties and
leads to wasted resources, or not large enough and insufficiently
robust against uncertainties. To generate higher quality buffers,
it is crucial to factor in various distinctive project attributes, such
as managerial experience and preference, project circumstances,
experience with past execution, and personnel and equipment capa-
bilities. Some of these attributes have been discussed in prior
research (Tukel et al. 2006); however, these discussions have in-
volved only a preliminary assessment of the impact of a limited
number of attributes. There has been no comprehensive assessment
of these attributes, and no method has been developed to reason-
ably reflect their impact on the buffer sizing process. Thus, the first
contribution this paper makes to the literature is a comprehensive
assessment of the various factors that can introduce uncertainties
into construction scheduling, and the development of the UAM
within the proposed CCPM framework to integrate impacts of such
factors into the buffer sizing process. The factors are categorized
and assessed in the following five dimensions: environment, net-
work, activity, resources, and management. The applicable metrics
for these factors are developed in this paper, and the magnitudes of
the impacts of these factors are reasonably measured and integrated
into the buffer sizing process.
Second, this paper explores the feasibility of multiple resources
leveling in CCPM-based construction scheduling, with the MBM
developed within the proposed CCPM framework. Constraints
imposed by the availability of various resources, including labor
and materials, constitute significant challenges to schedule man-
agement in construction projects, and it is critically important to
develop and maintain resource-balanced schedules to ensure the
on-time completion of such projects. However, despite the fact
that the resource leveling problem has been discussed extensively
in conjunction with CPM and PERT, limited research has been
© ASCE 04014055-3
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
conducted to extend multiple resources leveling to CCPM. Because
CCPM does not calculate free floats, which are the basis on which
resource leveling is performed in CPM and PERT, resource leveling
with CCPM requires a fundamentally different approach that has
yet to be explored. Thus, this paper’s second contribution to the
literature is the MBM for performing multiple resources leveling
in CCPM-based construction scheduling. The MBM is based on
a multimodal structure for activity execution that allows manage-
ment of the trade-off between the type and amount of resources an
activity requires and the time the activity takes to complete. The
method first reduces the multiple resources leveling problem to
a single resource leveling problem; then, it introduces a multimode
execution structure to the project and identifies the optimal sched-
ule by iteratively updating the execution modes of individual
activities and comparing the quality of the resulting schedules.
The proposed CCPM framework is validated with three case
studies from real-world settings. The results demonstrate the advan-
tages of the proposed framework over traditional buffer sizing meth-
ods because it ensures on-time project completion while avoiding
unnecessarily large buffers. The results also demonstrate the fea-
sibility and effectiveness of balancing multiple resources in CCPM-
based construction scheduling with the proposed framework.
Uncertainty-Aware Buffer Sizing
This section introduces the uncertainties that influence schedule
management, examined from five dimensions. These dimensions
include environment, network, activity, resources, and manage-
ment. The definition and metrics of these uncertainties are ex-
plained in detail subsequently. The effects of these uncertainties
on buffer sizes are then discussed, which leads to the introduction
of the UAM.
Environmental Uncertainty
Environmental uncertainty (EU) refers to the uncertainty of exter-
nal project environments that can result from a wide variety of
factors ranging from project-specific factors, such as contractual
risks and supply chain stability, to non-project-specific factors,
such as natural disasters and macroeconomic conditions. To depict
the external environment under which a project is executed, the
political, economic, social, and technological (PEST) framework
can be applied to help analyze the impact of external environmental
factors. The PEST framework is a widely used tool for analyzing
the macroenvironment of organizations and evaluating the environ-
mental impacts (Yingfa and Hong 2010). Based on the PEST rat-
ings, the overall external environment can be categorized as one of
three types—favorable, normal, and unfavorable—each of which is
assigned an EU value that illustrates the level of uncertainty to
which the project is exposed. As Eq. (1) shows, lower PEST ratings
indicate higher uncertainties and are, therefore, associated with
larger EU values
8 P
>
> 0.9 μi ≥ 3
>
< i¼1 P
EU ¼ 1 1.5 ≤ μi ≤ 3 ð1Þ
>
> P i¼1
>
: 1.1 μi ≤ 1.5
i¼1
where μi ði ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4Þ respectively represent the experts’ evalua-
tions of the political, economic, social, and technological environ-
ments. Eq. (1) is the authors’ suggestion. Other means of measuring
the EU can be discussed in future research. The values of EU
(0.9, 1, 1.1) are arbitrary. These values can be modified based
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

on managerial experience of project teams to manage the magni-
tude of the impact of EU variations on resulting buffer sizes.
Activity Complexity
Activity complexity (AC) denotes the complexity of a particular
activity, which is determined by the complexity of the chain that
contains that activity (Tukel et al. 2006). When an activity has more
precedent activities in the chain, it is more likely to be influenced
by delays and distortions that affect its precedent activities. Thus, a
larger buffer is desirable for this activity. The AC can be measured
as follows:
ACi ¼ N pre;i =N total;i ð2Þ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Melbourne on 10/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
where N pre;i = number of the predecessors of activity i; and N total;i =
number of activities in the chain that contains activity i. Let {CC}
be the critical chain activities set, let {NC} be the noncritical chain
activities set, and let fNCi g be the noncritical chain set that con-
tains activity i. ACCC is the activity complexity of the critical chain
and is equal to the sum of the AC of all the activities in the critical
chain. Similarly, ACNCi is the activity complexity of the noncritical
chain that contains activity i and is equal to the sum of the AC of all
the activities in the chain.
Activity Flexibility
Activity flexibility (AF) indicates the flexibility of a particular ac-
tivity. Prior research has shown that activities with less AF are less
likely to be completed on time (Yang et al. 2009) and therefore
require larger buffers. Define a flexibility variable fi as f i ¼
TFi ln TFi using entropy (Kumar 1987), where TFi refers to the
total float of activity i. The value of the AF of activity i can then
be determined as follows:
8 the set of vertices and A denotes the set of arcs. Vertex set V ¼
< 1.1 0 ≤ f i ≤ f 0
AFi ¼ 1 f 0 ≤ fi ≤ f 0 0 ð3Þ
: be executed without interruption and two dummy start and finish
0.9 f 0 0 ≤ fi
where f 0 and f 0 0 = thresholds that are determined based on the
project teams’ analyses and judgments of the project environment.
When f i is below threshold f 0 , activity i has a small total float, and
thus low flexibility; therefore, it imposes higher risk on the on-time
completion of successive activities. In contrast, when f i is above
threshold f 0 0 , activity i has a large total float, and thus high flex-
ibility, which is less likely to delay successive activities. An activity
with f i between the two thresholds has a reasonable flexibility that
does not require particular managerial attention. Eq. (3) is the
authors’ suggestion. Other means of measuring the AF can be
discussed in future research. The values of AF (1.1, 1, 0.9) in
Eq. (3) are arbitrary. These values can be modified based on mana-
gerial experience of project teams to manage the magnitude of the
impact of AF variations on resulting buffer sizes.
Resource Tightness
Implementing a project may require various resources that are typ-
ically shared by multiple activities. A particular activity must com-
pete with other activities for required resources, and is therefore
subject to resource scarcity and delays. Resource scarcity can result
from a range of factors, such as insufficient supplies, poor inventory
management, and damage. Resource tightness (RT) is introduced to
represent uncertainties associated with resource availability and
measures how accessible a resource is to a particular activity, given
the concurrent demands for this resource by other activities. The RT
value of activity i is measured as follows:
© ASCE 04014055-4
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

X
m 
RTi ¼ max rkt =Rt ; t ∈ ½STi ; SFi
ð4Þ
k¼1
where Rt = availability of a resource at time t; rkt = possible re-
source demand for resource type k at time t; m = number of activ-
ities executed at time t; and STi and SFi = start and finish times of
activity i, respectively. When the RT values are high, the resource
constraint becomes more obvious. Accordingly, larger buffers are
required to prevent the occurrence of resource-related delays.
Risk Preference
In practice, given identical situations different project teams may
yield different risk assessments due to their varied judgments of
situations, managerial skills, and risk-bearing capacities. Thus,
the project team’s impact on project implementation adds to the
uncertainty of the project and should arguably be internalized in
schedule management. This type of uncertainty is represented by
risk preference (RP) in this paper. To measure RP, assume the
project duration follows a normal distribution T ∼ Nðμ; σÞ based
on the central limit theorem (Herroelen and Leus 2001), and set
the standard risk level ε at 5%, which guarantees a project comple-
tion rate (1 − ε) of 95%. RP can then be calculated as follows:
RP ¼ ðzε − μÞ=2σ ð5Þ
where 2σ = project buffer size under the RSEM; and zε = z-score in
normal distribution.
Buffer Sizing Considering the Uncertainties
In the remainder of this paper, the following project is used to
discuss the UAM without losing generality. The project is depicted
by an activity-on-node network N ¼ ðV; AÞ, where V denotes
f0; 1; : : : ; n; n þ 1g consists of n activities 1; 2; : : : ; n that must
activities, i ¼ 0 and i ¼ n þ 1. Each activity must not be initiated
prior to the scheduled start time and must be completed by project
termination. Let {CC} be the critical chain activities set, let {NC}
be the noncritical chain activities set, and let fNCi g be the non-
critical chain set that contains activity i. Assume that the duration
of activity i has a normal distribution, which is denoted by
di ∼ Nðμi ; σi Þ, and that σi stands for the safety time of activity
i. The RSEM calculates the PB and the FB as follows (Herroelen
and Leus 2001):
!1=2
Xn
2
PB ¼ σi ð6Þ
i∈fCCg
!1=2
X
n
FBi ¼ σ2j ð7Þ
j∈fNCi g
The UAM is built on the RSEM but considers the influences of
various uncertainties that are not addressed by the RSEM. The
UAM integrates chain-specific uncertainties that have global effects
on the project span, including EU, RP, and AC, and activity-
specific uncertainties that impact individual activities alone, includ-
ing AF and RT. The buffer sizes are calculated as follows:
( )1=2
X n
PB ¼ EU × RP × ACCC × ½ð1 þ RTi Þ × AFi × σi
2
i∈fCCg
ð8Þ
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 ( )1=2
X
n requirement of activity i, which is denoted as ri , can be calcu-
FBi ¼ EU × RP × ACNCi × ½ð1 þ RTi Þ × AFi × σi
i∈fNCi g
The PB that is calculated based on Eq. (8) will be shifted to the
end of the critical chain, whereas the FB that is calculated based on
Eq. (9) will be placed at the intersections at which a noncritical
chain joins the critical chain. Both the PB and the FB are used
as safety times to mitigate the adverse effects of uncertainties on
the project. Eqs. (8) and (9) internalize the effects of the uncertain-
ties on project schedules, and the resulting buffers and associated
project schedules are expected to yield better performance against
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Melbourne on 10/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
various uncertainties than schedules developed using traditional
buffer sizing methods. It must be emphasized that buffer sizes de-
veloped using the proposed method are not necessarily longer than
those developed with traditional methods. When a project is per-
formed under little uncertainty, where the relevant coefficients,
such as the EU and the RP, may be lower than 1, the proposed
method reports shorter buffers, which is valuable for developing
competitive proposals and securing business opportunities. When
the uncertainties are significant, the reported buffers render the pro-
posals less appealing. However, the schedules have sufficient built-
in robustness against various foreseen uncertainties, which reduces
the risk of project overruns and helps avoid associated losses.
Multiple Resources Leveling in Critical Chain
Scheduling
In CPM- and PERT-based schedule management, resource leveling
is substantially based on the amount of available free floats.
Resource leveling is undertaken by adjusting the start time of non-
critical activities to an extent allowed by the amount of their free
floats for purposes of balancing resource usage. However, CCPM is
fundamentally different from CPM and PERT methods and does
not involve calculating free floats for each activity. Therefore,
resource leveling with schedules developed by CCPM requires a
different approach that has not yet been fully studied. With the in-
creased popularity of CCPM resulting from its proven effectiveness
in schedule management, this paper examines the method neces-
sary for performing multiple resources leveling with schedules
developed using the critical chain method and the UAM.
Conversion from Multiple Resources Leveling to Single
Resource Leveling
The multiple resources leveling problem can be converted into a
single resource leveling problem with a normalization method
(Rothe et al. 1996). In the activity-on-node network N ¼ ðV; AÞ,
assume that resources 1; 2; : : : ; K are required for executing the
project. Let Ck ≥ 0 be the cost incurred per unit of resource k
per time unit, let Rk > 0 be the capacity of resource k available,
and let rik ≥ 0 be the amount of resource k used by activity i
ðk ¼ 1; 2; : : : ; K; i ∈ VÞ, where 0 ≤ rik ≤ Rk and r0k ¼ rnþ1;k ¼
0. For the sake of simplicity, Rk and rik are assumed to be constant.
Let Zkt be the usage of resources k at time t within a certain period.
It is assumed that a variety of resources can be used for each activity.
Define
r activity requires and the time it takes to complete the activity. This
rik ¼ ik ; i∈V
Rk
Thus, the range of the need for each resource is between 0 and 1.
With the normalization method, the weighted multiresource
© ASCE
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

2 lated as
ð9Þ X
K
ri ¼ ðrik × ωk Þ; i∈V ð11Þ
k¼1
where the weight, ωk , P is determined based on the importance of the
resource, 0 ≤ ωk ≤ 1, Kk¼1 ωk ¼ 1. The introduction of ri converts
the multiple resources leveling problem into a single resource
leveling problem.
Resource leveling is frequently performed to reduce the fluc-
tuation of resource usage over the project life span. However, this
objective cannot always be achieved concurrently with another
critical objective, i.e., reducing the deviation between planned daily
usage of resources and available resources. When a project team
can predict the availability of resources over the life span of a
project, it is critical for the project team to establish the resource
profile of the project schedule in such a way that the planned
resources best match the resource availability. Therefore, multiple
resources leveling is performed in this paper by minimizing the
deviations between planned usage of resources and available re-
sources. Accordingly, an indicator M is introduced as follows to
evaluate the quality of resource profiles. The M indicator is the
sum of the absolute values of deviations between the actual usage
of resources and the available amount of resources over the life
span of a project
X X
D
M¼ Ck jZkt − Rk j ð12Þ
k∈R t¼0
Multimodal Structure for Activity Execution
This paper introduces a multimodal structure for activity execution
to perform resource leveling with schedules developed under
CCPM. Under this structure, activities in the activity-on-node net-
work N ¼ ðV; AÞ can be performed in one of the following three
modes: urgent mode, normal mode, and deferred mode. For each
activity, its three modes are associated with respective combina-
tions of multiple resources that are allocated to support the activity,
and the activity is initially assigned the normal mode. The possibil-
ity of switching among different modes is a better reflection of
real-world scenarios, in which certain activities are assigned higher
priorities, and these assignments are subject to constant change.
More importantly, the multimodal structure allows for resource
usage rates and the duration of a particular activity to be adjusted,
which provides project management teams with a promising tool
for schedule management and resource balancing.
Define the following variable


1; if activity i is performed in mode m
xim ¼ ð13Þ
0; otherwise
where the urgent, normal, and deferred modes are denoted by
m1 ; m2 ; m3 , respectively.
Multimode-Based Multiple Resources Leveling
CCPM relies on managing the trade-off between the resources an
ð10Þ trade-off is undertaken by switching the execution mode of an ac-
tivity from normal to either urgent or deferred, which increases the
amount of required resources and reduces the activity duration or
reduces the amount of required resources and increases the activity
04014055-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 duration, respectively. The proposed multimode-based resource
level framework can be undertaken in the following steps:
1. Select the normal execution mode for each activity, generate
the baseline schedule S, and output the resource profile.
2. Identify the critical chain and noncritical chains, and identify
positions for inserting the PB and the FB. Assess the uncer-
tainties and calculate the size of the PB and the FB based on
Eqs. (8) and (9).
3. Reduce the multiple resources leveling problem to a single
resource leveling problem using the normalization method.
4. Select the time section with the largest resource usage devia-
tion and adjust the mode of activities within the time section.
Resource usage deviation refers to the deviation between
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Melbourne on 10/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
planned weighted resource usages of the period and the aver-
age weighted resource usages over the entire project life span.
The adjustment of execution mode follows the following rule:
if the resources are underused (planned usages below the aver-
age usages over the entire project life span), change the mode
from deferred to normal or urgent, or from normal to urgent; if
the resources are overused (planned usages over the average
usages over the entire project lifespan), change the mode from
urgent to normal or deferred, or from normal to deferred.
The resource usages cannot exceed the maximum amount of
available resources after the adjustments.
5. Repeat Step 4 until the M indicator is minimized. Then insert
the buffers and output the resource profile.
Case Studies
Three case studies from real-world settings are used in this paper to
validate the proposed CCPM framework. This section provides
details of the cases and presents steps taken to implement the
framework in these cases.
Project Description
Case 1 was developed based on an infrastructure project done in a
midsized city in China. Case 2 was developed based on an airport
Table 1. General Information of Three Case Studies
Case study Baseline project
number Type of project duration
1 Tramway and associated 350 days
engineering systems
2 Airport and associated infrastructure 64 months
3 Airport and associated infrastructure 50.5 months
Fig. 1. Precedence relationships in Case 1
© ASCE 04014055-6
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
project done in the same city. Case 3 was developed by including a
subset of activities with reduced complexity of precedence relation-
ships and the same types of resources from Case 2. The general
information of these cases is summarized in Table 1. The rest of
this section provides further details of project settings and CCPM
framework implementation for Case 1 only; however, results from
implementing the framework in all of the three cases are reported
and compared in the next section.
The precedence relationships between activities in Case 1 are
shown in Fig. 1. Case 1 involves three types of resources, i.e., per-
sonnel, material, and machinery, with limited daily availability of
R ¼ ð48; 53; 42Þ. The parameters of each activity, including its
durations, the standard deviation of its duration, and its require-
ments for each type of resources, are summarized in Table 2.
Generate Base Schedules
Based on the durations of the activities and their precedence rela-
tionships, a baseline schedule was developed for Case 1. The base
schedule included a critical path ABCDEHIJLNTU with a duration
of 350 days, and four noncritical paths, F, KP, RS (QM), and GO.
Then, based on the resource requirements of the activities and
the availability of all resources, a resource profile of the baseline
schedule for Case 1 was developed, as shown in Fig. 2.
Determine Buffer Sizes
The next step was to determine the buffer size using the UAM.
Based on the identified critical chain and noncritical chains, it
was determined that FB should be inserted after activities F, P,
S, and O, and the PB should be inserted after activity U. The fol-
lowing arbitrary parameter values were used when sizing the FB
and the PB: EU ¼ 1, risk preference ε ¼ 5%, RP ¼ 0.8225, and
the AC of the critical chain ABCDEHIJLNTU and noncritical
chains F, KP, RS (QM), and GO were 0.92, 0, 0.5, 1 and 0.5, re-
spectively. With parameter values f 0 ¼ 5 and f 0 0 ¼ 10, the AF of
activities A, B, C, D, E, H, I, J, L, N, T, U is 1.1, and the AF of
activities F, K, P, Q, R, S, M, G, O is 0.9. The RT values could be
Number of Types of Daily availability of
activities resources resources
21 Personnel, material, 48, 53, 42
and machinery
24 Personnel, material, 100, 30, 15
and machinery
17 Personnel, material, 100, 26, 12
and machinery
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Table 2. Activity Parameters in Case 1 calculated based on Eq. (4) and the activity resource requirements
Resource Standard in Table 2.
Act Duration (day) requirements deviation Based on the previous parameter values, the PB and the FB were
determined as follows:
A 5 38, 18, 5 0.70
7 35, 16, 3 PB ¼ 19; FBF ¼ 0; FBP ¼ 2; FBS ¼ 9; FBO ¼ 10 ð14Þ
8 32, 14, 2
B 50 37, 15, 6 3.36
56 35, 12, 4
65 32, 8, 3 Balance Multiple Resources
C 35 28, 15, 4 4.32 The multiple resources leveling was then carried out with the
40 24, 13, 2 MBM. After the problem was reduce to a single resource leveling
45 22, 10, 1 problem using the normalization method, a resource balanced
D 8 25, 18, 8 0.92 schedule was developed by minimizing the value of the M indica-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Melbourne on 10/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

12 20, 16, 5
tor. Starting with an M indicator of 0.240, the procedure is
16 18, 14, 3
explained in detail in the following steps:
E 30 25, 12, 23 5.58
1. Search for a period with the largest resource usage deviation.
45 20, 8, 20
50 15, 5, 18
This period was identified to be days 339–350, and the re-
F 170 13, 13, 12 15.3
sources were underused during this period. The execution
180 9, 10, 9 mode of activities T and U were therefore changed from nor-
190 7, 8, 7 mal to urgent, which increased the resource usages of these
G 145 14, 15, 10 9.40 activities, shortened their durations, and reduced the M indi-
150 10, 12, 8 cator to 0.235.
156 8, 10, 8 2. After the adjustment in the last step, days 328–338 (when ac-
H 38 30, 11, 21 5.13 tivity M was carried out) became the period with the largest
45 27, 11, 21 resource usage deviation. The resources were underused dur-
50 25, 10, 20 ing this period. However, changing activity M from normal to
I 35 13, 16, 9 6.17 urgent would result in a resource demand that exceeded the
45 10, 16, 8 maximum amount of available resources. Therefore, no adjust-
55 9, 16, 8 ment was made in this step.
J 18 12, 17, 9 1.52 3. The period of days 291–295 had the second largest resource
20 10, 16, 8 usage deviation, and the resources were overused. The execu-
23 10, 16, 8 tion mode of activities M, O, P, and Q were therefore changed
K 10 3, 6, 3 1.82 from normal to deferred, which reduced the resource usages
15 1, 4, 3 of these activities, increased their durations, and reduced
20 1, 3, 3 the M indicator to 0.202.
L 15 9, 10, 3 0.84 4. After the adjustment in the last step, days 161–205 became
20 7, 8, 3
the period with the largest resource usage deviation. The re-
25 7, 6, 3
sources were overused during this period. The execution
M 8 11, 4, 3 1.17
10 2, 2, 3
mode of activities F and G were therefore changed from
13 5, 2, 3
normal to deferred, which reduced the resource usages of these
N 45 10, 6, 3 3.70
activities, increased their durations, and reduced the M indi-
48 7, 6, 3 cator to 0.177. The mode of activity H was not changed to
50 5, 5, 3 urgent because it would otherwise increase the M indicator
O 80 18, 18, 17 8.19 to 0.179.
90 16, 17, 17 5. Similar to Step 4, activities A and B were changed from nor-
95 14, 14, 17 mal to urgent, reducing the M indicator to 0.157; activities C
P 35 8, 8, 3 4.16 and D were then adjusted, reducing the M indicator to 0.139.
38 5, 6, 3 6. After the previous steps, no further adjustment could be made
42 3, 5, 3 to reduce the M indicator. The PBs and FBs were inserted to
Q 20 5, 6, 3 2.65 the adjusted schedule and a final schedule was developed. The
25 3, 5, 3 M indicator slightly increased to 0.159 after the buffers were
30 1, 4, 3 inserted.
R 10 14, 5, 0 1.30 Resource profiles after adjustments in Steps 1 and 3 are shown
12 12, 2, 0 in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively, to illustrate the resource leveling pro-
15 9, 2, 0 cess. The resource profile of the final schedule is shown in Fig. 5.
S 20 6, 4, 0 5.45 The previous multiple resources leveling procedure was also per-
25 4, 2, 0 formed using MBM in Cases 2 and 3 to develop resource balanced
30 2, 2, 0 schedules in both cases.
T 5 16, 4, 0 1.28
7 12, 3, 0
10 10, 3, 0
Findings
U 3 15, 0, 0 1.02
5 12, 0, 0
The previous implementation of the CCPM framework is evaluated
8 9, 0, 0
in this section. First, the effectiveness of the UAM in terms of the

© ASCE 04014055-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

 Fig. 2. Resource profile of the baseline schedule in Case 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Melbourne on 10/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Resource profile after adjustment in Step 1

Fig. 4. Resource profile after adjustment in Step 3

Fig. 5. Resource profile of the final schedule

length and robustness of the buffers is examined based on actual
project durations obtained from Monte Carlo simulations. More-
over, the feasibility of performing multiple resources leveling using
the MBM has been proven in the last section. This section provides
further evaluation of the MBM in terms of its effectiveness in
reducing resources usage deviation and project duration, and usage
fluctuation of individual resources. The results are reported and dis-
cussed subsequently.
Monte Carlo Simulation of Actual Project Durations
The Monte Carlo method, which is commonly used in the risk
analysis of scheduling problems (Usábel 1998; Schuhmacher et al.
2001; Pozzi 2003), was used to simulate the actual durations of the
project and to analyze the risks of schedule overruns to evaluate the
performance of the UAM. The Monte Carlo simulation in this paper
was undertaken using the following steps:

© ASCE 04014055-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.


Fig. 6. Distribution graph of the project duration
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Melbourne on 10/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1. Determine the distribution function for each activity of the
construction project. The distribution of the activity can be
a normal distribution, a triangular distribution, or a beta
distribution.
2. Determine the number of repetitions of the simulation.
3. Calculate the three time estimations of the duration of each
activity—including the optimistic duration, pessimistic dura-
tion, and most likely duration—and determine the distribution
of the duration.
4. For each activity, generate a random sampling of its actual
duration based on the distribution of its duration.
5. Calculate the actual project duration based on the sampling
durations of the activities and their logical relationships.
6. Repeat Steps 3 and 4 until all of the repetitions are completed.
In this paper, the durations of all activities were assumed to fol-
low a normal distribution and the simulation was repeated 1,000
times. The results indicated that the distribution of the actual
project durations in the simulation generally followed a normal dis-
tribution. Take Case 1 as an example. As illustrated in Fig. 6, the
95th percentile line in the figure has a duration of 347.8 days. It
suggests that the schedule in Case 1 developed using the UAM,
with a duration of 348 days, ensured a 95.6% probability of on-time
project completion, which exceeded the guaranteed 95% threshold
and therefore could satisfy managerial requirements. Similar results
were observed from Cases 2 and 3. Their schedules developed
using the UAM ensured 97.1 and 95.1% probabilities of on-time
project completion, respectively.
Evaluation of the UAM in Case Studies
Table 3 shows a performance comparison of the UAM with the
C&PM and RSEM. The projects with critical chain-based sched-
ules developed using C&PM were the most likely to be completed
on time in all three cases, with an average on-time completion rate
of 99.8% in the simulation. Buffers generated using the C&PM had
respective total sizes of 175 days, 28.5 months, and 21.5 months in
the three cases. These sizes were approximately five times the
buffer sizes reported by the other two methods in Case 1, three
times in Case 2, and four times in Case 3. Such significant
Table 3. Comparison of the UAM with the C&PM and the RSEM
Case 1
Buffer sizing Total buffer Probability of on-time Total buffer
method size (day) completion (%) size (30 days)
C&PM 175 99.5 28.5
RSEM 36 96.1 8 96.3
UAM 37 96.2 10
© ASCE 04014055-9
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
Table 4. Changes in the Schedules after Multiple Resources Leveling
Resource Resource usage fluctuation (%)
Case usage deviation Project
study (M indicator) duration
number (%) (%) Resource 1 Resource 2 Resource 3
1 −23.52 −5.98 −27.03 −17.39 −21.00
2 −1.66 −6.25 −36.68 −16.56 −26.94
3 −10.83 −1.99 −13.46 0.33 −24.97
differences indicated a substantial waste of buffers by the
C&PM, which may further increase with project size, considering
the linear procedure of the C&PM that simply calculates the buffer
size by adding together the buffers of all activities on the critical
chain. The buffers developed using the RSEM had the smallest
buffer size in all cases. However, the results showed that the proj-
ects with schedules containing these buffers were the least likely to
be completed on time. The average on-time completion rate re-
ported by the RSEM was 95.9%, which was 4.0 and 0.4% lower
than the on-time completion rates reported by the C&PM and the
UAM, respectively. In Case 3 in particular, the on-time completion
rate reported by the RSEM was noticeably lower than those re-
ported by the other two methods and close to failing the guaranteed
95% threshold. In general, it could be concluded that the UAM
outperformed the C&PM and the RSEM by generating buffers
that not only had reasonable sizes to avoid waste but also provided
sufficient protection and robustness to the schedules to ensure a
guaranteed on-time project completion rate.
Evaluation of the MBM in Case Studies
Multiple resources leveling in CCPM-based construction schedul-
ing has thus far remained a significant challenge with a lack of
effective methods. The MBM is developed within the proposed
CCPM framework to address this challenge, and its feasibility
has been proven by the implementation of the framework demon-
strated in the last section. This section provides further evaluation
of the MBM by measuring its impact on the overall resource usage
deviation, the project duration, and the usage fluctuation of indi-
vidual resources. The results are summarized in Table 4.
As can be seen in Table 4, after multiple resources leveling
using the MBM, the M indicator was reduced by 12.00% on aver-
age. The magnitude of the reduction varied between the three cases,
suggesting that the extent to which a baseline schedule can be opti-
mized relies on the stringency of resource constraints of a particular
project. More stringent resource constraints, like those seen in
Case 2, are likely to leave less room for schedule optimization.
Moreover, the multiple resources leveling has an impact on the
project duration because the duration of an individual activity
changes with its execution mode. As can be seen in Table 4, the
durations of all projects were reduced, with an average reduction
of 4.74%. The results suggested that resources were more effi-
ciently used in the balanced schedules so that some activities could
Case 2 Case 3
Probability of on-time Total buffer Probability of on-time
completion (%) size (30 days) completion (%)
100 21.5 100
5 95.2
96.6 6 96.1
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Fig. 7. Individual resource histograms before resource leveling in Case 1: (a) Resource 1; (b) Resource 2; (c) Resource 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Melbourne on 10/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Individual resource histograms after resource leveling in Case 1: (a) Resource 1; (b) Resource 2; (c) Resource 3
be executed in an urgent mode with more intensive resource usages,
leading to reduced project durations.
The impact of multiple resources leveling on the usage of indi-
vidual resources was also examined. The histograms of daily usage
of each individual resource before and after the resource leveling in
Case 1 are shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. The results showed
that the sum of the absolute deviations between daily resource
usage and average resource usages, which is a widely used metric
for resource usage fluctuation, was reduced by 27.03, 17.39, and
21.00% after the resource leveling for Resources 1, 2, and 3, re-
spectively. Similar results were observed in Cases 2 and 3, except
for Resource 2 in Case 3, whose fluctuation slightly increased by
0.33% after the resource leveling. The results provide evidence for
the assumption that the two objectives, namely, reducing the devi-
ations between planned daily resource usages and available resour-
ces on the one hand, and reducing the fluctuation of resource
usages over the project lifespan on the other, are not always con-
sistent with one another. In general, the results showed that MBM is
an effective method for performing multiple resources leveling
within the proposed CCPM framework.
Discussions and Conclusions
CCPM is an emerging scheduling method that relies on buffers for
protecting schedules from overruns and requires resource leveling
to develop feasible and competitive schedules. This paper proposes
an improved framework for CCPM-based construction scheduling
to address two challenges, including buffer sizing and multiple re-
sources leveling. The results from three case studies showed that
the UAM outperformed existing buffer sizing methods because
buffers generated by the UAM had not only smaller sizes than
buffers generated by the C&PM, leading to less waste of resources
and improved competitiveness of schedules, but also more robust-
ness against uncertainties compared with buffers generated by
the RSEM, leading to higher possibilities of on-time project
© ASCE 04014055-10
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
completion. The case study results also demonstrated the feasibility
of performing multiple resources leveling within the proposed
framework. The MBM was proven to be an effective multiple re-
sources leveling method, which was capable of concurrently reduc-
ing the resource usage deviation, the project duration, and the usage
fluctuation of individual resources in most cases.
The chances for the proposed CCPM framework to be appli-
cable to and accepted by the construction industry are promising
because of several reasons. First, the framework is based on more
realistic assumptions than existing methods. For example, the
framework recognizes that an activity may be executed in different
modes with different resource demands, which is a better descrip-
tion of jobsite and managerial practices and allows for more flex-
ible adjustments of schedules when project environments change.
Second, the framework integrates the impact of network complex-
ity and resource tightness into the buffer sizing process; therefore,
the framework can be applied to construction projects with varying
complexities and resource demands. Third, the framework takes
into account not only objective constraints in project environments
but also subjective judgments by project teams, and hence provides
a comprehensive assessment of various factors that are impactful on
project schedules in practice.
The proposed CCPM framework has substantial potential to en-
hance the implementation of the CCPM in construction project
management practices. In the past decade, CCPM has obtained
noticeable significance as an emerging construction scheduling
method. It is considered advantageous over traditional scheduling
methods mainly because of its capability of mitigating impacts of
uncertainties by protecting deterministic schedules with buffers and
its emphasis on the integration of activity durations, precedence
relations, and resource requirements and availabilities in the sched-
uling process. The proposed CCPM framework is expected to fur-
ther increase the adoption of the CCPM in construction scheduling
by providing justifiable and operable instructions on buffer sizing
and multiple resources leveling so that schedules are given a more
reasonable amount of protection and resources are planned and
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 utilized more efficiently. The CCPM has not been as widely
adopted as traditional construction scheduling methods and the
commercialization of the CCPM is still in its infancy. Some
may even argue that its establishment poses an unnecessary choice
between CCPM and mainstream practices (Raz et al. 2003). How-
ever, as its methodological development advances, the CCPM will
eventually evolve into a mainstream method that complements
existing methods for the schedule management of construction
projects challenged by ever increasing complexities.
To further advance research in the area of schedule management
and to improve the effectiveness of the proposed framework, future
research should be carried out focusing on increasing the resolu-
tions of the uncertainty metrics to better assess the magnitude of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Melbourne on 10/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the effects of various uncertainties and increasing the number of
activity execution modes to better reflect how activities are per-
formed in practice and to enrich the options that project teams have
in adjusting resource profiles. Moreover, further research should
examine the dynamic updating of buffer sizes during project im-
plementation such that project teams can be prepared when risks
change due to changing project environments and ongoing work
progress. Moreover, future research can be performed to examine
the potential of multiobjective optimization that considers not only
project duration but also other objectives, such as cost control and
logistics management, to achieve informed and comprehensive
project management.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (NNSFC) under Grants #70802045 and #71102142. The
authors thank the NNSFC for its support. Any opinions, findings,
conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of
the NNSFC.
References
Ahlemann, F., ElArbi, F., Kaiser, M. G., and Heck, A. (2013). “A process
framework for theoretically grounded prescriptive research in the
project management field.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 31(1), 43–56.
Al-Hinai, N., and ElMekkawy, T. Y. (2011). “Robust and stable flexible job
shop schedulingwith random machine breakdowns using hybrid genetic
algorithm.” Int. J. Prod. Econ., 132(2), 279–291.
Bevilacqua, M., Ciarapica, F. E., and Giacchetta, G. (2009). “Critical chain
and risk analysis applied to high-risk industry maintenance: A case
study.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 27(4), 419–432.
Bie, L., Cui, N., and Zhang, X. (2012). “Buffer sizing approach with
dependence assumption between activities in critical chain scheduling.”
Int. J. Prod. Res., 50(24), 7343–7356.
Chang, T., Ibbs, C., and Crandall, K. (1990). “Network resource allocation
with support of a fuzzy expert system.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1990)116:2(239), 239–260.
Chen, P. H., and Shahandashti, S. M. (2009). “Hybrid of genetic algorithm
and simulated annealing for multiple project scheduling with multiple
resource constraints.” Autom. Constr., 18(4), 434–443.
Chu, C. C. (2008). “Buffer sizing and critical chain project management.”
Comput. Integr. Manuf. Syst., 18(5), 1029–1035 (in Chinese).
Cohen, I., Mandelbaum, A., and Shtub, A. (2004). “Multi-project
scheduling and control: A process-based comparative study of the criti-
cal chain methodology and some alternatives.” Proj. Manage. J., 35(2),
39–50.
Crandall, K. C. (1985). Resource allocation with project manager control,
ASCE, Reston, VA, 1–17.
© ASCE 04014055-11
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
Damci, A., Arditi, D., and Polat, G. (2013). “Multiresource leveling in line-
of-balance scheduling.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO
.1943-7862.0000716, 1108–1116.
Easa, S. (1989). “Resource leveling in construction by optimization.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1989)115:2(302),
302–316.
Goldratt, E. M. (1997). Critical chain, North River Press, Great Barrington,
MA.
Hall, N. G. (2012). “Project management: Recent developments and
research opportunities.” J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng., 21(2), 129–143.
Hazir, O., Haouari, M., and Erel, E. (2010). “Robust scheduling and robust-
ness measuresfor the discrete time/cost trade-off problem.” Eur. J.
Oper. Res., 207(2), 633–643.
Hegazy, T. (1999). “Optimization of resource allocation and leveling using
genetic algorithms.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9364(1999)125:3(167), 167–175.
Jun, D. H., and El-Rayes, K. (2011). “Multiobjective optimization
of resource leveling and allocation during construction scheduling.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000368,
1080–1088.
Herroelen, W., and Leus, R. (2001). “On the merits and pitfalls of critical
chain scheduling.” J. Oper. Manage., 19(5), 559–577.
Kastor, A., and Sirakoulis, K. (2009). “The effectiveness of resource
levelling tools for resource constraint project scheduling problem.”
Int. J. Proj. Manage., 27(5), 493–500.
Kolisch, R., and Drexl, A. (1997). “Local search for nonpreemptive multi-
mode resource-constrained project scheduling.” IIE Trans., 29(11),
987–999.
Kumar, V. (1987). “Entropic measures of manufacturing flexibility.” Int. J.
Prod. Res., 25(7), 957–966.
Leu, S. S., Chen, A. T., and Yang, C. H. (1999). “A fuzzy optimal model for
construction resource leveling scheduling.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 26(6),
673–684.
Long, L. D., and Ohsato, A. (2008). “Fuzzy critical chain method for
project scheduling under resource constraints and uncertainty.” Int. J.
Proj. Manage., 26(6), 688–698.
Newbold, R. C. (1998). Project management in the fast lane: Applying the
theory of constraints, Saint Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Peng, W. L., and Xu, H. (2012). “The scheduling problem of active critical
chain method.” Inf. Technol. J., 11(7), 829–839.
Pozzi, L. (2003). “The coefficient of relative risk aversion: a Monte Carlo
study investigating small sample estimator problems.” Econ. Modell.,
20(5), 923–940.
Rand, G. K. (2000). “Critical chain: The theory of constraints applied to
project management.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 18(3), 173–177.
Raz, T., Barnes, R., and Dvir, D. (2003). “A critical look at critical chain
project management.” Proj. Manage. J., 34(4), 24–32.
Rothe, I., Susse, H., and Voss, K. (1996). “The method of normalization to
determine invariants.” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 18(4),
366–376.
Rozenes, S., Vitner, G., and Spraggett, S. (2006). “Project control:
Literature review.” Proj. Manage. J., 37(4), 5–14.
Schuhmacher, M., Meneses, M., Xifró, A., and Domingo, J. L. (2001).
“The use of Monte-Carlo simulation techniques for risk assessment:
Study of a municipal waste incinerator.” Chemosphere, 43(4–7),
787–799.
Senouci, A., and Eldin, N. (2004). “Use of genetic algorithms in resource
scheduling of construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:6(869), 869–877.
Shou, Y. Y., and Yao, K. T. (2000). “Estimation of project buffers in critical
chain project management.” Proc., 2000 IEEE Int. Conf. on Manage-
ment of Innovation and Technology, Vol. 1, Institution of Engineers,
Singapore, 162–167.
Son, J., and Mattila, K. (2004). “Binary resource leveling model: Activity
splitting allowed.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9364(2004)130:6(887), 887–894.
Trietsch, D., and Baker, K. R. (2012). “PERT 21: Fitting PERT/CPM for
use in the 21st century.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 30(4), 490–502.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Tukel, O. I., Rom, W. O., and Eksioglu, S. D. (2006). “An investigation of
buffer sizing techniques in critical chain scheduling.” Eur. J. Oper. Res.,
172(2), 401–416.
Usábel, M. A. (1998). “Applications to risk theory of a Monte Carlo
multiple integration method.” Insur. Math. Econ., 23(1), 71–83.
Yang, L., Li, S., and Huang, X. (2009). “A buffer sizing approach in critical
chain scheduling with attributes dependent.” Ind. Eng. Manage., 1,
11–14 (in Chinese).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Melbourne on 10/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Yingfa, S., and Hong, Y. (2010). “The risk study of e-governance based
on PEST analysis model.” Proc., Int. Conf. on E-Business and
E-Government (ICEE), The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers
(KIEE), Seoul, Korea, 563–566.
Zhao, Z. Y., You, W. Y., and Zuo, J. (2010). “Application of innovative
critical chain method for project planning and control under resource
constraints and uncertainty.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/
(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000209, 1056–1060.

© ASCE 04014055-12 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.