Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 715–723

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a u t c o n

Construction rescheduling based on a manufacturing rescheduling framework

Shu-Shun Liu a,⁎, Kuo-Chuan Shih b,1
a
Department of Construction Engineering, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, No. 123, Section 3, University Road, Touliu, 640 Taiwan, ROC
b
Graduate School of Engineering Science and Technology, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, No. 123, Section 3, University Road, Touliu, 640 Taiwan, ROC

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Changes during project execution frequently require schedule updating and rescheduling. However, few
Accepted 17 February 2009 studies have discussed rescheduling issues or implemented rescheduling solutions for construction projects.
This study investigates resource-constrained construction rescheduling issues using concepts associated with
Keywords: manufacturing rescheduling. Based on an initial schedule and actual progress, a novel rescheduling
Construction project scheduling optimization model using Constraint Programming (CP) techniques is developed to reschedule projects. Two
Resource-constrained project scheduling
rescheduling methods: (1) complete regeneration (CR); and, (2) partial rescheduling (PR) while minimizing
Rescheduling
Constraint Programming
overall project variation are implemented in the proposed model to demonstrate the model capability and
applications. PR requiring additional treatments to decrease overall project variation is performed using a
novel constraint-release mechanism. Finally, using a case study, optimization results obtained using two
rescheduling methods are analyzed and discussed.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2. Literature review

Rescheduling is common in project management, especially in the
manufacturing industry. Generally, unexpected events adversely
affect projects when necessary treatments are not adopted. Therefore,
the dominant issues in rescheduling are how to adapt to a changing
environment and reschedule incomplete work and resources.
A rescheduling problem consists of general scheduling problems
that develop after a schedule is updated. Project information
modifications and schedule updating may generate additional
constraints due to the altered environment. Based on schedule
updating results, rescheduling must rearrange incomplete work and
resources while generating a practical schedule that meets the
project goal. Compared to the manufacturing industry, construction
projects have more unpredictable factors, such as environmental and
productivity issues, that make maintaining schedules difficult.
Although construction schedules are regularly updated and con-
trolled during construction, few studies have investigated the effects
of rescheduling issues on the rescheduling process. Therefore,
applying manufacturing rescheduling concepts to the construction
field is worthy of investigation.
This study presents an overview of construction rescheduling
issues, including characteristics of construction rescheduling and
appropriate rescheduling methods, and proposes a novel rescheduling
mechanism for solving issues that cater to management needs.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 5 5342601x4724; fax: +886 5 5312049.
E-mail addresses: liuss@yuntech.edu.tw (S.-S. Liu), g9310816@yuntech.edu.tw
(K.-C. Shih).
1
Tel.: +886 5 5342601x4701; fax: +886 5 5312049.
Rescheduling has been widely discussed in the manufacturing
industry. Vieira et al. [1] defined rescheduling as the modification of
an existing production schedule in response to disruptions or other
changes. Additionally, Vieira et al. [1] proposed a framework for
manufacturing rescheduling and defined terms in the rescheduling
problem. Wu and Li [2] proposed a similar framework to Vieira et al.
[1]. Joh et al. [3] identified characteristics of scheduling and
rescheduling problems and developed a model for examining
scheduling and rescheduling processes. Haldun et al. [4] analyzed
four aspects of risk: cause, context, impact and inclusion to identify
rescheduling factors. Yang [5], who demonstrated that new jobs
always influence schedules, attempted to minimize the effects of
negative disruptions through total cost optimization.
According to Vieira et al. [1], scheduling problems can be formulated
as combinatorial optimization problems. Herroelen et al. [6] and Brucker
et al. [7] collected, classified, and solved various scheduling optimization
problems using mathematical models. According to Herroelen et al. [6],
a resource-constrained project rescheduling problem can be prelimina-
rily identified as a discrete time-resource trade-off problem. Addition-
ally, Herroelen et al. [6] recommended using the branch-and-bound
method to optimize the resource-constrained project rescheduling
problem. Kelleher and Cavichiollo [8] demonstrated that a constraint-
based approach is superior for generating schedules when combined
with dependency analysis techniques based on reason maintenance
systems and partial order backtracking.
To reduce rescheduling frequency, ElMekkawy and ElMaraghy [9]
developed a deadlock-free rescheduling algorithm that used a heuristic
routine to reschedule some jobs rather than all jobs. Yu et al. [10] applied

0926-5805/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2009.02.002
716 S.-S. Liu, K.-C. Shih / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 715–723
an immune algorithm, which is a heuristic optimization algorithm, to
solve a flexible dynamic scheduling problem.
The theory of constraints proposed by Goldratt [11] employed
buffers to generate robust schedules that accommodated minor risks.
Chua et al. [12] proposed a constraint-based project planning method
with activity buffers. Hegazy and Petzold [13] proposed a genetic
algorithm-based scheduling model and used buffers to determine the
appropriate time to implement corrective actions.
3. Construction rescheduling
Table 1 classifies rescheduling problems and can be used as a
reference for construction rescheduling problems. For classification
details, refer to Vieira et al. [1]. The terms used in this study are quoted
from Vieira et al. [1] as follows:
• Rescheduling is the process of updating an existing production
schedule in response to disruptions or other changes. This includes
arrival of new jobs, machine failures, and machine repairs.
• Rescheduling environment identifies the set of jobs that the schedule
should include.
• A Rescheduling strategy describes whether or not production
schedules are generated.
• A Rescheduling policy specifies when and how rescheduling is done.
The policy specifies the events that trigger rescheduling.
• Rescheduling methods generate and update production schedules.
• Complete regeneration reschedules the entire set of operations (jobs)
not processed before the rescheduling point, including those not
affected by the disruption.
• Partial rescheduling reschedules only the operations affected directly
or indirectly by the disruption.
3.1. Characteristics of construction rescheduling
Compared with manufacturing, construction environments have
more uncertainties such as relatively long project durations and issues
related to subcontracting, outsourcing, and weather. To identify
construction rescheduling characteristics, rescheduling factors that
alter a project environment must first be recognized. Some factors that
distinguish construction rescheduling issues from those in the
manufacturing industry are as follows:
(1) Productivity variation
Manufacturing projects depend on linear operations, and
products are manufactured using standardized methods. There-
Table 1
Classification of construction rescheduling (modified from Vieira et al. [1]).
fore, productivity has minimal variation. However, in the construc-
tion industry, supply sources typically vary, and outsourcing
options are generally available. Moreover, resource and work
methods impact productivity and activity duration. Assessing
productivity is critical in construction project scheduling during the
planning stage. During construction, maintaining a productivity
level that adheres to the initial schedule is extremely important.
(2) Operational environment
Compared with manufacturing operations in factories,
construction operations are typically performed outdoors and
influenced significantly by numerous external factors such as
weather and temperature. These uncertainties may alter an
environment making productivity difficult to maintain.
(3) Demand–supply relationship
Most rescheduling factors in the manufacturing industry are
related to uncertain customer demands; conversely, the
principal rescheduling factors in construction projects are due
to production processes. In the construction industry, planners
must manage projects in response to uncertainties occurring
during construction. The primary goal of construction planners
is to complete a project before its due date and to execute most
activities according to contracts. When uncertainties occur,
planners must execute effective reactions and adjustments
based on actual progress. Project tasks must be monitored,
controlled, updated, and even rescheduled during construction.
Therefore, factors impacting project schedules in manufacturing
and construction industries differ fundamentally.
3.2. Definition of rescheduling in construction
This work classifies and discusses construction rescheduling
characteristics as the following (Table 1):
Deterministic environment. Based on the predictability of the tasks
required, the rescheduling environment for construction projects
is deterministic because a schedule consists of certain activities
awarded to contractors on a fixed basis. A completed project design
identifies all tasks and itemizes contract content. As a situation in
which work content rarely changes, construction projects are
typically scheduled and executed in a deterministic environment.
Predictive–reactive strategy. Deterministic environments frequently
employ a predictive–reactive strategy to generate and update an
initial schedule for most rescheduling problems (Vieira et al. [1]). A
 S.-S. Liu, K.-C. Shih / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 715–723
hybrid rescheduling policy that combines periodic and event-
driven policies can be a choice in response to productivity variation
and uncertainties during construction.
Robust schedules. To reduce potential impact of risks, planners
generally employ robust schedules that accommodate minor risks
to allow for uncertainties. Buffer management in the theory of
constraints can be used as a solution allowing project duration
extension as a project buffer. By adopting the theory of constraints,
project duration in this study equals contract duration minus
buffers thereby avoiding unnecessary duration extensions for
activities. For further buffer issues, refer to Goldratt [11]. Although
Vieira et al. [1] concluded three rescheduling methods, this study
does not discuss right-shift rescheduling, which postpones all
activities not yet executed until rescheduling reasons have been
solved. No schedule rearrangement is needed except to postpone
activity times and then consume project buffers while following
the network structure of initial schedule.
Complete regeneration (CR). The principal goal of large construction
companies is typically total cost minimization. Consequently, CR
produces a new schedule irrespective of whether the initial
schedule is feasible for some construction projects.
Partial rescheduling (PR). Construction projects exhibit a deterministic
environment with contractual constraints including budget and
duration. Although productivity variation and the operational envir-
onment disturb schedules, planners try to create reliable initial
schedules during the design stage. Notably, most risks can be
identified, predicted, and even avoided prior to scheduling. Maintain-
ing the initial schedule is a typical project goal. Furthermore,
subcontracting and outsourcing are common practices during con-
struction. Contractors are typically responsible for contract execution
and dealing with suppliers. Therefore, PR, while minimizing overall
project variation compared with the initial schedule, is suitable and
practical for construction rescheduling problems. Executing all
activities on time in compliance with client and subcontractor
contracts eliminates contract conflicts.
Choosing PR or CR depends on the potential for contract conflicts.
As possible contract conflicts increase, CR becomes increasingly
unrealistic. Furthermore, construction projects having long project
durations often have adequate reaction time to deal with accidents
and perform rescheduling. Methods for rescheduling can generate a
new practical schedule compared to the initial schedule to identify
rescheduled activity impact. Further analyses of schedule changes are
Fig. 1. Difference between schedule updating and rescheduling.
717
beneficial to select the most appropriate rescheduling method before
adopting a new schedule.
When implementing rescheduling methods, planners should
technically treat CR as a new scheduling problem. By comparison,
PR requires treatments that decrease overall project variation. There-
fore, this study illustrates PR as a rescheduling method for avoiding
contract conflicts.
4. Schedule updating versus rescheduling
Compared with rescheduling, schedule updating, which is not a new
practice in the construction field, is typically performed to monitor and
control project progress. Furthermore, project information used in
schedule updating yields an index useful for measuring project
performance. The following tasks are essential in schedule updating: (1)
compare the initial schedule with project progress; (2) identify all delayed
activities; (3) identify who or what is responsible for delays; and, (4)
forecast and modify projected work progress based on actual progress.
Schedule updating involves all scheduled inspections and may
include rescheduling. The relationship between schedule updating
and rescheduling can be further identified as follows:
(1) Schedule updating recognizes actual progress. If any unavoidable
factor conflicts with the initial schedule, project information
must be consistent with environmental changes. The primary
tasks in schedule updating are determining an applicable
rescheduling policy, identifying rescheduling factors, and evalu-
ating the effects of rescheduling factors on the initial schedule.
(2) The initial schedule is modified by rearranging activities and
resources during rescheduling. The primary tasks in reschedul-
ing are determining which rescheduling method to use and
producing new schedules.
Fig. 1 presents the difference between schedule updating and
rescheduling to clearly define the scope of this study.
5. Schedule optimization and schedule updating
This study requires a schedule in a resource-constrained environ-
ment, and applies the following model to generate schedules,
including scheduling or rescheduling. When an initial schedule has
been generated, start times, durations, resource requirements, and
direct costs, are elements that represent the initial schedule activities.
Some can be parameters while rescheduling.
718 S.-S. Liu, K.-C. Shih / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 715–723

5.1. Initial schedule optimization RUCDi; is the amount of resource type j utilized for activity i
j
according to CDi;
Eqs. (1)–(4) comprise the model used to generate schedules in Si and Ss are start time of activity i and its successor, respectively.
scheduling or rescheduling problems. Eqs. (5)–(11) are optional when
performing schedule updating and rescheduling. where set P is a set of pairs of activities with precedence relationships;

5.1.1. Objective function Di is the set of duration options for activity i;

" #
Xr Xn Sk is the in-progress activities on day k;
Minimize RUCDi ;j ×CDi Þ×rcj + ½Se + CDe ×idc ð1Þ M is the set of being-scheduled activities;
j=1 i=1
L is the set of in-progress activities;
Ceil is a function that extracts the minimum integer that is
or
greater than an input value.
Minimize ½Se + CDe  ð2Þ
Eq. (1) summarizes total project cost. Total project cost includes
resource usage costs (the quantity of resources used multiplied by the
5.1.2. Basic constraints unit cost of a resource) and indirect costs (the sum of daily indirect
Precedence relationships: project costs). Eq. (2) determines minimal project duration. Minimal
total project cost and minimal project duration are typical objective
Ss − Si zCDi i = 1; 2; N ; e; all ði; sÞaP; 8CDi aDi ð3Þ functions used for construction projects. Furthermore, planner
assessment can determine which objective function depends on
Resource limitation: project goals.
Eq. (3) represents the relationships among activities using activity
X
ASk pairs. The finish-to-start (FS) relationship represents activity relation-
rlj z RUCDi ;j ; 8iaSk ; k = 1; 2; N ; ½Se + CDe ; ð4Þ ships. Additionally, in the proposed model, activity duration (CDi)
i=1
derives from a set of durations (Di) and is assigned to an activity.
Moreover, Eq. (4) restrains daily resource usage for all activities. Eqs.
5.1.3. Optional constraints for rescheduling (1)–(4) basically form a resource-constrained project rescheduling
Constraints of in-progress activities: problem including scheduling and rescheduling.
For additional operations of schedule update and rescheduling,
Si = rt; 8iaL ð5Þ
optional constraints in Eqs. (5)–(11) are explained as follows:
Si zrt; 8iaL ð6Þ
5.2. Schedule updating
Constraints of being-scheduled activities for partial scheduling:
Identifying project changes due to actual progress is the first task
Si = osi ; 8iaM ð7Þ in schedule updating. Environmental changes may require informa-
tion modifications, which are represented as parameter revisions.
Di = odi ; 8iaM ð8Þ Additional constraints may be required. A schedule can be updated for
the following four activity types:
Productivity modifications:
(1) Finished activity
Di = Ceil½odi ×ð1 − pai Þ×ðadi  odi Þ  pai  ð9Þ Scheduling updating removes finished activities from the
rescheduling activity list and retains information regarding actual
Di = odi − adi ð10Þ progress and expenses to determine the impact of project
changes on the initial schedule. The information for finished
Budget limitation: activities must be corrected. If any inconsistency is discovered,
" # the causes, which may be due to environmental factors or an
X
r X
n
incorrect productivity assessment, must be investigated.
cbz RUCDi ;j ×CDi ×rcj + ½Se + CDe ×idc ð11Þ
j=1 i=1 (2) In-progress activity
In-progress activity may be the primary reason for requiring
where parameter i is the index of an activity; rescheduling. Generally, in-progress activities can be classified as
splitting and non-splitting activities. An in-progress activity is split
j is the index of a resource; into two activities, the finished one and the incomplete one. When
e is the index of the last activity in a project network; an in-progress activity cannot be split, Eq. (5) is applied to the
r is the total number of resource types; activity that must be continually executed after rescheduling.
n is the total number of activities; Conversely, Eq. (6) presents a condition when in-progress activities
rcj is the unit cost per day of resource type j; can be split. Thus, planners may postpone some incomplete
rlj is the daily limit of resource type j per day; activities to release resources for urgent in-progress activities such
idc is the daily indirect cost; as a delayed activity on the critical path.
osi is the start time for activity m in the initial schedule; (3) Being-scheduled activity
odi is the duration of activity m in the initial schedule; To reschedule a project, the most important task is rearran-
rt is the time at which rescheduling is conducted; ging incomplete activities and being-scheduled activities. How-
pai is the completion percentage for activity i; ever, such a rearrangement generates a new schedule that may
adi is the actual number of work days for activity i; significantly influence all remaining activities and project
cb is project budget. participants. As mentioned, PR is an applicable rescheduling
method for construction projects requiring additional treat-
where variable CDi is the duration of activity i; ments. Minimizing overall project variation, as compared with
 S.-S. Liu, K.-C. Shih / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 715–723
the initial schedule, is another goal of PR, and additional
constraints (Eqs. (7) and (8)) on all being-scheduled activities
are applied to ensure these activities comply with the initial
schedule at the beginning of PR rescheduling process.
(4) New activity
Changed orders and other risks can add new activities to a
construction project. Although such additions sometimes signifi-
cantly influence the initial schedule, these new activities reflect
real situations and resource requirements. Parameters also define
information about these new activities and Eq. (3) determines the
relationships between established activities and new activities.
5.3. Productivity modification
Incomplete activities and being-scheduled activities require
productivity modifications when an incorrect productivity assessment
in the initial schedule is identified in a finished activity, which shares
identical resources with those activities. Furthermore, productivity
modifications can be represented as an activity duration adjustment.
In case of an incomplete activity, this work adopts Eq. (9), proposed by
Hegazy and Petzold [13]. Eq. (10) is adopted when productivity
modifications are unnecessary for incomplete activities. In case of
being-scheduled activities, productivity modifications can be made
directly by adjusting activity duration. Moreover, a project budget
limitation can be a constraint if necessary as shown in Eq. (11).
5.4. Constraint Programming
The proposed model in this study adopts Constraint Programming
(CP) as an optimization technique. CP is a standard approach in the field
of artificial intelligence for solving scheduling problems (Kelleher and
Cavichiollo [8]). For details of CP, refer to [14–16]. During the CP search
procedure, a variable is considered as a branch origin and its variable
domain determines how many branches are included in the branch
origin. The search algorithm powered by CP consists of the following
three search techniques which improve search function and efficiency:
Forward checking. Confirms feasible branches of the subsequent
branch origin for the current branch. If no branch of the
subsequent branch origin is feasible, then this branch is cut.
Backtracking. Returns to the previous branch origin to search for
feasible solutions when no feasible branch for the current branch
origin exists.
Consistency check. Refines constraints and variable domains using
feedback from the branching procedure.
Fig. 2. Search strategy.
719
Whenever a branch extends, it means that a value is assigned to a
variable. Therefore, a consistency check action confirms that all
constraints are obeyed and adds a constraint to assign the corre-
sponding value. Simultaneously, a forward checking action deletes
infeasible branches of subsequent branch origin due to added
constraints. If the current branch origin has no feasible branch after
forward checking, a backtracking action is activated to avoid
unnecessary search effort. A solution in which all branch origins
have a feasible branch is kept temporarily as a constraint to enhance
subsequent forward checking to compare objective function value
with other solutions. The best objective function value is retained as a
new solution constraint. When the search process ends, the surviving
objective function value comprises the optimal solution.
According to Herroelen et al. [6] and Brucker et al. [7], the variable
sequence users employ significantly influences solution-seeking
efficiency during a search procedure. Fig. 2 presents the variable
sequence this study adopts. First, project environment variables such
as number of activities, number of resources, resource limitations, and
project due date can be predefined. Activity duration and correspond-
ing resource usage are then defined as pair variables. Once an activity
duration option is selected as a branch, the corresponding resource
usage is determined. Finally, an activity start time is assigned to each
activity as a variable and activity relationships lead to different
branching priorities. To create schedule solutions, this study executes
forward and backward calculations by logical activity relationships
derived using the Critical Path Method (CPM).
For a PR problem, constraints generated from Eqs. (7) and (8) for
being-scheduled activities may lead to a situation in which no solution
exists. Therefore, a backtracking action returns to the first activity
duration variable during the search procedure. Several constraints
generated from Eqs. (7) and (8) are removed according to the
constraint-release mechanism. This procedure continues until finding
a feasible optimized solution.
5.5. Constraint-release mechanism for PR
After updating a schedule, all in-progress activities, being-
scheduled activities, and new activities are in the rescheduling
activity list. Activities in the list are first grouped into levels (Fig. 3).
In-process activities and being-scheduled activities without prede-
cessors are deemed first-level activities. Subsequent activities are then
second-level activities. This grouping process continues until all
activities are grouped. This study determines the scheduled activity
group according to relationships between activities and the degree of
activity freedom in the constraints generated from Eqs. (7) and (8).
720 S.-S. Liu, K.-C. Shih / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 715–723

Fig. 3. Constraint-release mechanism through recursive optimization operations.

Fig. 4. Schedule updating and rescheduling optimization procedure.

 S.-S. Liu, K.-C. Shih / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 715–723 721

Table 2 project characteristics. The optimization model acquires the initial

Example project information. schedule using Eqs. (1), (3) and (4). Table 3 presents optimal solution
Activity Cost Resource 1 Resource 2 Resource 3 Indirect cost Succeeding output in which optimized total project cost is $5,640,000 and project
500/unit 400/unit 300/unit 2000/day activities duration is 630 days. The contract stipulates project cost and duration.
Daily 10 units 10 units 10 units –
limit
6.2. Scheduling updating
Duration Demand Demand Demand Direct cost
A 50 5 4 5 280,000 B, D, F
60 3 4 5 276,000
Assume the project proceeds to day 120 and total cost-to-date is
B 90 4 5 2 414,000 C $700,000. Activity A is completed. Activity B is in-progress, 90%
C 120 4 6 6 744,000 H complete and ahead of schedule; consequently, no productivity
130 3 6 5 702,000 modification is required. According to Eq. (10), the remaining duration
D 150 5 2 4 675,000 C, E
of activity B is nine days. Activity D is in-progress, 42% complete and
E 120 1 5 6 516,000 H, I
130 1 5 4 481,000 behind schedule; thus, activity D requires productivity modification.
140 1 5 2 434,000 According to Eq. (9), the remaining duration of activity D increases
F 160 6 4 4 928,000 E, G from eighty days to ninety-seven days. No other activity starts. A
170 5 3 3 782,000 rescheduling action is triggered by activity D, which is behind
180 4 2 2 612,000
190 3 1 1 418,000
schedule.
G 130 3 3 6 585,000 I
140 3 2 5 532,000
6.3. Case illustration
H 70 6 4 3 385,000 I
80 6 3 2 384,000
I 90 5 5 5 540,000 – This investigation discusses and analyzes three cases. Table 4 and
Fig. 5 present a detailed comparison of these cases. Notably, Case 2
adopts Eq. (2) as the objective function, and adds a constraint of
The search procedure first constrains all being-scheduled activities project budget limitation, Eq. (11), (confined to $5,640,000).
using Eqs. (7) and (8). If the process identifies an optimal solution, the
process ends and generates a schedule. The optimal solution (1) Case 1: CR with total cost minimization
demonstrates that the initial schedule is retained by only rearranging Table 3 presents the optimized schedule with a total cost of
in-progress activities. Along with the strong likelihood that a current $5,482,900 and project duration of 647 days. Compared with
PR solution is infeasible, the constraint-release mechanism, which the initial schedule, the new schedule changes entirely. The CR
includes backtracking actions, executes recursively in a level-by-level rearranges all activities in the initial schedule regardless of the
manner to search for a solution and obtain a feasible optimized activity start time. All activity start times differ from those in
solution (Fig. 3). Once the constraints of last-level activities, generated the initial schedule (Fig. 5). This completely regenerated
from Eqs. (7) and (8), are released, the PR method guarantees an schedule with the objective of total cost minimization does
optimal solution as it fails and becomes a CR solution. The constraint- not consider schedule variations and thereby typically results
release mechanism attains the multi-objective goal of minimizing in initial schedule disturbances. All scheduled activities retain
total project cost and overall project variations. their original duration which is the most economical.
Fig. 4 presents schedule updating and rescheduling optimization (2) Case 2: CR with project duration minimization
procedures in the proposed model. This case has a limited project budget of $5,640,000. The
minimized project duration is 627 days and total cost is
$5,531,900. The contractor can complete the project before the
6. Rescheduling practice project due duration (630 days) within the project budget
($5,640,000). This experimental result observes disturbances to
6.1. Initial schedule the initial schedule resulting in schedule variations (Fig. 5). To
shorten project duration, the duration of activities C and E
This study adopts and modifies the example project used by Leu decreases from 130 days to 120 days, and 140 days to 130 days,
and Yang [17] to illustrate the rescheduling process. Table 2 shows respectively.

Table 3
Optimal case results.

Project Total cost A B C D E F G H I

duration Finished In- Being- In- Being- Being- Being- Being- Being-
progress scheduled progress scheduled scheduled scheduled scheduled scheduled
D ST D ST D ST D ST D ST D ST D ST D ST D ST
Initial plan 630 5,640,000 50 0 90 50 130 200 150 50 140 330 190 140 140 330 70 470 90 540
Case 1 647 5,482,900 – – 9 120 130 217 97 120 140 347 190 129 140 319 70 487 90 557
Case 2 627 5,531,900 – – 9 120 120 217 97 120 130 337 190 129 140 337 70 467 90 537
Case 3 630 5,537,900 – – 9 120 120 217 97 120 130 337 190 129 140 337 70 470 90 540

D = duration; ST = start time.

Table 4
Rescheduling methods of cases.

Case 1 (CR) Case 2 (CR) Case 3 (PR)

Characteristic Total cost control Total time control Overall project variation control
Objective Minimize total project cost Minimize project duration Minimize total cost
Special constraint None Eq. (11) Eqs. (7) and (8); constraint-release mechanism
722 S.-S. Liu, K.-C. Shih / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 715–723
Fig. 5. Network of case results.
(3) Case 3: PR
Partial rescheduling (PR) produces an optimized schedule
based on the proposed constraint-release mechanism. Total
project cost is $5,537,900 and project duration is 630 days. The
optimization process is as follows: activities can be grouped
into three levels (Fig. 3). The first-level contains activities B, D,
and F; the second-level contains activities C, E, and G; and the
third-level contains activities H and I. The optimal solution is
found by the constraint-release mechanism after second-level
grouped activities are released, indicating that constraints
generated from Eqs. (7) and (8) for activities H and I are
retained, respectively. Therefore, overall project duration of the
new schedule and the schedules for activities H and I are
retained as in the initial schedule.
6.4. Result analysis
Based on rescheduling results, project duration with minimized
total cost in Case 1 is longest, and project duration is shortest with
limited project budget (Case 2). Furthermore, total cost for Case 1 is
lowest, and PR (Case 3) generates the highest total cost.
These cases have three basic rescheduling goals: minimize total
project cost, minimize project duration, and minimize overall project
variation. In Case 1, project cost is optimized. However, the long project
duration generates new risks such as activity delays, contract conflicts,
and problems when reassigning resources. If these risks are acceptable,
producing a new schedule for the contractor is worthwhile. Conversely,
the output of Case 2 demonstrates that the project can be completed
within the contract budget and on time. PR in Case 3 eliminates effects
caused by the delay resulting from activity D, by rearranging activities C,
E, F, and G. The schedules for activities H and I are retained as in the initial
schedule. Compared with Cases 1 and 2, Case 3 indicates that PR
increases total cost and does not generate the shortest project duration.
However, PR maintains the stability of subsequent activities and avoids
possible contractual disputes, which are common in construction
projects. PR can be beneficial in such situations. In PR, the constraint-
release mechanism is a procedure that releases resources by adjusting
being-scheduled activities to resolve the negative influence of resche-
duling causes. For example, activities C, E, F, and G in Case 3 are adjusted
to eliminate the adverse impact of delayed activity D.
The proposed optimization model successfully reschedules these
three cases, common in construction projects. This study practices
construction rescheduling to distinguish between CR and PR. Any specific
rescheduling problem can be treated as an extension of these three cases.
7. Conclusions
This study applies a rescheduling framework commonly adopted in
manufacturing to construction projects. Construction rescheduling
problems are located within the manufacturing framework, based on
construction project characteristics. The proposed model implements
two rescheduling methods, complete regeneration (CR) and partial
rescheduling (PR). To reduce overall project variation for PR, this work
also integrates a constraint-release mechanism into PR method. Since
each construction project possesses unique characteristics, the
advantages of the proposed model lie in choosing between different
rescheduling options and thus adhering to project goals. The proposed
model not only provides planners the opportunity to “fine-tune”
ongoing schedules, but offers possible rescheduling options prior to
making decisions to adjust project tasks and resources.
Depending on the various management goals of rescheduling
methods, generating new schedules utilizing the proposed reschedul-
ing optimization mechanism requires a trade-off between cost, time
and the influence of activity delay. Such a trade-off can be exchanged
for a “steady” schedule. Additional research warrants examining this
trade-off from the perspective of dynamic project control.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the National Science Council of the
Republic of China, Taiwan, for financially supporting this research
under Contract No. NSC93-2211-E-224-025.
Appendix A. Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Parameter
i is the index of an activity;
j is the index of a resource;
e is the index of the last activity in a project network;
r is the total number of resource types;
n is the total number of activities;
rcj is the unit cost per day of resource type j;
rlj is the daily limit of resource type j per day;
idc is the daily indirect cost;
osi is the start time for activity m in the initial schedule;
odi is the duration of activity m in the initial schedule;
rt is the time at which rescheduling is conducted;
 S.-S. Liu, K.-C. Shih / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 715–723 723

pai is the completion percentage for activity i; [3] C.H. Joh, Theo A. Arentze, Harry J.P. Timmermans, Understanding activity
scheduling and rescheduling behaviour: theory and numerical illustration,
adi is the actual number of work days for activity i; GeoJournal, vol. 53, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001, pp. 359–371.
cb is project budget. [4] A. Haldun, A.L. Mark, M. Kenneth, M. Shantha, U. Reha, Executing production
schedules in the face of uncertainties: a review and some future directions,
European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 161, Elsevier, 2005, pp. 86–110.
Variable [5] B. Yang, Single machine rescheduling with new jobs arrivals and processing time
compression, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 34
(3–4), Springer, 2007 N.A.
CDi is the duration of activity i; [6] W. Herroelen, B.D. Reyck, E. Demeulemeester, Resource-constrained project
RUCDi; is the amount of resource type j utilized for activity i
j scheduling: a survey of recent developments, Computers and Operations Research,
according to CDi; vol. 25(4), Elsevier, 1998, pp. 279–302.
[7] P. Brucker, A. Drexl, R. Mohring, K. Neumann, E. Pesch, Resource-constrained
Si and Ss are start time of activity i and its successor, respectively.
project scheduling: notation, classification, models, and methods, European
Journal of Operational Research, vol. 112, Elsevier, 1999, pp. 3–41.
Set [8] G. Kelleher, P. Cavichiollo, Supporting rescheduling using CSP, RMS, and POB — an
example application, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 12 (4), Springer,
2001, pp. 343–357.
P is a set of pairs of activities with precedence relationships; [9] T.Y. ElMekkawy, H.A. ElMarraghy, Real-time scheduling with deadlock avoidance
Di is the set of duration options for activity i; in flexible manufacturing systems, International Journal of Advanced Manufactur-
ing Technology, vol. 22(3–4), Springer, 2003, pp. 259–270.
Sk is the in-progress activities on day k; [10] J. Yu, S. Sun, J. Hau, Flexible Dynamic Scheduling Based on Immune Algorithm,
M is the set of being-scheduled activities; PROLAMAT, Shanghai, 2006, pp. 887–895.
L is the set of in-progress activities; [11] E.M. Goldratt, What is this Thing Called Theory of Constraints and How Should It
be Implemented? North River Press, New York, 1990.
Ceil is a function that extracts the minimum integer that is [12] D.K.H. Chua, L.J. Shen, S.H. Bok, Constraint-based planning with integrated
greater than an input value. production scheduler over Internet, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE 129 (3) (2003) 293–301.
[13] T. Hegazy, K. Petzold, Genetic optimization for dynamic project control, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE 129 (4) (2003) 396–404.
References [14] ILOG, ILOG Solver 5.1 User's Manual, France, 2001.
[15] ILOG, ILOG Scheduler 5.1 User's Manual, France, 2001.
[1] G.E. Vieira, J.W. Herrmann, E. Lin, Rescheduling manufacturing system: a [16] ILOG, ILOG OPL Studio3.6.1 Language Manual, France, 2001.
framework of strategies, policies, and methods, Journal of Scheduling, vol. 6, [17] S.S. Leu, C.H. Yang, GA-based multi-criteria optimal model for construction
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003, pp. 39–62. scheduling, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE 125 (6)
[2] H.H. Wu, R.K. Li, Lecture review and analysis for rescheduling decision problem in (1999) 420–427.
production schedule, Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers 14 (2)
(1997) 147–158.