Robust Optimization Strategies for Total Cost Control in Project Management

We describe robust optimization procedures for controlling total completion time penalty plus crashing cost in projects with uncertain activity times. These activity times arise from an unspecified distribution within a family of distributions with known support, mean and covariance. We develop linear and linear-based decision rules for making decisions about activity start times and the crashing of activity times. These rules identify decisions that perform well against all possible scenarios of activity time uncertainty. The resulting crashing strategies are implemented in both static and rolling horizon modes. Whereas the traditional planning methodology PERT does not consider correlation between past and future performance within or between activities, our methodology models both types of correlation. We compare our procedures against PERT, and also against the alternative approach of Monte Carlo simulation which assumes more information. Extensive computational results show that our crashing strategies provide over 99% probability of meeting the overall project budget, compared to less than 45% for the previous approaches that use the same information. Expected budget overruns are similarly improved from over 25% to less than 0.1%. The relative advantages of the static and rolling horizon implementations are also discussed. We identify several managerial insights from our results.

[1]  Andrew D. Barbour,et al.  Local and Tail Approximations Near the Poisson Limit , 1989 .

[2]  Robert J. Might,et al.  The role of structural factors in determining project management success , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[3]  Marc E. Posner,et al.  Generating Experimental Data for Computational Testing with Machine Scheduling Applications , 2001, Oper. Res..

[4]  Maurice F. Greaver Strategic Outsourcing: A Structured Approach to Outsourcing Decisions and Initiatives , 1999 .

[5]  R. A. Bowman Stochastic gradient-based time-cost tradeoffs in PERT networks using simulation , 1994, Ann. Oper. Res..

[6]  Melvyn Sim,et al.  Distributionally Robust Optimization and Its Tractable Approximations , 2010, Oper. Res..

[7]  Nicolai Siemens A Simple CPM Time-Cost Tradeoff Algorithm , 1971 .

[8]  Melvyn Sim,et al.  A Satisficing Alternative to Prospect Theory , 2009 .

[9]  Lisa Ingall,et al.  Exploring Monte Carlo Simulation Applications for Project Management , 2007, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[10]  Avraham Shtub,et al.  The stochastic time–cost tradeoff problem: A robust optimization approach , 2007, Networks.

[11]  Ken Black,et al.  Business Statistics: Contemporary Decision Making , 1994 .

[12]  Melvyn Sim,et al.  Satisficing Measures for Analysis of Risky Positions , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[13]  T. Klastorin Project Management: Tools and Trade-offs , 2004 .

[14]  W. R. Schucany,et al.  The Mixture Approach for Simulating Bivariate Distributions With Specified Correlations , 2002 .

[15]  Bill Ravens,et al.  An Introduction to Copulas , 2000, Technometrics.

[16]  Melvyn Sim,et al.  Robust Optimization Made Easy with ROME , 2011, Oper. Res..

[17]  Terry Williams The contribution of mathematical modelling to the practice of project management , 2003 .

[18]  Allen L. Soyster,et al.  Technical Note - Convex Programming with Set-Inclusive Constraints and Applications to Inexact Linear Programming , 1973, Oper. Res..

[19]  A. Ben-Tal,et al.  Adjustable robust solutions of uncertain linear programs , 2004, Math. Program..

[20]  D. Ellsberg Decision, probability, and utility: Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms , 1961 .

[21]  Willy Herroelen,et al.  Project scheduling under uncertainty: Survey and research potentials , 2005, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[22]  John D. Martin,et al.  Value Based Management , 2001 .

[23]  Erik Demeulemeester,et al.  RanGen: A Random Network Generator for Activity-on-the-Node Networks , 2003, J. Sched..

[24]  Arkadi Nemirovski,et al.  Robust Convex Optimization , 1998, Math. Oper. Res..

[25]  Peng Sun,et al.  A Linear Decision-Based Approximation Approach to Stochastic Programming , 2008, Oper. Res..

[26]  Richard J. Schonberger,et al.  Why Projects Are “Always” Late: A Rationale Based on Manual Simulation of a PERT/CPM Network , 1981 .

[27]  Harvey Maylor,et al.  Project management. 3rd ed. , 2003 .

[28]  Christine Strauss,et al.  A Stochastic Branch-and-Bound Approach to Activity Crashing in Project Management , 2000, INFORMS J. Comput..

[29]  Avraham Shtub,et al.  The stochastic time–cost tradeoff problem: A robust optimization approach , 2007 .

[30]  Melvyn Sim,et al.  Goal-Driven Optimization , 2009, Oper. Res..

[31]  A. R. Stochastic gradient-based time-cost tradeoffs in PERT networks using simulation , .

[32]  James E. Kelley,et al.  Critical-path planning and scheduling , 1899, IRE-AIEE-ACM '59 (Eastern).

[33]  Yurii Nesterov,et al.  Interior-point polynomial algorithms in convex programming , 1994, Siam studies in applied mathematics.

[34]  R. Rockafellar,et al.  Optimization of conditional value-at risk , 2000 .

[35]  Melvyn Sim,et al.  TRACTABLE ROBUST EXPECTED UTILITY AND RISK MODELS FOR PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION , 2009 .

[36]  Laurent El Ghaoui,et al.  Robust Solutions to Uncertain Semidefinite Programs , 1998, SIAM J. Optim..

[37]  Melvyn Sim,et al.  The Price of Robustness , 2004, Oper. Res..

[38]  Frederick Harrison,et al.  Advanced Project Management: A Structured Approach , 1992 .

[39]  Alexandre M. Baptista,et al.  A Comparison of VaR and CVaR Constraints on Portfolio Selection with the Mean-Variance Model , 2004, Manag. Sci..