Treffer: A Tale of Two Linear Programming Formulations for Crashing Project Networks
Postsecondary Education
Weitere Informationen
Problems associated with time-cost trade-offs in project networks, which are commonly referred to as crashing problems, date back nearly 60 years. Many prominent management science textbooks provide a traditional linear programming (LP) formulation for a classic project crashing problem, in which the time-cost trade-off for each activity is continuous (and linear) over a range of possible completion times. We have found that, for students who are being introduced to time-cost trade-offs and the principles of project crashing, an alternative LP formulation facilitates a greater conceptual understanding. Moreover, the alternative formulation uses only half of the decision variables in the traditional formulation and has fewer constraints for many problems encountered in management science textbooks. Results from an MBA section of operations management suggest that students prefer the alternative formulation. Additionally, we have developed an Excel workbook that generates all possible paths for a network, allows students to manually evaluate crashing decisions, and generates the alternative LP formulation. We demonstrate the workbook using a small synthetic example and a larger, real-world network from the literature. We also show that the alternative formulation can be adapted easily to accommodate discrete project crashing problems for which the time-cost tradeoffs for activities are not necessarily linear.
As Provided
AN0181793190;[2wzs]01jan.21;2024Dec23.11:55;v2.2.500
A Tale of Two Linear Programming Formulations for Crashing Project Networks
Problems associated with time–cost trade-offs in project networks, which are commonly referred to as crashing problems, date back nearly 60 years. Many prominent management science textbooks provide a traditional linear programming (LP) formulation for a classic project crashing problem, in which the time–cost trade-off for each activity is continuous (and linear) over a range of possible completion times. We have found that, for students who are being introduced to time–cost trade-offs and the principles of project crashing, an alternative LP formulation facilitates a greater conceptual understanding. Moreover, the alternative formulation uses only half of the decision variables in the traditional formulation and has fewer constraints for many problems encountered in management science textbooks. Results from an MBA section of operations management suggest that students prefer the alternative formulation. Additionally, we have developed an Excel workbook that generates all possible paths for a network, allows students to manually evaluate crashing decisions, and generates the alternative LP formulation. We demonstrate the workbook using a small synthetic example and a larger, real-world network from the literature. We also show that the alternative formulation can be adapted easily to accommodate discrete project crashing problems for which the time–cost trade-offs for activities are not necessarily linear.
Keywords: project networks; crashing; linear programming; teaching project management
HTML Full Text not available for this article.
References
1 Anderson DR, Sweeney DJ, Williams TA, Camm JD, Cochran JJ, Fry MJ, Ohlmann JW. (2019). An Introduction to Management Science, 15th ed. (Cengage Learning, Boston).
2 Balakrishnan N, Render B, Stair RM Jr. (2007). Managerial Decision Modeling with Spreadsheets, 2nd ed. (Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ).
3 De P, Dunne EJ, Ghosh JB, Wells CE. (1995). The discrete time-cost tradeoff problem revisited. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 81 (2): 225–238.
4 Eppen GD, Gould FJ, Schmidt CP. (1993). Introductory Management Science, 4th ed. (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
5 Fortier G. (2006). The application of "crashing" a project network to solve the time/cost tradeoff in recapitalization of the UH-60A helicopter. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Central Florida, Orlando.
6 Fulkerson DR. (1961). A network flow computation for project cost curve. Management Sci. 7 (2): 167–178.
7 Hillier FS, Hillier MS. (2003). Introduction to Management Science, 2nd ed. (McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York).
8 Kelley JE Jr. (1961). Critical-path planning and scheduling: Mathematical basis. Oper. Res. 9 (3): 296–320.
9 Krogstad JL, Grudnitski G, Bryant DW. (1977). PERT and PERT/cost for audit planning and control. J. Accountancy 144 (5): 82–91.
Moscove SA, Simkin MG. (1987). Accounting Information Systems, 3rd ed. (Wiley, New York).
Mungle S. (2014). A portfolio approach to algorithm selection for discrete time-cost trade-off problem. Preprint, submitted December 5, https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.1913.
Murdick RG, Render B, Russell RS. (1990). Service Operations Management (Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA).
Phillips S Jr, Dessouky MI. (1977). Solving the project time/cost tradeoff problem using the minimal cut concept. Management Sci. 24 (4): 393–400.
Ragsdale CT. (2003). A new approach to implementing project networks in spreadsheets. INFORMS Trans. Ed. 3 (3): 76–85.
Render B, Stair RM Jr, Hanna ME. (2009). Quantitative Analysis for Management, 10th ed. (Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ).
Seal KC. (2001). A generalized PERT/CPM implementation in a spreadsheet. INFORMS Trans. Ed. 2 (1): 16–26.
Stevenson WJ. (2018). Operations Management, 13th ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York).
Taylor BW III. (2019). Introduction to Management Science, 13th ed. (Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ).
Winston WL. (1994). Operations Research, 3rd ed. (Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA).
By Collin Huse and Michael J. Brusco
Reported by Author; Author