European Journal of Operational Research 127 (2000) 425±443

www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

Procedures for resource leveling and net present value problems in

project scheduling with general temporal and resource constraints
K. Neumann *, J. Zimmermann
Institut fur Wirtschaftstheorie und Operations Research, University of Karlsruhe, D-76128 Karlsruhe, Germany

Abstract

This paper deals with resource-constrained project scheduling problems with nonregular objective functions where
general temporal constraints given by minimum and maximum time lags between activities are prescribed. In par-
ticular, resource leveling and net present value problems are studied. We present di€erent heuristic and exact
procedures for (approximately) solving those problems. A detailed experimental performance analysis shows that
these procedures also solve large problem instances in reasonable computing time. Ó 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All
rights reserved.

Keywords: Project management; Resource leveling; Net present value of projects; Resource-constrained project
scheduling; General temporal constraints

1. Introduction mum and maximum time lags between the start of

We consider scheduling problems with two
di€erent types of nonregular objective functions
and general temporal and resource constraints. If
the objective function to be minimized represents
some measure of the variation of resource utiliza-
tion, we speak of a resource leveling problem. The
net present value problem deals with maximizing
the net present value of the project in question.
The general temporal constraints consist of mini-
* lemeester (1995) and Younis and Saad (1996).
Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-721-608-3807; fax: +49-
721-608-6616.
E-mail address: neumann@wior.uni-karlsruhe.de (K. Neu-
mann).
two di€erent activities. The resource constraints
take into account that the renewable resources
required for carrying out the activities of the
project are limited.
For resource leveling problems with special
objective functions and only special minimum
time lags, several exact and heuristic solution
procedures have been proposed. Exact algo-
rithms based upon (implicit) enumeration, inte-
ger programming, or dynamic programming
techniques have been devised by Ahuja (1976),
Easa (1989), Bandelloni et al. (1994), Demeu-
Recently, Savin et al. (1996, 1997) have proposed
a neural network approach for solving resource
leveling problems. Heuristic procedures have

0377-2217/00/$ - see front matter Ó 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 7 - 2 2 1 7 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 4 9 8 - 1
426 K. Neumann, J. Zimmermann / European Journal of Operational Research 127 (2000) 425±443
been o€ered by Moder and Phillips (1970),
Moder et al. (1983), Ahuja (1976), Harris (1978,
1990), and Takamoto et al. (1995) most of them
representing simple shifting heuristics or priority-
rule methods. The latter paper contains an ex-
perimental performance analysis on an actual
large-scale industrial plant construction problem
with 115 areas and a planning horizon of more
than 1000 periods.
For resource leveling problems with general
objective functions, and with maximum time lags
in addition to minimum ones, Brinkmann and
Neumann (1996) and Neumann and Zimmermann
(1999a,b) have devised priority-rule based heuris-
tics, where the latter represent the ®rst polynomial
heuristics for resource leveling in the open litera-
ture. For a special case (the so-called resource
investment problem), N ubel (1998) has proposed
a branch-and-bound procedure based on the
concept of minimal delaying alternatives and
disjunctive precedence constraints.
Resource leveling plays an important role in
practice because large ¯uctuations in resource
requirements (such as equipment, manpower, etc.)
can be quite expensive Tavares (1987) which
contains a case study on a program to renew a
railway network, or Meridith and Mantel (1995),
where a resource leveling information system for
scheduling is considered). Moreover, expensive
and heavy machinery is not often available in
quantities management needs. The importance of
resource leveling in practice is taken into account
by software tools (e.g., Primavera, SuperProject,
etc.), which o€er simple shifting heuristics for
practical resource leveling problems (Meridith
and Mantel, 1995). There may be resource level-
ing problems with resource constraints and
without resource constraints in practice. Re-
sources such as production plants or capital
goods with long delivery times are generally lim-
ited whereas resources such as workers or ma-
chines may be available in sucient number but
should be used evenly over time. Both types of
resources have to be taken into account in project
scheduling.
In contrast to resource leveling, the objective
function of net present value problems is inde-
pendent of resource utilization and emphasizes the
®nancial aspects of (medium- or long-range) pro-
jects, where the cash ¯ows incurred are discounted
to the project start. For the basic concepts of the
theory of cash ¯ows and net present value of
projects we refer to Russell (1970) and Herroelen
et al. (1997).
For the net present value problem without
resource constraints and without maximum time
lags, exact procedures based upon linear pro-
gramming or recursive search have been present-
ed by Grinold (1972) and Herroelen et al. (1996).
For the case of general temporal constraints, De
Reyck (1998) has devised a recursive search pro-
cedure, which generalizes the methods proposed
by Herroelen et al. (1996). For the resource-
constrained net present value problem without
maximum time lags, integer programming and
branch-and-bound procedures have been devised,
e.g., by Yang et al. (1992) and Icmeli and
Ereng ußc (1996). Recently, in De Reyck and
Herroelen (1998), a branch-and-bound algorithm
based on the concept of minimal delaying modes
and the recursive search procedure of De Reyck
(1998) has been o€ered for the net present value
problem with general temporal and resource
constraints.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2
gives a precise formulation of the resource level-
ing and net present value problems. Section 3
presents a new exact procedure for the net pre-
sent value problem without resource constraints
based on the approach by Grinold (1972), which
clearly outperforms the procedure by De Reyck
(1998). Branch-and-bound and truncated branch-
and-bound methods for resource leveling prob-
lems with and without resource constraints are
discussed in Section 4. To the best of our
knowledge, exact procedures for resource leveling
problems with general temporal and resource
constraints have not been dealt with in the open
literature so far. Sections 5 and 6 deal with
heuristic schedule construction and schedule
improvement procedures for resource leveling
problems with and without resource constraints
and for net present value problems with resource
constraints. Section 7 contains a detailed experi-
mental performance analysis of the algorithms
presented.
 K. Neumann, J. Zimmermann / European Journal of Operational Research 127 (2000) 425±443
2. Resource leveling and net present value problems
2.1. Preliminaries
Let V ˆ f0; 1; . . . ; n ‡ 1g be the set of activities
of the project, which coincides with the node set of
a corresponding activity-on-node project network.
The dummy activities 0 and n ‡ 1 represent the
beginning and termination of the project, respec-
tively. Let pi 2 Z P 0 be the duration or processing
time and Si 2 Z P 0 be the start time of activity
i 2 V . If there is a given minimum time lag
dijmin 2 Z P 0 between the start of two di€erent ac-
tivities i and j, i.e., Sj ÿ Si P dijmin , we introduce an
arc hi; ji in the project network with weight
dij :ˆ dijmin . If there is a given maximum time lag
dijmax 2 Z P 0 between the start of activities i and j,
i.e., Sj ÿ Si 6 dijmax , we introduce an arc hj; ii with
weight dji :ˆ ÿdijmax . The arc set of the project
network is denoted by E.
Suppose that S0 ˆ 0 and there is a prescribed
maximum project duration d 2 Z P 0 with d P
d0;n‡1 , where dij is the longest path length from
node i to node j in the project network. A sequence
of start times S :ˆ …Si †i2V with Si 2 Z P 0 is called a
schedule. For 0 2 C  V we call S C :ˆ …Si †i2C a
partial schedule, where C is the set of activities
already scheduled and we omit the superscript C if
C ˆ V . Schedule S is termed time-feasible if it
satis®es the temporal constraints
Sj ÿ Si P dij ; hi; ji 2 E;
S0 ˆ 0; Sn‡1 6 d; …1†
Si 2 Z P 0 ; i 2 V :
By ES we denote the sequence of earliest and by LS
the sequence of latest start times (earliest and latest
schedule). It is well known that ES and LS can be
computed in O…jV jjEj† time by a label-correcting
algorithm (Ahuja et al., 1993).
Assume that a set of renewable resources R is
required for carrying out the project. Let Rk > 0 be
the capacity of resource k available and let rik P 0
be the amount of resource k used by activity i,
where rik 6 Rk …k 2 R; i 2 V †. Given partial sched-
ule S C let
A…S C ; t† :ˆ fi 2 C j Si 6 t < Si ‡ pi g …2†
427
be the set of activities i 2 C in progress at time t
where we assume that activity i is in execution in
the half-open time P interval ‰Si ; Si ‡ pi ‰. Moreover,
let rk …S C ; t† :ˆ i2A…S C ;t† rik be the amount of re-
source k used at time t and T :ˆ f0; 1; . . . ; d ÿ 1g
be the set of possible feasible start times of activ-
ities i 2 V n fn ‡ 1g. The step functions rk …S C ;
†
are called resource pro®les, and the jRj  d matrix
R…S C † with elements rk …S C ; t† …k 2 R; t 2 T† is
termed the resource utilization matrix given partial
schedule S C . Then the resource constraints read as
follows:
rk …S; t† 6 Rk ; k 2 R; t 2 T: …3†
A schedule S is called resource-feasible if it satis®es
the resource constraints (3). A schedule which is
both time- and resource-feasible is called feasible.
2.2. Resource leveling problem
The objective function of the resource leveling
problem is considered a function of matrix R…S†.
Several di€erent classes of objective functions have
been discussed in the open literature (Neumann
and Zimmermann, 1999b). For example,
X
f …R…S†† :ˆ ck max rk …S; t† …A†
t2T
k2R
represents the objective function of the so-called
resource investment problem (M ohring, 1984;
Demeulemeester, 1995; N ubel, 1998), where ck > 0
is the cost per unit of resource k. Class B of ob-
jective functions measures the deviation of the
consumption of resource k from a given resource
supply Yk P 0 (Easa, 1989; Harris, 1990; Bandel-
loni et al., 1994). Objective function (B1) is given
by
X X
f …R…S†† :ˆ ck
‡
‰rk …S; t† ÿ Yk Š ; …B1†
k2R t2T
‡
where ‰zŠ :ˆ max…z; 0† and ck may be the cost of
working overtime. In objective functions (B2) and
‡ 2
(B3), ‰. . .Š is replaced by j . . . j and ‰. . .Š , respec-
tively. Class C considers the variation of resource
utilization from period to period (Ahuja, 1976;
428 K. Neumann, J. Zimmermann / European Journal of Operational Research 127 (2000) 425±443
Brinkmann and Neumann, 1996; Younis and
Saad, 1996). Objective function (C1) is given by
X X
d
‡
f …R…S†† :ˆ ck ‰rk …S; t† ÿ rk …S; t ÿ 1†Š ;
k2R tˆ0
…C1†
where rk …S; ÿ1† :ˆ rk …S; d† :ˆ 0. In objective
‡ and cFi 2 R be the cash ¯ow associated with ac-
functions (C2) and (C3), ‰. . .Š is again replaced by
2 tivity i, which is assumed to occur at the comple-
j . . . j and ‰. . .Š , respectively.
The resource leveling problem with general
temporal and resource constraints can then be
formulated as follows:
min: f …R…S††
…R‡ †
s:t: …1†; …3†:
The resource leveling problem without resource
constraints (3) is denoted by …Rÿ †.
As it has been shown by Bartusch et al. (1988),
the feasible region S (without the integrality
constraints Si 2 Z, i 2 V ) of …R‡ † is generally dis-
connected and represents the union of (convex)
polytopes whose number grows exponentially in n.
The decision problem whether or not S 6ˆ ;
is strongly NP-complete. The feasible region
(without the integrality constraints) ST of …Rÿ †
represents a polytope. For simplicity, we assume
that ST 6ˆ ; in what follows, which holds to be
true exactly if the underlying project network does
not contain any cycle of positive length and
d0;n‡1 6 d < 1.
Special points of S correspond to certain types
of schedules which dominate the set of optimal
solutions of some project scheduling problems.
For example, so-called quasiactive schedules (i.e.,
schedules which cannot be plainly left-shifted,
where a plain left-shift transforms a schedule S
into a schedule S 0 6 S, S 0 6ˆ S, such that activities
which do not overlap in S neither do in S 0 ) rep-
resent minimal points of some polytopes from S,
and quasistable schedules (i.e., schedules which
cannot be plainly left- and right-shifted) represent
extreme points of some polytopes from S (Neu-
mann et al., 2000). If S 6ˆ ;, there is always an
optimal solution to the resource investment prob-
lem which represents a quasiactive schedule.
Moreover, there is an optimal solution to …Rÿ †
and …R‡ † with objective function (B1), (B2), (B3),
(C1), or (C2) which represents a quasistable
schedule.
2.3. Net present value problem
Let b …0 < b 6 1† be the discount rate per period
tion time Si ‡ pi of activity i and may be positive
(i.e., a payment received) or negative (i.e., a cost
incurred). In practice, often a payment cFV 0 is re-
ceived only when a set of activities V 0  V instead
of a single activity have been completed. In that
case, a dummy activity j with duration pj :ˆ 0 and
cash ¯ow cFj :ˆ cFV 0 is added to the project network
as well as arcs hi; ji …i 2 V 0 † and hj; n ‡ 1i with
weights dij :ˆ pi and dj;n‡1 :ˆ 0, respectively.
P TheF net present value of the project equals
Si ‡pi
c
i2V i b and the net present value problem
with general temporal and resource constraints is
as follows:
P F Si ‡pi
max: ci b
i2V …N‡ †
s:t: …1†; …3†:
The net present value problem without resource
constraints (3) is denoted by …Nÿ †.
The feasible regions of …N‡ † and (Nÿ ) coin-
cide with the feasible regions of …R‡ † and (Rÿ ),
respectively. There is always an optimal solution
to …Nÿ † which represents an extreme point of ST
(which corresponds to a stable schedule, i.e., a
feasible schedule where no activities can be glob-
ally left- and right-shifted). If S 6ˆ ;, there is an
optimal solution to …N‡ † which represents a local
extreme point of S (which corresponds to a so-
called pseudostable schedule, Neumann et al.
(2000)).
3. Exact algorithm for (N ÿ )
For activity-on-arc networks, Grinold (1972)
has shown that the so-called payment scheduling
problem (which corresponds to the net present
value problem) can be transformed into an
 K. Neumann, J. Zimmermann / European Journal of Operational Research 127 (2000) 425±443 429

equivalent linear program on the network. The
linear program is solved using the fact that each
vertex of the feasible region can be represented by
a spanning tree of the network. In addition, the
complementary slackness theorem is exploited. In
what follows, we generalize and improve the ap-
proach by Grinold (1972) to the net present value
problem on activity-on-node networks with gen-
eral temporal constraints.
First we transform problem …Nÿ † into a linear
program. To do so, we take account of constraint
Sn‡1 6 d by introducing an arc hn ‡ 1; 0i with
weight dn‡1;0 :ˆ ÿd, which gives the new arc set
e :ˆ E [ fhn ‡ 1; 0ig of the project network.
E to arcs hi; ji 2 E…T † form a basis B of …DP†. Due
Then, in analogy to Grinold (1972), it can be
shown that …Nÿ † is equivalent to the problem
P
n‡1
max: cFi yi
iˆ0
…LP†
s:t: yj Kij ÿ yi 6 0; e
hi; ji 2 E;
y0 ˆ 1;
schedule S is a local maximizer of …Nÿ † if and
only if y…S† is a local maximizer of …LP†. Thus
each local maximizer of …Nÿ † is also a global
maximizer and, since we have assumed that
ST 6ˆ ;, there exists an optimal solution to …Nÿ †
representing a vertex of ST .
Following the principal idea of the network
simplex method (Ahuja et al., 1993), we represent
the vertices of ST (and hence of SLP † by directed
spanning trees T ˆ hV ; E…T †i with node set V and
arc set E…T †. Each of the n ‡ 1 arcs of E…T † cor-
responds to a binding constraint of …Nÿ † and
…LP†, and the n dual variables xij corresponding
to the complementary slackness conditions, span-
ning tree T represents an optimal solution to …Nÿ †
(and hence to …LP†) if for the corresponding
vector of basic variables xB of …DP† given by
X X
Kji xji ÿ xij ˆ cFi ; i 2 V n f0g;
hj;ii2E…T † hi;ji2E…T †

with feasible region SLP where yi :ˆ bSi ‡pi and it holds that xB P 0.
e
Kij :ˆ bÿ…dij ÿpi ‡pj † ; for all i 2 V n f0g and hi; ji 2 E. Given a stable schedule S representing a vertex
The dual program …DP† of …LP† with m ‡ 1 of ST and the corresponding spanning tree
variables xij corresponding to the jEj ‡ 1 arcs T :ˆ hV ; E…T †i, xB can be computed observing
e (i.e., inequalities of …LP†) can be written
hi; ji 2 E xij ˆ wij =yi for all hi; ji 2 E…T †, where the wij are a
as follows: solution of
P P X X
min: cF0 ‡ x0j ÿ Kh0 xh0 wji ÿ wij ˆ cFi yi ; i 2 V n f0g: …4†
j2Succ…0† h2Pred…0†
P P hj;ii2E…T † hi;ji2E…T †
s:t: Kji xji ÿ xij ˆ cFi ; i 2 V n f0g;
hj;ii2E hi;ji2E The system of equations (4) can be solved in
xij P 0; e
hi; ji 2 E; O…jV j† time. Since all yi …i ˆ 1; . . . ; n ‡ 1† are
…DP† positive, xij is negative exactly if wij is negative.
Thus, we determine the quantities wij by solving
where the objective function considers the con- (4) in order to examine whether the underlying
straint corresponding to node 0, and the sets of the spanning tree T is optimal. If at least one wij is
immediate successors and immediate predecessors negative (i.e., T is not optimal), we determine the
of node i in the project network are denoted by smallest wij (hi; ji 2 E…T †), say whl , and delete the
Succ…i† and Pred…i†, respectively. corresponding arc hh; li from E…T † (i.e., the cor-
Given a schedule S 2 ST , the corresponding responding constraint of …LP† is no longer
vector …y0 ; . . . ; yn‡1 †T is denoted by y…S†. Since a binding). We obtain two subtrees T1 ˆ hV1 ; E…T1 †i
restriction of …Nÿ † is binding for schedule S if and and T2 ˆ hV1 ; E…T2 †i with V1 [ V2 ˆ V , 0 2 V1 , and
only if the corresponding restriction of …LP† is shift the activities of subtree T2 until a new con-
binding for y…S†, S is a vertex of the feasible region straint becomes binding. This means that if the
ST of …Nÿ † if and only if y…S† is a vertex of SLP . vertex S represented by T is nondegenerated, we
Moreover, because of the continuity of the bijec- move to an adjacent vertex S 0 with one di€erent
n‡2
tive mapping y : ST !Š0; 1Š , it holds that binding constraint.
430 K. Neumann, J. Zimmermann / European Journal of Operational Research 127 (2000) 425±443
If the initial node h of arc hh; li deleted belongs
to set V1 , the activities corresponding to the nodes
of subtree T2 can only be right-shifted. Since
all constraints corresponding to the arcs of E…T2 †
remain binding, the start time of each activity
belonging to set V2 is increased by
D :ˆ minfSj ÿ Si ÿ dij j i 2 V2 ;
e n E…T †g:
j 2 V1 ; hi; ji 2 E
If h 2 V2 , the activities corresponding to the nodes
of subtree T2 can only be left-shifted and the start
time of each activity belonging to set V2 is de-
creased by
D :ˆ maxfSi ‡ dij ÿ Sj j i 2 V1 ;
e n E…T †g:
j 2 V2 ; hi; ji 2 E
In either case we can compute D in O…jEj† time and
the new schedule S 0 is given by Sj0 ˆ Sj for j 2 V1
and Si0 ˆ Si ‡ D for i 2 V2 .
Suppose that the new binding constraint cor-
responds to arc hr; si. Then the spanning tree
representing S 0 is given by T 0 :ˆ hV ; E…T † n fhk; lig
[fhr; sigi. The improvement in the net present
value from S to S 0 is given by
 
…bD ÿ 1†whl if h 2 V1 ;
ÿ…bD ÿ 1†whl otherwise:
Notice that for h 2 V1 , the net present value of
activity set V2 is negative. Thus, V2 should be
scheduled as late as possible. For h 2 V2 , the net
present value of activity set V2 is positive and V2
should be scheduled as early as possible. Algo-
rithm 1 (Fig. 1) summarizes the determination of
an optimal solution to …Nÿ †.
In Step 1 of Algorithm 1 we determine either
the earliest start schedule ES in O…jV jjEj† time
by a label-correcting algorithm, where we right-
shift all sinks of the corresponding spanning tree
with negative cash ¯ow as far as possible, or a
stable schedule S by Procedure 1 (Fig. 2) (which
is generally ``better'' than ES). Due to the de-
termination of the matrix of longest path
lengths, the time complexity of Procedure 1 is
3
O…jV j †.
4. Branch-and-bound and truncated branch-and-
bound procedures for (Rÿ ) and (R‡ )
We sketch a time-window-based branch-and-
bound procedure, where we enumerate the feasible
start times of the activities. This algorithm can be
used for all leveling objective functions (A)±(C3)
introduced in Section 2.
First we deal with …Rÿ †. Let I be a problem
instance of …Rÿ †. The basic idea of the branch-and-
bound procedure is to reduce the set of feasible
solutions of I by successively scheduling activities.
Each node p of the enumeration tree represents a
p p
partial schedule S C ˆ …SiC †i2Cp and thus an in-
p
stance I with additional temporal constraints
p
Si ˆ SiC for all scheduled activities i 2 Cp . The set
of all feasible schedules S of I p is denoted by Sp .
Each leaf of the enumeration tree represents a
feasible schedule S and the root of the tree corre-
sponds to the partial schedule given by S0 ˆ 0.
The children of node p are obtained by sched-
uling an activity j 2 V n Cp at one of its feasible
p p
start times t 2 fESjC ; . . . ; LSjC g, where because of
temporal constraints (1)
 
p ÿ Cp

ESjC :ˆ max d0j ; max S ‡ dij ;
p
i2C
i

p ÿ Cp

LSjC :ˆ min d ÿ dj;n‡1 ; minp Si ÿ dji :
i2C
If there exist more than one unscheduled activity,
we choose the activity with minimum total ¯oat
p p p
TFjC ˆ LSjC ÿ ESjC , where ties are broken on the
basis of increasing activity numbers.
In order to determine the node p to be consid-
ered next, we use a combined depth-®rst- and
least-lower-bound-search. After each branching
step we investigate the node with minimum lower
bound among all nodes newly generated. Notice
that whenever node p can be fathomed, the same
holds for all brothers of p.
For the fathoming process of node p we use a
p
workload-based lower bound LB…S C † which de-
pends on the underlying objective function. For
so-called r-monotonous objective functions (i.e.,
f …R…S†† 6 f …R…S 0 †† if rk …S; t† 6 rk …S 0 ; t† for all
k 2 R and t 2 T), which include functions (A),
 K. Neumann, J. Zimmermann / European Journal of Operational Research 127 (2000) 425±443 431

Fig. 1. Algorithm 1.

Fig. 2. Procedure 1.

p p
X
(B1), and (B3), we compute LB…S C † by increasing rknc …S C ; t† :ˆ rik ; k 2 R; t 2 T;
p
the resource pro®les rk …S C ;
† (k 2 R) according to p p
i2V :LSiC 6 t<ESiC ‡pi
the following two steps:
p p
Step 1. Let Z  V n Cp such that ‰ESjC ; LCjC ‰ p p p
p p where ESiC ˆ LSiC ˆ SiC for all i 2 C p . Moreover,
\ ‰EShC ; LChC ‰ˆ ; for all j; h 2 Z, j 6ˆ h. Let
p let
R :ˆ …rknc …S C ; t††k2R;t2T be the resource utilization
matrix of the activities already scheduled taking
into account the unavoidable resource utilization f p …R; j; Sj † :ˆ f …R0 † ÿ f …R†
of the near-critical activities h 2 C (where activity i
p p
is called near-critical if ‰LSiC ; ESiC ‡ pi ‰ 6ˆ ;, cf. be the additional cost incurred when activity j is
Neumann and Zimmermann, 1999b). The ele- scheduled at time Sj given resource matrix R,
ments of R are given by where matrix R0 is given by
432 K. Neumann, J. Zimmermann / European Journal of Operational Research 127 (2000) 425±443
8
> p
< rknc …S C ; t† ‡ rjk rkZ …t † ˆ min rkZ …t†:
t2T
0 Cp p p
rk …S ; t† ˆ if t 2 ‰Sj ; Sj ‡ pj ‰n‰LSjC ; ESjC ‡ pj ‰
>
: r …S ; t† otherwise:
nc Cp
k The resulting resource pro®les are denoted by
rkW …
† and the corresponding utilization matrix is
for k 2 R; t 2 T: denoted by RW , where it holds that rkW …t† 6 rk …S; t†
By scheduling each activity j 2 Z at a point in for all schedules S 2 Sp , k 2 R, and t 2 T. Thus,
p
p
time Sj that minimizes f p …R; j;
† on fESjC ; . . . ; LB…S C † :ˆ f …RW † is a lower bound on the optimal
Cp Z
LSj g, we obtain the resource pro®les rk …
†. Since objective function value for I p .
there are no two activities i; j 2 Z which can be Lower bounds for (C1) and (C3) can be found
carried out simultaneously, it follows that in Zimmermann and Engelhardt (1998).
rkZ …t† 6 rk …S; t† for all schedules S 2 Sp , k 2 R, and Algorithm 2 (Fig. 3) gives the branch-and-
t 2 T. bound procedure for …Rÿ † in pseudocode. For
Step 2. Let V^ :ˆ V n …Cp [ Z† be the set of the simplicity, each node p of the enumeration tree is
unscheduled activities after Step 1 and represented by its corresponding partial schedule
p
S C . The set of nodes not yet investigated is de-
X noted by M, S  represents the best schedule known
Wk …V^ † :ˆ ph rhk thus far, and upperBound is the corresponding
h2V^
objective function value.
Obviously, the performance of Algorithm 2
be the remaining workload of the activities h 2 V^ , depends markedly on the size of the time intervals
p p
where ph :ˆ LShC ÿ EShC for each near-critical ac- ‰ESi ; LSi Š for activities i 2 V and therefore implic-
tivity h 2 V^ and ph :ˆ ph , otherwise. We take the itly on the minimum and maximum time lags and
workload Wk …V^ † into consideration by successively the prescribed maximum project duration d.
increasing the resource pro®les rkZ …
† Wk …V^ † times Algorithm 2 can easily be adapted to …R‡ † as
by one unit at points in time t for which it holds follows (this modi®cation is termed Algorithm 2‡ ).
that For scheduling an activity j, we consider only points

Fig. 3. Algorithm 2.
 K. Neumann, J. Zimmermann / European Journal of Operational Research 127 (2000) 425±443
p p
in time t 2 fESjC ; . . . ; LSjC g such that activity j can
be started without violating the resource con-
straints. Thus, from an enumeration point of view,
…R‡ † is easier than …Rÿ † because the resource con-
straints allow certain points in time to be ruled out
immediately. Moreover, we can speed up the pro-
cedure by using so-called preprocessing procedures
(De Reyck, 1998; Schwindt, 1998b). Based on ®rst
the examination of resource con¯icts induced by
two activities and second on the workload of time
intervals, additional precedence and temporal con-
straints can be introduced which reduce the number
of feasible solutions to be investigated.
Since …Rÿ † and …R‡ † are NP-hard in the strong
sense, exact methods are generally not appropriate
for large problem instances. Thus, in addition to
the exact solution procedure, a heuristic based on
so-called ®ltered beam search techniques can be
derived from Algorithm 2. This truncated branch-
and-bound procedure restricts the number of chil-
dren of an enumeration node to a so-called beam
width B. Only the B most promising nodes are se-
lected as nodes to branch from and the remaining
nodes are discarded permanently. To do so, for all
child nodes, we ®rst determine a simple lower
bound LBF (e.g., f …R† for r-monotonous objective
functions). Then, for the F child nodes with
smallest value of LBF, where F P B is a prescribed
®lter width, tighter lower bounds LBB (e.g.,
p i2C
LB…S C † for r-monotonous objective functions) are
computed. The B children with smallest value of
LBB are selected for further enumeration. Since the
number of enumeration nodes exponentially
433
The ®rst approach is based on the well-known
contraction method (Franck, 1999) and is denoted
as Algorithm Contraction in what follows. The
second approach uses the concepts of feasible de-
cision points and unscheduling of activities and is
denoted as Algorithm Unschedule in what follows.
We now propose a new heuristic approach
which can generally be used to transform a time-
feasible schedule S 2 ST which is not resource-
feasible into a feasible schedule S 0 2 S. For net
present value problems we can determine an time-
feasible schedule by Algorithm 1. For resource
leveling problems we determine a time-feasible
schedule by scheduling the activities successively
where all critical activities j are scheduled imme-
diately (for details we refer to Neumann and
Zimmermann, 1999b). Let C be again the set of
scheduled activities, S C :ˆ …Si †i2C be the corre-
sponding partial schedule, and C :ˆ V n C be the
set of unscheduled activities. Then the activity to
be scheduled next is an activity j 2 C with highest
priority, i.e., p…j† ˆ exti2C p…i†, where p…i† is the
priority value of activity i and ext 2 fmin; maxg.
The following priority rules have turned out to be
expedient:
MST rule (Minimum Slack Time), i.e.,
extp…i† ˆ min TFiC :
i2C
MSO rule (Minimum number of activities be-
fore the activity selected w.r.t. Strict Order †;
i.e.,
 
increases in beam width B, we choose B to be extp…i† ˆ min fh 2 Cjh  ig;
random with expected value between 1 and 2. i2C i2C

Moreover, based on experimental investigations, where strict order  in set V is de®ned as fol-
we choose F ˆ 30. Since the lower bounds used do lows: i0  j0 for i0 ; j0 2 V , i0 6ˆ j0 , exactly if
not necessarily lead to a ``good'' solution when di0 j0 > 0 or if di0 j0 ˆ 0 and dj0 i0 < 0.
only few activities have been scheduled, we employ
a larger beam width B0 :ˆ 2B for the ®rst 10 levels GRD rule (Greatest Resource Demand), i.e.,
of the enumeration tree. X
extp…i† ˆ max pi rik :
i2C i2C k2R
‡
5. Schedule construction procedures for (R ) and GRDP rule (Greatest Resource Demand per Pe-
(N ‡ ) riod), i.e.,
X
In Neumann and Zimmermann (1999b) two extp…i† ˆ max rik :
heuristic procedures for …R‡ † have been discussed. i2C i2C k2R
434 K. Neumann, J. Zimmermann / European Journal of Operational Research 127 (2000) 425±443
In practice we mostly use priority-rule combina-
tions. For example, GRD±MST means that the
activity to be scheduled next is the activity with
greatest resource demand, where ties are broken
®rst on the basis of nondecreasing total ¯oats and
second on increasing activity numbers. Since no
priority rule or priority-rule combination domi-
nate all others, a priority-rule based heuristic is
often performed several times (multi pass, cf.
Kolisch, 1995) with di€erent priority rules or pri-
ority values randomly changed.
Next we determine a minimizer Sj‡ of cost
function f p …R; j;
† on Tj :ˆ fESjC ; . . . ; LSjC g. To
do so, we compute a so-called decision set Dmj …S C †,
i.e., a subset of Tj which contains at least one
minimizer of f p …R; j;
† on Tj and where jDmj …S C †j
is linear in n. Decision set Dmj …S C † depends on the
type m …m ˆ 1; 2; 3† of the objective function. Type 1
comprises objective function (A), type 2 objective
functions (B1), (B2), (B3), (C1) and (C2), and type
3 objective function (C3). Let D…R…S C †† be the set
of all jump discontinuities of the resource pro®les
rk …S C ;
† and ST (CT) be the set of points in time
at which at least one activity i 2 C is started
(completed). Then we have for objective functions
of type 1
D1j …S C † :ˆ …Tj \ CT† [ fESjC g:
Since each activity j is scheduled at its earliest start
time ESj or at a point in time where an activity
i 2 C is terminated, no set of activities can be
plainly left-shifted in the schedules constructed.
This means that the resulting schedules are quasi-
active.
Fig. 4. Procedure 2.
D2j …S C † :ˆ …Tj \ CT†[
ft 2 Tj j…t ‡ pj † 2 STg [ fESjC ; LSjC g
is the decision set for objective functions of type
2. Since each activity j is scheduled at times ESj or
LSj , at a point in time where an activity i 2 C is
terminated, or at a time t such that the comple-
tion time Cj coincides with the start time Si of an
activity i 2 C, the constructed schedules are
quasistable. Let M :ˆ …Tj \ D…R†† [ ft 2 Tj j
t ‡ pj 2 D…R†g [ fESjC ; LSjC g be the set of points
in time t 2 Tj for which it holds that activity j
starts or ends at a jump discontinuity of at least
one resource pro®le, if j is scheduled at time t.
Then
D3j …S C † :ˆ M [ fminft 2 Tj j t 62 Mgg
is the decision set for objective functions of type 3
(Neumann and Zimmermann, 1999b). Procedure 2
(Fig. 4) summarizes the determination of a time-
feasible schedule for …R‡ †.
Given a time-feasible schedule S which is not
resource-feasible, we now successively determine
the smallest point in time t at which the resource
capacities are exceeded and shift activities which
cause the resource con¯ict at time t. To do so, we
determine the set of activities A…S; t† given by (2).
We consider in turn all i 2 A…S; t† and corre-
sponding times ti 2 fESi ; . . . ; t ÿ pi g[ ft ‡ 1; . . . ;
LSi g, and examine successively whether one of the
following three conditions (i), (ii) or (iii) will be
satis®ed if we shift the start time of activity i from
Si to ti . Here, Reach…i† denotes the set of nodes in
the project network from which node i can be
 K. Neumann, J. Zimmermann / European Journal of Operational Research 127 (2000) 425±443
reached and Reach…i† denotes the set of nodes
reachable from node i, including i itself.
(i) The con¯ict at time t is resolved and
S 0 :ˆ …0; S1 ; . . . ; Siÿ1 ; ti ; Si‡1 ; . . . ; Sn‡1 † meets con-
straints (1) and rk …S 0 ; s† 6 Rk (for all s 2 fti ; . . . ; ti ‡
pi ÿ 1g and k 2 R†.
(ii) The resource con¯ict at time t is resolved,
and all j 2 Reach…i† [ Reach…i† can be left- or
right-shifted such that constraints (1) are met and
the resource constraints are satis®ed at all points in
time where the shifted activities are in execution.
(iii) The resource con¯ict at time t is reduced
(i.e., rk …S; t† > rk …S 0 ; t† for at least one k 2 R with
rk …S; t† > Rk ) and all j 2 Reach…i† [ Reach…i† can be
left- or right-shifted such that constraints (1) are
met and no new resource con¯ict results.
Note that condition (i) implies (ii) and (ii) im-
plies (iii). If for an activity i 2 A…S; t†, condition (i)
is not ful®lled for any possible start time ti , we
proceed to another activity from A…S; t†. When
condition (i) is not satis®ed for any i 2 A…S; t† and
all corresponding possible start times ti , we go on
with condition (ii), etc. If at least condition (iii) is
ful®lled for some i 2 A…S; t† and a corresponding
start time ti , we shift the start of activity i from Si
to ti and again determine the smallest point in time
t at which the resource capacities are exceeded.
Algorithm 3 (Figs. 5±7) summarizes the heu-
ristic procedure for …R‡ † and …N‡ † where Steps 3±
5 of Algorithm 3 correspond to conditions (i), (ii),
and (iii), respectively. In procedure Recursivefor-
ward we have rep ˆ false if for some h 2 Reach…j†,
no resource-feasible start time has been found
where j is the current activity. Notice that in Step
5, the resource constraints are only examined at
points in time where activity j is in execution w.r.t.
schedule S 0 but not w.r.t. schedule S.
The time complexity
P of Algorithm 3 is
O…jV j maxi2V …LSi ÿ ESi † i2V pi †. However, an ex-
perimental performance analysis has shown that
even problem instances with 500 activities can be
handled within a few seconds. Again, the perfor-
mance of the procedure can be increased using
preprocessing procedures (see Section 4). Loosely
speaking, Algorithm 3 strives to ``repair'' a
schedule which is time-feasible but not resource-
feasible. Therefore, we denote Algorithm 3 as
Algorithm Repair in what follows.
435
6. Schedule improvement procedures for (Rÿ ) and
(R‡ )
In this section we devise a tabu search approach
for …Rÿ † and …R‡ †. The proposed procedure ex-
ploits the fact that the principal goal of resource
leveling is to utilize the underlying resources evenly
over time. Therefore, we determine the peaks of
the di€erent resource pro®les rk …S;
†, k 2 R, and
shift activities such that at least one of the resource
peaks is reduced (Wiest and Levy, 1969). For the
basic concepts of tabu search used in what follows,
we refer to Glover and Laguna (1997).
First we deal with …Rÿ †. Let N …S† be the set of
schedules S 0 we obtain from the given schedule S as
follows: Replace the start time Si of any activity
i 2 V by a point in time t 2 fESi ; . . . ; LSi g n fSi g. If
t > Si , we update the start times of all activities
j 2 Reach…i†: Sj0 ˆ max…Sj ; t ‡ dij †. If t < Si , we up-
date the start times of all activities h 2 Reach…i†:
Sh0 ˆ min…Sh ; t ÿ dhi †. The neighbor S 0 of S which
results from S by setting Si0 :ˆ t is denoted by
S…i; t†.
Following the principal idea of tabu search, we
repeatedly move from the current schedule S to a
schedule S  2 N …S† with minimum objective func-
tion value. Moreover, the schedule S min with the
smallest objective function value found thus far is
stored. Since for large problem instances (with
more than 50 activities) it is too time-consuming to
scan the whole neighborhood N …S†, we reduce the
cardinality of neighborhood N …S† to a prescribed
number CAND of promising candidates. Let
Pk …S† :ˆ ft 2 T j rk …S; t† P g max rk …S; s†g; k 2 R;
s2T
be the set of peak times of the current resource
pro®les where g 2 ‰0:8; 1Š is a control parameter of
the tabu search procedure. Then we determine the
set of promising candidates C…S†  N …S† by enu-
merating neighbors S…i; t† of S until we have found
CAND neighbors of S which meet the following
two conditions:
(i) It holds that t 2 Dmi …S V nfig † where Dmi depends
on the type m of the underlying objective function
and where we choose Ti ˆ fd0i ; . . . ; d ÿ di;n‡1 g (cf.
Section 5).
436 K. Neumann, J. Zimmermann / European Journal of Operational Research 127 (2000) 425±443

(ii) There is at least one resource k 2 R and at Condition (i) reduces the set of possible start
least one peak time s 2 Pk …S† for which it holds times for activity i to points in time such that at the
that rk …S…i; t†; s† < rk …S; s†. start or termination of activity i there is at least

Fig. 5. Algorithm 3.

Fig. 6. Procedure 3.
 K. Neumann, J. Zimmermann / European Journal of Operational Research 127 (2000) 425±443 437

Fig. 7. Procedure 4.

one di€erent activity which is terminated or start-
ed, respectively. Condition (ii) ensures that at least
one peak of the resource pro®les rk …S;
†, k 2 R, is
reduced.
In order to avoid that a peak for resource k at
time t recently reduced is increased again, all
neighbors S 0 of S with rk …S 0 ; t† > rk …S; t† get tabu
status. To do so, we always store the last TL (tabu
list length) peak times t1 ; . . . ; tTL at which the
resource utilization has been reduced and the
corresponding resources k1 ; . . . ; kTL (short-term
memory). Here, we use a dynamic tabu list with
minimum length of 10 and maximum length of 50,
which dynamically increases in the number of steps
since the current best solution S min has been found.
Algorithm 4 (Fig. 8) summarizes the procedure for
the determination of C…S†.
Since the proposed tabu conditions may ex-
clude attractive new solutions, we cancel the tabu
status of a neighbor S 0 of the current schedule S if
S 0 represents a new best solution (aspiration crite-
rion). In order to improve the search process we
use the following intensi®cation and diversi®cation
methods.
For intensi®cation, we always store the set EL
(elite set) of the 10 solutions with smallest objec-
tive function value determined since the last
intensi®cation step (short-term memory). An
intensi®cation step is then as follows. First we
compute the best solution S EL 2 EL and the set V EL
of activities i 2 V which possess the same start
time Si in all schedules S 2 EL. Emanating from
schedule S EL , we determine C…S EL † by shifting only
activities i 2 V n V EL . This means that we consider
only neighbors S…i; t† with i 2 V n V EL and

t 2 max…ESi ; max‰Sj ‡ dji Š†; . . . ;
j2V EL

min…LSi ; minEL
‰Sj ÿ dij Š† :
j2V
For diversi®cation, for each activity i 2 V we
store the value ai which indicates how often the
start time of activity i has been altered during the

Fig. 8. Algorithm 4.
438 K. Neumann, J. Zimmermann / European Journal of Operational Research 127 (2000) 425±443
previous search process (long-term memory). In
addition, for each activity i 2 V we store a start
time interval Ai  Ti which has been neglected
thus far. A diversi®cation step is then as follows.
First we determine the set V d containing the bn=2c
activities i 2 V with smallest values ai . Emanating
from the current schedule S, we then determine
C…S† by successively shifting the start times Si of
activities i 2 V d to points in time t 2 Ai . Further-
more, we reverse the enumeration of t, i.e., we
enumerate t from TF to 0 in Step 2 of Algorithm 4.
During the search process, we alternately per-
form 10 diversi®cation steps and 5 intensi®cation
steps if in more than 20 iteration steps, no new best
solution has been found. The search process is
stopped if a prescribed computing time is exceeded
or if the candidate set of the current schedule is
empty even if the tabu status of all neighbors is
ignored. The tabu search procedure for …Rÿ † ob-
tained by extending the standard tabu search ap-
proach by the described candidate set, tabu status,
aspiration criterion, intensi®cation, diversi®cation,
and stopping condition is denoted by Algorithm
TS in what follows.
For …R‡ † we modify the tabu search procedure,
which is then denoted by Algorithm TS ‡ , as fol-
lows:
(i) A feasible solution S min is only replaced by a
better feasible solution.
(ii) To ®nd S  2 C…S†, the objective function
value of an P infeasiblePschedule S is enlarged by
‡ 2
penalty cost k2R ck t2T ‰…rk …S; t† ÿ Rk † Š .
(iii) After 20 iteration steps without ®nding a
schedule which meets the resource constraints, the
set of peak times is reduced to points in time t
where at least one resource restriction is violated
w.r.t. the current schedule.
7. Experimental performance analysis
In this section, we brie¯y discuss the perfor-
mance of Algorithms 1±4. For the experimental
tests we have used an IBM-compatible PC with a
Pentium 200 processor running NT 4.0. For the
comparison of Algorithm 1 with the recursive
search procedure by De Reyck (1998) who used a
Pentium 60, we have employed an IBM-compati-
ble PC 486/50 running Windows 95 (which is
signi®cantly slower than the Pentium 60). All
procedures have been coded in ANSI C.
7.1. Benchmark test sets
We consider three test sets: test sets A and B
proposed in Neumann and Zimmermann (1999b)
and test set C proposed by De Reyck (Set III in De
Reyck, 1998), which have been generated by the
problem generator ProGen/max (Schwindt, 1998a).
Test set A contains 270 instances of problem …R‡ †
with 10, 15, and 20 real activities and 1, 3, and 5
di€erent resources. Test set B contains 270
instances of problems …R‡ † and …N‡ † with 100,
200, and 500 real activities and 1, 3, and 5 di€erent
resources. Finally, test set C contains 7200
instances of …R‡ † with 10, 20, 30, 50, and 100
activities and between 1 and 5 di€erent resources.
The activity durations pi are uniformly chosen
from f1; 2; . . . ; 10g and the restrictiveness (order
strength) is 0.25, 0.5, or 0.75.
The resource capacities Rk for problem sets A
and B are determined such that the resource
strength which measures the scarcity of resources
is equal to 0:2 (a de®nition of the well-known
control parameters restrictiveness and resource
strength can be found in Schwindt, 1998a). For the
prescribed maximum project duration d, we
choose for the problem instances of test sets A and
B three di€erent values: d 1:0 ˆ d0;n‡1 , d 1:1 ˆ
1:1 d0;n‡1 , and d 1:25 ˆ 1:25 d0;n‡1 , and for test set C
we choose
 
X
e
d ˆ d :ˆ max pi ; max dij :
i2V
j2Succ…i†
7.2. Results for (Nÿ †
First we deal with problem …Nÿ † and test sets
B and C where the resource data of the problem
instances are omitted. The cash ¯ows are gener-
ated randomly from a uniform distribution on
fÿ500; . . . ; 500g and a discount rate of b ˆ 0:99.
Table 1 shows the average CPU times in millisec-
onds as well as the average number of iterations
 K. Neumann, J. Zimmermann / European Journal of Operational Research 127 (2000) 425±443 439

for solving a problem instance of test set B by 7.3. Results for …Rÿ † and …R‡ †
Algorithm 1 depending on the number n of real
activities. We consider two versions of Algorithm 1 We now deal with problems …Rÿ † and …R‡ †
depending on which schedule is determined in where objective functions (A), (B3), and (C3) are
Step 1: Algorithm 1ES uses the earliest start considered (for objective functions (B1), (B2),
schedule ES and Algorithm 1S uses a stable (C1), and (C2) we obtain similar results). For each
schedule S found by Procedure 1. problem instance of test set A and d 1:1 , we compute
We see that even problem instances with 500 an optimal solution for problems …Rÿ † and …R‡ †
activities can be solved in less than 1 second. Be- using Algorithms 2 and 2‡ , respectively, or show
cause of the determination of the longest path for the respective instance of problem …R‡ † that
lengths dij , the running time of Algorithm 1S is the feasible region is empty. Table 3 gives the
much larger than that of Algorithm 1ES although percentage of problem instances which can be
the average number of iterations is signi®cantly solved by Algorithms 2 and 2‡ in 10 and 100
smaller. seconds for objective functions (A), (B3), and (C3).
Next we compare the recursive search proce- We see that due to tighter lower bounds, the
dure by De Reyck (1998) (Algorithm De Reyck) performance of Algorithm 2 is much better for the
with Algorithms 1ES and 1S on test set C. Table 2 r-monotonous objective functions (A) and (B3)
shows the average CPU time (in milliseconds) for than for objective function (C3). Resource con-
Algorithms 1ES and 1S as well as the times given straints permit us to reduce signi®cantly the size of
in De Reyck (1998) for test set C depending on n. the enumeration tree to be investigated. Thus, the
We see that Algorithms 1ES and 1S clearly performance of Algorithm 2‡ for problem …R‡ † is
outperform the procedure by De Reyck (1998). better than the performance of Algorithm 2 for
The poor performance of De Reyck's method is problem …Rÿ †.
caused by several reasons, in particular: Next, we investigate the performance of the
1. the computation of the matrix of longest path three schedule construction procedures Algorithm
lengths dij is very time-consuming and has no Contraction, Algorithm Unschedule, and Algo-
positive e€ect, rithm Repair for problem …R‡ † (cf. Section 5).
2. a large number of iterations (of the modi®ed Table 4 shows the percentage of problem instances
simplex method) is performed without much from test set A with nonempty feasible region
bene®t (only transformation of the basis), which can be solved to feasibility for d 1:1 . It turns
3. the average number of activities right-shifted out to be best to choose Algorithm Repair for all
per iteration is relatively small. three objective functions considered.
To improve the results obtained by priority-rule
Table 1 based heuristics for problems …Rÿ † and …R‡ †, we
Average CPU time (in milliseconds)/average number of itera- apply the tabu search heuristics Algorithm TS and
tion for Algorithms 1ES and 1S, problem …Nÿ †, test set B, and Algorithm TS‡ , respectively. For Algorithm TS we
d 1:25 use the control parameters CAND ˆ 100 and
n 100 200 500 g ˆ 0:9 and a running time of 3 seconds. The
Alg. 1ES 17.0/24.9 48.4/60.7 250.4/94.5 priority-rule combinations employed in Procedure
Alg. 1S 21.9/9.6 117.8/20.6 843.4/40.1 2 are MSO±MST, MST±GRD, and GRDP±MST
for objective functions (A), (B3), and (C3), re-
Table 2 spectively. For each instance I of test set A and
Average CPU time (in milliseconds), for Algorithms 1ES, 1S, each heuristic H 2 fProc: 21 ; Proc: 210 ; Alg: TSg,
and DeReyck, problem …Nÿ †, test set C, and e
d we compute Dopt opt opt
I …H † :ˆ …fI …H † ÿ fI †=fI , i.e.,
n 10 20 30 50 100 the relative deviation of the objective function
Alg. 1ES 1 5 9 18 53 value for the schedule found by heuristic H from
Alg. 1S 2 7 16 62 228 the minimum objective function value. Here,
Alg. DeReyck 1 6 17 137 836
Proc: 2j means that we choose the best schedule of
440 K. Neumann, J. Zimmermann / European Journal of Operational Research 127 (2000) 425±443

Table 3
Percentage of instances from test set A for problems …Rÿ † and …R‡ † solved by Algorithms 2 and 2‡ , respectively, given d 1:1
n (A) (B3) (C3)
10 15 20 10 15 20 10 15 20
ÿ
…R † 10 s 100 98.0 94.4 97.8 78.9 34.4 92.2 37.8 8.9
100 s 100 99.2 97.8 100 92.2 63.3 97.8 60.0 17.6
…R‡ † 10 s 100 100 100 100 92.3 81.8 96.1 88.8 73.3
100 s 100 100 100 100 100 97.0 98.9 93.3 77.7

Table 4 and 93% for objective functions (A), (B3), and

Percentage of instances from test set A solved to feasibility by (C3), respectively (compare Table 4 for Algorithm
Algorithms Contraction, Unschedule, and Repair for problem Repair).
…R‡ † and d 1:1
To examine the performance of the tabu
(A) (B3) (C3) search approach for large instances, we compare
Alg. Contraction 60 69 53 it for problem …Rÿ † with objective function (A),
Alg. Unschedule 65 76 64 with the ®ltered beam search modi®cation of
Alg. Repair 84 87 81
Algorithm 2 (denoted by Algorithm FB1) and a
®ltered beam search procedure (denoted by Al-
gorithm FB2) based on the branch-and-bound
j passes of (schedule construction) Procedure 2 procedure for the resource investment problem
where the priority values are randomly changed devised by N ubel (1998). To do so, we measure
(multiplied by a random number uniformly dis- the accuracy of a schedule for the 90 problem
tributed on [0.8,1.2], cf. (Franck, 1999). Table 5 instances I from test set B with 500 activities
shows the average relative deviation (denoted as B500 ) found by heuristic H by the
``relative error''
1 X opt
Dopt …H † :ˆ D …H †
jAj I2A I fI …H † ÿ fI
I …H † :ˆ ;
fI
for H 2 fProc: 21 ; Proc: 210 ; Alg: TSg depending
on d. where fI …H † is the objective function value for
We see from Table 5 that the average relative problem instance I computed by heuristic
deviation can be decreased signi®cantly using tabu H 2 fAlg: TS; Alg: FB1; Alg: FB2g and fI is the
search. If we employ the tabu search procedure smallest objective function value found by any of
TS‡ for problem …R‡ †, the percentage of problem the three heuristics applied to I.
instances of test set A which can be solved to
feasibility increases compared to Algorithm Re- 1 X
pair. In particular, the percentage of instances …H † :ˆ I …H †
jB 500 j I2B
from A solved to feasibility for d 1:1 is 98%, 97%, 500

Table 5
Dopt ÿ
I …H † for test set A solved by schedule construction and improvement procedures for …R †

(A) (B3) (C3)

d 1:0 d 1:1 d 1:25 d 1:0 d 1:1 d 1:25 d 1:0 d 1:1 d 1:25
Proc. 21 0.10 0.26 0.29 0.04 0.08 0.14 0.25 0.30 0.52
Proc. 210 0.06 0.13 0.22 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.16 0.20 0.32
Alg. TS 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.08 0.09
 K. Neumann, J. Zimmermann / European Journal of Operational Research 127 (2000) 425±443
Table 6
Comparison of heuristics procedures Algorithm TS, FB1, and FB2 for test set B500 and problem …Rÿ †
Alg. d 1:0 d 1:1
TS FB1 FB2 TS
mbest 80 10 8 78
…H† 0.00 0.15 0.16 0.01
max …H † 0.07 0.45 0.79 0.15
is called the quality of heuristic H (Brinkmann and
Neumann, 1996) for test set B 500 . Table 6 shows
…H † for H 2 fAlg: TS; Alg: FB1; Alg: FB2g, the
number mbest of instances for which heuristic H
yields the best (i.e., smallest) objective func-
tion value, and the maximum ``relative error''
max …H † :ˆ maxI2B500 I …H † of heuristic H for a
computing time of 100 s depending on d. We see
that the tabu search approach generally outper-
forms both ®ltered beam search procedures.
In summary, for problem …Rÿ † we recom-
mend to use the tabu search approach. For
small instances of problem …R‡ †, say with up to
100 activities, we recommend to employ
the branch-and-bound or the truncated branch-
and-bound procedures. For larger problem in-
stances the heuristic Algorithm Repair should be
used.
8. Conclusions
We have presented exact and heuristic proce-
dures for the resource leveling and net present
value problems …Rÿ †, …R‡ †, and …Nÿ † as well as a
heuristic procedure for …N‡ †. For …Rÿ † and …R‡ †,
several di€erent types of objective functions have
been discussed.
The exact procedure for …Nÿ † solves problem
instances with 500 activities within an average
computation time of less than 1 second and clearly
outperforms the recursive search procedure of De
Reyck (1998).
For the ®rst time, small instances of …Rÿ † and
‡
…R † with up to 20 activities and ®ve resources
have been solved to optimality by a branch-and-
bound procedure. Here, for problem …R‡ †, more
than 97% of the instances considered have been
441
d 1:25
FB1 FB2 TS FB1 FB2
8 6 77 10 5
0.17 0.18 0.01 0.17 0.22
0.51 1.00 0.31 0.49 1.25
solved to optimality within 100 seconds. As
heuristic methods are concerned, more than 80%
of the instances of …R‡ † have been solved to
feasibility in less than 1 second by a priority-rule
based schedule construction procedure, which
outperforms the heuristics devised in Neumann
and Zimmermann (1999b). For small instances of
…Rÿ †, the average relative deviation of the objec-
tive function value for the schedules determined
from the minimum function value ranges between
2% and 32% depending on the objective function.
For the improved schedules found by the tabu
search method o€ered, the deviations are between
0% and 9%. For large problem instances of …Rÿ †
with 500 activities, the tabu search approach out-
performs both the truncated branch-and-bound
procedure proposed in this paper and that one
derived from the branch-and-bound algorithm by
Nubel (1998).
Important areas of further research are a more
detailed empirical performance analysis taking
into account di€erent project parameters that
have a strong impact on the hardness of problem
instances (Schwindt, 1998a) and the determina-
tion of tight lower bounds on the minimum val-
ues of di€erent types of objective functions for
…Rÿ † and …R‡ †. Moreover, an exact solution
method for …N‡ † based on the exact solution
procedure for …Nÿ † proposed should be devel-
oped.
Acknowledgements
This research has been supported in part by
the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant Ne
137/4).
442 K. Neumann, J. Zimmermann / European Journal of Operational Research 127 (2000) 425±443
References
Ahuja, H.N., 1976. Construction Performance Control by
Networks. Wiley, New York.
Ahuja, R.K., Magnanti, T.L., Orlin, J.B., 1993. Network
Flows. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cli€s, NJ.
Bandelloni, M., Tucci, M., Rinaldi, R., 1994. Optimal resource
leveling using non-serial dynamic programming. European
Journal of Operational Research 78, 162±177.
Bartusch, M., M ohring, R.H., Radermacher, F.J., 1988.
Scheduling project networks with resource constraints
and time windows. Annals of Operations Research 16,
201±240.
`Brinkmann, K., Neumann, K., 1996. Heuristic procedures for
resource-constrained project scheduling with minimal and
maximal time lags: The resource-levelling and minimum
project duration problems. Journal of Decision Systems 5,
129±155.
Demeulemeester, E., 1995. Minimizing resource availability
costs in time-limited project networks. Management Sci-
ence 41, 1590±1598.
De Reyck, B., 1998. Scheduling projects with generalized
precedence relations: Exact and heuristic procedures.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Catholic University of Leuven.
De Reyck, B., Herroelen, W., 1998. An optimal procedure
for the resource-constrained project scheduling prob-
lem with discounted cash ¯ows and generalized prece-
dence relations. Computers and Operations Research 25,
1±17.
Easa, S.M., 1989. Resource leveling in construction by
optimization. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 115, 302±316.
Franck, B., 1999. Priorit atsregelverfahren f
ur die res-
sourcenbeschrankte Projektplanung mit und ohne Kalen-
der. Shaker, Aachen.
Glover, F., Laguna, M., 1997. Tabu Search. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Boston.
Grinold, R.C., 1972. The payment scheduling problem. Naval
Research Logistics Quarterly 19, 123±136.
Harris, R.B., 1978. Precedence and Arrow Networks for
Construction. Wiley, New York.
Harris, R.B., 1990. Packing method for resource leveling
(pack). Journal of Construction Engineering and Manage-
ment 116, 39±43.
Herroelen, W.S., Demeulemeester, E.L., Van Dommelen, P.,
1996. An optimal recursive search procedure for the
deterministic unconstrained max-npv project scheduling
problem. Research Report 9603, Department of Applied
Economics, Catholic University of Leuven.
Herroelen, W.S., Van Dommelen, P., Demeulemeester, E.L.,
1997. Project network models with discounted cash ¯ows:
A guided tour through recent developments. European
Journal of Operational Research 100, 97±121.
Icmeli, O., Erengußc, S.S., 1996. A branch and bound procedure
for the resource-constrained project scheduling problem
with discounted cash ¯ows. Management Science 42, 1395±
1408.
Kolisch, R., 1995. Project Scheduling under Resource Con-
straints. Physica, Heidelberg.
Meridith, J.R., Mantel Jr., S.J., 1995. Project Management: A
Managerial Approach. Wiley, New York.
Moder, J.J., Phillips, C.R., 1970. Project Management with
CPM and PERT. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Moder, J.J., Phillips, C.R., Davis, E.W., 1983. Project Man-
agement with CPM PERT and Project Diagramming. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Mohring, R.H., 1984. Minimizing costs of resource require-
ments in project networks subject to a ®xed completion
time. Operations Research 32, 89±120.
Neumann, K., Zimmermann, J., 1999a. Heuristic methods for
resource-constrained project scheduling with regular and
nonregular objective functions and schedule-dependent
time windows. In: Weglarz, J. (Ed.), Project Scheduling:
Recent Models, Algorithms, and Applications. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 261±287.
Neumann, K., Zimmermann, J., 1999b. Resource levelling for
projects with schedule-dependent time windows. European
Journal of Operational Research 117, 591±605.
Neumann, K., N ubel, H., Schwindt, C., 2000. Active and stable
project scheduling. Mathematical Methods of Operations
Research, to appear.
Nubel, H., 1998. A branch-and-bound procedure for the
resource investment problem with generalized precedence
constraints. Technical Report WIOR-516, University of
Karlsruhe.
Russell, A.H., 1970. Cash ¯ows in networks. Management
Science 16, 357±373.
Savin, D., Alkass, S., Fazio, P., 1996. Construction resource
levelling using neural networks. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering 23, 917±925.
Savin, D., Alkass, S., Fazio, P., 1997. A procedure for
calculating the weight-matrix of a neural network for
resource leveling. Advances in Engineering Software 28,
277±283.
Schwindt, C., 1998a. Generation of resource-constrained
scheduling problems subject to temporal constraints.
Technical Report WIOR-543, University of Karlsruhe,
European Journal of Operational Research, submitted.
Schwindt, C., 1998b. Verfahren zur L osung des res-
sourcenbeschr ankten Projektdauerminimierungs problems
mit planungsabh angigen Zeitfenstern. Shaker, Aachen.
Takamoto, M., Yamada, N., Kobayashi, Y., Nonaka, H., 1995.
Zero±one quadratic programming algorithm for resource
leveling of manufacturing process schedules. Systems and
Computers in Japan 26, 68±76.
Tavares, L.V., 1987. Optimal resource pro®les for program
scheduling. European Journal of Operational Research 29,
83±90.
Wiest, J.D., Levy, F.K., 1969. A Management Guide to PERT/
CPM. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cli€s, NJ.
Yang, K.K., Tay, L.C., Sum, C.C., 1992. A comparison of
stochastic scheduling rules for maximizing project net
present value. European Journal of Operational Research
85, 327±339.
 K. Neumann, J. Zimmermann / European Journal of Operational Research 127 (2000) 425±443 443

Younis, M.A., Saad, B., 1996. Optimal resource leveling of Zimmermann, J., Engelhardt, H., 1998. Lower bounds and
multi-resource projects. Computers and Industrial Engi- exact algorithms for resource levelling problems. Technical
neering 31, 1±4. Report WIOR-517, University of Karlsruhe.