Evaluating Project Scheduling and Due Date Assignment Procedures: An Experimental Analysis

John Dumond and Vincent A. Mabert
Additional contact information
John Dumond: Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio 45402
Vincent A. Mabert: School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405

Management Science, 1988, vol. 34, issue 1, 101-118

Abstract: Managers of construction projects, maintenance activities, auditing contracts, software shops, etc. are frequently faced with the task of establishing a new project's due date, which must compete with other projects already in progress or expected (forecasted) to start in the future. The study reported here addresses the problem of establishing due dates for projects which require limited resources, in an environment where new projects arrive continuously and randomly over time. A set of procedures is developed which set each project's due date when it arrives using information about the new project, current projects, and available resources. The due date setting procedures are tested via simulation with four activity scheduling heuristics that control the assignment of resources to specific activities of available projects. A second test demonstrates the performance of the due date procedures, where a portion of arriving projects have their due dates established by external forces beyond management's control. Performance measures of project mean completion time, project mean lateness, project standard deviation of lateness, and total tardiness (sum of all projects' tardy time) were collected for evaluation. This study presents a number of important results for managers interested in scheduling projects and setting due dates. First, using more information concerning the current work in progress, available resources, and activity precedent relationships provides a better due date estimate for a new project. Second, a finite scheduling procedure (called SFT) consistently gives better due date estimates than simpler aggregate procedures. Third, when some project due dates are set externally, due date performance deteriorates. However, when SFT is combined with a due date oriented activity scheduling rule, due dale performance deterioration is less. Fourth, the effort, measured by CPU time, for SFT to estimate a good due date depends upon the ratio of activity resources required to total resources available, rather than the number of activities across all projects. And fifth, similarities and differences between the results observed in this study and past due date job shop scheduling research are reviewed.

Keywords: project management: resource constraints; production scheduling; simulation: applications (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1988
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (19)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.34.1.101 (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:34:y:1988:i:1:p:101-118

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Management Science from INFORMS Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Asher ().