Optimized scheduling and buffering of repetitive construction projects under uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Construction projects are complex projects taking place in dynamic environments, which necessitates accounting for different uncertainties during the planning stage. There is a significant lack of management tools for repetitive projects accounting for uncertainties in the construction environment. The purpose of this paper is to present an algorithm for the optimized scheduling of repetitive construction projects under uncertainty. Design/methodology/approach Fuzzy set theory is utilized to model uncertainties associated with various input parameters. The developed algorithm has two main components: optimization component and buffering component. The optimization component presents a dynamic programming approach that processes fuzzy numbers. The buffering component converts the optimized fuzzy schedule into a deterministic schedule and inserts time buffers to protect the schedule against anticipated delays. Agreement Index (AI) is used to capture the user's desired level of confidence in the produced schedule while sizing buffers. The algorithm is capable of optimizing for cost or time objectives. An example project drawn from literature is analysed to demonstrate the capabilities of the developed algorithm and to allow comparison of results to those previously generated. Findings Testing the algorithm revealed several findings. Fuzzy numbers can be utilized to capture uncertainty in various inputs without the need for historical data. The modified algorithm is capable of optimizing schedules, for different objectives, under uncertainty. Finally AI can be used to capture users' desired confidence in the final schedule. Originality/value Project planners can utilize this algorithm to optimize repetitive projects schedules, while modelling uncertainty in different input parameters, without the need for relevant historical data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".