Optimized crew selection for scheduling of repetitive projects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify optimum crew formations at unit execution level of repetitive projects that minimize project duration, project cost, crew work interruptions and interruption costs, simultaneously. Design/methodology/approach The model consists of four modules. The first module quantifies uncertainties associated with the crew productivity rate and quantity of work using the fuzzy set theory. The second module identifies feasible boundaries for activity relaxation. The third module computes direct cost, indirect cost and interruption costs, including idle crew cost as well as mobilization and demobilization costs. The fourth module identifies near-optimum crew formation using a newly developed multi-objective optimization model. Findings The developed model was able to provide improvements of 0.2, 16.86 and 12.98% for minimization of project cost, crew work interruptions and interruption costs from US$1,505,960, 8.3 days and US$8,300, as recently reported in the literature, to US$1,502,979, 6.9 days and US$7,222, respectively, without impacting the optimized project duration. Originality/value The novelty of this paper lies in its activity-relaxation free float that considers the effect of postponing early finish dates of repetitive activities on crew work interruptions. The introduced new float allows for calculating the required crew productivity rate that minimizes crew work interruptions without delaying successor activities and without impacting the optimized project duration. It safeguards against assignment of unnecessary costly resources.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it