See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271729566

A scheduling approach for ship design project with fields constraint in tasks
and human resources

Conference Paper · November 2014

DOI: 10.1109/CogInfoCom.2014.7020485

CITATIONS READS

0 21

5 authors, including:

Wei Deng Solvang Hao Yu

UIT - The Arctic University of Norway, Narvik, Norway UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, campus Narvik
66 PUBLICATIONS   198 CITATIONS    39 PUBLICATIONS   123 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

TARGET Project View project

I3 Innovation & Industrial Internet Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hao Yu on 25 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CogInfoCom 2014 • 5th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications • November 5-7, 2014, Vietri sul Mare, Italy
A scheduling approach for ship design project with
fields constraint in tasks and human resources
Shiyun Lia,b, Jiansha Lua, Weiguang Jianga
a
College of Mechanical Engineering
Zhejiang University of Technologya
310014, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, Chinaa
E-mail: {lishiyun, ljs, jiangwg}@zjut.edu.cn
Abstract—The subject of this paper is a complex ship design
project scheduling where resources are labor forces and tasks are
limited to deadlines. Furthermore, every labor force has skill in
one field and tasks should be performed with labor force in same
field. The design project has to be scheduled before it starts and
tasks are assigned to designers with restrictions that each
designer can execute one task at same time only and a task can be
performed by one designer during its period, so that we respect
most of the constraints and minimize the project finish date. We
give a linear programming formulation of this problem. Then a
practical approach is then developed. Finally, a hypothetical
example is presented in order to demonstrate how it works in
practice.
Keywords—project scheduling; task assign; ship design project;
project managment
I. INTRODUCTION
The main characteristics of ship design project scheduling
are the limitation of time and the complex constraints of tasks
in and between the different fields and the restrictions between
skilled designers and tasks during the long project cycle. The
goal of ship design scheduling is to provide an effective
timetable for project manager to assign tasks to designer and
accomplish the project in shortest time.
The problem of project scheduling has been researched for
decades [1], and a few researches focused on the scheduling
with logical constraints and the limitation of human resource
[2], [3]. A few papers of project scheduling with time-sequence
and the requirement of activity are published [4], [5], [6]. And
all of those reports considered project member can execute
each activity [7]. Few report focused on the constraints of
human resource and activities between different fields in a
project.
The subject of this paper we considered is the tasks
assignment with constraints in different fields and in different
skilled human resource and tasks in ship design project. The
constraint between human resource and tasks is that the tasks
and designers should be in same field, such as General, Pipe,
Structure, and Electric. That is a skilled designer in field of
Electric cannot perform the tasks in Pipe field. The constraint
between tasks in different fields is that some of the tasks are
depend on the tasks of other fields, such as most of tasks of
Pipe are depend on the tasks of Structure, and the tasks of
This work was partially supported by National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant No. 71201144, 71301148, 71101129) and
Foundation of Science Technology Department of Zhejiang Province (No.
2013C33054)
978-1-4799-7280-7/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE
37
Wei Deng Solvangb, Hao Yub
Department of Industrial Engineeringb
Narvik University Collegeb
Narvik, Norwayb
E-mail: { wds, Hao.Yu }@hin.no
Electric are depend on both that of General, Structure and Pipe.
To simplify the problem, the minimum of task period is one
day and over-time work and partly constraints between tasks
are not in consider in this paper. The partly constraints means
that the task A depend on the other task B, and the task A can
start after the task B started for several days, such as two or
three days, while the task B is not finished.
The ship design project is a huge and complex project
which includes more than ten fields such as General, Structure,
Pipe, Engine, Electric, Outfitting, Paint, etc. A cargo with
capacity of 50,000 Tons will need more than 100 designers and
is about 4,000 tasks. The period of design project is about one
year, after then about 100,000 drawings are outputs. Nowadays,
most of ship design institutes schedule projects by the
manager’s personal experience. And those managers are the
experts in their own field and do not have enough background
and knowledge of other fields. It means they cannot estimate
when the pre-work of other fields will be achieved. For
example, the manager of Pipe cannot estimate the accurate
finish day of Structure task which are based on the skilled
human resource and the assignment of Structure field, and then
he will assign tasks to designers earlier than it can start really.
This will result in the wait of Pipe designer while the lacking of
design time. Those problems always occur in ship design
institutes.
Generally, the requirements of ship design project
scheduling as following:
a) Multi variable constraints pathes: Each field has its
own critical constraints path as well as constraints path exist
between each two fields. And the constraint path will be
changed when the tasks assign to different designers and
different sequence because of the insufficecy of human
resource and too many concurrent tasks.
b) Each designer can only perform tasks in his own field:
Normally, each field has many rules and standards, and most
of the designers studies several years program to get special
knowledge of his field for design, such as bachelor program of
college. That means it is an impossible mission for a designer
to perform another field task.
c) Task only has a deadline. Because of the complex of
constraints and the huge numbers of tasks, it is impossible to
define a time window( start time and finish time) for each task.
 S. Li et al. • A scheduling approach for ship design project with fields constraint in tasks and human resources

In practice, all tasks are divided into some batches, and each
batch of tasks have the same deadline.
d) One task is executed by one designer: The inside
relationships of a task are very complex and the objects in a
tasks are full of constraints such as size, space, logical,
performance. If a task is assigned to more than one designer, it
will be inefficiency because they need more time to
communicate and cooperate with each other.
II. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
As already mentioned, we consider in this paper a special
case of the scheduling that can be found in ship design
companies, where projects typically correspond to aircraft
design, submarine design, and ocean engineering design which Fig. 2. Two possible schedules of sample project
include several fields and many human resource and lots of
tasks. Scheduling relies on both one field’s tasks and human III. LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODEL
resource and the other fields’ tasks and human resource, relies The problem of this scheduling can be modelled by using a
on both inside and outside fields’ tasks assignment. linear programming formulation.
A project with 2 fields (Field A and Field B) and each field A. Assumptions
contains 6 tasks (A1, A2~A6; B1, B2~B6) has to be scheduled. To formulate this problem, various assumptions are first
The relationships between tasks and fields are shown in Fig.1. made.
We assume that only one designer (Ad in Filed A and Bd in
Field B) is available for this project in each field, and each • The number of designers and tasks are fixed in whole
task’s design period is one day. project duration.
Part of this problem is to determine which task is assigned • Each of designers is available in whole project duration.
to designer on each period. The duration of task is a fix datum
that does not depend on the designer and constraints. Without • Each of designers has sufficient knowledge to perform
constraint, the project duration depends on the number of tasks in his field.
designers. However, the constraints between fields and in fields • Each task can be executed by one designer.
always exist. Therefore, the duration of project is variable.
• Each task cost fix days whoever execute.
In this example, if Ad performs tasks in sequence of A1-A2-
A3-A4-A5-A6 and Bd performs tasks in sequence of B4-B5-B6- • Each task can start until the pre-task finish.
B1-B2-B3, Ad can finish his work in 6 days. In addition,
because of the constraints of B2-A5 and B2-B1, task B2 can B. Data and Variables
start after the finish of B1 and A5. While task A5 will finish at G = (N, V) The project graph, and N is the set of task
day 5. Then Bd will wait for the finish of A5 until day 5 (see nodes, V is the set of vectors between nodes;
schedule 1 in Fig.2). In this schedule, the project duration is 7 D, d The set and index of tasks;
days. If Ad performs tasks in sequence of A4-A5-A6-A1-A2-A3,
Ad can finish his work in 6 days too. Then the Constraints of H, h The set and index of human resource;
B2-A5 and B2-B1 will be not influent in this sequence and Bd
F, f The set and index of fields;
can finish tasks in 6 days without any wait (see schedule 2 in
Fig.2). The duration of project will reduce from 7 days to 6 T, t The set and index of time in days;
days.
ND, NH, NF The number of D, H, and F;
To minimum the project duration, we have to find a
schedule of the tasks in sequence and to determine which tasks Pd The number of task Dd’s duration in days;
are the most appropriate to be process on each period. DLd The deadline of task Dd in days;
Fd, Fh The field of task Dd, and human Hh;
Sdh The start day of task Dd when task Dd is
assigned to human Hh;
CMd Completion day of task Dd;
Xhdft Binary decision variable, if it equals 1, the
task Dd is assigned to human Hh at time t in
Fig. 1. Constraints Graph of Project with 2 Fields and 6 tasks in each fields field Ff, 0 otherwise;
Lmax Objective function.

38
 CogInfoCom 2014 • 5th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications • November 5-7, 2014, Vietri sul Mare, Italy

C. Model completed before its deadline. Eq. (9) and Eq. (10) restricts the
In this section, we present the formulation of the object process time of task d is between start time and completion
function with more than ten sets of constraints, which is used to time. The restricts that start time of next task will be later than
determine the schedule of ship design project. the next day of completion time of pre-task, if a constraint
exists between two tasks is shown in (11). If a task is assigned
Minimize: to a designer, designer and task should be in same field, as
shown in (12). Eq. (13) and Eq. (14) restrict the amount of
, 1 processing designers and tasks are no more than that of
designers and tasks every day. Eq. (15) determines whether
Subject to: task d is assigned to designer h at time t in same field f. Eq. (16)
the start day and completion day is non-negative value.
1, , , 2 This model contains O(NhNdNfNt) boolean variable, and
D O(Nh2Nd2Nf2Nt2) constraints. For a real project as 50,000 Tons
cargo mentioned previously involving 125 designers, about 250
work days, 3800 tasks and 11 fields, the model contains around
, , , 3
1.3 billion boolean variable and 1.6E+18 constraints. It is an
T
uneconomic task to solve this huge-size problem with any
solver such as CPLEX in current hardware condition.
1, , 4
D. Heuristic algorithm
H
In this paper, our goal is to propose a dedicated approach
, , , , , , that could be used in practice by project manager to solve the
1 , 5 industrial problem described previously. Though the linear
programming model cannot be exactly resolved, one heuristic
, , 6 algorithm has been developed. Due to the complexity of the
problem, the heuristic algorithm we developed may lead to a
0, , , , , 7 solution that is not the best solution of the problem.
The objective of this problem is to minimize the project
DL , 8 completion time. If project members work without waiting, the
difference of project completion times in different schedules
, , , , 9 will be inconspicuous. Because of shortage of human resource,
too many concurrent tasks and that critical constraints path is
, , , , 10 shorter than project duration, this complex problem can be
changed to minimize wait time of designers in some degrees,
1 , , , , 11 which is the same as to assign task that has the max value of
following tasks period totally. We consider that the task that
has the max value of following tasks’ period is assigned earlier,
, 1, , , , 12
and other designers have more opportunity to execute more
tasks such as the following tasks, and then they will wait less
, , 13 time normally.
H We propose this algorithm based on the following scheme:
(1). Find out the first available designer Hh and the possible
, , 14
assignment time Ths from team;
H
(2). Find out the field f of designer Hh;
0,1 , , , , 15
(3). Find out the early deadline Tddl of all unassigned tasks
in field f;
0, 0, , 16
(4). Select all unassigned tasks whose deadline is equal to
Equation (1) is the objective of this model, the objective is Tddl into set S1 from field f;
to minimize the completion day of the whole project. Eq. (2)
(5). If S1 is empty, it is means there is not unassigned task
restricts that one designer in any field can only execute no
in field f, and set all designers in field f are unavailable; then go
more than one task at each day. Eq. (3) restricts process time of
to step (1);
each task d are no more than the duration. Eq. (4) restricts the
number of executor of each task is no more than 1. Eq. (5) (6). If S1 is not empty, select all tasks whose possible start
restricts task d is executed by same designer h when h starts time Tds is not later than that of designer’s Ths from S1 into set
task d. Eq. (6) guarantees that task is completed within its S2;
duration. Eq. (7) means task d cannot be assigned before d
starts or after d completes. Eq. (8) guarantees task d should be

39
 S. Li et al. • A scheduling approach for ship design project with fields constraint in tasks and human resources

(7). If S2 is empty, postpone the possible start time Ths of
designer until S2 is not empty;
(8). Select all whose deadline Tddl is earlier than possible
complete time Tdc that is the sum with designer’s possible start
time Ths additional of task’s Period Tdp into S3 from S2;
(9). If S3 is empty, select tasks who has the maximum value
of summary of all successors period include all sub-successors
into S4 from S2.
(10). If there are more than one tasks in S4, find out the task
D whose deadline Tddl is closer to the possible complete time
Tdc from S4, else get task from S4 as D;
(11). If S3 is not empty, select tasks who has the maximum
value that is the result of subtraction possible complete time Tdc
from deadline Tddl into S5 from S3;
(12). If there are more than one tasks in S5, find out the task
D who has the maximum value of summary of all successors
period include all sub-successors from S5; else get task from S5
as D;
(13). Assign task D to designer Hh. Set task D is assigned
statement, start time of task D as Ths, available time of
designer Hh as Tdc, and go to step (1).
IV. HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
In this section, a hypothetical example is given for
presenting a better understanding of the model and algorithm.
It is assumed that there are 74 tasks in 3 fields. The colors of
nodes identify different fields (shown in Fig. 3). Azury color
represents field E, green is field Z, and pink is field L. The line
between two tasks is a constraint that means next task can start
until before task complete. The upper data of task node are
design period and deadline, such as “3, 15” of task E1 mean
design period is 3 days and the deadline is 15 days after project
starts. Chain with red color is the critical path of project in Fig.
3. The total length of critical path is 36 days. Human resources
of example are given in Table I.
Gantt chart of scheduling results with heuristic
algorithm(called A) and first considering the deadlines(called B)
are given in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. Blocks with white color in Fig. 4
and Fig. 5 represent the wait time of designers.
TABLE I. HUMAN RESOURCES AND TASKS NUMBER OF EXAMPLE
Field Designers Task Number Field Burdena
E PE1,PE2 24 88
Z PZ1,PZ2 18 77

L PL1,PL2,PL3 32 133
a.
Field burden is the total days of tasks in field.

3,15 4,15 5,15 3,25 2,25 6,35 4,45 2,45

E1 E4 E7 E10 E13 E16 E19 E22

3,15 2,15 3,15 5,25 3,25 5,35 3,45 3,45

E2 E5 E8 E11 E14 E17 E20 E23

4,15 4,15 4,15 2,25 4,25 7,35 3,45 4,45

E3 E6 E9 E12 E15 E18 E21 E24

4,10 5,10 4,20 2,20 6,40 5,40

Z1 Z4 Z7 Z10 Z13 Z16

3,10 2,10 3,20 5,20 8,40 7,40

Z2 Z5 Z8 Z11 Z14 Z17

Start 7,40 5,40 End

3,10 3,10 4,20 2,20

Z3 Z6 Z9 Z12 Z15 Z18

3,15 4,15 5,15 3,25 4,25 9,35 4,45 3,45

L1 L5 L9 L13 L17 L21 L25 L29

6,15 2,15 4,15 5,25 3,25 8,35 3,45 5,45

L2 L6 L10 L14 L18 L22 L26 L30

5,15 4,15 2,15 2,25 6,25 6,35 3,45 4,45

L3 L7 L11 L15 L19 L23 L27 L31

2,15 3,15 4,15 4,25 3,25 5,35 6,45 3,45

L4 L8 L12 L16 L20 L24 L28 L32

Fig. 3. Network of example with 74 tasks and 3 fields

40
 CogInfoCom 2014 • 5th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications • November 5-7, 2014, Vietri sul Mare, Italy

in the same field are less difference than from that of B. Detail
data are shown in Table II. Furthermore, more tasks exceed
deadlines from approach B. Scheduling with approach A have
8 tasks and 12 days exceed the deadline totally, while that with
approach B have 10 tasks and 19 days exceed the deadline. In
addition, three tasks exceed the project deadline while one task
exceeds that with approach A.
All those show that the heuristic algorithm is more
efficiency than the deadline method in this example.
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have presented a project-scheduling
problem with shortage of labors and restrictions in human
resource and tasks fields that means designers can execute
Fig. 4. Gantt chart of scheduling result by heuristic algorithm tasks in same field only, and constrains between both same
field and different fields. We develop a linear programming
model of the problem and a heuristic algorithm of which the
main idea is to do more work early and reduce waiting time.
The approach we have proposed schedules the design
project without taking partly constrains, varieties of human
resource and unexpected events in account. Furthermore, we do
not consider those overloading assignment under the shortage
of project period such as partly weekend assignment or more
than 8 hours daily work and task assignment in hours. All those
will make the problem more complex than we studied in this
paper.
It is difficult to use this approach to solve the problem that
contains much uncertainty during scheduling without any
interactivity from project manager or planners, and this
implementation of interactive process carried out by human
Fig. 5. Gantt chart of scheduling result by first considering the deadlines will be one of the further studies in this problem.
TABLE II. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DESIGNERS’ COMPLETION TIME REFERENCES
Completion Time [1] L.-E Drezet, J.-C. Billaut, A project scheduling problem with labour
Field Designer constraints and time-dependent activities requirements, International
Approach A Difference Approach B Difference Journal of Production Economics, vol. 112, pp. 217-225, 2008
PE1 44 45 [2] Alfarez, H.K., Bailey, J.E., Integrated project task and manpower
E 0 1 scheduling. IIE Transactions, vol. 29(9), pp. 711-717, 1997
PE2 44 46
PZ1 40 38 [3] Jorne Van den Bergh, Jeroen Beliën, Philippe De Bruecker, etc,
Z 2 2 Personnel scheduling: A literature review, European Journal of
PZ2 38 40
PL1 43 44 Operation Research, vol. 226, pp. 367-385, 2013
L PL2 46 3 46 3 [4] Peter Brucker, Rong Qu, Edmund Burke, Personnel scheduling: Models
PL3 44 47 and Complexity, European Journal of Operation Research, vol. 211, pp.
467-473, 2011
After comparing with the scheduling of those two approach, [5] A.T. Ernst, H. Jiang, M. Krishnamoorthy, etc, Staff scheduling and
there are little difference between the completion time that it is restoring: A review of applications, methods and models, European
only one day later than approach A while both of them exceed Journal of Operation Research, vol. 153, pp. 3-27, 2004
the deadline of project. The scheduling with approach A [6] Amnon Meisels, Eliezer Kaplansky, Iterative restart technique for
exceeds 1 day and that with approach B exceeds 2 days. solving timetabling problems, European Journal of Operation Research,
vol. 153, pp. 41-50, 2004
Moreover, there are some differences. Firstly, waiting time [7] Tanguy Lapègue, Odile Bellenguez-Morineau, Damien Prot, A
of the approach A is only 1 day while that of B are 8 days. This constraint-based approach for the shift design personnel task scheduling
means scheduling with approach A is more efficiency. problem with equity, Computers & Operation Research, vol. 40, pp.
2450-2465, 2013
Secondly, the completion times of designers with approach A

41
View publication stats