Quality, Time, and Cost Tradeoffs in Project Management Decision Making

Matthew J. Liberatore
1
, Bruce Pollack-Johnson
2
1
Villanova University, Department of Management and Operations, Villanova, PA - USA
2
Villanova University, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Villanova, PA - USA

Abstract--This paper presents a mathematical programming
model that allows quality to be explicitly considered in project
planning and scheduling, while addressing the tradeoffs between
quality, time, and cost. A quality function is used to represent
the relationships between time, cost, and quality for individual
tasks. The initial problem formulation maximizes the minimum
quality (weakest link) over all project tasks, subject to bounds
on cost and completion time. Using a construction example we
show how this model can be adapted to generate quality level
curves to illustrate the trade-offs among time, cost, and quality.
These level curves can then be used by project managers to
make project scheduling decisions that explicitly model and
consider quality as well as time and cost, so that better and more
appropriate decisions can be made for a particular situation.
We also offer some managerial insights for project planning and
scheduling that are derived from the analysis through improved
understanding of these choices and tradeoffs.

I. INTRODUCTION

Project planning and scheduling research has focused on
managing the relationship between time and cost, with little if
any attention directed to quality. However, in most situations
there are alternative approaches for completing each task,
each having its own values of time, cost, and quality. Quality
differences can arise due to bids offered by competing
subcontractors to complete specific tasks. Even different bids
by the same subcontractor could imply different quality
levels. Also, subcontracts might have some flexibility with
time and cost to allow for different quality levels of the same
task. This can also be true for alternative work plans offered
in-house.
In this paper we introduce the notion of a quality function
for individual tasks in terms of time and cost, and incorporate
quality at the task level into an analytic model for project
planning and scheduling. We show how the problem of
maximizing the quality of the weakest link subject to time
and cost limits can be formulated and solved. An alternative
formulation leads to the creation of iso-quality curves that
will allow managers to evaluate the tradeoffs between time,
cost, and quality across the project. Using either formulation,
the results lead to specific decisions about the planned values
for each task along these three dimensions. We also offer
some managerial insights for project planning and scheduling
that are derived from the analysis through improved
understanding of these choices and tradeoffs.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Project Quality
Quality management has equal priority with cost and
schedule management [7]. The International Organization
for Standards (ISO) has set forth ISO 9000 as a set of
international standards for both quality management and
quality assurance that has been adopted by over 90 countries
worldwide. ISO 9000, clause 3.1.1 defines quality as the
degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfills
requirements [5].
The ISO 9000 definition of quality has been adopted by
the Project Management Body of Knowledge [15]. The
PMBOK considers quality planning, quality assurance, and
quality control. According to the PMBOK, quality must
address both the management of the project and the product
of the project. However, the manner in which quality
considerations influences the design, planning, and
scheduling of individual project tasks is unclear.
Overall project quality could be assessed using a measure
of customer-perceived service quality such as SERVQUAL
[13], or by developing a related measure that is targeted to a
specific situation, e.g., [19]. A study conducted by the
Quality Performance Measurements Task Force of the
Construction Industry Institute produced the quality
measurement matrix [17] and led to the development of a
methodology to measure quality performance of engineer-
procure-construct (EPC) projects [18]. The focus of this
Total Quality Management (TQM) approach is on identifying
and then tracking critical quality measures for each project
phase.
Karnes et al. [6] identified nine dimensions of product
quality and then applied the Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) to measure overall quality. Along the same lines but
from the project perspective Paquin et al. [12] contend that a
method for assessing quality must enable project managers to
elucidate and structure the clients needs and expectations.
Client satisfaction can be decomposed into a hierarchical
structure of quality criteria or dimensions. This is performed
through a top-down process whereby the more general
objectives are decomposed into lower-level objectives in
greater detail. The project manager and the client must jointly
determine the rules by which objective as well as subjective
quality criteria are to be measured and aggregated. A
multicriterion approach such as the Analytic Hierarchy
Process or AHP [16] can be used for this purpose. Paquin et
al. [12] apply the multicriterion approach to measure planned
quality of work scheduled and work performed, and earned
1323
PICMET 2009 Proceedings, August 2-6, Portland, Oregon USA 2009 PICMET
quality of work performed by task during the course of the
project.
In the present research we are interested in measuring
planned quality of work for different designs of specific
project tasks so that the project manager can evaluate the
tradeoffs between quality, time, and cost. Following the
general approach of [12], Pollack-Johnson and Liberatore
[14] illustrate how the quality of a task option can be
determined using the AHP. This example shows how quality
of different approaches for laying a foundation in
construction could be related to two quality attributes:
compressive strength of the concrete used, and the depth of
the excavation. An alternative approach for measuring
quality at the task level is to make a direct subjective
assessment of quality [1], [8]. Our method for modeling
quality at the task level can incorporate either the
multicriterion or subjective assessment approaches.

B. Relationships between Quality, Time, and Cost
The relationships between quality, time, and cost have
been studied and modeled in the new product development
literature. Morgan et al. [11] model the time to market versus
quality tradeoff when there are multiple product generations.
Decisions relate to the number and length of development
cycles and intensity of development in each period. They
assume that quality and cost increase with time spent in
development, that firms can spend more (less) money per
period to increase (decrease) the rate of quality improvement,
and that firms engage in efficient new product development
so they cannot simultaneously reduce development time (to
achieve a given level of quality) and development cost.
In the project management literature the relationship
between time and cost has been studied with and without
consideration of their relationship with quality. The literature
contains linear, nonlinear, and discrete formulations of the
time-cost problem. The linear formulation assumes that each
activitys time can range over a closed interval, and that the
cost of completing the activity is linear and decreasing over
the interval [2]. The nonlinear problem in its simplest form
has been modeled using a piecewise linear representation of
the time/cost tradeoff for each activity [10], to represent the
common situation in which it becomes proportionately more
expensive to reduce duration by each successive time. The
discrete version requires specifying a set of discrete
processing times and associated costs for each project
activity, which is a different way to model nonlinearity.
Convex [4] and quadratic [3] crashing functions have been
studied and modeled. A review of the time-cost literature can
be found in [2].
Babu and Suresh [1] present a linear programming model
that addresses time, cost, and quality in project management.
Their approach is to associate both a normal cost and a
normal quality with a normal activity time, and a crash cost
and crash quality with a crash activity time. They assume a
linear crashing relationship for both cost and quality as
functions of time, and optimize one objective with bounds on
the others. That is, quality is assumed to depend only on time
and is independent of cost for a given time, a major limitation
of their approach. Project quality is measured as the
arithmetic or geometric mean of the quality of the activities
or as the minimum quality of the activities. Iso-curves are
used to show the relationships between two of the three
factors, with the other held at constant levels.
Khang and Myint [8] applied the method found in [1] to
an actual cement factory construction project. In both papers
the quality levels associated with all normal times was set at
1.0, while the lower quality level at the crash time for each
activity was measured relative to this level. The linearity
assumption between quality and time was found to be
problematic. The authors found that the most difficult and
controversial task was to assess the quality reduction
associated with crashing. The authors suggested the need for
a more holistic measurement of performance quality and a
more realistic model to describe the relationships between the
quality of individual activities (and therefore of the whole
project) and the budget and time allowed. In response to the
suggestion in [8] and the limitations of [1], in this research
we model quality at the task level as a nonlinear function of
both cost and time.

III. THE MODEL

A. Developing the Quality Function
Our approach begins by formulating a model of the
quality of each task as a function of the time (t) and cost (c)
allocated to it. We assume that there could be different
entities who could perform the task (individuals or groups,
subcontractors, etc.), and that each entity could do the job
with different allocations of time and budget. Each entity
would have its own quality function in terms of time and cost.
If those quality functions are graphed on the same
time/cost/quality axes, then the overall quality function for
the task that we are interested in is the maximum, or the upper
envelope, of the individual entity quality graphs. This
approach is consistent with the assumption of efficiency in
new product development found in [11]. Figure 1 shows an
example for three different entities that could perform a
particular task. Graph (a) shows three individual quality
surfaces for a given task, and graph (b) shows the upper
envelope of these three surfaces, which we consider the
overall quality surface for this task.
We assume that this overall quality function for a task has
two basic properties:
- Holding time constant, quality is increasing in cost. Thus
if time is fixed, we assume that spending more money on
the task will increase quality.
- Holding cost constant, quality is increasing in time. Thus
if cost is fixed, we assume that spending more time on the
task will increase quality.

If we normalize quality to be on a 0-100 scale, and limit
time and cost to reasonable values for the task at hand, based
1324
PICMET 2009 Proceedings, August 2-6, Portland, Oregon USA 2009 PICMET
on the two nondecreasing assumptions above, we would
expect the graph to show quality being lowest at the corner of
the domain with the smallest values of time and cost and
highest in the opposite corner (the highest values of time and
cost). For a fixed quality, we would expect a time/cost
tradeoff curve that is decreasing and convex. Thus, to
maintain the same level of quality, to reduce the time, one has
to pay increasingly more money per unit, such as in standard
project activity crashing [2]. This suggests a basic hill shape
rising out of a plain, although we would only be interested in
a one-quarter wedge of the hill (such as the individual quality
curves in Figure 1a).

(a) 3 individual quality graphs (b) the upper envelope overall quality graph

Figure 1: Quality graphs

A familiar mathematical functional form that has this
shape is the bivariate normal distribution in probability. We
propose using this functional form for the overall quality
function for each task. Our quality function is normalized so
that the maximum time (
t
) and cost (
c
) values considered
reasonable correspond to a quality of 100. The standard
deviation parameters ( o
t
and

o
c
) give a measure of how
slowly the quality drops from the top of the hill compared to
the maximum values for time and cost, respectively. Thus,
our resulting quality function is given by
( ) ( )
2 2
( , ) 100
t c
t c
t c
Q t c e
u u
o o

+


=
(1)

The quality curves in Figure 1 are of this form. We have
eliminated the in the exponent, which means that each o
in the quality function definition would be multiplied by 2
to be interpreted as the usual o in the bivariate normal
distribution. Notice that if we hold either variable constant,
the marginal graph for the other will be a bell curve (actually,
a subset of a graph that is a constant multiple of a normal
distribution curve). Notice also that the upper envelope graph
may not be smooth, but we are assuming that we can fit a
smooth function that is a reasonable estimate of the upper
envelope. For a given value of quality using this bivariate
normal functional form, there is a nonlinear relationship
between time and cost, generalizing the standard linear
approach. This quality function is increasing with respect to
both time and cost (holding the other constant), consistent
with the assumption of efficiency in new product
development [11]. This version of the bivariate normal
distribution upon which this functional form is based assumes
independence of the two random variables. We have chosen
this version for a simpler model, but the dependent version
could also be used, with one more parameter, corresponding
to the correlation/interaction between the variables.

B. Quality Function Estimation
In situations where n bids, alternative work plans, or
scenarios specifying levels of quality, time, and cost
( , , )
j j j
q t c have been received for a given activity, the four
parameters of the bivariate normal function can be
determined using nonlinear least squares estimation:
Minimize
2
1
{ ( , | , , , ) )
j j j j
n
j j t c t c j
j
Q t c q u u o o
=

(2)
It is necessary to add the constraints:
, 1, 2,...,
, 1, 2,...,
j
j
j t
j c
t j n
c j n
u
u
s =
s =
(3)

because the parameters are upper bounds on the values of
the t and c variables.

C. Model Formulation
To model the quality-time-cost tradeoff problem, we start
with standard assumptions for modeling projects: that the
project network has no cycles, that the start activity (activity
0, a dummy activity) is the only activity that is not an
immediate successor of any activity, and that the finish
activity (activity 1+1 , also a dummy activity) is the only
activity that has no successors. It is common to use
1325
PICMET 2009 Proceedings, August 2-6, Portland, Oregon USA 2009 PICMET
predecessors rather than successors for project scheduling
formulations of this type, but for this example, the
formulation turns out to be much more concise and elegant
using successors.
Define the following parameters and variables:
t
i
= the duration of activity i , for i = 1,,1
c
i
= the cost of activity i , for i = 1,,1
q
i
= the quality of activity i , for i = 1,,1
S
i
= the set of activities that are immediate successors of
activity i , for i = 0,,1
T
UB
= upper bound on the total project time
C
UB
= upper bound on the total project cost
s
i
= the scheduled start time for activity i , for i =
0,,1+1
min
i
t = lower bound on the duration of activity i , for i =
1,,1
min
i
c = lower bound on the cost of activity i , for i =
1,,1

Relevant quality measures from a project perspective
could involve maximizing average quality, or maximizing
minimum quality, of the tasks. We select the latter, Q
min
, as
our quality metric, since from a systems perspective if the
project is viewed as an integrated set of activities, the quality
of a project is only as high as its weakest link. Q
min
is defined
as:
Q
min
=
min
1
i
q
i 1 s s
(4)
The quality-time-cost problem can be thought of as
having three objectives, and can be modeled as a goal
programming problem. In our formulation, we first
maximize Q
min
while setting an upper bound on total project
cost and total project time. The nonlinear program is given
as equations (5) (17) below:
min
Maximize Q
(5)
subject to:
min
, 1, 2, ,...
i
Q q i 1 s =
(6)
{ }
2 2
( , ) 100 * exp [( ) / )] [( ) / )]
i i
i i i i
i i i t t i c c
q Q t c t c u o u o = = ,
1, 2, ,... i 1 =
(7)
1
1
i UB
i
c C
=
s

(8)
0
0 s =
(9)
0,..., ,
k i i i
s s t i 1 k S > + = e (10)
1 1 UB
s T
+
s (11)
0 1,..., 1
i
s i 1 > = + (12)
min
, 1, 2,...,
i
i
t t i 1 > = (13)
min
, 1, 2,...,
i
i
c c i 1 > = (14)
, 1, 2,...,
i
i t
t i 1 u s = (15)
, 1, 2,...,
i
i c
c i 1 u s = (16)
, , 0, 1, 2,...,
i i i
q t c i 1 > = (17)

Equation (6) is a modeling device to obtain the minimum
of the
i
q . The mathematical program is nonlinear due to
Equation (7), the bivariate normal quality function.
Equations (8) and (11) set bounds on project cost and
completion time, respectively. Equation (10) is needed to
enforce the successor relationships among the tasks in the
network. Lower bounds on the time and cost variable values
are set by equations (13) and (14), respectively. These
bounds are normally based on the smallest completion time
and cost possible for each activity. Equations (15) and (16)
reflect the upper bounds on the cost and time for each activity
imposed by the definition of the quality function, although
other values for the upper bounds could be considered. The
independent decision variables are the time and cost for each
project activity (which determine the quality for each
activity). This problem can be solved using Lingos global
solver [9] and generalizes the standard time/cost tradeoff
problem [2].

D. Construction Example
A general contractor planning to start construction of a
new house has organized the project into activities, with
corresponding immediate successor activities, as given in
Table 1. The precedence relationships are shown in Figure 2.
She has put the various activities individually up for bids, and
has received bids for both duration and cost from different
subcontractors. These bids were used to estimate the bivariate
normal quality functions for each activity, with parameters
given in Table 1.
To illustrate the process of quality function estimation,
activity 3, Erect Rough Wall and Roof, had three quality,
time, and cost (q, t, c) bids: (80, 4, 28.8), (70, 3, 39.6), and
(90, 4, 35.0). The quality of these bids may differ in terms of
the quality of the materials used and the skill of the workmen
employed. This means that task 3 can be completed in 4 days
for $28,800, at a quality level of 80 (option 1). It could also
be completed in 3 days for $39,600, but the quality would go
down to 70 (option 2; for example, workers are added to
reduce the completion time, but are less skilled). Finally, to
complete the task in 4 days but at a higher quality of 90, the
cost would need to go up to $35,000 (option 3, up from the
$28,800 of option 1 with the same 4 day completion time).
Using nonlinear least squares estimation as described above
(using (2) and (3), n = 3 bids) yields
( 4, 1.79, 48.6, 42)
t t c c
u o u o = = = = as the bivariate
quality function parameters for activity 3 shown in Table 1.
1326
PICMET 2009 Proceedings, August 2-6, Portland, Oregon USA 2009 PICMET
TABLE 1: TASK, IMMEDIATE SUCCESSOR, AND QUALITY FUNCTION INFORMATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
IMMEDIATE QUALITY PARAMETERS
TASK DESCRIPTION SUCCESSORS ( , , , )
t t c c
u o u o

0 START 1 dummy activity
1 Excavate and Pour Footers 2 (4.01, 11.3, 52.4, 52.4)
2 Pour Concrete Foundation 3 (2, 2.33, 11.2, 8.52)
3 Erect Rough Wall & Roof 4,5,6 (4, 1.79, 48.6, 42)
4 Install Siding 11 (13, 19, 79.2, 99.4)
5 Install Plumbing 7 (3, 1.62, 26.6, 20.4)
6 Install Electrical 7 (10.9, 12.8, 29.7, 77.9)
7 Install Wallboard 8,9 (5, 2.73, 16.8, 8.05)
8 Lay Flooring 10 (8.09, 7.18, 64, 67.5)
9 Do Interior Painting 10 (4.57, 4.3, 16.8,12.7)
10 Install Interior Fixtures 13 (8.40,11.9, 9.94,7.03)
11 Install Gutters & Downspouts 12 (2, 12, 17.7, 18.9)
12 Do Grading & Landscaping 13 (3.36, 2.4, 21.5, 12.3)
13 FINISH -- dummy activity

The solution to this problem, with T = 26 and C= 185.3
(and with the lower bounds on time and cost for each activity
again assumed to be 30% of their upper bound u values),
is given in Figure 2, using the Global Solver in LINGO [9].
The critical path is indicated in bold. The optimal value of
Q
min
is 73.4, and the time and cost limits are binding. The
quality values are all equal to the optimal value of Q
min
.
Note that for non-critical-path activities, LINGO may find
optimal solutions that do not necessarily start at the earliest
start times (e.g., activities 4 and 5 in Figure 2). However,
since using slack does not affect quality, time, or cost of an
activity, there are a range of alternative optimal solutions
having different start times.

KEY: s
i
7.288 20.483 22.562
0.0 0.0 1.833 3.283 7.291 16.107 26.000
11.872 23.479
7.210 18.893
0.0 0.0
0
0.0 N/A
1.8 0.0
1
25.1 73.4
1.4 0.0
2
6.9 73.4
3.9 0.0
3
25.3 73.4
3.0 1.7
5
15.3 73.4
4.7 0.0
6
8.9 73.4
4.2 0.0
7
12.9 73.4
7.4 0.0
8
27.1 73.4
4.6 2.8
9
9.7 73.4
2.5 0.0
10
8.1 73.4
13.0 0.4
4
24.0 73.4
2.0 0.4
11
7.2 73.4
3.4 0.4
12
14.7 73.4
0.0 0.0
13
0.0 N/A
t
i
slack
i

task i
c
i
q
i


Figure 2: LINGO solution to construction Max Q
min
example with T = 26 & C = 185.3

E. The Minimum Cost Formulation
An alternative formulation of the problem considers
minimizing total project costs with bounds on project
completion time and quality. In the problem formulation (5)
(17), the objective in (5) becomes minimizing total cost or
1
1
i
i
c
=

, thus eliminating equation (8), and then specifying a

lower bound for project quality in equation (6), which
becomes

, 1, 2, ,...
LB i
Q q i 1 s = (20)
Figure 3 shows an optimal solution for a single run of this
model using Q
LB
= 65 and T
UB
= 26 . An inspection of
Figure 3 shows that activity 6 does not have a quality at the
lower bound of 65. This is because its quality at its minimum
time and cost values is 65.3, above the quality lower bound.
The minimum cost formulation presented above relates to
the standard time/cost tradeoff problem. The latter implicitly
assumes a fixed level of quality, while the former allows
quality possibly to be higher for some tasks.
1327
PICMET 2009 Proceedings, August 2-6, Portland, Oregon USA 2009 PICMET

KEY: s
i
8.126 14.552 16.167
0.0 0.0 2.550 4.172 8.396 15.855 26.000
11.396 23.479
8.126 18.909
0.0 0.0
0
0.0 N/A
2.6 0.0
1
18.7 65.0
1.6 0.0
2
5.8 65.0
4.0 0.0
3
21.1 65.0
3.0 0.3
5
13.2 65.0
3.3 0.0
6
8.9 65.3
4.5 0.0
7
11.8 65.0
7.6 0.0
8
19.9 65.0
4.6 3.1
9
8.5 65.0
2.5 0.0
10
6.9 65.0
6.4 6.5
4
23.8 65.0
1.6 6.5
11
5.3 65.0
3.4 6.5
12
13.4 65.0
0.0 0.0
13
0.0 N/A
t
i
slack
i

task i
c
i
q
i


Figure 3: LINGO solution to construction min cost example with T = 26 & Q
LB
= 65

F. Quality Level Curve Graphs
Analyzing the minimum cost model for different total
project times
UB
T , we can find the minimum cost possible
that finishes the project within a given time and maintains a
minimum quality of at least the lower bound. A set of iso-
quality (level) curves for the construction example is shown
in Figure 4. Computational times for all runs were less than
0.5 seconds. These iso-quality curves assist managers in
evaluating the tradeoffs between time, cost, and quality
across the project.

150
175
200
225
250
275
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
critical path length
t
o
t
a
l

c
o
s
t
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75


Figure 4: Iso-quality curves for construction example

Notice that the graph for a higher quality level lies above
and to the right of that for a lower quality level. As shown in
Figure 4, in some cases it is not possible to obtain a higher
level of quality at a low critical path length (a critical path
length of 18 is not feasible for quality values of 71 or greater,
and a length of 19 is not feasible for a quality value of 75).
Each iso-curve in Figure 4 provides the concave time-cost
tradeoffs traditionally discussed in the project management
literature. The graph in Figure 4 provides a concise summary
of the relationship among quality, time, and cost, and can be
used by the project manager to make well-informed decisions
about how to execute the project in terms of specific
decisions about the work plans for all project tasks.
The iso-curves also show an overall nonlinear relationship
between time and cost based on nonlinear time/cost tradeoffs
for each activity that are embedded in the individual quality
functions, generalizing the standard linear approach in a
straightforward manner. For some quality levels, there seem
to be budget threshold values of project times that are
probably not worth the crashing effort (a similar point is
made in [8]). For example, for the quality level of 75 in
Figure 4, it will probably not make sense to try for a project
time of 19 days or less, since the cost increase of reducing
from 20 days to 19 days is so much more than the cost of
reducing from 21 to 20 days.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Quality is acknowledged to be an important component of
project management, but previously has received limited
consideration in planning and scheduling. The standard
implicit assumption is that time/cost trade-offs are evaluated
given that some unspecified and unknown level of quality
exists for each task. However, in many situations project
managers must evaluate alternative options for accomplishing
project activities, and these involve differing levels of time,
cost, and quality. In such situations it makes sense to analyze
the relationship between cost, time, and quality, and decide
on their levels for each project task that best achieves the
1328
PICMET 2009 Proceedings, August 2-6, Portland, Oregon USA 2009 PICMET
projects objectives. We have introduced the concept of a
quality function that represents the relationships between
quality, time, and cost for each task. Using this quality
function we have presented a nonlinear programming model
for the quality/time/cost problem. The basic problem
formulation seeks to maximize minimum project quality over
all project tasks, subject to bounds on cost and completion
time. We then modified the problem formulation to minimize
cost with bounds on project quality and completion time and
showed how quality level curves can be a very useful
managerial tool in making final project planning and
scheduling decisions that explicitly model and incorporate
quality. These iso-curves depict a nonlinear relationship
between time and cost, generalizing the time-cost tradeoff
problem.
Without explicitly considering quality, inferior decisions
may be made concerning the planned levels of efforts for the
various tasks. A key notion is that the quality of each project
task is important and cannot be compromised without
compromising the quality of the project itself. A conscious
part of the project planning process should include
identification of alternative work plans that consider the
tradeoffs between quality, time, and cost. If time and cost
considerations are inflexible, the quality maximization model
presented here can help project managers to select work plans
for individual tasks that will increase overall project quality.
If there is some flexibility in time and cost considerations, the
iso-curve analysis may lead to important realizations such as
that a significant increase in quality can occur with minimal
impact on time and cost, or that time and/or cost could be
appreciably improved with minimal effect on quality. The
modeling framework proposed can provide managerial
insight on these issues and help to improve decision making
in the project management planning and scheduling process.
Objective functions other than maximizing the minimum
quality over all tasks are possible, such as maximizing
average project quality or a weighted average of minimum
and average project quality, or goal programming models
using the three objectives. A consideration of these varying
model objectives and their impact on optimal solutions can
form the basis of future research.

REFERENCES

[1] Babu, A. J. G., and N. Suresh, Project Management with Time, Cost,
and Quality Considerations, European Journal of Operational
Research, vol. 88, pp. 320-327, 1996.
[2] Brucker, P., A. Drexl, R. Mohring, K. Neumann, and E. Pesch,
Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling: Notation, Classification,
Models, and Methods, European Journal of Operational Research,
vol. 112, pp. 3-41, 1999.
[3] Deckro, R. F., J. E., Hebert, W. A. Verdini, P. H. Grimsval, and S.
Venkateshwar, Nonlinear Time/Cost Tradeoff Models in Project
Management, Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 28, pp. 219-
230, 1995.
[4] Foldes, S., and F. Soumis, PERT and Crashing Revisited:
Mathematical Generalizations, European Journal of Operational
Research, vol. 64, pp. 286-294, 1993.
[5] International Organization for Standards, ISO 9000:2000, 2000.
[6] Karnes, C. L., S. V. Sridharan, and J. J. Kanet, Measuring Quality
from The Consumers Perspective: A Methodology and Its
Application, International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 39,
pp. 215-225, 1995.
[7] Kerzner, H., Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning,
Scheduling, and Controlling (8
th
ed.). New York: Wiley, 2003.
[8] Khang, D. B., and Y. M. Myint, Time, Cost and Quality Trade-Off in
Project Management: A Case Study, International Journal of Project
Management, vol. 17, pp. 249-256, 1999.
[9] Lindo Systems (2008). Lingo Version 11.0. Chicago, 2008.
[10] Moder J.J., C. R. Philips, and E. W. Davis, Project Management with
CPM, PERT, and Precedence Diagramming (3 ed.). New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1983.
[11] Morgan, L. O., R. M. Morgan, and W. Moore, Quality and Time-To-
Market Tradeoffs When There Are Multiple Product Generations,
Manufacturing & Services Operations Management, vol. 3, pp. 89-104,
2001.
[12] Paquin, J. P., J. Couillard, and D. J. Ferrand, Assessing and
Controlling the Quality of a Project End Product: The Earned Quality
Method, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 47, pp.
88-97, 2000.
[13] Parasuraman, A., V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry, SERVQUAL: A
Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perception of Service
Quality, Journal of Retailing, vol. 64, pp. 12-40, 1988.
[14] Pollack-Johnson, B., and M. Liberatore, Incorporating Quality
Considerations Into Project Time/Cost Trade-Off Analysis and
Decision Making, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
53(4), 534-542, 2006.
[15] Project Management Institute, A Guide To the Project Management
Body of Knowledge (3
rd
ed), Newtown Square, PA, 2004.
[16] Saaty, T. L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Pittsburgh: RWS
Publications, 1996.
[17] Stevens, J. D., C. Glagota, and W. B. Ledbetter, Quality-Measurement
Matrix, Journal of Management in Engineering, vol. 10, pp. 30-35,
1994.
[18] Stevens, J. D., Blueprint for Measuring Project Quality, Journal of
Management in Engineering, vol. 12, pp. 34-39, 1996.
[19] Yang, Z., M. Jun, and R. T. Peterson, R. T., Measuring Customer
Perceived Online Service Quality, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, 24, pp. 1149-1174, 2004.

1329
PICMET 2009 Proceedings, August 2-6, Portland, Oregon USA 2009 PICMET