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

net/publication/271523329

Time and Cost-Optimized Decision Support Model for Fast-Track Projects

Article  in  Journal of Construction Engineering and Management · January 2013

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000570

CITATIONS READS
17 376

2 authors:

Kyuman Cho Makarand Hastak

Chosun University Purdue University
45 PUBLICATIONS   364 CITATIONS    158 PUBLICATIONS   1,326 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Purdue Index for Construction (Pi-C) View project

Systematic Literature Review as a Methodology for Identifying Risk View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kyuman Cho on 30 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Time and Cost–Optimized Decision Support
Model for Fast-Track Projects
Kyuman Cho1 and Makarand Hastak, M.ASCE2

Abstract: The fast-track method is one of the most recognized methodologies for reducing construction project schedules. However, due to
the lack of definitive research to date pertaining to the effects of fast-track application in terms of time and cost, it has been difficult for project
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Seoul on 01/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

owners to determine its correct application. This paper presents the time and cost optimized decision support (TACTICS) model, and it was
developed based on the fast-track methodology and genetic algorithms (GAs). TACTICS was applied to two case studies, and the results
indicated that the fast-track method could be expected to deliver more efficient projects compared with using the traditional method. In
particular, (1) the average reduction in project duration by applying the fast-track method was 40.48% (Case I) and 18.59% (Case II) com-
pared with using the traditional method, and (2) the average project costs were reduced by as much as 0.39% (Case I) and 4.48% (Case II).
Consequently, TACTICS could be expected to help in making a decision regarding the fast-track application and further contribute to the
project scheduling expertise in the construction engineering and management body of knowledge. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0000570. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Fast track construction; Decision support systems; Optimization; Algorithms.
Author keywords: Fast-track construction; Decision support system; Optimization algorithms.

Introduction
The construction industry is constantly looking for ways to reduce
the time schedules for projects. Various methods have been devel-
oped over the years and the fast-track methodology is one of the
most common. When the fast-track method is applied, the entire
construction duration, in theory, could be reduced by overlapping
the design and construction activities (Fazio et al. 1988; Clough
and Sears 1991; Williams 1995; Pena-Mora and Li 2001; Cho
et al. 2010b). The fast-track method could result in an increase
in construction cost due to the reduced duration, which can cause
project owners to hesitate in applying it to their construction proj-
ects (Jergeas 2004; Cho et al. 2010b). However, the fast-track
method could have an advantage over the traditional sequential
construction method in terms of life cycle costs due to earlier oc-
cupancy and a reduction in overhead costs (Russell and Ranasinghe
1991; Williams 1995; Lee et al. 2005).
Therefore, it is important to analyze the trade-off between the
time and cost for fast-track projects, and a reliable decision-making
tool for determining the suitable application of the fast-track
method on a particular project would be helpful. This paper
presents the time and cost optimized decision support (TACTICS)
model for fast-track projects, which is able to suggest the optimized
project cost and time for potential fast-track construction projects
while considering (1) the functions for predicting project duration
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Architectural Engineering, Chosun
Univ., Gwangju, Korea (corresponding author). E-mail: cho129@chosun
.ac.kr
2
Professor and Head, Division of Construction Engineering and
Management, Purdue Univ., Lafayette, IN. E-mail: hastak@purdue.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 8, 2011; approved on
April 5, 2012; published online on April 10, 2012. Discussion period open
until June 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 139, No. 1, January 1, 2013. © ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9364/2013/1-90-101/$25.00.
and cost and (2) the function for optimizing the two results
(i.e., project duration and cost).
As shown in Fig. 1, TACTICS was developed in three phases.
In the first phase, a detailed literature review for research pertaining
to the fast-track methodology was conducted. In the second phase,
the three modules of TACTICS were developed: (1) scheduling,
(2) cost estimating, and (3) optimization. The scheduling and cost-
estimating module were developed based on the concept and
methodology of the fast-track construction method. Then, the op-
timization module, which aims to analyze the trade-off relationship
between project duration and cost (i.e., the results from the sched-
uling and cost-estimating module), was developed using the genetic
algorithms (GAs) technique. Finally, the TACTICS was applied to
two case studies for identifying its effectiveness measured by the
optimized project duration and cost.
State of the Art
Much research has been done that addresses the successful appli-
cation of the fast-track method. Based on case study of fast-track
construction projects, Fazio et al. (1988) analyzed the main prob-
lems and barriers for applying the fast-track method and the effects
of mistakes in the early design phase on the performance of fast-
track projects. Williams (1995) not only analyzed the differences
between the traditional method (i.e., the sequential construction
method) and the fast-track method in terms of planning, schedul-
ing, expenses, responsibility, procedures, and the design and
construction process, but also suggested the pros and cons of
the fast-track method based on the results of this analysis. Eldin
(1997) suggested lessons learned through the analysis of key suc-
cess factors that were delivered based on a case study with real
cases delivered by concurrent engineering. Various ways to im-
prove construction productivity in road pavement projects that
implemented the fast-track method were suggested by Lee et al.
(2005). They conducted a case study on road pavement projects
in terms of the design and construction operations in fast-track

90 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:90-101.

 Fig. 1. Research flow chart

projects. Cho et al. (2010b) analyzed the key success vehicles for fast-track projects (Cho et al. 2012). Therefore, the construction
applying the fast-track method to public design-build projects work packages of a fast-track project could be divided into more
and suggested a partnering process model for implementing the specific work packages by considering the space zoning concepts.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Seoul on 01/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

fast-track method, which was found to be more effective. These In this context, if fast-track project A is determined to be divided
research efforts focused on developing the effective factors for into not only k design work packages (DWPs) and n construction
successful fast-track projects through the use of case studies and work packages (CWPs) but also m working spaces, DWP (k) and
literature reviews. CWP (n × m) are defined by Eq. (1). Fig. 2 illustrates an example
Meanwhile, there have been a number of studies regarding im- of a fast-track project divided into four DWPs and CWPs, respec-
plementation of the fast-track method. Russell and Ranasinghe tively, and three working spaces.
(1991) provided a conceptual decision framework for applying the 0 1
fast-track method based on a net present value analysis of expend- DWP1
B C
itures for fast-track projects compared with one for the traditional B . C
DWPk ¼ B .. C;
method. Pena-Mora and Li (2001) developed a planning and con- @ A
trol methodology for fast-track projects using the axiomatic design DWPk
method, graphical evaluation and review technique (GERT), and 0 1
the system dynamics technique. This research suggested not only CWP11 · · · CWP1m
B C
ways to separate work packages appropriately, but also a planning B .. .. .. C
CWPnm ¼ B . . . C ð1Þ
and control methodology based on simulation results from various @ A
scenarios. Bogus et al. (2005) suggested a useful methodology CWPn1 · · · CWPnm
for dividing design work for a fast-track project into a number
of design packages, which adopted a concept of concurrent engi- where DWPk = design work package k; and CWPnm = construction
neering methodology in order to reduce design time. In this re- work package n on work space m.
search, they determined a number of design packages based on the
sensitivity of the dependency of the design information in each
package. Maheswari et al. (2006) suggested a methodology, which Scheduling Module
was based on the dependency structure matrix (DSM), for deter-
The scheduling module was developed to determine the project
mining the sequence of activity on concurrent engineering projects.
duration of fast-track projects. This module requires three steps:
According to this research, the sequence of activities that are in-
(1) determining durations of each work package (i.e., DWPk
cluded for concurrent engineering projects could be determined
and CWPnm ), (2) positioning each work package, and (3) calculat-
on the basis of the dependency of the information available for each
ing project duration.
activity.
As shown, the existing research has mainly focused on how to
implement the fast-track method to a construction project, rather Step 1: Determine Durations of Each Work Package
than the decision-making process to choose to use it on a project. It is necessary to consider the uncertainty of construction projects
Therefore, there is a need for a decision-making model capable of when the duration of each work package is determined. Generally,
predicting the effects of applying the fast-track method in terms of there are three methods for considering the uncertainty: (1) interval
the change in project duration and costs. analysis, (2) probabilistic analysis, and (3) fuzzy set analysis
(Zimmermann 1987). Among them, probabilistic analysis, which
could predict the mean and standard deviation using statistical mea-
Development of TACTICS sures of input variables, has become widely used in the existing
research in terms of construction scheduling. There are, in general,
The decision making for fast-track projects could be achieved by two techniques to address uncertainty in construction scheduling on
first dividing the design and construction work of a project into the basis of the probabilistic analysis, namely, program evaluation
appropriate work packages. As mentioned previously, this division and review technique (PERT) and Monte Carlo simulation (MCS)
method was suggested in existing research (Pena-Mora and Li (Ock and Han 2010). For evaluating this uncertainty on fast-track
2001; Bogus et al. 2005; Maheswari et al. 2006). Meanwhile, space projects, therefore, determination of the duration for each DWP and
zoning or planning often results in effectively reducing construc- CWP is based on the three-point estimation (i.e., optimistic, most
tion duration through the iteration and overlapping of the related likely, and pessimistic duration) from the PERT technique. That is,
activities and also reducing the congestion and interference among the durations of each DWP [i.e., Di in Eq. (2)] and CWP [Dij in
the work tasks or resources in a project (Yeh 1995; Tommelein and Eq. (3)] could be defined by one of the three estimation values, as
Zouein 1993; Atinci et al. 2002). Because the space zoning concept shown in Eqs. (2) and (3).
is often applied to achieve reduction of the work time in repetitive
construction projects, this concept has become widely used in Di ¼ fðdpi ; dm
i ; di Þ;
o
for i ¼ 1 − k ð2Þ

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY 2013 / 91

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:90-101.

 Dij ¼ fðdpij ; dm
ij ; dij Þ;
o
for i ¼ 1 − n; j¼1−m ð3Þ For instance, DWP1 is the precedence work package of DWP2
in Fig. 2. Similarly, it is necessary to establish the precedence
where dpi and dpij = pessimistic duration of DWPi and CWPij ; dm relationship among CWPs. The first one is the completion of the
i
precedence work package, and the other is the availability of
ij = most likely duration of DWPi and CWPij ; and di and
o
and dm
doij = optimistic duration of DWPi and CWPij . working space. For example, as shown in B in Fig. 2, the pre-
cedent of CWP42 includes both CWP41 and CWP32 . That is, for
initiating CWP42 (i.e., construction work package 4 on working
Step 2: Positioning of Each Work Package according space 2), there are two conditions that should be satisfied:
to Fast-Track Logic (1) completion of construction work package 4 on working
space 1 (i.e., CWP41 ), and (2) completion of construction work
Once the duration of each work package is determined, it is neces- package 3 on working space 2 (i.e., CWP32 ). Because the com-
sary to position each DWP and CWP with respect to the fast-track pletion of those two packages is essential for the start of CWP42 ,
methodology. Positioning of each package means the determination the start time of CWP42 should be placed after the later finish
of placements for work packages through establishing the prec- time of two packages (i.e., FT41 and FT32 in Fig. 2).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Seoul on 01/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

edence relationship among them as well as their start and finish
times. As shown in Fig. 2, once the fast-track methodology was
applied, basically each DWP overlaps with the CWP. For this over-
lapping, arranging each work package according to logic for estab-
lishing precedence relationship is required. The logic for the
precedence relationship considers the relationship between DWP
and CWP as well as the relationship among DWPs and CWPs,
respectively.
• The relationship between DWP and CWP: According to the
definition of fast track, the completion of precedence DWP
basically could be ensuring the start of equivalent CWP. For es-
tablishing the relationship between them, therefore, it is required
to make a basic connection (i.e., which DWP is to be the pre-
cedent package for each CWP). As shown in A in Fig. 2, if first
CWPs (i.e., CWP11 , CWP21 , CWP31 , and CWP41 in Fig. 2) are
determined as the following packages of DWP (i.e., DWP1 ,
DWP2 , DWP3 , and DWP4 ), the start time of the first CWPs
could be determined by the finish time of the DWPs.
• The relationship among DWPs and CWPs: Based on the pre-
vious basic relationship, as shown in B in Fig. 2, it is necessary
to make the precedence relationship within the DWPs and
CWPs, and finally adjust the position of each work package.
Within DWPs, it is considered that precedence DWP is com-
pleted in order to establish the relationship. That is, if there
are k DWPs, DWPk−1 could be a precedence package of DWPk .
Meanwhile, the start time of the first CWPs (i.e., CWP11 ,
CWP21 , CWP31 , and CWP41 in Fig. 2) could be determined by
two conditions: (1) completion of precedence DWP (i.e., the con-
dition from the relationship between the DWP and CWP), and
(2) availability of working space. For example, the initiation of
CWP31 in Fig. 2 would be possible only after the later finish time
of DWP3 (i.e., FT3 ) and CWP21 (i.e., FT21 ).
Therefore, the start time of each work package could be defined
as Eqs. (4) and (5):
For DWPi ; STi ¼ FT; for i ¼ 1 − k; ST1 ¼ 0 ð4Þ
For CWPij ; STij ¼ LargestðFTi ; FTi−1j ; FTij−1 Þ;
for i ¼ 1 − n; j ¼ 1 − m; FT0j ¼ 0; FTi0 ¼ 0 ð5Þ
where STi = start time of DWPi ; FTi−1 = finish time of DWPi−1 ;
STij = start time of CWPi on work space j; FTi = finish time
of DWPi ; FTi−1j = finish time of CWPi−1 on work space j; and
FTij−1 = finish time of CWPi on work space j − 1.
In addition, as shown in C in Fig. 2, because there will be the
buffer times (or floats) between work packages, the start time of
each DWP and CWP could be calculated as the sum of the finish
time of the precedence work package and buffer time [refer to
Eqs. (6) and (7)].

Fig. 2. Concept of fast-track methods

92 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:90-101.

 For DWPi ; STi ¼ FTi−1 þ BTi−1 ; for i ¼ 1 − k; ST1 ¼ 0 and W ij , respectively. Moreover, the direct cost [i.e., DC0 in
ð6Þ Eq. (13)], which does not consider the uncertainty, could be
expressed by Eq. (13).
For CWPij ; STij ¼ LatestðFTi ; FTi−1j ; FTij−1 Þ þ BTij−1 ; Ci ¼ EC0 × W i ; for i ¼ 1 − n; W 1 þ W 2 þ · · · þW n ¼ 1
for i ¼ 1 − n; j ¼ 1 − m; FT0j ¼ 0; FTi0 ¼ 0 ð7Þ ð11Þ

where BTi−1 = buffer time of DWPi−1 ; and BTij−1 = buffer time of Cij ¼ EC00 × W ij ; for i ¼ 1 − n;
CWPi on work space j − 1.
j ¼ 1 − m; W 11 þ W 12 þ · · · þW nm ¼ 1 ð12Þ
As the final process in arranging each work package, the finish
time of each work package (i.e., FTi or FTij ) could be calculated by
the sum of the start time of each work package from Eqs. (6) and (7) X
n X
n X
m
and the duration of each work package from Eqs. (2) and (3) [refer DC0 ¼ EC0 þ EC00 ¼ Ci þ Cij ð13Þ
to Eqs. (8) and (9)]. i¼1 i¼1 j¼1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Seoul on 01/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

For DWPi ; FTi ¼ STi þ Di ; for i ¼ 1 − k ð8Þ For the third step, the uncertainty lies in the unpredictable fac-
tors in construction projects. Because this uncertainty can not only
For CWPij ; FTij ¼ STij þ Dij ; cause changes in the duration of a project [i.e., Eqs. (2) and (3) in
for i ¼ 1 − n; j¼1−m ð9Þ the scheduling module], but can also affect the project cost, the
cost variance caused by uncertainty should be considered. As
mentioned in “Scheduling Module,” the three-point estimation
Step 3: Calculating Project Duration (i.e., most likely duration, optimistic duration, and pessimistic
duration) for the duration of each package was applied in this
Once the position of the work packages through the previous two study. In this context, the duration variances caused by uncertainty
steps has been established, as shown in Fig. 2, the finish time of the could be calculated on the basis of the difference between the
last work package (i.e., FT43 in Fig. 2) would represent the project most likely durations [i.e., Dm m
i and Dij in Eqs. (2) and (3)]
duration [refer to Eq. (10)]. and the selected durations [i.e., Di and Dij in Eqs. (2) and (3)]
Project Duration ¼ Finish Time of the Last CWP ð10Þ because Dm m
i and Dij are the most generally accepted durations
for each package, while Di and Dij are the selected durations
for consideration of uncertainty. As a result, those variations in
Cost-Estimating Module terms of duration for each package could be transferred into
the CV because generally there would be a trade-off relationship
The cost-estimating module is designed to estimate the project cost between time and cost in construction projects (Cho et al. 2010a).
for the fast-track delivered construction project with respect to two That is, the CVs per work package could be calculated as follows:
aspects: (1) the direct and indirect costs and (2) the operation and (1) calculating daily costs of each work package [i.e., Ci =day and
profit cost for the reduced duration due to fast tracking. Cij =day in Eqs. (14) and (15)], (2) analyzing the differences be-
tween the selected duration by model and the most likely dura-
tions [i.e., (Di − Dm i ) and (Dij − Dij ) in Eqs. (16) and (17)],
m
Calculating Direct Costs and (3) multiplying the results from (1) and (2) [refer to Eqs. (16)
There are four steps in estimating the direct costs (i.e., design cost and (17)]. In Eq. (18), CVTotal is defined as the sum of the CVs of
and construction cost) for the fast-track delivered project: (1) pre- each package.
diction of the total design cost and construction cost, (2) arrange-
Ci
ment of the design and construction cost into the cost of each For DWP; Ci =day ¼ ð14Þ
work package, (3) consideration of cost variance (CV) according Di
to uncertainty, and (4) calculation of the direct cost.
For the first step, which pursues the prediction of design and Cij
construction cost, a great deal of past research has tried to predict For CWP; Cij =day ¼ ð15Þ
Dij
those costs using various methodologies, so this paper will not
develop such a methodology. Instead, the estimated design
cost and construction cost are defined as EC0 (i.e., costs for all CVi ¼ ðDi − Dm
i Þ × Ci =day ð16Þ
design works) and EC00 (i.e., costs for all construction works),
respectively.
For the second step, the estimated design and construction costs CVij ¼ ðDij − Dm
ij Þ × Cij =day ð17Þ
should be split into the costs of each work package for fast tracking
[i.e., DWPi and CWPij in Eq. (1)]. For achieving this arrangement,
X
n X
n X
m
it is necessary to determine the weights for each package that will CVTotal ¼ CVi þ CVij ð18Þ
be considered as the work quantity on each package. For instance, i¼1 i¼1 j¼1
if there are n DWPs, the n weights per each DWP could be deter-
mined in terms of their work quantity. Then, the costs per each Finally, DCFinal , which means the final direct cost of the project
DWP could be determined by splitting the total cost of the design to which the fast-track method was applied, could be expressed by
work into them according to their weights. As shown in Eqs. (11) the sum of DC0 [in Eq. (13)] and CVTotal [in Eq. (18)], as shown
and (12), if the weights of DWPi and CWPij are defined as W i and in Eq. (19).
W ij , respectively, the allotted cost per each package (i.e., Ci and
Cij ) could be calculated by multiplying EC0 and W i , and EC00 DCFinal ¼ DC0 þ CVTotal ð19Þ

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY 2013 / 93

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:90-101.

 Calculating Indirect Costs
In general, the indirect cost consists of the general overhead costs
and the job overhead cost; moreover, the indirect cost could be cal-
culated by multiplying the direct costs and the rate of indirect costs
(Holland and Hobson 1999). Therefore, ICTotal (total indirect costs)
and indirect costs (IC) for nth month could be expressed by
Eqs. (20) and (21).
Xk
ICTotal ¼ ICn ð20Þ
n¼1
ICn ¼ MCn × r
where k = months of project duration; ICn = indirect costs for
the nth month; MCn = monthly direct costs for the nth month; and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Seoul on 01/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and (2) the sum of the monthly direct costs of each package.
For calculating the number of working days per each package, there
are three situations:
• For the cases of CWP13 and CWP31 (i.e., the FT13 and FT31 are
existing during the nth month), the working days for CWP13 and
CWP31 during the nth month could be calculated by subtracting
FT13 and FT31 from the start day of the nth month [refer to
Eq. (22a)];
• For a case of CWP41 (i.e., the ST41 is existing during the nth
month), the working days for CWP41 during the nth month
ð21Þ could be calculated by subtracting a finish day of the nth month
from ST41 [refer to Eq. (22b)]; and
• For a case of CWP22 (i.e., the CWP22 is still in progress during
the nth month), the working days for CWP22 could be the num-

r = rate of indirect costs per 1 month, which would be determined
according to project characteristics (e.g., size and complexity).
Meanwhile, MCn [i.e., monthly direct costs for the nth month in
Eq. (21)] could be defined by multiplying the number of working
days for the nth month and the daily cost [i.e., Eqs. (14) and (15)].
As shown in D in Fig. 2, for example, if CWP13 , CWP22 , CWP31 ,
and CWP41 are proceeding on for the nth month, MCn could be
calculated as follows: (1) multiplying the working days per each
package for the nth month and daily costs per each package,
ber of days in the month [refer to Eq. (23)].
Meanwhile, the number of days in the month is assumed to be
30 days in this paper. Therefore, 30 × ðn − 1Þ and 30 × n in
Eq. (22) represent the start day of the nth month and the finish
day of the nth month, respectively. By considering the situations
of each work package, finally, the MCn per each package
[i.e., MCn ðDWPi Þ or MCn ðCWPij Þ in Eqs. (22) and (23)] can be
calculated by Eqs. (22) and (23). Then MCn can be calculated by the
sum of the monthly costs for each package, as shown in Eq. (24).

8( ! !) !
>
> FTi 30 × ðn − 1Þ Ci =day
! >
>
> − × ; if 30 × ðn − 1Þ < fðFTi ; FTij Þ ≤ 30 × n; : : : ðaÞ
MCn ðDWPi Þ < FTij 30 × ðn − 1Þ Cij =day
¼ ( ! !) ! ð22Þ
MCn ðCWPij Þ >
> 30 × n STi Ci =day
>
>
>
: − × if 30 × ðn − 1Þ < fðSTi STij Þ ≤ 30 × n; : : : ðbÞ
30 × n STij Cij =day

! ! the traditional sequential method. That is, if it is assumed that

MCn ðDWPi Þ Ci =day
¼ 30 × ; the monthly profit for the fast-track projects is P0 , the PTotal could
MCn ðCWPij Þ Cij =day be defined as Eq. (26).
if Di or Dij ⊂ nth month ð23Þ ðPDNFT − PDFT Þ
PTotal ¼ × P0 ð26Þ
30
MCn ¼ ð22Þ þ ð23Þ ð24Þ
where PTotal = total profits for the reduced duration by fast-track;
and P0 = profit per 1 month.
Calculating Operation Costs
Because the application of the fast-track method can yield a reduc- Calculating Project Costs
tion in the project duration, a project’s operation costs (e.g., main- Based on the previous calculations, the final project costs (PC) for
tenance and repair costs and salary for staff) for the reduced fast-track construction could be calculated by subtracting PTotal in
duration will be calculated as well when compared with the tradi- Eq. (26) from the sum of DCFinal in Eq. (19), ICTotal in Eq. (20), and
tional sequential method. That is, if it is assumed that the monthly OCTotal in Eq. (25), as shown in Eq. (27).
operation cost for the fast-track projects is OC0 , the OCTotal could
be defined as Eq. (25). PC ¼ DCFinal þ ICTotal þ OCTotal − PTotal ð27Þ
ðPDNFT − PDFT Þ
OCTotal ¼ × OC0 ð25Þ
30
Optimization Module
where OCTotal = total operation costs for the reduced duration by
fast-track method; PDNFT = project duration by non-fast-track Specifically, GA has been considered as an explorative heuristic
method (i.e., sequential method); PDFT = project duration by approach in finding an optimal solution in order to achieve multi-
fast-track method; and OC0 = operation cost per 1 month. ple objectives, and additionally it has been reported that GA is
suitable for obtaining an optimal solution along with the given con-
ditions (Gen and Cheng 2000). Because the aim of this module is to
Calculating Profits
find the optimal trade-off solution among multiple objectives
Similar to the operation costs, once the fast-track method is ap- (i.e., project duration and project cost), and there are several con-
plied, additional profits can be expected when compared with straints in generating fast-track solutions as well, GA was chosen as

94 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:90-101.

 an optimization methodology. In fact, due to this characteristic,
GA has become one of the widely used methodologies in the opti-
mization research field and has been used successfully to solve con-
struction management problems (Kim and Ellis 2010).
For this research, an explorative study searching for an opti-
mized solution, which is the best solution among the various
fast-track solutions, could be achieved by GA. That is, (1) it is pos-
sible to create multiple random solutions through the application of
GA; (2) based on these solutions, project cost and project duration
could be calculated by the developed scheduling module and cost
estimating module; and (3) an optimized solution, which reflects
the optimal trade-offs between project duration and project cost,
could be selected from the multiple solutions generated. Therefore,
the objective function (OF) shown in Eq. (28), which is designed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Seoul on 01/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
to find the optimal trade-offs, could be represented as the minimum
value of unit project cost (i.e., project cost divided by project
duration).


PCi
Objective function ¼ min ; i¼1−x ð28Þ
PDi
where x = number of fast-track solutions; PCi = project cost for
solution i; and PDi = project duration for solution i.
Encoding for Optimized Module
How to encode a solution to the problem into a chromosome is a
key issue when using GA (Gen and Cheng 2000). Once the fast-
track method is applied to construction projects, changes in both
the duration of each work package and the buffer time could yield
a variety of project duration and project cost results, as described in
the previous modules and Fig. 2. Therefore, as shown in Fig. 3, two
parameters are determined as the parameter of GA: (1) duration per
each work package [i.e., Di and Dij in Eqs. (2) and (3)] and
(2) buffer time [i.e., BT in Eqs. (6) and (7)]. A chromosome in Fig. 3
is representative of the string of GA and each gene based on the two
parameters; moreover, each gene has a three-digit coding (i.e., 1, 2,
and 3) value. For example, the three-digit coding values for each
DWP and CWP indicate the optimistic duration, most likely dura-
tion, and pessimistic duration, which are explained in Eqs. (2) and
(3) as a property of each coding value.
Procedure for GA
Generally, the GA procedure is as follows: (1) creating random
solutions based on the parent’s generation, (2) screening solutions
that have excellent fitness, (3) recreating an excellent pollution
(i.e., child generation) through crossover and mutation among
the screened solutions, and (4) searching the optimized solution
through evaluating solutions within child generation. This process
Fig. 3. Representation of chromosome for GA application in this research
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY 2013 / 95
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:90-101.
is repeated until finding the optimized solution (Gen and Cheng
2000). Fig. 4 shows the GA procedure used in this research, which
is as follows:
1. During the initialization stage, S random solutions (i.e., chro-
mosomes with random values in Fig. 3) are created based on
the encoding values of the properties.
2. For evaluating the fitness level, there are two details: (1) based
on the created random solutions, project duration and project
cost [PD(s) and PC(s) in Fig. 4] for each solution are calcu-
lated by the developed scheduling module and cost-estimating
module; and then (2) a value of the objective function [OF(s)
in Fig. 4] for each solution can be estimated with the project
duration and cost.
3. Once the evaluations for every random solution are completed,
the solutions that have the highest fitness values are screened
(i.e., appropriate solutions in Fig. 4).
4. Based on the screened solutions, the new solutions (child gen-
eration) are created by generic operators (i.e., crossover and
mutation).
5. Until the optimized solutions, which have the minimum values
of the objective function [i.e., Eq. (28)] in the reevaluation
of the fitness values for the new solutions, are found, processes
1 to 5 are repeated.
Case Application and Discussion
Because the developed model could provide the optimized project
duration and cost as a model output, there is a limitation for val-
idating this model through a comparison with the results from real
cases. Therefore, this research implemented two case studies in or-
der to examine the effectiveness of the developed model. The first
case study is an application example based on pseudodata in order
to identify the model’s effectiveness, while the second case study is
based on a real fast-track case. The Evolver 5.7 software program
was used for implementing GA in the TACTICS model.
Because a sequential method has been generally applied to a
construction project, it was chosen as the comparison baseline
for determining whether or not to apply the fast-track method to
a project. The optimized project duration and cost for the sequential
method could be calculated by modifying the existing scheduling
and cost-estimating modules in TACTICS in terms of a change in
the level of the basic work unit. That is, the project duration and
cost for the sequential method could be achieved by using design
work and construction work that represent the work unit before
being divided into each work package of fast tracking. As a result,
in the sequential method, the project duration and cost could be
calculated by totaling the duration and cost of each DWP and
CWP in the fast-track method, while the optimization module
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Seoul on 01/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Procedure for optimization module using GA
for the sequential method could be used as they were in TACTICS.
The details for the sequential method are discussed in the next
section with respect to a case study.
Case Study I
As shown on the right side of Table 1, an example project for the
first case study was designed with 4 DWPs and 16 CWPs (i.e., 4
CWPs x 4 work spaces) and the relationship among them (i.e., the
Precedent column in Table 1) is determined by the logic for posi-
tioning in fast tracking. For example, DWP1 , DWP2 , DWP3 , and
DWP4 are the precedence work packages of CWP11 , CWP21 ,
CWP31 , and CWP41 , respectively. According to the encoding
values of the GA property in Fig. 3, the values of Di (duration
of DWP) and Dij (duration of CWP) are determined as shown
in Table 1, while each buffer time is defined as the percentage
(i.e., 0%, 5%, 10%) of duration of each work package. In addition,
the direct costs for each work package are determined by consid-
ering the weights of each package, as shown in Table 1. The sum of
each weight of DWP and CWP is designed as one, as described in
Eqs. (11) and (12). In order to compare these results to the results of
the fast-track application, on the other hand, the input variables for
the sequential method (i.e., the left side of Table 1) consist of one
design work variable and four construction work variables, and the
duration and cost per each work are represented as the sum of the
duration and cost per work package on the right side of Table 1.
96 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY 2013
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:90-101.
This research developed scenarios based on the changes in
operation costs and profit in order to compare the results between
the application of the sequential method and the fast-track method.
According to each scenario, which was developed based on the
monthly operation costs rate [i.e., OC0 in Eq. (25)] and the monthly
profit rate [i.e., P0 in Eq. (26)], as shown in Table 2, the optimized
fast-track solution and sequential solution could be helpful in the
decision-making process of whether or not to apply the fast-track
method to the case project. In so doing, the two monthly rates per
scenario are defined as percentages (i.e., 0%, 1%, 3%, and 5%) of
the total direct costs (i.e., the last row in Table 1). Meanwhile,
the suggested scenario identifiers (i.e., profit rate and operation cost
rate) were selected because the effect of those factors on the re-
duced duration by fast track was larger than the other factors.
All of the optimized solutions in Table 2 resulted from the op-
timization process shown in Fig. 5. The optimized project duration
and cost results shown in this figure reflect the application of the
fast-track method according to the number of populations (i.e., the
number of solutions in the child generation value in Fig. 4), wherein
the monthly operation cost rate and profit cost rate are assumed to
be 3%. In Fig. 5, the initial solution (i.e., project duration is
600 days and project cost is US$11,776,111) is a result that was
estimated by the scheduling module and the cost-estimating mod-
ule based on the data in Table 1 (i.e., before applying the optimi-
zation module). According to the optimization process in Fig. 4,
once the optimization module of the developed model was imple-
mented based on the initial solution, (1) the minimized objective
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Seoul on 01/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1. Profile of Case Study 1

Sequential method Fast-track method
b
Durations (days) Durations (days)
Direct costs Precedent Direct costs
Parameter Name (US$)a Optimistic Most likely Pessimistic Name (constraints) Optimistic Most likely Pessimistic Weights ($US)
Design work DWP 1,000,000 130 150 170 DWP1 — 25 30 35 1 0.25 250,000
packages DWP2 DWP1 35 40 45 0.25 250,000
DWP3 DWP2 45 50 55 0.25 250,000
DWP4 DWP3 25 30 35 0.25 250,000
Construction CWP1 1,000,000 80 100 120 CWP11 DWP1 20 25 30 0.1 0.025 250,000
work packages CWP12 CWP11 20 25 30 0.025 250,000
CWP13 CWP12 20 25 30 0.025 250,000
CWP14 CWP13 20 25 30 0.025 250,000
CWP2 4,000,000 100 120 140 CWP21 DWP2 , CWP11 25 30 35 0.4 0.1 1,000,000
CWP22 CWP21 , CWP12 25 30 35 0.1 1,000,000
CWP23 CWP22 , CWP13 25 30 35 0.1 1,000,000
CWP24 CWP23 , CWP14 25 30 35 0.1 1,000,000
CWP3 3,000,000 280 360 440 CWP31 DWP3 , CWP21 70 90 110 0.3 0.075 750,000
CWP32 CWP31 , CWP22 70 90 110 0.075 750,000
CWP33 CWP32 , CWP23 70 90 110 0.075 750,000
CWP34 CWP33 , CWP24 70 90 110 0.075 750,000
CWP4 2,000,000 220 240 260 CWP41 DWP4 , CWP31 55 60 65 0.2 0.05 500,000
CWP42 CWP41 , CWP32 55 60 65 0.05 500,000
CWP43 CWP42 , CWP33 55 60 65 0.05 500,000
CWP44 CWP43 , CWP34 55 60 65 0.05 500,000
Totalc — 11,550,000 — 970 — — — 600 — — 11,776,111
a
Sum of costs on each work package.
b
Sum of durations on each work package.
c
Results by scheduling and cost-estimating modules (i.e., without optimization module).

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:90-101.

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY 2013 / 97
 Table 2. Results of Case Study 1
Scenario identifier Optimized fast-track solutions Optimized sequential solution
Scenario Operation costa (%) Profitb (%) Project durations Project costs Project durations Project costs
Scenario 1 0 0 680 10,832,733 1,150 10,874,569
Scenario 2 0 1 680 10,738,031 1,150 10,847,069
Scenario 3 0 3 680 10,548,566 1,150 10,792,069
Scenario 4 0 5 680 10,359,122 1,150 10,737,069
Scenario 5 1 0 680 10,927,455 1,150 10,902,069
Scenario 6 1 1 680 10,832,733 1,150 10,874,569
Scenario 7 1 3 680 10,643,289 1,150 10,819,569
Scenario 8 1 5 680 10,453,844 1,150 10,764,569
Scenario 9 3 0 680 11,116,900 1,150 10,957,069
Scenario 10 3 1 680 11,022,178 1,150 10,920,569
Scenario 11 3 3 680 10,832,733 1,150 10,874,569
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Seoul on 01/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Scenario 12 3 5 680 10,643,289 1,150 10,819,569

Scenario 13 5 0 680 11,306,344 1,150 11,012,069
Scenario 14 5 1 680 11,211,622 1,150 10,984,568
Scenario 15 5 3 680 11,022,178 1,150 10,929,569
Scenario 16 5 5 680 10,832,733 1,150 10,874,569
a
Rate of monthly operation costs (i.e., percentage per total direct costs).
b
Rate of monthly profit costs (i.e., percentage per total direct costs).

Fig. 5. Optimized fast-tracking results by population number

function value is convergent with 15,930.49 ($=days), and (2) the
equivalent project duration and cost at the minimized value are
680 days and US$10,832,733, respectively. As shown in Fig. 5,
those values are convergent at one point, even though they are var-
iations of the population size.
Shown in Table 2 are the optimized fast-track solutions and se-
quential method solutions according to each scenario, through the
previously mentioned process. Based on the results of Table 2, a
project owner or manager could make a decision as follows: If
the project owner considers the project cost as a more important
factor than project duration, application of the sequential method
could be more helpful in scenarios 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 15 because
these scenarios show that the project cost of the sequential method
is lower than the fast-track method project (refer to Table 2
and Fig. 6). With the exception of those scenarios, the fast-track
application is more effective for such an example project in
terms of project cost. Meanwhile, if the project owner makes a
decision based on consideration of project duration, the fast-track
application makes the example project more effective because the
differences in project duration between the fast-track method and
sequential method are remarkable.
Case Study II
In Case Study II, the developed TACTICS model is used to analyze
a real fast-track project, which is a grocery store construction
project, such as a Wal-Mart store in Korea. Its project duration
and total direct costs were 370 days (September 1, 2005, to
September 6, 2006) and US$34,555,510, respectively. The case
project was a steel superstructure system having seven floors with
a gross floor area of 6; 818 m2 . As shown in Table 3, there were five
DWPs (i.e., excavation design, file and foundation design, super-
structure design, mechanical design, and interior design) and four
working space zones. The CWP41 (mechanical work) proceeded
over the entire space (i.e., not a space zoning) after construction

98 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:90-101.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Seoul on 01/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Optimization results in terms of project costs for Case Study I

of the superstructure. Based on the duration and cost data from the
real case, the duration and cost per each work package were esti-
mated and optimistic and pessimistic durations also were designed
in order to consider the uncertainty. On the other hand, the input
variables of the sequential method were determined with one de-
sign work and five construction works, utilizing the method used in
Case Study I.
Table 4 shows the results of the optimized fast-track solutions
and optimized sequential method solutions based on 16 scenarios
and the data set in Table 3. Based on the results shown in Table 4, it
was concluded that the case project could apply the fast-track
method with respect to all scenarios. That is, the ranges of project
durations and project costs for the optimized fast-track solutions
were 430–440 days and US$30,171,127 (i.e., Scenario 4) to US
$30,497,052 (i.e., Scenario 13), respectively. The results for the
optimized sequential method were 533 days and US$31,673,073–
US$31,870,603, resulting in a difference in project cost between
the two methods of 4.31–4.74%. Based on this result, the project
owner was correct in making the decision to apply the fast-track
method for the case project.
Discussion
Given the results of the case studies, the project durations and costs
of the optimized fast-track solutions could be improved signifi-
cantly compared with ones using the sequential method. In particu-
lar, if the fast-track method is applied, (1) the average reduction in
project duration was 40.48% (on Case I) and 18.59% (on Case II)
compared with using the traditional method, and (2) the average

Table 3. Profile of Case Study 2

Parameter Durations (days)
Precedent Directcosts
Type Code Job description (constraints) Optimistic Most likely Pessimistic (US$)
DWPi DWP1 Excavation design — 15 20 25 100,000
DWP2 File and foundation design DWP1 10 15 20 200,000
DWP3 Superstructure design DWP2 15 20 25 450,000
DWP4 Mechanical design DWP3 7 10 12 100,000
DWP5 Interior design DWP4 15 20 25 150,000
CWPij CWP11 Excavation work DWP1 12 15 20 863,888
CWP12 Excavation work CWP11 12 15 20 863,888
CWP13 Excavation work CWP12 12 15 20 863,888
CWP14 Excavation work CWP13 12 15 20 863,888
CWP21 File and foundation work DWP2 , CWP11 12 15 20 1,727,776
CWP22 File and foundation work CWP21 , CWP12 12 15 20 1,727,776
CWP23 File and foundation work CWP22 , CWP13 12 15 20 1,727,776
CWP24 File and foundation work CWP23 , CWP14 12 15 20 1,727,776
CWP31 Superstructure work DWP3 , CWP21 40 50 60 3,887,495
CWP32 Superstructure work CWP31 , CWP22 40 50 60 3,887,495
CWP33 Superstructure work CWP32 , CWP23 40 50 60 3,887,495
CWP34 Superstructure work CWP33 , CWP24 40 50 60 3,887,495
CWP41 Mechanical work DWP4 , CWP34 30 35 40 3,455,551
CWP51 Interior work DWP5 , CWP41 15 20 25 1,295,832
CWP52 Interior work CWP51 15 20 25 1,295,832
CWP53 Interior work CWP52 15 20 25 1,295,832
CWP54 Interior work CWP53 15 20 25 1,295,832

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY 2013 / 99

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:90-101.

 Table 4. Results of Case Study 2
Scenario identifier Optimized fast-track solutions Optimized sequential solution
Operation Profitb Project Projectcosts Project Project Comparison
Scenario costa (%) (%) durations (US$) (a) durations costs (b) (c)c
Scenario 1 0 0 430 30,358,781 533 31,771,838 4.45
Scenario 2 0 1 430 30,321,250 533 31,762,085 4.54
Scenario 3 0 3 430 30,246,188 533 31,712,579 4.62
Scenario 4 0 5 430 30,171,127 533 31,673,073 4.74
Scenario 5 1 0 440 30,386,435 533 31,791,591 4.42
Scenario 6 1 1 430 30,358,781 533 31,771,838 4.45
Scenario 7 1 3 430 30,283,719 533 31,732,332 4.57
Scenario 8 1 5 430 30,208,658 533 31,692,826 4.68
Scenario 9 3 0 440 30,441,744 533 31,831,097 4.36
Scenario 10 3 1 440 30,414,089 533 31,811,344 4.39
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Seoul on 01/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Scenario 11 3 3 431 30,358,781 533 31,771,838 4.45

Scenario 12 3 5 430 30,283,719 533 31,732,332 4.57
Scenario 13 5 0 440 30,497,052 533 31,870,603 4.31
Scenario 14 5 1 440 30,469,398 533 31,850,850 4.34
Scenario 15 5 3 440 30,414,089 533 31,811,344 4.39
Scenario 16 5 5 432 30,358,781 533 31,771,838 4.45
a
Rate of monthly Maintenance & Repair costs (i.e., percentage per total direct costs).
b
Rate of monthly profit costs (i.e., percentage per total direct costs).
c
ðcÞ ¼ ðb − aÞ=b × 100.

Fig. 7. Comparison between traditional method and fast-track method

project costs were reduced as much as 0.39% (on Case I) and
4.48% (on Case II) (please refer to Tables 2 and 4). In addition,
from the viewpoint of each scenario, the fast-track method would
be more acceptable if a project expects that a profit is higher than an
operation cost.
Fig. 7 illustrates the traditional method (i.e., sequential method)
application results and the TACTICS results based on both the in-
formation in Table 1 and the assumption of a 1% operation rate
and profit rate (i.e., Scenario 6 in Table 2). The application of
the traditional method resulted in a 970-day project duration and
US$11,550,000 in project costs (refer to Traditional Solution in
Fig. 7). When TACTICS was applied, based on Table 1, the sched-
uling module (i.e., fast-track logic) and cost-estimating module of
TACTICS suggested the arrangement of each work package as well
as the project duration (i.e., 600 days) and project costs (i.e.,
US$11,776,111) (refer to Nonoptimized Fast-Track Solution in
Fig. 7). Finally, the optimized project duration and cost was pro-
posed by the GA-based optimization module in TACTICS. The
optimized fast-track solution shows a project duration of 680 days
and total project costs of US$10,832,733 (refer to Optimized

100 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:90-101.

 Fast-Track Solution in Fig. 7). Therefore, the developed TACTICS
model’s ability to suggest the optimized solution in project duration
and cost if the fast-track method is applied was proven. The avail-
ability of the data provided by TACTICS could be helpful to a
project owner considering application of the fast-track method.
Conclusions
Fast-track method research to date has focused on achieving suc-
cessful implementation during the engineering and construction
stages of a project. The TACTICS model developed in this research
offers a new tool that has the ability to assist a project owner in
making a decision as to whether a construction project would
benefit from the application of the fast-track method.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Seoul on 01/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
TACTICS consists of three models: scheduling, cost estimating,
and optimization. Each module was developed by using the con-
cepts of the fast-track method and GAs. TACTICS was designed to
reflect the uncertainty in duration estimation for each work package
in order to consider the characteristics of the project in the early
planning phase. Therefore, TACTICS could provide the optimized
project duration and cost if the target project were to proceed using
the fast-track method. The results of case studies I and II show that
projects in which a profit is higher than an operation cost could
expect good results from the fast-track method. These results fur-
ther support the generally accepted theory that high-profit construc-
tion projects, such as office buildings and grocery stores, are better
candidates for the fast-track method (Kwakye 1999).
Meanwhile, because TACTICS is a tool for helping an owner's
decision-making process for a project in its early planning stages as
providing the optimized project duration and cost if the fast-track
method is utilized, this research cannot ensure the success of fast-
track projects. Further, it is necessary to develop a computer-based
application adopting several decision criteria for convenient usage,
and high levels of engineering and construction management
skill are required for the successful implementation of a fast-track
project in its engineering and construction phase.
Acknowledgment
This study was supported by research fund from Chosun University,
2012.
References
Atinci, B., Fischen, M., Levitt, R., and Carlson, R. (2002). “Formalization
and automation of time-space conflict analysis.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng.,
16(2), 124–134.
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY 2013 / 101
View publication stats J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:90-101.
Bogus, S., Molenaar, K., and Diekmann, J. (2005). “Concurrent engineer-
ing approach to reducing design delivery time.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 131(11), 1179–1185.
Cho, K., Hong, T., and Hyun, C. (2010a). “Integrated schedule and cost
model for repetitive construction process.” J. Manage. Eng., 26(2),
78–88.
Cho, K., Hong, T., and Hyun, C. (2012). “Space zoning concept-based
scheduling model for repetitive construction process.” J. Civ. Eng.
Manage. (in press).
Cho, K., Hyun, C., Koo, K., and Hong, T. (2010b). “Partnering process
model for public-sector fast-track design-build projects in Korea.”
J. Manage. Eng., 26(1), 19–29.
Clough, R. H., and Sears, G. A. (1991). Construction project management,
Wiley, New York.
Eldin, N. (1997). “Concurrent engineering: A schedule reduction.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 123(3), 354–362.
Evolver 5.7 [Computer software]. Palisade, Sydney NSW 2000, AU.
Fazio, P., Moselhi, O., Theberge, P., and Revay, S. (1988). “Design impact
of construction fast-track.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 6(3), 195–208.
Gen, M., and Cheng, R. (2000). Genetic algorithms and engineering
optimization, Wiley, New York.
Holland, N., and Hobson, D. (1999). “Indirect cost categorization and
allocation by construction contractors.” J. Archit. Eng., 5(2), 49–56.
Jergeas, G. (2004). “Management fast-track projects: A guide and check-
list.” APEGGA Annual Conf., Calgary, Canada.
Kim, J., and Ellis, R. D. (2010). “Comparing schedule generating
schemes in resource-constraints project scheduling using elist genetic
algorithms.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 136(2), 160–169.
Kwakye, A. (1999). Fast track construction, Chartered Institute of
Building, Berkshire, UK.
Lee, E., Harvey, J., and Thomas, D. (2005). “Integrated design/
construction/operations analysis for fast-track urban freeway recon-
struction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 131(12), 1283–1291.
Maheswari, J., Varghese, K., and Sridharen, T. (2006). “Application
of dependency structure matrix for activity sequencing in concurrent
engineering projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 132(5), 482–490.
Ock, J. H., and Han, S. H. (2010). “Measuring risk-associated activity’s
duration: A fuzzy set theory application.” KSCE J. Civ. Eng., 14(5),
663–671.
Pena-Mora, F., and Li, M. (2001). “Dynamic planning and control meth-
odology for design/build fast-track construction projects.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage., 127(1), 1–17.
Russell, A., and Ranasinghe, M. (1991). “Decision framework for fast-
track construction: A deterministic analysis.” Constr. Manage. Econ.,
9(5), 467–479.
Tommelein, I., and Zouein, P. (1993). “Interactive dynamic layout
planning.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 119(2), 266–287.
Williams, G. V. (1995). “Fast-track pros and cons: considerations for
industrial projects.” J. Manage. Eng., 11(5), 24–32.
Yeh, I. (1995). “Construction-site layout using annealed neural network.”
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 9(3), 201–208.
Zimmermann, H. (1987). Fuzzy sets, decision making, and expert system,
Kluwer Academic, London.