Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
Part of the planning effort in a project is directed to determining the sequence of the activities in such a way that the execution goes
on in the most efficient way possible. This sequencing is modeled using relationships between activities, called dependencies, which
may be “finish-start” (“FS”), “start-start” (“SS”), “finish-finish” (“FF”) and “start-finish” (“SF”). This link establishes a relationship
between activities, where one of them is the predecessor (the activity that comes before logically), and the other is the successor
(the activity that comes after logically), (PMI, 2013).
The PMBOK® Guide (2013) defines the “SF” logical relationship as: “the completion of the successor activity depends upon the
initiation of the predecessor activity.” It is important to notice that, with the “SF” relation, the predecessor is the activity that happens
chronologically after, while the successor is the activity that happens chronologically before.
Also in the PMBOK® Guide (2013), the listing of the “SF” relation is only to represent the complete list of the Precedence
Diagramming Method, since the guide considers this particular relation as rare. The description of the “SF” as a rare kind of link is on
every version of the PMBOK® Guide (1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2013). In addition, the first and second editions (1996 and 2000),
however, state that typically only professional scheduling engineers use the “SF” relationships. These editions even warn that the
usage of relationships other than the most common (“finish-start”) may produce unexpected results, since their implementation is not
consistent.
The Line of Balance Scheduling Method (LBSM) is also a technique absent from the PMBOK® Guide since its first release (1996,
2000, 2004, 2008 and 2013). Civil construction companies from Brazil, Finland, and Australia are satisfactorily using the LBSM
(Henrich & Koskela, 2006). Employing this technique is majorly related to the effort for incorporating to their project management
systems, the basic concepts of Lean Construction (Bernardes, 2003), more precisely with the Last Planner® production system,
developed by Glenn Ballard and Greg Howell, founders of the Lean Construction Institute® (LCI).
The U.S. Navy initially used the concept of Line of Balance as a technique for planning the execution of activities of the industry in
1942 (Kenley & Seppänen, 2010). General Electric, later, working for the U.S. Navy, used it not only as a planning tool, but also as a
control tool in the United Kingdom; the method was adopted by the Nation Building Agency.
The preference for the Line of Balance scheduling method for developing the project schedule is due to the fact that the “unit of
production x time” configuration, instead of the usual Gantt chart configuration (“activities x time”), results in better visualization for
the link between the flow of work of the different crews (Bernardes, 2003). This allows a different perspective for the control of the
project activities – with the Line of Balance, the focus of control is the rate of production of the working crews and not the control of
individual discrete activities, which is the focus of the Critical Path Method that is largely used (Kenley & Seppänen, 2010).
Objectives
The definition of predecessors and successors as logical relationships at the Precedence Diagramming Method section appears only
upon the release of the PMBOK® Guide – Fifth Edition (PMI, 2013). Up until then, the definition of logical relationships appears only
in the glossary. Even in the fifth edition, the PMBOK® Guide does not clearly distinguish logical relation from chronological relation.
Moreover, it does not represent the “SF” relation on its example of Precedence Diagramming Method, something that would help the
understanding. In addition, the LBSM remains out of the PMBOK® Guide, despite its use in the civil construction industry.
https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/scheduling-optimization-balance-10614 1/8
01-03-2021 Scheduling optimization with line of balance and start-finish relations / Ricardo Viana Vargas, Felipe Fernandes Moreira.
The present article has the objective to show the applications of the “start-finish” (“SF”) relationship to model schedules and the
capability of the LBSM to optimize schedules. It is also an objective of the paper to discuss and investigate the unexpected results of
the use of the “SF” relation and to propose solutions.
https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/scheduling-optimization-balance-10614 2/8
01-03-2021 Scheduling optimization with line of balance and start-finish relations / Ricardo Viana Vargas, Felipe Fernandes Moreira.
https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/scheduling-optimization-balance-10614 3/8
01-03-2021 Scheduling optimization with line of balance and start-finish relations / Ricardo Viana Vargas, Felipe Fernandes Moreira.
To allow the same continuity for Task 2, it is necessary to base the modeling of its cycle at the end of the last repetition of Task 1.
Task 1, on the fourth floor, already has a “FS” relation with Task 2 on the fourth floor. This way, the start date of Task 2 at the fourth
floor is well-defined on time. The whole scheme is detailed below (Exhibit 7).
https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/scheduling-optimization-balance-10614 4/8
01-03-2021 Scheduling optimization with line of balance and start-finish relations / Ricardo Viana Vargas, Felipe Fernandes Moreira.
https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/scheduling-optimization-balance-10614 5/8
01-03-2021 Scheduling optimization with line of balance and start-finish relations / Ricardo Viana Vargas, Felipe Fernandes Moreira.
time Task E has to start, Task A is already finished. This is true for every duration of Task E that is lower than the sum of the tasks in
parallel. This happens because if the duration of Task E was equal or superior to the sum of its parallel tasks, Task E would be part
of the critical path.
It is important to notice some implications of this new approach. The first is that such an arrangement has Task E as part of the
critical path – there is no free or total float on the resulting sequence. This results, therefore, in a higher level of risk for the whole
project. The project manager should evaluate the impact of this change on the network structure. To mitigate this risk, the project
manager can insert a buffer between Task D and Task E.
Removing the link between Task A and Task E may cause communication flaws between the teams responsible for executing each
task. The project manager should keep in mind that this change in the logical structure might hide the need for interaction between
both teams. An example for this would be Task E being dependent on some sort of deliverable resulting from Task A.
Conclusion
This paper proposed utilizations of the Start-Finish (SF) relationship to develop project schedules – particularly with the Line of
Balance method. Initially, the SF relation showed how to integrate the sequence of repetitive tasks. Then, the SF relation served as a
“pulling mechanism” for activities, removing any unnecessary anticipation, inspired by the just-in-time concept from the Toyota
https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/scheduling-optimization-balance-10614 6/8
01-03-2021 Scheduling optimization with line of balance and start-finish relations / Ricardo Viana Vargas, Felipe Fernandes Moreira.
Production System. In addition, combining both utilizations already mentioned, the SF relationship subordinated tasks to milestones
and was able to help on the scheduling of support and project management tasks. Lastly, the SF relation can be a powerful tool for
backward planning, part of the Critical Chain Project Management.
The paper also analyzed some relevant impacts of the method and the challenges of using it with traditional schedule management.
The downside of the technique relates to the increase on the level of risk due to the removal of the floats and the additional risk of
communication problems with the new network diagram structure.
References
Bernardes, M. M. S. (2011). Planejamento e controle da produção para empresas de construção civil. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: LTC.
Cãmara Brasileïra da Indústria da Construção (CBIC). (2014, January 24). CUB médio Brasil - Custo unitário básico de construção por
m². Retrieved from http://www.cbicdados.com.br/menu/custo-da-construcao/cub-medio-brasil-custo-unitario-basico-de-construcao-
por-m2
.
Cox III, J. F. & Spencer, M. S. (2002). Manual da teoria das restrições. Porto Alegre, RS: Bookman.
Goldratt, E. M. (1997). Critical chain: A business novel. Great Barrington, MA: The North River Press.
Henrich, G. & Koskela, L. (2005). Production management in construction – Requirements and methods. 2nd Scottish Conference for
Postgraduate Researchers of the Built & Natural Environment-PRoBE. Glasgow, Scotland.
https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/scheduling-optimization-balance-10614 7/8
01-03-2021 Scheduling optimization with line of balance and start-finish relations / Ricardo Viana Vargas, Felipe Fernandes Moreira.
Henrich, G. & Koskela, L. (2006). Evolution of production management methods in construction, construction in the XXI century: Local and
global challengesi. Rome, Italy: ARTEC.
Kenley, R. & Seppänen, O. (2010). Location-based management system for construction: Planning, scheduling and control. New York, NY:
Spon Press.
Kishira, Y. (2009). Gestão de mudança com harmonia. Curitiba, Brasil: Edição do autor.
Ohno, T. (1997). O sistema Toyota de produção: Além da produção em larga escala. Porto Alegre, RS: Bookman.
Project Management Institute. (1996). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) – First edition. Newtown
Square, PA: Author.
Project Management Institute. (2000). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) – 2000 edition. Newtown
Square, PA: Author.
Project Management Institute. (2004). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) – Third edition. Newtown
Square, PA: Author.
Project Management Institute. (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) – Fourth edition. Newtown
Square, PA: Author.
Project Management Institute. (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) – Fifth edition. Newtown
Square, PA: Author.
Popescu, C. M., Phaobunjong, K., & Ovararin, N. (2003). Estimating building costs. New York, NY. Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Seppänen, O., Ballard, G. & Pesonen, S. (2010). The combination of last planner system and location-base management
system. Lean Construction Journal, 10, 43–54.
Shingo, S. (1996). O sistema Toyota de produção do ponto de vista da engenharia de produção. Porto Alegre, RS: Bookman.
This material has been reproduced with the permission of the copyright owner. Unauthorized reproduction of this material is strictly
prohibited. For permission to reproduce this material, please contact PMI or any listed author.
© 2015, Ricardo Viana Vargas and Felipe Fernandes Moreira
Originally published as a part of the 2015 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – London, UK
https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/scheduling-optimization-balance-10614 8/8