Productivity Scheduling Method: Linear Schedule Analysis

with Singularity Functions

Gunnar Lucko, A.M.ASCE1

Abstract: This paper describes a new integrated method of linear schedule analysis using singularity functions. These functions have
previously been used for structural analysis and are newly applied to scheduling. Linear schedules combine information on time and
amount of work for each activity. A general model is presented with which activities and their buffers can be mathematically described in
detail. The algorithm of the new method forms the body of the paper, including the steps of setting up initial equations, calculating
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 07/24/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

pairwise differences between them, differentiating these to obtain the location of any minima, and deriving the final equations. The
algorithm consolidates the linear schedule under consideration of all constraints and, thus, automatically generates the minimum overall
project duration. The model distinguishes time and amount buffers, which bears implications for the definition and derivation of the
critical path. Future research work will address float and resource analysis using the new model.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9364共2009兲135:4共246兲
CE Database subject headings: Scheduling; Critical path method; Network analysis; Geometry; Time dependence; Productivity.

Introduction overlap. Well-balanced operations have parallel lines 共Stradal and

Linear scheduling is a project management technique that creates
a schedule in a coordinate system with a time axis and an axis that
displays the amount of work that has been produced. Values on
both axes are cumulative. The progression of several activities
yields a collection of inclined lines in the graphical representation
of the linear scheduling method 共LSM兲. Their ratio of work per
time is proportional to their productivity. Related concepts are
known under various names, including vertical production
method 共O’Brien 1975兲, velocity diagram 共Dressler 1980兲, time
space scheduling method 共Stradal and Cacha 1982兲, line of
balance 共Arditi and Albulak 1986兲, linear scheduling method
共Chrzanowski and Johnston 1986兲, flow lines 共Russell and Wong
1993兲, linear scheduling model 共Harmelink and Rowings 1998兲,
repetitive scheduling method 共Harris and Ioannou 1998兲, and sev-
eral others. While each of these approaches differ somewhat in
their focus, terminology, and analysis steps, they have in common
particularly the two-dimensional nature of the schedule that inte-
grates time and amount, the ability to enforce the continuity of
activities to optimize resource use, if desired, and the ability to
identify conflicts between activities, e.g., physical interferences,
wherever lines touch or cross in the diagram.
Three types of projects where linear scheduling is applied are
identified in the literature, which include geometrically linear
projects, either horizontal such as e.g., highways, tunnels, and
pipelines 共Arditi et al. 2002兲, or vertical such as e.g., high-rises
and towers 共Thabet and Beliveau 1994兲, and projects with repeti-
tive operations 共Hegazy 2001兲. The latter and the first two may
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Catholic Univ. of
America, Washington, D.C. 20064. E-mail: lucko@cua.edu
Note. Discussion open until September 1, 2009. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. The manuscript for this paper
was submitted for review and possible publication on July 11, 2007;
approved on September 26, 2008. This paper is part of the Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 135, No. 4, April 1,
2009. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/2009/4-246–253/$25.00.
Cacha 1982兲; effects of learning 共Arditi et al. 2001兲 or fatigue
would be visible as concave or convex curved lines. The amount
axis is sometimes called location axis if it represents a spatial
dimension and not just a count. It may be drawn vertically to
mimic the height of the facility that is under construction.
Need for Algorithm
A detailed review and critique of approaches to linear scheduling
has been provided by Mattila and Abraham 共1998兲. Various dif-
ferent analytical methods were employed, including vector nota-
tion 共Russell and Caselton 1988兲, linear programming 共Reda
1990兲, and dynamic programming 共Moselhi and Hassanein 2003兲.
Predominantly graphical methods were presented by Harmelink
and Rowings 共1998兲 under research for the Iowa Department of
Transportation and by Harris and Ioannou 共1998兲. While they
yielded similar results, it was concluded that “the techniques must
be computerized in order to become useful and gain acceptance
by the industry” 共Mattila and Park 2003, p. 63兲. However, com-
puterization alone in the form of a software application may not
be sufficient to elevate linear scheduling from being eclipsed by
the critical path method 共CPM兲, which is ubiquitous in construc-
tion scheduling 共Galloway 2006兲. For an updated approach on
linear scheduling to be successful, certain desirable attributes
need to be fulfilled, including “that the model be mathematically
based,” which ideally should be independent of the particular
graphical representation, that it provide at least the analytical
capabilities of CPM, and that it use terminology that is fami-
liar from CPM 共Russell and Wong 1993, p. 198f兲. Mattila and
Abraham 共1998, p. 301兲 underlined that “a need exists to expand
the features of LSM to include some of the features of CPM.”
However, in light of the popularity of the straightforward CPM
algorithm that adds durations along paths of precedence and se-
lects the maximum value at each merge, a new linear scheduling
algorithm should not require advanced mathematics knowledge.
This paper, therefore, adds to the body of knowledge by introduc-

246 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2009

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2009, 135(4): 246-253

 ing a mathematical model of linear schedules based on singularity
functions and describes its analytical algorithm that needs only
algebra and basic calculus. The method is flexible and expansible,
yet precise and inclusive.
Definition of Singularity Functions
The mathematical operator of singularity functions is known in
German as the Föppl or Klammer 共translated: bracket兲 symbol
after August Otto Föppl 共1854–1924兲, a civil engineer and pro-
fessor at the Technical University of Munich 共Föppl 1927兲. In
English, it is known as Macaulay brackets after William Herrick
Macaulay 共1853–1936兲, a mathematician and Fellow of King’s
College in Cambridge 共Macaulay 1919兲. Singularity functions
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 07/24/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
have originally been used for structural engineering analysis of
beams under complex loads 共Beer et al. 2006兲. Eq. 共1兲 gives the
basic term of singularity functions, written with pointed brackets
as introduced by Wittrick 共1965兲
具x − a典n = 再 0 for x ⬍ a
共x − a兲n for x 艌 a
冎 共1兲
where x = variable under consideration; a = upper boundary of
the current segment; and the exponent n = order of the phenom-
enon that changes at the end of the segment. The exponential rule
a0 = 1 applies to the brackets. Eqs. 共2兲 and 共3兲 describe how the
brackets can be differentiated and integrated like regular math-
ematical functions
d
具x − a典n = n · 具x − a典n−1 共2兲
dx
冕 具x − a典ndx =
1
n+1
· 具x − a典n+1 + C 共3兲
where C = integration constant. Beyond Eqs. 共1兲–共3兲, the follow-
ing rules apply: parts of two singularity functions can be added or
subtracted if the cutoff a and exponent n are identical. A singu-
larity function can be multiplied by any factor s to scale it. An
exponent of n = 0 indicates a constant phenomenon where
s⫽intercept and n = 1 indicates a linear phenomenon where
s⫽slope.
Advantages of Singularity Functions
Singularity functions are a family of functions with several math-
ematical properties that are desirable for the description and
analysis of linear schedules:
• They describe the phenomenon of interest based on geometry;
• They separate the components of the phenomenon of interest;
• They capture any changes in progress across time and amount;
• They can include infinitely many segments of different be-
havior;
• They are continuous and their value is defined for all
arguments;
• They can be scaled with any factor and are independent of
units;
• They can be added or subtracted for identical orders and
cutoffs;
• They can be differentiated and integrated like regular func-
tions; and
• They can be evaluated manually or via computer software.
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2009 / 247
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2009, 135(4): 246-253
y [time]
y3
y2
y1
y0
x0 x1 x2 x3
x [amount]
Fig. 1. General model for singularity function
General Model for Singularity Functions
The following section introduces the terminology and general
model for applying singularity function to linear schedules of
construction projects. This writer proposes to name the new
method the productivity scheduling method 共PSM兲 to reflect its
intuitive way of combining time and amount information via the
measure that links them, productivity. Eq. 共4兲 provides the general
model for modeling linear and repetitive activities and their buff-
ers with the Föppl-Macaulay notation, which is shown in Fig. 1
y共x兲 = y 0 · 具x − 0典0 +
y1 − y0
x1 − x0
· 具x − 0典1
冋冉 冊 册
m−1
y k+1 − y k y k − y k−1
+ 兺
k=1
−
xk+1 − xk xk − xk−1
· 具x − xk典1 共4兲
where y = time variable of an activity with m segments;
x = amount variable x; y 0 = intercept; and y k and xk = pairs of coor-
dinates with the numbering index k. The summation term contains
change terms where the present slope y k / xk is replaced with a new
slope y k+1 / xk+1. The buffer of an activity shall be defined as a
distance across time or amount that has to remain free of any
successor activities. It can theoretically take on any shape, but
often is a constant and, thus, has the same shape as the activity to
which it is attributed. A pair of activities, thus, is typically related
via a buffer between them. Such continuous buffers are a gener-
alization of the previous use where distances were only checked
at isolated points between neighboring activities 共Harris and Io-
annou 1998兲. Those buffers were called horizontal and vertical
logic constraints 共Thabet and Beliveau 1994兲, least distances
共Harmelink and Rowings 1998兲, or time and space dependencies
共Arditi et al. 2002兲. Amount buffers were also called stage buffers
共Reda 1990兲 or location buffers 共Mubarak 2005兲.
Algorithm of Productivity Scheduling Method
The following sections detail each step of the algorithm for the
new method as shown in the flowchart of Fig. 2. The paper then
describes how the equivalent of a critical path can be derived
from the mathematical analysis.
 Step 1: Capture Schedule Data Table 1. Activity List
Create activity list with names, ranges across Name Successor Segment DT DA BT BA
time and amount (or productivity), precedence,
and values of time and/or amount buffer A B A1 7 50 1.0 50/ 4 = 12.50
B C B1 4 50 1.0 50/ 4 = 12.50
Step 2: Initial Activity and Buffer Equations C D C1 6 35 1.9 95/ 7 ⬇ 13.57
Follow precedence; write initial activity and
C2 1 15 1.9 95/ 7 ⬇ 13.57
buffer equations, use predecessor(s)’ maximum
value as new intercept, simplify amount buffers D E D1 7 50 1.8 90/ 7 ⬇ 12.86
E F E1 1 30 3.0 70/ 3 ⬇ 23.33
Step 3: Differences of Activities and Buffers E2 4 20 3.0 70/ 3 ⬇ 23.33
Follow precedence; calculate pairs of differences F — F1 3 40 N/A N/A
between predecessor(s)’ time and/or amount
buffers and successor in stacked configuration F2 3 10 N/A N/A

Step 4: Differentiation of Differences

are continuous full-span linear activities 共Harmelink and Rowings
Differentiate pairs of differences, evaluate them
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 07/24/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

to find locations of minimum values, indicating
critical points (activities will touch via buffers)
Step 5: Final Activity and Buffer Equations
Follow precedence; subtract minimum values of
differences from activity and buffer equations
(rewrite intercepts) in consolidated configuration
Fig. 2. Flowchart of analysis steps
1998兲. Activities C, E, and F each consist of two segments with
changes of productivities between them, from lower to higher for
C1 to C2 and from higher to lower for E1 to E2 and for F1 to F2.
The exact parameters are listed in Table 1, with the time distance
DT in days, the amount distance DA in length units, and the time
and amount buffers BT and BA. Compare this schedule with the
simple network diagram in Fig. 4. The richness of the two-
dimensional information in linear schedules will allow for a
deeper analysis than what is possible under CPM.

Step 1: Capture Schedule Data Step 2: Initial Activity and Buffer Equations
Fig. 3 shows a linear schedule that was analyzed under research Activities A through F are described in Föppl-Macaulay notation
for the Iowa Department of Transportation 共Harmelink and Row- in Eqs. 共5兲–共10兲. For clarity, the brackets are sorted from left to
ings 1998兲. Since time can only progress forward, the algorithm right by ascending segment boundaries and within that by ascend-
requires that it is considered the dependent variable y. To reflect ing exponents. The initial equations are generated by following
this mathematical convention, the amount is plotted on the x-axis the order of precedence and by inserting the buffers of Table 1
and time on the y-axis. This causes the slope to represent the between neighboring activities. The maximum value of y共x兲 of all
inverse of the productivity P, which is defined as amount over predecessors is used as the intercept of the successor. This initial
time. However, the mathematical model is separate from the configuration is on the safe side, as it keeps the successor high
graphical representation. If desired, the time axis can be drawn above its predecessors without any potential interference. It is
along the horizontal axis. Numeric values for time and amount analogous to only permitting finish-to-start relationships in CPM.
and their buffers were not provided in the original source and Fig. 5 shows this stacking of activities. Buffers are shown as gray
have been derived from the diagram in the original source shaded areas in the figure.
共Harmelink and Rowings 1998兲. Activities A – F are performed in Eqs. 共5兲 – 共10兲 = singularity functions for the activities under
a sequential order of precedence 兵A , B , C , D , E , F其. All activities consideration of their time buffers, which act in the vertical di-
rection. The start and finish dates of the equations are listed in
Table 2. The time buffer equations are omitted for brevity, but can
y [time] be recreated by adding their BT to the intercept of their activity
22 F
equation. The equivalent activity equations under consideration of
F2 the amount buffers are also omitted, but their respective start and
20 finish dates are listed in Table 3. Activity F is the last activity and
18 F1 E does not carry any buffers. The simple case of a constant buffer as
E2 per Table 1, which is added to the intercept of its activity equa-
16
D tion, can be extended to the general case of a buffer equation
14 E1
whose shape is entirely independent from its activity. Step 2
12 C would then alternate between activity and buffer equations
C2
10
7
8 B y共x兲A = 0 · 具x − 0典0 + · 具x − 0典1 共5兲
C1 A 50
6
4 4
y共x兲B = 8 · 具x − 0典0 + · 具x − 0典1 共6兲
2 50
0
10 20 30 40 50
x [amount] A B C D E F

Fig. 3. Linear schedule 共Harmelink and Rowings 1998兲 Fig. 4. Network diagram

248 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2009

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2009, 135(4): 246-253

 y [time] Table 3. Initial Configuration for Amount Buffers

22 Amount buffers
Critical Time
20 C Name Segment ST FT points distance
C2 A A1 0 7 75/ 2 = 37.50 3.0
18
B B1 7 11 0.00 3.0
16
C1 C C1 11 17 150/ 7 = 21.43 6.3
14
C2 17 18 150/ 7 = 21.43 6.3
12 B D D1 18 25 30.00 2.0
10 E E1 25 26 80/ 7 = 26.67 2.0
8 E2 26 30 80/ 7 = 26.67 2.0
A F F1 30 33 — —
6
F2 33 36 — —
4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 07/24/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2
value of x to describe where the plateau of the amount buffer
0
10 20 30 40 50 begins. Similar equations for the remaining amount buffers are
omitted for brevity

冓 冉 冊冔 冓 冉 冊冔
x [amount]
0 1
BA 50 7 50
Fig. 5. Activity stacking with time buffers y共x兲bufA =0· x− − + · x− −
4 50 4

y共x兲C = 13 · 具x − 0典 +0
6
· 具x − 0典1 −
6
−
1
冉· 具x − 35典1冊
−
7
冓 冉 冊冔
50
· x − 50 −
50
4
1
共11兲

35 35 15 It is possible to simplify such unwieldy amount buffer equa-

共7兲 tions to cover only positive values of x. Eqs. 共12兲–共16兲, therefore,
have slightly larger intercepts. They retain the last term of
xmax-⌬x to describe the plateaus. Ratios are simplified to the
7
y共x兲D = 21.9 · 具x − 0典0 + · 具x − 0典1 共8兲 smallest integer fraction
50
7 7
BA
y共x兲bufA = 1.75 · 具x − 0典0 + · 具x − 0典1 − · 具x − 37.5典1

y共x兲E = 30.7 · 具x − 0典0 +

1
30
· 具x − 0典1 −
1
冉−
4
30 20
冊
· 具x − 30典1
50 50
共12兲

共9兲 4 4
BA
y共x兲bufB = 8 · 具x − 0典0 + · 具x − 0典1 − · 具x − 37.5典1 共13兲

冉 冊
50 50

冓 冔
3 3 3
y共x兲F = 38.7 · 具x − 0典0 + · 具x − 0典1 − − · 具x − 40典1 1
40 40 10 653 6 11 150
BA
y共x兲bufC = · 具x − 0典0 + · 具x − 0典1 − · x−
共10兲 49 35 105 7

Simplifying Amount Buffer Equations

−
1
15
冓 冔
· x−
255
7
1
共14兲

冓 冔
Amount buffers act in the horizontal direction, which is equiva-
lent to shifting the singularity functions for their activities side- 7 7 260 1
ways by the value BA. Eq. 共11兲, for example, includes the shift of
BA
y共x兲bufD = 19.8 · 具x − 0典0 + · 具x − 0典1 − · x−
50 50 7
⌬x = 12.5 in the xk values and by deducting it from the maximum
共15兲

232 1
Table 2. Initial Configuration for Time Buffers BA
y共x兲bufE = · 具x − 0典0 + · 具x − 0典1
9 30

冓 冔 冓 冔
Time buffers
Critical Time 1 1
1 20 1 80
Name Segment ST FT points distance + · x− − · x− 共16兲
6 3 5 3
A A1 0.0 7.0 50 4.0
B B1 8.0 12.0 0 4.0
C C1 13.0 19.0 35 5.9 Step 3: Differences of Activities and Buffers
C2 19.0 20.0 35 5.9
D D1 21.9 28.9 30 3.8 Pairwise differences are calculated between the time and/or
E E1 30.7 31.7 0 5.0
amount buffers of all predecessors and their successor activity
while following the order of precedence. In other words, these
E2 31.7 35.7 40 5.0
difference equations describe the white spaces in Fig. 5. If an
F F1 38.7 41.7 — —
activity has several predecessors, the minimum of these differ-
F2 41.7 44.7 — —
ences is used. The rule applies that the terms of two singularity

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2009 / 249

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2009, 135(4): 246-253

 functions can be added or subtracted if their orders and cutoffs are Table 4. Final Configuration
identical. This yields Eqs. 共17兲–共21兲 under consideration of time Name Segment P ST FT SA FA
buffers and Eqs. 共22兲–共26兲 under consideration of amount buffers.
Note that the intercept values that are obtained from Tables 2 and A A1 7.142 0 7 0 50
3 are somewhat different between the two groups. However, in B B1 12.500 4 8 0 50
determining the distances, only the overall shape of the difference C C1 5.833 5 11 0 35
equation matters. C2 15.000 11 12 35 50
D D1 7.142 8 15 0 50
Time Buffers E E1 30.000 13 14 0 30
E2 5.000 14 18 30 50
3 F F1 13.333 16 19 00 40
BT
y共x兲B−bufA = 8 · 具x − 0典0 − · 具x − 0典1 共17兲 F2 3.333 19 22 40 50
50

冉 6 4
冊 11 38 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 07/24/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

BT
y共x兲C−bufB = 5 · 具x − 0典0 + − · 具x − 0典1 − · 具x − 35典1
BA
y共x兲F−bufE = · 具x − 0典0 + · 具x − 0典1
9 24

冓 冔 冓 冔
35 50 105
1 1
共18兲 1 20 1 80 9
− · x− + · x− + · 具x − 40典1
6 3 5 3 40

BT
y共x兲D−bufC = 8.9 · 具x − 0典0 + 冉 7
−
6
50 35
冊
· 具x − 0典1 +
11
105
· 具x − 35典1
共26兲

共19兲 Step 4: Differentiation of Differences

The equations of the pairwise differences are differentiated using
BT
y共x兲E−bufD = 8.8 · 具x − 0典0 +
1
−
7
30 50
冉 冊
1
· 具x − 0典1 + · 具x − 30典1
6
Eq. 共2兲. Eq. 共27兲 is the derivative of Eq. 共17兲; Eq. 共28兲 is the
derivative of Eq. 共22兲; the remaining derivatives are omitted for
brevity. Evaluating them cumulatively across the range of positive
共20兲 values of x from zero to its maximum allows identifying minima
where the difference is concave, i.e., where the differentiated dif-

冉 冊
ference changes its sign from negative to positive. Depending
3 1 1 on whether the neighboring activities overall are diverging or
BT
y共x兲F−bufE = 8 · 具x − 0典0 + − · 具x − 0典1 − · 具x − 30典1
40 30 6 converging 共Harris and Ioannou 1998兲, the boundaries x = 0 or
9 x = xmax are also locations of potential minima. Such critical points
+ · 具x − 40典1 共21兲 where activities touch via their buffers were also called vertices
40 共Harmelink and Rowings 1998兲. The x-coordinates of the critical
points are listed in Tables 2 and 3 along with the distances ⌬y
Amount Buffers between the buffers of the respective activity segments and the
successor activity. Note that the time buffer of activity E is closest
to activity F in two locations, for x = 0 and for x = 40
3 7
BA
y共x兲B−bufA = 5.25 · 具x − 0典0 − · 具x − 0典1 + · 具x − 37.5典1
50 50 3
⬘BT = 0 −
y共x兲B−bufA · 具x − 0典0 共27兲
共22兲 50

3 7
16 11 ⬘BA = 0 −
y共x兲B−bufA · 具x − 0典0 + · 具x − 37.5典0 共28兲
BA
y共x兲C−bufB = 3 · 具x − 0典0 + · 具x − 0典1 − · 具x − 35典1 50 50
175 105
4
+ · 具x − 37.5典1 共23兲 Step 5: Final Activity and Buffer Equations
50
All activity and buffer equations are consolidated to their earliest

冓 冔
possible configuration by deducting the differences of Tables 2
1 and 3 from their intercepts cumulatively while following the order
229 11 11 150
BA
y共x兲D−bufC = · 具x − 0典0 − · 具x − 0典1 + · x− of precedence. Activity A is the first activity and does not need to
49 350 105 7

冓 冔
be rewritten. Shifting the singularity functions of Eqs. 共6兲–共10兲
1
1 255 and their respective time or amount buffers downward by the sum
+ · x− 共24兲
15 7 of ⌬y to yield the final Eqs. 共29兲–共33兲 accomplishes the objective
of minimizing the overall project duration 共makespan兲. The final
time and amount buffer equations are omitted for brevity, but can
8 be recreated as described above. Evaluating these equations yields
BA
y共x兲E−bufD = 5.2 · 具x − 0典0 − · 具x − 0典1
75 the start and finish points listed in Table 4

+
1
6
· 具x − 30典1 +
7
50
· x− 冓 冔
260
7
1
共25兲 y共x兲B = 4 · 具x − 0典0 +
4
50
· 具x − 0典1 共29兲

250 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2009

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2009, 135(4): 246-253

 y [time] y [time]

22 F 22 F
F2 F2
20 20
18 F1 E 18 F1 E
E2 E2
16 16
D D
14 E1 14 E1
12 C 12 C
C2 C2
10 10
8 B 8 B
C1 A C1 A
6 6
4 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 07/24/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2 2
0 0
10 20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 50
x [amount] x [amount]

Fig. 6. Time critical path Fig. 7. Amount critical path

6 11
y共x兲C = 5 · 具x − 0典0 + · 具x − 0典1 − · 具x − 35典1
35 105
7 occur at starts, changes, or finishes of activities. For example, in
y共x兲D = 8 · 具x − 0典0 + · 具x − 0典1
50
1 1
y共x兲E = 13 · 具x − 0典0 + · 具x − 0典1 + · 具x − 30典1
30 6 causes the time critical path to split and merge again between the
3 9
y共x兲F = 16 · 具x − 0典0 + · 具x − 0典1 + · 具x − 40典1
40 40
The mathematical analysis as formulated under this algorithm
is independent of the graphical representation of the linear sched-
ule, whether the x-axis is drawn horizontally or vertically. Essen-
tially, the previous application of the algorithm has analyzed two
different schedules, which happened to yield the same final con-
figuration of activities. A mixture of time and amount buffers
inside a single project schedule can be processed by the algorithm
in the same manner, as both types of buffers are modeled with
singularity functions. If an activity has both types of buffers, a
case distinction is needed to ensure that all constraints are ful-
filled. In this case, Steps 2 through 5 shall use whichever buffer
yields the maximum intercept for a successor activity.
Time and Amount Critical Paths
With the activities and their buffer in their final configuration, it is
now possible to construct the equivalent of a critical path under
consideration of the scenario with time buffers as per Table 2 and
the scenario with amount buffers as per Table 3. The following
rules are used for connecting the critical locations to obtain the
critical path for the scenarios with time or amount buffers:
• It is continuous from earliest start point to latest finish point;
• It follows the order of precedence and may split or merge;
• It may include complete activities or segments thereof;
• It jumps parallel to the time axis across time buffers; and
• It jumps parallel to the amount axis across amount buffers.
The time and amount critical paths thus obtained are shown in
共30兲 Figs. 6 and 7 as thick lines in the linear schedule. Critical points
are marked with small circles. Several interesting observations
can be made. Examining the figures shows that critical points may
共31兲
Fig. 6, the change in activity C at x = 35 induces a time critical
point with its neighboring activity D. There is no equivalent re-
lationship for such “middle-to-middle” link in CPM. Moreover,
共32兲 the previously observed two closest locations at x = 0 and x = 40
two activities E and F already. Activities A and B are connected
by a finish-to-finish link whereas activities B and C are connected
共33兲 by a start-to-start link. Activity B is, therefore, fully time critical,
same as activities A and F. Activities C, D, and E are only par-
tially time critical across segments whose boundaries are induced
by time critical points. The amount critical path shown in Fig. 7 is
significantly different. It does not split at all. Only activity A is
fully amount critical, all others are partially amount critical. The
boundaries at which they change from being noncritical to critical
and vice versa in Fig. 7 are completely different from Fig. 6. It is,
therefore, prudent to distinguish time and amount criticality for
activities in linear schedules.
Comparison with Previous Solution
The amount criticality of activities A and B in Fig. 7 also differs
from the results from the graphical analysis by Harmelink and
Rowings 共1998兲, which found activity A to be amount critical
from its start point to x = 200/ 7 ⬇ 28.57 and activity B to be
amount critical from its start point to x = 12.5. This inconsistency
was noted independently by Kallantzis and Lambropoulos 共2004兲.
It was caused by considering the start of an activity to be critical
if no link with any predecessor had otherwise been established in
the downward pass 共Harmelink and Rowings 1998兲 and by check-
ing distances only at discrete critical points, not across a continu-
ous equation. These least time and distance intervals were discrete
themselves, but no equivalent of a time critical path was derived.
In a subsequent paper, time distances were checked during the
graphical analysis of an amount critical path 共Harmelink 2001兲. In
comparison, time and amount buffers are clearly distinguished in
PSM and their equations are continuous. The algorithm of PSM

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2009 / 251

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2009, 135(4): 246-253

 automatically calculates the configuration that minimizes the increased application of linear scheduling for the planning and
overall project duration 共makespan兲 under consideration of all control of construction projects.
constraints from time and/or amount buffers.

Comparison with Critical Path Method Acknowledgments

There is no separate forward and backward pass as under CPM
共or upward and downward pass, respectively兲, to determine the
criticality of activities, but an initial configuration from stacking
activities and their buffers and consolidating them to the final
configuration by using minimum differences. CPM requires spe-
cific relationships to exist as input for its algorithm, at the least
finish-to-start links. If predecessor and successor activities shall
overlap across time to minimize the overall project duration, other
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 07/24/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The support of the National Science Foundation 共Grant No.
CMMI-0654318兲 for portions of the work presented here is grate-
fully acknowledged. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National
Science Foundation.

link types such as finish-to-finish, start-to-finish, or start-to-start Notation

are required. On the other hand, the linear schedule analysis only
needs productivities and the order of precedence as input. The The following symbols are used in this paper:
PSM algorithm yields the critical points as output, but also offers a ⫽ amount, cutoff value of range;
the possibility of implementing additional mathematical con- BA ⫽ amount buffer;
straints, e.g., milestones. BT ⫽ time buffer;
The productivity of each activity is explicitly modeled with its C ⫽ integration constant;
singularity function and is clearly shown in the 2D diagram, but DA ⫽ amount distance;
CPM does not reveal the productivities that are underlying its DT ⫽ time distance;
durations. A time buffer under PSM is similar to a lead or lag time FA ⫽ finish amount;
of CPM, where a relationship receives a minimum duration. FT ⫽ finish time;
Amount buffers cannot be expressed by CPM, since it is a one- m ⫽ number of segments of activity;
dimensional analysis. Buffers under PSM can be constant or can n ⫽ exponent, order of phenomenon;
have an independent shape. P ⫽ productivity 共inverse of slope兲;
If the resolution of the analysis shall be increased, the activi- SA ⫽ start amount;
ties in a CPM schedule would have to be broken down into sub- ST ⫽ start time;
activities at the desired level of detail to determine intermediate t ⫽ time;
start or finish dates 共Lucko 2007兲. The computational effort, thus, x ⫽ variable along horizontal axis;
would increase in proportion to the number of units on the y ⫽ variable along vertical axis; and
amount axis. On the other hand, each activity is only represented 具 典 ⫽ brackets of singularity function.
by one equation under PSM, which can be evaluated at any de-
sired amount. The computational effort of PSM would only in- Superscripts
crease if additional changes are uncovered at a higher resolution, BA ⫽ amount buffer; and
which would then be modeled with additional change terms BT ⫽ time buffer.
within the same singularity function.
Subscripts
buf ⫽ buffer of activity;
Summary and Outlook i ⫽ current activity;
j ⫽ successor activity;
This paper has presented the basic concepts of PSM, a new ap- k ⫽ numbering index for segments of activity; and
proach for mathematically analyzing schedules containing linear max ⫽ maximum.
and/or repetitive activities with singularity functions. It has de-
scribed the definition and the general model for using singularity
functions to model activities and their buffers. The major steps of References
the algorithm, including stacking, differences, differentiation of
distances, and consolidation, have been demonstrated with an ex- Arditi, D., and Albulak, M. Z. 共1986兲. “Line-of-balance scheduling in
ample from the literature. The algorithm processes both time and pavement construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 112共3兲, 411–424.
amount buffers, which leads to distinguishing time and amount Arditi, D., Tokdemir, O. B., and Suh, K. 共2001兲. “Effect of learning on
line-of-balance scheduling.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 19共5兲, 265–277.
criticality from each other. Rules for accordingly determining
Arditi, D., Tokdemir, O. B., Suh, K. 共2002兲. “Challenges in line-of-
time and amount critical paths from calculated critical points have balance scheduling.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 128共6兲, 545–556.
been derived. A comparison with traditional CPM scheduling Beer, F. P., Johnston, E. R., DeWolf, J. T. 共2006兲. Mechanics of materials,
found the analysis of linear schedules with singularity functions 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
to be computationally efficient and of greater depth due to its Chrzanowski, E. N., and Johnston, D. W. 共1986兲. “Application of linear
focus on productivity. Future research on the new method will scheduling.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 112共4兲, 476–491.
examine different types of float, probabilistic activity durations, Dressler, J. 共1980兲. “Construction management in West Germany.” J.
and resource allocation and leveling. It is also planned to deploy Constr. Div. 106共4兲, 447–487.
PSM on an industry case study to measure its performance and Föppl, A. O. 共1927兲. Vorlesungen über Technische Mechanik. Dritter
practicability. The mathematical model of PSM may lead to an Band: Festigkeitslehre, 10th Ed., B. G. Teubner, Leipzig, Germany.

252 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2009

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2009, 135(4): 246-253

 Galloway, P. D. 共2006兲. “Survey of the construction industry relative to
the use of CPM scheduling for construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 132共7兲, 697–711.
Harmelink, D. J. 共2001兲. “Linear scheduling model: Float characteris-
tics.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 127共4兲, 255–260.
Harmelink, D. J., and Rowings, J. E. 共1998兲. “Linear scheduling model:
Development of controlling activity path.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
124共4兲, 263–268.
Harris, R. B., and Ioannou, P. G. 共1998兲. “Scheduling projects with re-
peating activities.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 124共4兲, 269–278.
Hegazy, T. 共2001兲. “Critical path method—Line of balance model for
efficient scheduling of repetitive construction projects.” Transp. Res.
Rec., 1761, 124–129.
Kallantzis, A. and Lambropoulos, S. 共2004兲. “Discussion of ‘Comparison
of linear scheduling model and repetitive scheduling method’ by Kris
G. Mattila and Amy Park.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 8共3兲, 463–467.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 07/24/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Lucko, G. 共2007兲. “Flexible modeling of linear schedules for integrated
mathematical analysis.” Proc., 2007 Winter Simulation Conf., IEEE,
Piscataway, N.J., 2159–2167.
Macaulay, W. H. 共1919兲. “Note on the deflection of beams.” Messenger
of Math., 48共9兲, 129–130.
Mattila, K. G., and Abraham, D. M. 共1998兲. “Linear scheduling: Past
research efforts and future directions.” Eng., Constr. Archit. Manage.,
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2009 / 253
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2009, 135(4): 246-253
5共3兲, 294–303.
Mattila, K. G., and Park, A. 共2003兲. “Comparison of linear scheduling
model and repetitive scheduling method.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
129共1兲, 56–64.
Moselhi, O., and Hassanein, A. 共2003兲. “Optimized scheduling of linear
projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 129共6兲, 664–673.
Mubarak, S. 共2005兲. Construction project scheduling and control, Pear-
son Education/Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
O’Brien, J. J. 共1975兲. “VPM scheduling for high-rise buildings.” J. Con-
str. Div., 101共4兲, 895–905.
Reda, R. M. 共1990兲. “RPM: Repetitive project modeling.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 116共2兲, 316–330.
Russell, A. D., and Caselton, W. F. 共1988兲. “Extensions to linear sched-
uling optimization.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 114共1兲, 36–52.
Russell, A. D., and Wong, W. C. M. 共1993兲. “New generation of planning
structures.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 119共2兲, 196–214.
Stradal, O. and Cacha, J. 共1982兲. “Time space scheduling method.” J.
Constr. Div. 108共3兲, 445–457.
Thabet, W. Y., and Beliveau, Y. J. 共1994兲. “HVLS: Horizontal and verti-
cal logic scheduling for multistory projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
120共4兲, 875–892.
Wittrick, W. H. 共1965兲. “A generalization of Macaulay’s method with
applications in structural mechanics.” AIAA J., 3共2兲, 326–330.