Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101455

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Advanced Engineering Informatics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aei

Teaching generative construction scheduling: Proposed curriculum design

and analysis of student learning for the Tri-Constraint Method
Daniel M. Hall a, *, Irfan Čustović a, Ravina Sriram a, Qian Chen b
a
Institute of Construction and Infrastructure Management, Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology), Zurich, Switzerland
b
Division of Civil Engineering, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, 7a JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Construction management courses are increasingly teaching digital technologies and automation. The default
Automation method to teach construction scheduling remains the critical path method, which suffers from lack of automa­
Generative tion, lack of dynamic change processes, and wrong assumptions about resource and spatial availability. New
Construction scheduling
methods to automate construction scheduling, sometimes referred to as generative construction scheduling, have
Tri-Constraint Method
Critical path method
been developed but are seldom taught in construction management courses. This paper describes the design of a
Education new curriculum to teach one new approach to construction scheduling called the Tri-Constraint Method. The
proposed five-lesson, flipped-classroom curriculum is designed to illustrate limitations of the critical path
method, explain the theoretical and computational foundations of a generative scheduling algorithm, and pro­
vide practical experience through implementation with state-of-the-art software. To measure the impact of the
curriculum on student learning, the paper conducts a descriptive statistical analysis, a paired t-test, and an ex­
amination of qualitative feedback. Students who entered the course with either low or high prior knowledge of
construction scheduling showed significant improvement in their understanding of the key concepts and the
algorithmic approach behind the generative construction scheduling. Overall, this paper demonstrates how
curriculum design in engineering informatics can combine theoretical understanding and practical imple­
mentation to understand generative construction scheduling. The dissemination of this and similar teaching
curricula can ensure that future engineering practitioners avoid “black box” implementations of automation
software in their future careers.

1. Introduction collaborative manner with teammates [35,24,6]. However, educators

Teaching construction management (CM) students how to create a
construction schedule is one of the most important responsibilities for
CM educators. The construction schedule plans the scope of the work,
coordinates the project participants, provides the basis for estimating
costs and the duration of the project, identifies by whom and by when
the work must be executed, and monitors project progress.
At the same time, CM programs are increasingly teaching students
how to use advanced digital technologies such as Building Information
Modeling (BIM) [2,37]. By linking BIM with a construction schedule –
referred to as 4D BIM [17,39] – CM students can better visualize the
construction sequence, understand implications of changes and correc­
tions, and develop project schedules in a more integrated and
should be careful to understand that 4D BIM is not itself a scheduling
method. BIM alone does not facilitate project planning and scheduling
decisions [10]. 4D BIM requires the combination of 3D visualization
with a particular project scheduling method, of which many alternatives
exist.
Today, the project scheduling method taught by the majority of CM
programs is the critical path method (CPM). However, there are reasons
to question if CPM is the best-suited scheduling method to prepare
students for a future of construction management that uses BIM and
automation. Scholars already note the limitations of CPM for the
evolving requirements of construction scheduling today [10]. CPM
suffers from lack of automation, lack of dynamic change processes, as­
sumptions of unlimited resources, and little consideration of spatial or

* Corresponding author at: Chair of Innovative and Industrial Construction, Institute of Construction & Infrastructure Management (IBI), HIL F 22.1, Stefano-
Franscini-Platz 5, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland.
E-mail address: hall@ibi.baug.ethz.ch (D.M. Hall).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101455
Received 9 May 2021; Received in revised form 23 September 2021; Accepted 4 November 2021
Available online 31 December 2021
1474-0346/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
D.M. Hall et al.
location-based constraints [10]. The connection between BIM and CPM
for project scheduling is complementary at best. 4D BIM that relies on
CPM can only be used to visualize CPM sequences, but this is not the
same as leveraging the data in a BIM model to generate the schedule in
the first place. CPM is not well suited to take advantage of semantic
information and automated processes that can be provided by BIM.
In response, alternative methods for construction scheduling have
been developed that can better complement digital technologies and can
better utilize automation [12]. One such example is the Tri-Constraint
Method (TCM) [32]. TCM simultaneously considers the resolution of
the scheduling constraints and the variation of the feasible sequences of
activities [40]. TCM addresses not only the resource scheduling heu­
ristics but also the spatial constraints during the schedule generation
process. Using the random walk algorithm and pre-defined rules con­
cerning precedence, resource, and spatial constraints, TCM allows the
selection of the most optimal of all feasible schedules for a given project
[32]. Using computational power, TCM loops through a predefined al­
gorithm to create millions of feasible schedules under the constrained
conditions. The application of TCM can enable a form of “generative
construction scheduling” where numerous reliable schedules can be
created and compared in less time using powerful computers.
Due to these characteristics, TCM is well aligned with BIM and
automation approaches. The adoption of TCM by industry has grown
significantly in the past five years. The software startup company ALICE
Technologies combines TCM with a user-friendly interface to upload and
work with BIM models. Construction industry leaders such as Parsons
(USA), DPR Construction (USA), and AF Gruppen (Norway) have suc­
cessfully used TCM on large projects [16]. ALICE is also growing into
new markets such as the UK and Japan [7].
However, the inclusion of automated or generative construction
scheduling algorithms is largely absent in CM curricula. Course in­
structors can be reluctant to integrate these new approaches into their
curricula for various reasons. New methods such as TCM have only
recently entered the industry; in such instances of technical change, the
academic world can lack broad expertise in these areas [3]. There may
not be available instructors with knowledge to teach how a new
scheduling algorithm actually works [24] . Instructors with little expe­
rience in artificial intelligence or expert systems may be intimidated to
engage with the algorithms behind automated scheduling approaches.
They may fear that students lack the fundamental computational skills
to effectively learn these algorithms, or that the curriculum will be
overly focused on mathematics and programming while avoiding the
practical and real-world implementations that characterize CM as an
applied discipline. Furthermore, CM programs often are not able to
make room for new content in existing curricula because they already
have a tight timetable and do not have sufficient time and resources to
add an additional class [6]. There may be fear in investing resources in
developing a curriculum for a new method that might not ultimately be
successful on the market.
It is important that CM programs do not fall behind industry
implementations. Although software companies such as ALICE can offer
practical guides, tutorials, training materials and seminars to teach
novel scheduling software, these are tailored for industry practitioners
and do not focus on the computational and theoretical foundations that
underpin such an algorithmic approach. Without a basic understanding
of the fundamental principles and theoretical knowledge behind a novel
algorithm, future industry practitioners risk technological adoption with
only a “black box” understanding of why the software behaves as it does.
It is the responsibility of higher education to provide CM students the
theoretical understanding behind novel scheduling algorithms such as
TCM.
In the spirit of this special issue, this paper attempts to answer two
questions regarding the teaching of a novel computational method. First,
what can be a successful curriculum design for teaching a novel algo­
rithmic scheduling method? The approach to this curriculum should
balance fundamental computational understanding with practical
2
Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101455
experience, and should be able to achieve student learning objectives
within tight time windows available to CM instructors. Second, can this
curriculum achieve learning objectives balanced between theoretical
knowledge, computational understanding, and practical
implementation?
2. Departure
2.1. Limitations of CPM
The critical path method (CPM) is regarded as the most important
innovation in construction management in the 20th century [23]. CPM
was developed in the 1950s [13,20] and has been widely accepted due
to its applications in planning, scheduling, and control [10]. Scholars
found that by the early 2000′ s, CPM was used to produce 80% of all
construction schedules [26]. It is the most common scheduling approach
in the United States [15] and the United Kingdom [33] for planning and
controlling construction projects [34].
CPM is an activity-based methodology that is extremely effective for
resolving precedence constraints and identifying the operations whose
completion times are accountable for the overall project duration (i.e.
finding the “critical path”) [32]. CPM computes the project duration,
shortest path, and critical path [13]. Activities and their duration are
depicted as nodes in a network and a relationship between the end and
the start of two activities is defined as an arc between the two nodes
[10]. A delay in one of the activities on the critical path causes a delay
for the project [27].
However, scholars increasingly note the limitations of CPM for
construction project scheduling [10]. First, CPM as originally developed
– and as often used in practice – relies on the assumption of unlimited
resources [8,21]. CPM does not consider that resources can be limited but
assumes that any new activity can begin as soon as the previous activ­
ities are completed. However, construction project resources are limited
in number, and different activities compete for the same resources [25].
Schedule deadlines and limitations imposed by project resources are
practical constraints that must be met simultaneously [10]. Such limi­
tations are recognized by CPM pioneers such as Fondahl, who caution
that “few of even those who claim to be ‘CPM experts’ fully appreciate
the fact that in a resource-restrained schedule the concept of float breaks
down and quite often the concept of a critical path breaks down.” [14].
To address resource allocation, modifications to CPM such as the
resource-activity-critical path method [28] have been developed.
However, such methods have limitations of their own and are not used
in practice. Construction firms often do not resource load their schedules
because it is very time-consuming compared to non-resource loaded
CPM.
Second, CPM does not consider spatial or location-based constraints.
CPM does not provide nor consider the spatial context and complexities
of the project site, including site logistics and workflow [12,32]. In
practice, production managers must actively manage these time–space
clashes independent of the scheduling method. As mentioned above, 4D
BIM offers a significant improvement over 2D drawings to visualize
these time–space clashes. 4D BIM can be used to visualize “parts of the
project that have been completed and are under construction at a
particular time, simulate the construction for certain time intervals, or
virtually step through several construction sequences” [18]. However,
when 4D BIM is based on CPM, it requires an iterative process between
spatial visualization and CPM refinement [22,35]. Proactive avoidance
of time–space clashes cannot be considered by CPM even with the use of
4D BIM.
Third, CPM seldom utilizes intelligent computing and automation. The
approach of computationally-augmented construction scheduling is
referred to as “smart scheduling” or “generative construction.” Sched­
uling with CPM in practice is typically performed manually using soft­
ware such as Primavera or Microsoft Project. Few schedule variants and
options can be generated and then compared. By comparison, the
D.M. Hall et al.
possible state space for construction sequencing is enormous [12]. This
vast state space is seldom optimized or explored using CPM due to its
“non-systematic plan update and limited automation capability” [10].
Fourth, CPM is not a dynamic process. CPM requires many laborious
manual steps [10]; it is difficult to use and update in practice [19,25].
Re-sequencing schedules with thousands of activities becomes very
time-intensive. CPM as a methodology does not support the imple­
mentation of corrective actions to recover from execution problems
[10]. If another scheduling option needs to be explored, new links be­
tween the activities must be manually defined. Therefore, CPM is seldom
used in the day-to-day management of projects but rather updated on a
monthly frequency [10].
2.2. Resource-constrained scheduling heuristics
In general, automated construction scheduling practices use rule-
based functions in combination with suitable computational processes
[4,39]. Many studies have defined the automated construction sched­
uling as modeling and analyzing the construction activities through
knowledge-based expert systems in the form of rule-based reasoning and
decision-making methods that are built on top of heuristics algorithms
[29] and artificial intelligence algorithms [4,5]. These methods aim to
replace manual scheduling practices based on experts’ subjective opin­
ions and experiences with structured and principled knowledge. The
objective is to augment scheduling experts who know more than they
can explain. This know-how proves hard to transfer to junior schedulers
(e.g., the undergraduates and graduates in CM curriculums).
Although 4D heuristic approaches have been studied to improve
construction planning and scheduling [1,39], most heuristic approaches
do not adequately deal with spatial constraints. This means that heu­
ristic approaches do not take advantage of the rich semantic data
available in emerging digital planning tools such as BIM.
2.3. The Tri-Constraint Method (TCM)
An emerging alternative to CPM that considers resource as well as
spatial constraints is the Tri-Constraint Method (TCM) [12,32]. TCM is
well adapted to requirements of object-based construction planning. It is
applied in the form of an automated event simulator, using three
fundamental constraints in the execution of a construction project to
determine the sequence of activities and their start and end dates [32].
The systematic consideration of resources enables a more structured and
transparent scheduling process that is compatable with automation.
2.3.1. Defining precedence, resource, and spatial constraints
In TCM, precedence, resource availability and spatial requirements
are operationalized into the following formal scheduling constraints:
precedence, discrete resource capacity and disjunctive spatial con­
straints. These constraints are mechanisms that prevent the execution of
an activity at a given time [32]. This allows TCM to systematically
consider precedence, resource and space when scheduling activities. As
a result, scheduling no longer requires an iterative process to consider
resources. The three fundamental construction constraints of TCM
explained in more detail are:
• Precedence constraints are relationships used to define logical links
between activities. This is analogous to the traditional planning
approach. Precedence constraints are not dependent on the current
moment or current constraints and can be displayed in network di­
agrams [32]. An example of such a precedence constraint is the
condition that foundations must be built before the overlying col­
umns can be placed. If this restriction is violated during planning,
physically unfeasible schedules will be created.
• Discrete resource capacity constraints depend on the current point in
time. Resource constraints consider the availability of discrete re­
sources and therefore cannot be represented in a network diagram
3
Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101455
[32]. Discrete means in this case that resources can be available in
integer quantities greater than or equal to 1 [32]. Examples of such
resources can be workers, tools or materials. If this restriction is
violated during planning, resources may be over-allocated and op­
erations may not take place as planned.
• Disjunctive spatial constraints prevent operations from taking place at
the same time and place. Disjunctive means that either one option or
another option is chosen, but never both at the same time. To take
this restriction into account in planning, TCM considers the available
space as a unary resource. It therefore takes values between 0 (entire
space occupied) and 1 (entire space not occupied) [32]. This re­
striction is therefore also dependent on the current time and cannot
be represented using a network diagram. An example of a common
spatial clash is the plumbing and electrical work. These are two
otherwise independent activities that often must be completed in the
same place. If this restriction is violated, their workspaces will
overlap. On the construction site, this could reduce the productivity
of workers and/or increase the probability of on-site accidents.
2.3.2. Automated scheduler
Based on these constraints, TCM uses an automated algorithm that
can generate millions of scheduling sequences. This is based on the event
simulator of Waugh and Froese [42], where operations are moved from a
TODO list, via a CANDO and a DOING list to a DONE list by iterating
over time. These operations are the basic unit of work in TCM and
describe the work of a crew on a component of an element [6]. The steps
of the algorithm are shown in Fig. 1.
The algorithm iterates over the time scale starting at the predefined
start date of the project and performs these steps at each time increment
(e.g., minutes / hours / days). Steps 1 and 2 are the starting point for the
algorithm. They define the operations to be performed at the current
moment. Operations are defined according to the project scope (e.g.
extracted from a BIM model) and noted in a TODO list. Each operation is
defined with durations and details of precedence relationships, resource
requirements and space requirements. The durations can be determined
deterministically (e.g. via fixed values) or parametrically (e.g., via
productivity rate formulations). In steps 3 to 8, operations are moved
from the TODO list to the CANDO (PSD) list, in consideration of the
three constraints. The CANDO lists are used to consider the restrictions
and to schedule only those operations at a time they can actually be
executed. In step 9, one of the operations in the CANDO (PSD) list is
selected and moved to the DOING list. For the schedule, this means that
the activity starts at the current time increment and the required space
and resources are assigned to this task. If there are more than one
operation in the CANDO (PSD) list, steps 2 to 9 are performed once again
under the updated availabilities of space and discrete resources. This is
done until there are no more entries in the CANDO (PSD) list and
thereafter the algorithm continues with the next time increment.
The number of time increments that an operation remains in the
DOING list is expressed by its duration. For example, if the duration of
an activity is set to 8 hours and the algorithm iterates over the time scale
on an hourly basis, then the activity will remain in the DOING list for the
next seven time increments. Only once the algorithm has iterated over
eight time increments will the activity be moved to the DONE list. For
the schedule, this means that the activity is now finished, and the spaces
and resources are released. As soon as all operations have been trans­
ferred from the TODO list to the DONE list using this procedure, the
creation of the schedule is complete. By repeating this procedure and
mixing the order of the operations in the CANDO (PSD) list pseudo-
randomly, many schedules with different sequences can be created
automatically while respecting the three fundamental constraints.
The combination of the automated scheduling algorithm with the
three constraints makes TCM a novel and robust planning method. TCM
can leverage processing power of computers to utilize the smart
scheduling approach first proposed by Waugh and Froese [42]. TCM
represents the classical form of expert systems in artificial intelligence,
D.M. Hall et al.
Fig. 1. Scheduling algorithm used in TCM. Adapted from Waugh and Froese [42].
Fig. 2. The LEO 1 (left) and LEO 2 (right) models.
as a computer-based decision-making system designed to solve complex
problems. The approach can represent a similar approach to that of
human planners, while providing a more comprehensible approach than
CPM because it can be determined exactly why an activity was (not)
planned at a given time under the influence of which constraints [42].
The dynamic consideration of the three fundamental constraints ensures
that activities are only planned if they can actually take place on the
construction site under the given conditions without requiring addi­
tional spatial coordination. Furthermore, by considering space as a
resource, its utilization can be increased without risking spatial
overlaps.
Morkos applied TCM to several case studies, finding schedules
created with the traditional method are 40 – 50 % shorter than those
created with TCM [32]. However, Morkos argues that traditional
methods over-allocate resources and make these plans unfeasible. At the
same time, the shortest project duration with a number of about 10,000
simulated sequences decreases by 17 % in TCM compared to a single
simulation. Mendoza Salinas [31] found a similar pattern of over-
optimistic CPM schedules compared to the use of the TCM. In sum­
mary, because TCM simultaneously considers more constraints –
including the spatial constraint – research suggests that TCM can reli­
ably compute more accurate schedules compared to CPM [32,40].
2.4. Operationalization of the TCM with ALICE technologies
ALICE Technologies Inc. offers a cloud-based scheduling software
that uses TCM for the automatic generation of schedules. The software
automatically generates multiple schedules that can be compared and
analyzed. By parameterizing using productivity rates and the BIM
4
Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101455
model, changes to schedules or resources can be quickly incorporated
into a new schedule generation.
ALICE Technologies was founded in 2015. By 2021, ALICE Tech­
nologies Inc. had raised $38.3 million in funding to commercialize the
TCM [9]. ALICE is designed to work with the existing BIM approach
common in the industry. The software automatically determines the
precedence relationship between elements in the model. Then, each
element can be assigned a recipe that describes the sequence of activities
to create the element. Each activity can then be assigned resources
(labor, material, equipment) and productivity rates or fixed durations.
ALICE operationalizes the TCM. It considers the three constraints of
TCM [32] and uses modern computational power to conduct automatic
variation of the sequences first proposed by Waugh and Froese [42].
ALICE tries to clearly distinguish between planning and scheduling ac­
tivities [32]. Planning is a human-led activity. Planning involves con­
verting the project goal into a list of operations (TODO List), considering
precedence relationships and resource requirements. Scheduling is a
computational activity. The algorithm assigns start and end times to
activities given constraints due to precedence, resources, and spatial
availability. The separation of planning and scheduling allows the
automated algorithm to generate many schedules with different se­
quences and to determine the most optimal one from this larger selec­
tion. ALICE is a fully-functional software that uses TCM to support
planners in their work.
For implementation, ALICE first requires the following inputs:
• BIM model with sufficiently high Level of Detail (LOD) so that single
objects and operations can be derived from it. The BIM model defines
D.M. Hall et al.
the project scope and provides information about the geometry
(availability of the unary resource space).
• Precedence constraint definitions so that the laws of physics are not
violated. They are automatically retrieved from the BIM model but
can also be adjusted manually by the user.
• Recipes which define the operational steps and resource requirements
in order to carry out the construction of an element in the model.
• Duration of operations which can be defined as fixed values or as
parametric functions.
Based on these inputs, ALICE automatically creates the TODO list
required for scheduling. These inputs are parametric so that they can be
easily adjusted. In addition to the required inputs, additional parameters
can be defined to further constrain or customize the inputs:
• Worker pool defines availability of discrete resource workers.
• Equipment pool defines availability of discrete resource equipment.
• Material pool defines availability of discrete (reusable) resource
materials.
• Workweek defines available work time of crews (e.g., night shifts,
weekend work, etc.).
• Costs can be specified for crews, equipment and materials.
• Milestones define a specific point in time when work on a certain part
of the building should be started at the earliest or completed at the
latest.
The calculation of thousands of possible schedules is then completed
by running the TCM event simulator algorithm described above (see
Fig. 1). The calculation of schedules takes a few minutes and requires no
user interaction. ALICE displays these results in a pareto front with cost
shown on y-axis and project duration on x-axis. In addition, ALICE
provides the following outputs:
• 4D simulations which can be accurate to the minute,
• Cost calculation for crews, equipment and materials with distinction
between direct and idle costs,
• Utilization ratio of crews, equipment and cranes.
3. Methodology
In this section, we describe the design, implementation, and vali­
dation of the new curriculum to teach the TCM within an existing CM
course. First, we describe our proposed 5-week curriculum. This in­
cludes the approach to teach the fundamentals and limitations of the
CPM, the theoretical foundations of the TCM, and an introduction to the
software ALICE for further exploration of how such theoretical foun­
dations can be operationalized in practice. We include the learning
objectives and course structure of the proposed curriculum and describe
our implementation during the Autumn semester of 2020.
To verify that the proposed curriculum can significantly improve
student knowledge acquisition for both theoretical (e.g. the algorithm)
and practical (e.g. the software) topics, we measure student under­
standing of learning objectives before, during, and after implementation
of the curriculum. The results are analyzed using a descriptive statistical
analysis, a paired t-test, and a qualitative evaluation.
3.1. Motivation and course background
To the knowledge of the authors and in conversation with ALICE
technologies, TCM is currently only taught at two universities – ETH
Zurich and Stanford University. The first author had previously
attempted to teach the TCM in 2018 and 2019 courses for graduate
students at ETH Zurich. Students provided feedback that these specific
lessons were interesting and showed promise, but the unstructured na­
ture of the assignments was difficult, the assignments were hard to
implement, and the expected learning outcomes were unclear.
5
Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101455
Furthermore, the lead author felt students should have deeper theoret­
ical exploration of how the TCM works instead of an introduction to
practical software application. Due to practical constraints, the course
only had a limited period of time to teach the TCM. Any proposed cur­
riculum needed to be streamlined so that it could be effectively taught in
a 5-week timeline. Furthermore, the course should engage with latest
trends in pedagogy including the use of a flipped classroom for active
and problem-based learning.
The developed curriculum has a total length of five lecture weeks
with two lectures of 45 min each per week. The curriculum is based on a
flipped classroom and problem-based learning approach for five key
topics. Each topic is reinforced using pre-class homework, class time,
and post-class homework. For pre-class homework, students acquire
knowledge through self-study before the lecture. Typically, this consists
of one paper to read and one video to watch. Before the lecture, students
are assessed with obligatory multiple choice and text questions to ensure
that the students come to the lecture with the basic understanding of the
topic. During class time, a short lecture reviews the pre-class knowledge
followed by in-class activities that teach the students step-by-step how to
generate, interpret, compare and optimize schedules. Students can
receive help during these activities from the course instructor and the
teaching assistants. To check for student understanding and enable peer
learning, classes include small-group breakout sessions using Google
Jamboard (see example in Fig. 4). Students then receive post-class
homework, in which they must solve more complex problems in small
groups. Here, students create schedules based on 2D plans / BIM models
and information about available and required resources. The assign­
ments include questions about the schedules that encourage students to
interpret, compare, and optimize the schedules. In this way, students
have the opportunity to gain insight into how resources affect a schedule
and learn to negotiate between possible strategies to further optimize a
schedule. The repetition of content in three parts (pre-class, class, and
post-class) is designed to ensure long-term learning.
3.2. Lecture plan and learning objectives of proposed curriculum
Five class sessions are divided into two thematic blocks: theory and
application. Table 1 gives an overview of the content of the five lessons.
Lectures 1 and 2 serve to impart theoretical knowledge on limitations of
CPM and the computational foundations of TCM. Lectures 3 to 5 focus
on the practical application of TCM using the ALICE software. In these,
the teaching team gives interactive demonstrations of ALICE and the
students work independently with the software. The major scheduling
exercises within the curriculum are performed on two building models.
The simpler building, named LEO 1 (see Fig. 2 left), is used during the
first lecture. Students must create a CPM schedule for LEO 1 using only
the classic 2D plan drawings. During lectures 3 to 5, the BIM file asso­
ciated with LEO 1 is imported into ALICE and used for in-class demon­
strations. Students follow the process of creating a schedule using the
traditional CPM, and then compare with the new generative approach
on the same project. The more extensive building, named LEO 2 (see
Fig. 2 right), is used as a BIM file for the post-class assignments of lec­
tures 3 to 5. The higher complexity allows students to better understand
how the TCM algorithm and the ALICE software can scale on larger
projects to save hours of manual scheduling work. The complete cur­
riculum [41] is open and available for download here: https://doi.
org/10.3929/ethz-b-000482232.
3.2.1. Lecture 1 – Traditional project scheduling
The objective of the first lecture is for students to understand and
independently apply traditional planning methods in combination with
CPM. In advance of the lecture, students watch a YouTube video on
traditional planning methods and CPM [30]. This video uses the
example of a car assembly to explain the procedure for creating a
schedule with traditional methods and to determine the critical path.
During the lecture, students are shown planning steps according to the
D.M. Hall et al.
Table 1
Summary of course structure and learning objectives.
Theme No. Lecture Title Learning Objectives
1 Traditional Project Understand the theory behind
Scheduling traditional scheduling; apply
traditional scheduling to a simple
example; describe the limitations of
traditional scheduling
Theory 2 Tri-Constraint Differentiate between planning and
Method scheduling; comprehend the effects of
the three constraints on scheduling;
understand and apply the scheduling
algorithm of TCM; analyze benefits and
drawbacks of TCM
3 Introduction to Implement basic features of ALICE
ALICE (Plans, Models, Supports, Recipes,
etc.); identify the association between
ALICE and CPM; create independently
a non-resource-constrained schedule
using ALICE
4 Modeling Develop an ALICE model with
Constraints in consideration of the tri-constraints;
ALICE understand factors that influence the
Application creation of schedules with TCM; create
feasible schedules with realistic
activity durations; analyze and
compare multiple schedules using
ALICE
5 Optimization in Learn how to influence schedules and
ALICE optimize them for a specific goal;
describe the advantages of
parameterization and automation of
scheduling using a tool such as ALICE
Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) guide using a simple
example. This includes defining the activities to be performed through a
work breakdown structure (WBS), establishing the sequences, esti­
mating the activity durations, and ultimately creating a schedule [36].
Subsequently, the students apply these steps to planning the construc­
tion of a garden workshop. Students are provided with a 2D floor plan as
well as a written structural specification of the workshop. This workshop
has been designed to illustrate the planning process and at the same time
highlight feasibility problems of the schedule. This helps to ensure that
all students have the same level of knowledge about planning methods
currently used in practice, while independent application enables them
to recognize and discuss the limitations of these methods. The post-class
assignment of Lecture 1 assesses if students have internalized the pro­
cedure for creating a schedule and whether they can recognize the
limitations of CPM in a second project. They must create a schedule for
the concrete work of the model LEO 1 shown in Fig. 2 (left) by using the
Fig. 3. Excel template to teach TCM algorithm in Lesson 2.
6
Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101455
traditional planning method with 2D plans only. This task is supple­
mented by a theoretical question about a possible influence of resources
and work areas on the schedule.
3.2.2. Lecture 2 – Tri-Constraint Method
During the second lecture, students are introduced to the influence of
the three fundamental constraints on the schedule, the significance of
the distinction between planning and scheduling, and the exact mech­
anisms of the scheduling algorithm. Prior to the lecture, the students
read from Morkos [32] as introduction to the three fundamental con­
straints and the event simulator of TCM. During the lecture, students
create a schedule for the garden workshop, but this time applying TCM.
Emphasis was placed in designing the lecture so that students them­
selves can see how the algorithm prevents activities from being sched­
uled if one of the three constraints is violated. An Excel template (see
Fig. 3) was designed specifically so that students can iterate several
times along the time axis and apply the ten steps of the algorithm at each
time step. Students plan the execution of individual activities with
straightforward inputs in the template, and built-in functions automat­
ically indicate to them if a constraint is violated.
Here, the use of advanced visualization technologies (e.g. BIM
interface) and computational approaches to automate scheduling are
deliberately avoided. The goal is that students understand the core
mechanics of the generative scheduling algorithm with consideration to
the three constraints. Furthermore, the process is slow and manual, so
students gain appreciation for why automation is useful in this case. The
use of BIM models and significant computing power for scheduling takes
place in greater detail in subsequent lectures. By using the same garden
workshop example in Lecture 1 and Lecture 2, students can perceive the
differences between the traditional approach and the new method. The
advantages of TCM over traditional methods are discussed in plenary at
the end of the lecture. As a post-class assignment, students compare the
two schedules from Lectures 1 and 2 for the garden workshop. They
explain how the generative creation of schedules with TCM works in
their own words. Finally, they explain the disadvantages of the tradi­
tional scheduling method. These questions serve as a wrap-up for the
theoretical contents of the first two lectures.
3.2.3. Lecture 3 – Introduction to ALICE
The students are introduced to the ALICE software in the third lec­
ture. As pre-class preparation, the students watch two videos on You­
Tube which show (i) a cursory explanation of what the ALICE software
does and (ii) an excerpt from a lecture of Dr. Rene Morkos in which he
explains how planning constraints are transformed into generative
scheduling constraints in ALICE through recipes and support groups.
The students consider how theory and practice of TCM can be
D.M. Hall et al.
connected. In class, the students learn the basics of the ALICE software
without yet considering resources or the optimization of schedules. The
objective is to explain how ALICE works and to enable students to enter
required inputs themselves in order to create a basic schedule. The BIM
model of LEO 1 is imported to ALICE. Students are asked to create a basic
schedule based on precedence relationships only (similar to how the
CPM works). There is no consideration of resources. The activity dura­
tions are defined by fixed values based on expert opinions. To apply the
knowledge of working in ALICE, the post-class assignment asks students
to create a schedule for the LEO 2 model with precedence constraints
only. The model LEO 2 is a little more extensive than the model LEO 1
and the structure is more complex so that the students’ abilities can be
tested thoroughly.
3.2.4. Lecture 4 – Modeling constraints in ALICE
In the fourth lecture, students explore advanced possibilities to
create schedules using the ALICE software. Specifically, resource con­
straints are introduced when creating schedules with ALICE. Students
learn how to specify formulas to calculate the duration of single activ­
ities parametrically using pre-defined productivity rates and element
properties (e.g. volume, lateral surface) that can be acquired from the
uploaded BIM model in ALICE. As preparation for this lecture, students
watch three videos from the online support section of ALICE. These
videos show how recipes can be created, how project resources can be
added and how cranes are considered in ALICE. During the lecture,
students create a more constrained (and likely longer) schedule for the
LEO 1 building according to TCM. The resource constraints are consid­
ered by assigning resources to the activities and expressing their dura­
tion as a function of these resources. The basis for the parametric
calculation of the duration is provided in Eq. (1). Students learn to insert
predefined values (e.g. productivity rate, number of required crews,
etc.) and reference properties of the components from the BIM model (e.
g. element volume, lateral surface area, etc.). Subsequently, the reasons
for the longer project duration compared to the prior lecture are dis­
cussed with the class. In the post-class assignment, the students again­
work on the LEO 2 model. This time they add resources and let the
durations of the activities be calculated dynamically. In addition, they
analyze and extract information (e.g. costs over time or resource usage)
from one generated schedule.
Fig. 4. ALICE and TCM wrap-up discussion in Lesson 5.
7
Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101455
Material used
Duration = (1)
Production rate*No. of Crews*No. of equipment
3.2.5. Lecture 5 – Optimization in ALICE
Throughout lecture 5, the students explore factors that have the
greatest influence on schedule duration. Because key functions of ALICE
have already been demonstrated, there is no mandatory pre-class ac­
tivity. By adjusting the input parameters in ALICE on LEO 1 during the
lecture, the students develop intuition on how to optimize schedules in
terms of duration, costs or use of resources. The larger post-class
assignment uses the LEO 2 model to explore how optimization
changes the overall schedule outputs. The lecture concludes with a
wrap-up conversation (on Google Jamboard) asking students to criti­
cally reflect on the benefits and disadvantages of using a generative
scheduling software approach (see Fig. 4). Within the last post-class
assignment, students use the parameterization of the data stored in
ALICE to optimize schedules for a specific goal. They suggest various
adjustments, some of which they should apply in the LEO 2 model. In
doing so, they have to describe what influence each intervention has on
the schedule and why they consider it useful for the overall project
outcome.
3.3. Preliminary validation and implementation
After initial curriculum design, the authors sought pre-
implementation feedback to assess the quality. The authors presented
the curriculum in a video conference with a group of experts for the
fundamentals of the TCM or the software implementation of the TCM
using ALICE . This group included Dr. Rene Morkos who first developed
the TCM in his dissertation at Stanford University. During the discussion,
the general structure of the curriculum and the most important lecture
contents were presented. The feedback confirmed that first a theoretical
introduction should be given and then the software should be used
second (M. Faloughi, personal communication, May 20, 2020). Experts
shared that a recurring problem with the ALICE training is that some
users do not internalize the theory behind TCM. With regard to the
theoretical contents, the experts felt that the most important concepts
were included in the curriculum and that the workload is appropriate for
the planned five weeks (R. Morkos, personal communication, May 20,
2020). One key feedback was that the limitation of sequencing with
D.M. Hall et al.
traditional methods should be dealt with more clearly (R. Morkos,
personal communication, May 20, 2020). This was then updated for the
full course implementation.
The authors then implemented the 5-week TCM curriculum in
Autumn Semester of 2020 as part of the larger course titled Lean, Inte­
grated and Digital Project Delivery. This is a 4-credit course (corresponds
to 120 h of workload for the total course) for graduate students that
introduces students to newly emerging trends to manage construction
projects, such as lean construction principles, BIM, parametric sched­
uling and Integrated Project Delivery. There are no prerequisites to take
the course. The majority of students come from the background of either
civil engineering or architecture. Some of the students have taken an
introductory project management course, but others have never been
introduced to basic project scheduling concepts such as a work break­
down structure or the critical path method. Due to COVID-19 re­
strictions, the first lecture was presented in person while the following
four lectures were presented via Zoom.
3.4. Survey design
To assess if students were able to understand the desired computa­
tional and practical learning objectives of teaching an automated
scheduling method, two approaches were used.
First, a knowledge quiz (see Appendix 1) was given regarding
learning objectives. The knowledge quiz contained questions on the
topics of CPM, TCM, and on practical application in ALICE. Students
were asked to identify if a statement was true / false or to select the
correct answer from multiple choices. For each question, students also
had the option of answering “I don’t know.” To calibrate that student
knowledge could be attributed to the specific curriculum and not due to
improved understanding of construction scheduling methods in general,
an additional question regarding the Line of Balance method (LOB) was
also asked even though no instruction time was given to this subject.
The knowledge quiz was conducted three times. A pre-assessment
(survey I) assessed students for prior knowledge about the topics. This
survey acted as the basis for all further surveys. A mid-assessment
(survey II) was conducted after Lecture 2 to determine if students
were able to comprehend the learning objectives of the theoretical
thematic block. During survey II, only questions about CPM and TCM
were included, i.e. Q1 - Q5. A post-assessment (survey III) was con­
ducted three weeks after the conclusion of the curriculum.
Second, a retrospective self-assessment (see Appendix 2) was con­
ducted. Retrospective self-assessments are suitable to prevent response
shift bias and to evaluate the impact of the curriculum more holistically
[11]. Students were asked to assess their skills before and after partici­
pation in the curriculum by means of nine statements. The statements
were defined on the basis of the learning objectives of the lectures (cf.
Table 1), e.g. “I was able to apply the algorithm of the Tri-constraint
method on a given example project”. The response options were “Not
at all”, “Just a little”, “Somewhat”, “Mostly”, and “Entirely”. The pur­
pose of this self-assessment was to be able to capture the impact of the
curriculum from the students’ perspective.
Student participation in all surveys was voluntary, as was answering
all questions within a survey. 43 students participated in survey I, 27
students in survey II, and 21 students in survey III. The self-assessment
was answered by 18 students. For the statistical evaluation, the an­
swers to the knowledge questions were converted into integer values
and summed up for each student. A correctly given answer was assigned
a value of 1, an incorrectly given answer and the answer “I don’t know”
were assigned a value of 0. The ten questions with their respective op­
tions for answers resulted in a maximum possible score of 50. Self-
assessment responses were converted from the Likert scale to integer
scores (1 = Not at all, 2 = Just a little, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = Mostly, 5 =
Entirely).
8
Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101455
3.5. Analysis of learning outcomes
Results of the surveys were analyzed across three categories:
descriptive statistical analysis results, statistical results, and qualitative
results. First, a descriptive statistical analysis of the knowledge questions
was performed using absolute and proportional frequencies of correct or
incorrect answers. This was done in relation to the individual questions
with the answers of all participants, whereby the number of answers
given for a specific question varied per survey. The self-assessment
scores were analyzed descriptively in terms of how all participants’
abilities in each of the individual statements developed over time.
Additionally, the assessments on all statements per student were sum­
med up and the correlation with the results from the knowledge ques­
tions of the corresponding student was analyzed.
Next, a paired t-test was conducted with the results of survey I and
survey III. The t-test was chosen for this study because it is a suitable
approach to determine the significant difference between the means of
two student groups for the curriculum experiment. In addition, it is an
easily interpretable and simple approach compared to many of its al­
ternatives, such as Wilcoxon signed-rank test. To do the paired t-test, we
eliminated all the students who did not participate in both surveys,
resulting in 18 remaining participants. The null hypothesis was “No
knowledge gain can be achieved by the curriculum among the partici­
pants” with a required significance level of 0.005. The results of these
students were additionally evaluated descriptively in that the points
achieved in the knowledge tests were compared with the points from the
self-assessment.
Finally, qualitative feedback related to the curriculum was captured
and reviewed. TCM-specific feedback from students was collected from
the online course evaluation. It should be noted that students were not
explicitly asked to comment on TCM or ALICE, so this should not be
considered a representative sample but rather a preliminary indicator of
student experiences.
4. Results and analysis
4.1. Descriptive statistical results
Table 2 summarizes the percentages of correct answers of the surveys
I, II and III (for all results, see Appendix 3). Overall, the descriptive re­
sults indicate significant increase in theoretical knowledge between
survey I and survey II. A similar increase occurs for practical knowledge
between survey I and survey III. There is some additional theoretical
knowledge gain between survey II and survey III, but the majority of
improvement occurred immediately after the theoretical content. In
addition, questions on the survey about LOB show no substantial
improvement, which indicates the knowledge gained is related to the
instruction about TCM.
The descriptive results indicate that high levels of pre-knowledge
about either CPM or TCM are not required; after only two lessons the
Table 2
Percentage of correct answers for the knowledge questions (“–” means not
applicable).
Knowledge Quiz
Survey I Survey II Survey III
Participants (n) 43 27 21
Topic
CPM (theoretical) 66% 89% 90%
TCM (theoretical) 27% 77% 83%
ALICE (practical) 20% – 78%
Subtotal 30% 81% 82%
LOB (control) 10% – 14%
Total 30% 81% 77%
D.M. Hall et al.
proportion of correct answers in survey II is high. Students might have
had some pre-knowledge of traditional planning methods (66%), but
little knowledge of TCM (27%). Nevertheless, students answered 83% of
the TCM questions correctly in survey III.
When assessing their own knowledge in retrospect, most students felt
that they had no knowledge about TCM and ALICE. However, they
perceived that they already had a basic knowledge on the traditional
scheduling methods even before the curriculum. This can be seen in
Fig. 5, where the results of the retrospective self-assessment of the stu­
dents in survey III is shown (for all results, see Appendix 4). 42% of the
students assessed themselves to be “Mostly” or “Entirely” able to answer
prompts related to CPM before the curriculum, whereas after the cur­
riculum 100% of the students either answered “Mostly” or “Entirely”. In
both the TCM and ALICE categories, participants responded “Mostly” or
“Entirely” in over 90% of the cases regarding their skills after the cur­
riculum. Only with respect to LOB there is no increase in participants
after the curriculum who rate their skills as particularly high.
4.2. Statistical analysis
To ensure that improvements on the knowledge quiz are statistically
significant, we conducted a paired t-test between students’ initial re­
sponses (survey I) and their corresponding final responses (survey III).
First, we compared the self-reported perception of how much stu­
dents think they know as compared to their actual knowledge. We
compared the scores obtained in the knowledge section of survey I and
III with the scores from the retrospective self-assessment in survey III
(see Fig. 6). Before applying the curriculum, students had varying levels
of prior knowledge about the planning methods taught in the curricu­
lum. Their perception of how much they know also varied. After
applying the curriculum, the students had a better understanding of the
planning methods. Most importantly, the knowledge gap between stu­
dents was smaller and they perceived the knowledge gain to be due to
the curriculum. The average score of the knowledge section increased
from 15.39 to 38.22 (max. score 46) and the standard deviation
decreased from 8.72 to 3.49 and the self-assessment score increased
from 15.78 to 36.39 (max. score 45) and the standard deviation
decreased from 6.22 to 2.87. The spread between the scores in survey I is
large, thus the students with a score 15 or lower were grouped in
“Students with low pre-knowledge” and the rest as “Students with high
pre-knowledge”.
Fig. 5. Percentage of students that self-assess themselves as “mostly” or “entirely” able to answer prompts related to CPM, TCM, ALICE and LOB before and after the
curriculum implementation.
9
Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101455
The t-test was then conducted on “Students with high pre-knowl­
edge,” “Students with low pre-knowledge” and “All students”. The re­
sults of the paired t-test on the two groups show that the differences in
scores between the knowledge quiz before and after the implementation
of the curriculum are statistically significant for both students with high
pre-knowledge (M = 12.57, SD = 3.91) and students with low pre-
knowledge (M = 29.36, SD = 3.67) (see Table 3).
4.3. Qualitative Results
Although noted in the methodology that a rigorous qualitative
analysis was not conducted, the following comments and questions were
noted from the online course evaluation. Specific comments included:
• “The organization surrounding TCM was pretty good.”
• “For some tasks with the curriculum, more time would be nice during
the lecture to better understand the tasks. It was sometimes a little of
a rush.”
• “Other courses in civil engineering are too theoretical to really be
able to see it in the perspective of the industry itself. For example, I
really liked the use of ALICE as this is a software that is also used on
construction sites and not just a tool used to instruct students.”
• “I think explaining TCM and ALICE and the short exercises in class
was really great and should be unchanged.”
Specifically, regarding ALICE, the students expressed some limita­
tions (see Fig. 4) and further ideas for improvement. The students noted
that ALICE relies heavily on the import of a BIM model (“No BIM = no
ALICE”) and that the user interface was not always intuitive (especially
for spatial constraints). For future development, one student wished that
the environmental impact of different generated construction schedules
could be included. Another student suggested to implement different
work-rates or curing times in function of the different seasons – for
example, productivity during very hot summer months might reduce by
a small factor.
5. Discussion
The above results find significant evidence that students were able to
understand both the theory and the practical implications of the TCM.
Here we reflect on several points for best practice in the development
D.M. Hall et al.
Fig. 6. Comparison of knowledge test and self-assessment scores.
Table 3
Results of paired t-test for surveys I and III.
Number of participants
Students with high pre-knowledge 7 12.57
Students with low pre-knowledge 11
All Students 18
and implementation of similar curriculums that leverage automation as
well as limitations to the proposed curriculum and limitations to the
analysis.
First, the flipped classroom approach allows an efficient use of the
lecture and enables to dive deeper into the topic and reflect critically on
the acquired knowledge. This is enhanced by the basic structure of the
curriculum that additionally encourages students to make connections
between the taught topics. However, the proposed curriculum places
high demands on the teacher to incorporate a flipped classroom
approach into their teaching. Additionally, the hiring of teaching as­
sistants will be necessary to support the classroom activities. The
teaching staff has to prepare for the implementation of the curriculum,
such as contacting ALICE, preparing the models, arranging the groups
for group work, adapting the documents etc. This can be additional
burden on CM instructors who are already dealing with too many
teaching responsibilities [38].
Furthermore, the practical component of the curriculum requires
collaboration with ALICE Technologies. Additional time and effort are
required as ALICE is a software that is constantly evolving. If collabo­
ration for any reason is not possible anymore, the curriculum cannot be
successfully implemented without major modifications. However,
ALICE Technologies has expressed a willingness to partner with uni­
versities in order to facilitate students learning about their automated
approach.
Despite these challenges, we still argue that the proposed approach
provides the right balance between theory and application. We find that
students with little programming or formal mathematical training were
able to grasp the theory behind the TCM. Particularly helpful for this was
Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101455
Paired differences p-Value t df tcrit*
Mean Std. Deviation
3.91 7.22*10–5 8.51 6 3.707
29.36 3.67 6.63*10–11 26.55 10 3.169
22.83 9.18 3.5.0*10–9 10.55 17 2.898
the use of the Excel template in Lecture 2. Therefore, the findings
emphsize that future instructors should not skip directly into software
applications, but try to teach the theory behind the software. This en­
ables students and future construction practitioners to avoid the prob­
lem of operating “black box” software in a more automated future. In
addition, it was valuable to start with the industry standard of CPM. This
allowed students with little scheduling experience to quickly learn the
most common industry method while challenging all students to reflect
on the limitations of CPM in a future era of automation and computa­
tional power. However, assessment questions did not specifically assess
how valuable it is to begin with CPM as a foundation; future research
could assess if it is better to begin with CPM or not.
A further practical limitation of the curriculum is that it is very
precisely structured. There is much content to be taught in a short time.
As a result, students do not have much freedom to explore the applica­
tion on their own. If the number of students is small and the necessary
resources (time and teaching assistants) are available, it is recom­
mended not to use the prepared models for each lesson, but to provide
the students with an unprocessed model that they can work on
throughout the curriculum.
We find that the practical implementation using ALICE software also
allowed the students to develop soft skills. For example, students were
required in Lecture 5 to generate multiple schedules, discuss the input
factors that were helping or hindering the schedule performance, and
negotiate between possible strategies to further improve the project
schedule. The use of ALICE was therefore much more than teaching
students how to use a software, but instead how to analyze the inputs
and outputs of a computational model in a practical team setting.
10
D.M. Hall et al. Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101455

Besides the mentioned limitations and possible implication diffi­
culties, we hope that this curriculum will motivate CM programs to
include TCM into their courses and / or foster the spread of other novel
scheduling methods. This in turn can enable students as future project
managers to question the traditional scheduling method and seek more
efficient approaches. Future planned research will include a statistical
analysis of pre- and post-learning retention regarding the TCM and
automated scheduling techniques.
Generalization of the findings should be done with care. The
implementation is specific to one curriculum for one novel automated
scheduling method with a limited sample size of the tested students.
Future research should investigate the curriculum design and measure
student learning for other automated scheduling software if and when
they emerge on the market, as it is not clear if TCM and ALICE will gain
significant and permanent market share. Also, due to curriculum re-
development at the department level towards computer-aided civil en­
gineering, more students (from other disciplines) will be involved in the
proposed curriculum in the future. The curriculum experiment and
statistical analysis can be extended with an increased sample size to be
more justifiable and robust.
The curriculum experiment showed improved student learning per­
formance on construction scheduling using the generative approach. We
believe the proposed curriculum offers insight into good practice of
advanced pedagogical approaches for the teaching of automation in CM
classrooms. In particular, we find that our approach – showing the
limitations of CPM in week 1, explaining the algorithm through a
manual process (e.g., in our case, using Excel) in week 2, and then
applying commercial software to fully understand the practical impli­
cations of such a computational approach in weeks 3 – 5 – is an effective
structure that could be followed for additional generative scheduling
approaches other than TCM, that are developed for construction auto­
mation in the years to come. Overall, this pedagogical approach can give
the students a solid knowledge of the theory behind scheduling algo­
rithms in balance with the applied nature that characterizes CM as a
discipline.
includes a proposed curriculum design, the practical steps for course
implementation, and the successful student learning outcomes. First, we
describe a proposed 5-week curriculum to teach the fundamentals and
limitations of the CPM, the theoretical foundations of the TCM, and an
introduction to the software ALICE for further exploration of how such
theoretical foundations can be operationalized in practice. We describe
the learning objectives and course structure of the proposed curriculum
and detail our implementation during Autumn semester of 2020.
We then demonstrate that such a proposed curriculum can signifi­
cantly improve student knowledge acquisition for both theoretical (e.g.
the algorithm) and practical (e.g. the software) topics. We measure
student understanding of learning objectives before, during, and after
implementation of the curriculum, and analyze the results using
descriptive statistical analysis, a paired t-test, and a qualitative evalua­
tion. These results validate that such a 5-week curriculum effectively can
increase student understanding of our curriculum to teach generative
scheduling.
Although the findings of the implementation are specific to one
curriculum for one novel generative scheduling method, we believe it
offers insight into good practice of advanced pedagogical approaches
that can up-skill engineering students and prepare them for future work
in highly automated and digital environments.
Finally, our curriculum has been designed to be shared with other
CM course instructors. All course lessons, teaching notes, exercises,
grading templates, and presentation templates are freely available on­
line (https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000482232).
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Daniel M. Hall reports administrative support was provided by ALICE
Technologies.
Acknowledgements

6. Conclusion The authors would like to thank Dr. René Morkos, Mazen Faloughi,
and Jennifer Woodford from ALICE Technologies for their feedback in
This paper describes the design, implementation, and validation of a the development of the curriculum, and their administrative support to
new curriculum to teach the TCM within an existing CM course. This make the ALICE software free to use for the students.

Appendix

1. Survey questions

No. Topic Question Included in

Survey

I II III

1 CPM Which of the following statements are true about the critical path method (CPM)? (T/F) x x x
a) With CPM, many schedules with different sequences are created automatically.
b) CPM identifies critical activities which can delay the project if not performed on time.
c) With CPM it is possible to identify the total float of the project.
d) All major constraints are considered with CPM: Sequence, resources and spatial requirements
e) Application of the CPM is a time consuming and iterative process.
2 CPM What are the limitations of traditional project scheduling? (T/F) x x x
a) In traditional project scheduling, resources are assumed to be infinite.
b) When applying the CPM to a schedule generated with traditional scheduling methods, there should always be more than one critical path.
c) With the critical path method, typically only one sequence can be analyzed at a time. It is difficult to analyze all of the possible solutions.
d) Traditional project scheduling is limited to critical activities that can delay the whole project.
e) Spatial requirements of the activities to be performed are not considered which can lead to spatial clashes or low utilization of workspaces.
3 TCM By using the Tri-constraint-method for project scheduling… (T/F) x x x
a) … schedules are created, that don’t have a critical path and thus enable a more flexible project execution.
b) … spatial clashes are avoided e.g. activities will not be scheduled for the same place at the same time.
c) … schedules can be generated that are cheaper and shorter than ones optimized with the Critical Path Method (CPM).
d) … the availability of discrete resources is considered already when creating a schedule.
e) … multiple schedules with different sequences can be generated simultaneously.
(continued on next page)

11
D.M. Hall et al. Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101455

(continued )
No. Topic Question Included in
Survey

I II III

4 TCM Assign following terms to their correct position in the scheme: x x x

● Action
● Component
● Work
● Scope
● Element
● General contractor
5 TCM Fill in the gaps: To generate schedules with TCM, first the design information is used to gather all operations in a _____ list. Starting from this list, the x x x
AI scheduling algorithm moves operations to the CANDO list, to the _____ list and finally to the _____ list. Different sequences can be created by _____
during the scheduling algorithm.
6 ALICE Recipes are used within ALICE to … x x
a) … define which resources are required to build an element.
b) … connect elements with same procedure of erection.
c) … describe what operations are required to build an element.
d) … to distinguish between critical and non-critical activities.
e) … define how long it takes to build an element.
7 ALICE Which of the following statements are true? x x
a) ALICE uses parametrization to allow for a generation and an analysis of different possible schedule options.
b) The duration of individual activities can be either fixed or based on production rates.
c) ALICE generates for each schedule a cost calculation for crews, equipment and materials with distinction between direct and idle costs.
8 ALICE Which inputs are required to create different schedules with ALICE that contain information about budget and resource utilization? x x
● Model of the project
● Definition of supports
● Groups
● Recipes
● Production rates
● Crews
● Subcontractors
● Equipment
9 ALICE Which of the following statements are true about resources and recipes in ALICE? x x
a) Multiple recipes can be assigned to a single element at the same time to allow for the generation of different schedules.
b) Production rates are used to parametrize the duration of activities based on the number of resources assigned to them.
c) Materials can be either consumable or reusable.
d) The duration of a task can be expressed by means of parameters (e.g. crews assigned to this task, no. of components they must work on)
e) The number of workers belonging to a specific crew can be adjusted during project execution.
10 LOB The line of balance method… x x
a) … is mainly used to keep direct project cost and idle project cost in balance.
b) … is capable of varying the sequence when generating schedules.
c) … models precedence constraints in combination with the space required for performing a task to create construction project schedules.
d) … compares a formal objective against actual progress.

2. Retrospective self-assessment statements

No. Topic Reference time (wrp. to curriculum) Statement Included in

Survey

I II III

1a CPM Before I was capable of creating a schedule according to the traditional method and identifying its critical path. x
1b CPM After I am capable of creating a schedule according to the traditional method and identifying its critical path. x
2a CPM Before I was aware of the limitations of the traditional scheduling method. x
2b CPM After I am aware of the limitations of the traditional scheduling method. x
(continued on next page)

12
D.M. Hall et al. Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101455

(continued )
No. Topic Reference time (wrp. to curriculum) Statement Included in
Survey

I II III

3a TCM Before I understood how the Tri-constraint method works. x

3b TCM After I understand how the Tri-constraint method works. x
4a TCM Before I was able to apply the algorithm of the Tri-constraint method on a given example project. x
4b TCM After I am able to apply the algorithm of the Tri-constraint method on a given example project. x
5a ALICE Before I was able to use a software to apply the Tri-constraint method. x
5b ALICE After I am able to use a software to apply the Tri-constraint method. x
6a ALICE Before I knew the advantages of using ALICE as a computer tool for applying the TCM. x
6b ALICE After I know the advantages of using ALICE as a computer tool for applying the TCM. x
7a ALICE Before I was able to analyze the metrics of a schedule generated with ALICE. x
7b ALICE After I am able to analyze the metrics of a schedule generated with ALICE. x
8a ALICE Before I was able to optimize a schedule generated with ALICE to reduce project cost and duration. x
8b ALICE After I am able to optimize a schedule generated with ALICE to reduce project cost and duration. x
9a LOB Before I understood the theory behind the Line of Balance Method (LOB). x
9b LOB After I understand the theory behind the Line of Balance Method (LOB). x

3. Results of knowledge test in survey I, II and III

Survey I Survey II Survey III

Topic Correct IDK Wrong Correct IDK Wrong Correct IDK Wrong

CPM 66% 11% 22% 89% 3% 9% 90% 1% 9%

TCM 27% 56% 17% 77% 7% 17% 83% 2% 16%
ALICE 20% 73% 8% 78% 2% 20%
LOB 10% 82% 7% 14% 71% 15%

4. Results of Self-Assessment in survey III

Topic Reference time (wrp. to curriculum) Not at all Just a little Somewhat Mostly Entirely

CPM Before 23% 26% 10% 29% 13%

After 0% 0% 0% 54% 46%
TCM Before 79% 9% 0% 12% 0%
After 0% 0% 8% 42% 50%
ALICE Before 86% 6% 3% 6% 0%
After 0% 0% 6% 60% 34%
LOB Before 89% 6% 0% 6% 0%
After 47% 29% 18% 6% 0%

5. Scores of surveys I and III

Knowledge Test Self-Assessment

Student Survey I Survey III Before After

1 24 34 13 34
2 11 41 10 35
3 9 33 16 34
4 15 41 12 38
5 31 43 16 39
6 23 33 16 34
7 7 38 23 41
8 6 41 36 36
9 20 38 9 35
10 7 36 17 34
11 7 34 16 40
12 25 40 14 39
13 17 33 15 32
14 11 42 9 32
15 9 39 10 36
16 7 42 18 37
17 15 40 18 38
18 33 40 16 41

13
D.M. Hall et al. Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101455

References [22] Bonsang Koo, Martin Fischer, Feasibility study of 4D CAD in commercial
construction, J. Construct. Eng. Manage. 126 (4) (2000) 251–260.
[23] L. Koskela, G. Howell, E. Pikas, B. Dave. If CPM is so bad, why have we been using
[1] S. Abbasi, K. Taghizade, E. Noorzai, BIM-based combination of takt time and
it so long? In: 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
discrete event simulation for implementing just in time in construction scheduling
Construction: Understanding and Improving Project Based Production, IGLC 2014,
under constraints, J. Construct. Eng. Manage. 146 (12) (2020) 04020143, https://
2014, pp. 27–37.
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001940.
[24] S. Lee, J. Lee, Y. Ahn, Sustainable BIM-based construction engineering education
[2] H. Abdirad, C.S. Dossick, BIM curriculum design in architecture, engineering, and
curriculum for practice-oriented training, Sustainability 11 (21) (2019) 6120.
construction education: asystematic review, J. Inform. Technol. Construct. 21
[25] H. Li, G. Chan, M. Skitmore, T. Huang. A 4D automatic simulation tool for
(August) (2016) 250–271.
construction resource planning: a case study, in: Engineering, Construction and
[3] D. Ahmed, M. Nayeemuddin, T. Ayadat, A. Asiz, Computing competency for civil
Architectural Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2015.
engineering graduates: recent updates and developments in Saudi Arabia and the
[26] Matthew J. Liberatore, Bruce Pollack-Johnson, Colleen A. Smith, Project
US, Int. J. Higher Educ. 10 (6) (2021) 57, https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n6p57.
management in construction: software use and research directions, J. Construct.
[4] F. Amer, H.Y. Koh, M. Golparvar-Fard, Automated methods and systems for
Eng. Manage. 127 (2) (2001) 101–107.
construction planning and scheduling: critical review of three decades of research,
[27] W Lo, M-E Kuo, Cost impact of float loss on a project with adjustable activity
J. Construct. Eng. Manage. 147 (7) (2021) 03121002.
durations, J. Operat. Res. Soc. 64 (8) (2013) 1147–1156.
[5] F. Amer, M. Golparvar-Fard, Modeling dynamic construction work template from
[28] Ming Lu, Heng Li, Resource-activity critical-path method for construction
existing scheduling records via sequential machine learning, Adv. Eng. Inf. 47
planning, J. Construct. Eng. Manage. 129 (4) (2003) 412–420.
(2021) 101198, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2020.101198.
[29] Amirsaman Mahdavian, Alireza Shojaei, Hybrid genetic algorithm and constraint-
[6] A. Anderson, C.S. Dossick, L. Osburn, Curriculum to prepare AEC students for BIM-
based simulation framework for building construction project planning and
enabled globally distributed projects, Int. J. Construct. Educ. Res. 16 (4) (2020)
control, J. Construct. Eng. Manage. 146 (12) (2020) 04020140, https://doi.org/
270–289.
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001939.
[7] BIM+, ALICE? Who the heck is ALICE?. Retrieved September 23, 2021, 2021. https
[30] E. March, Project Scheduling. Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth, , 2014.
://www.bimplus.co.uk/alice-who-the-heck-is-alice/.
url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq19ga0U_jQ.
[8] D.K. Chua, L.J. Shen, Key constraints analysis with integrated production
[31] P.A. Mendoza Salinas, Construction Scheduling: Potential for Improvement using
scheduler, J. Construct. Eng. Manage. 131 (7) (2005) 753–764.
Productivity Data and New Technologies, ETH Zurich, 2019.
[9] Crunchbase, ALICE Technologies – Crunchbase Company Profile & Funding,
[32] R. Morkos, Operational Efficiency Frontier: Visualizing, Manipulating, and
Organization Summary, 2021. <https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/alic
Navigating the Construction Scheduling State Space with PRECEDENCE,
e-technologies> (May 6, 2021).
DISCRETE, and Disjunctive Constraints. Stanford University, 2014.
[10] P. Dallasega, E. Marengo, A. Revolti, Strengths and shortcomings of methodologies
[33] Yakubu Olawale, Ming Sun, Construction project control in the UK: Current
for production planning and control of construction projects: a systematic
practice, existing problems and recommendations for future improvement, Int. J.
literature review and future perspectives, Prod. Plan. Control (2020) 1–26.
Project Manage. 33 (3) (2015) 623–637.
[11] Jonathan Drennan, Abbey Hyde, Controlling response shift bias: the use of the
[34] H. Olivieri, O. Seppänen, T.D.C.L. Alves, N.M. Scala, V. Schiavone, M. Liu, A.
retrospective pre-test design in the evaluation of a master’s programme, Assess.
D. Granja, Survey comparing critical path method, last planner system, and
Eval. Higher Educ. 33 (6) (2008) 699–709.
location-based techniques, J. Construct. Eng. Manage. 145 (12) (2019).
[12] M. Fischer, N. Garcia-Lopez, R. Morkos, 2018. Making each workhour count:
[35] Forest Peterson, Timo Hartmann, Renate Fruchter, Martin Fischer, Teaching
improving the prediction of construction durations and resource allocations, in: I.F.
construction project management with BIM support: experience and lessons
C. Smith, B. Domer (Eds.), EG-ICE 2018, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
learned, Autom. Constr. 20 (2) (2011) 115–125.
Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 273–295.
[36] Project Management Institute, A guide to the Project Management Body of
[13] J.W. Fondahl, A Non-computer Approach to the Critical Path Method for the
Knowledge (PMBOK guide), Project Management Institute Inc., 2017.
Construction Industry, Construction Institute, Stanford University, 1962.
[37] Taija Puolitaival, Perry Forsythe, Practical challenges of BIM education, Struct.
[14] John W. Fondahl, The development of the construction engineer: past progress and
Survey 34 (4/5) (2016) 351–366.
future problems, J. Construct. Eng. Manage. 117 (3) (1991) 380–392.
[38] F.J. Sabongi, The Integration of BIM in the Undergraduate Curriculum: an analysis
[15] Patricia D. Galloway, Survey of the construction industry relative to the use of CPM
of undergraduate courses, in: Proceedings of the 45th ASC Annual Conference,
scheduling for construction projects, J. Construct. Eng. Manage. 132 (7) (2006)
2009, pp. 1–4.
697–711.
[39] J. Singh, J.C. Cheng, C.J. Anumba, BIM-based approach for automatic pipe systems
[16] J. Goodman, 2 AI-based construction platforms receive millions in funding.
installation coordination and schedule optimization, J. Construct. Eng. Manage.
Construction Dive. Retrieved September 23, 2021, 2019. https://www.construct
147 (11) (2021) 04021143.
iondive.com/news/2-ai-based-construction-platforms-receive-millions-in-funding/
[40] Ranjith K. Soman, Miguel Molina-Solana, Jennifer K. Whyte, Linked-Data based
566170/.
Constraint-Checking (LDCC) to support look-ahead planning in construction,
[17] Timo Hartmann, Martin Fischer, Supporting the constructability review with 3D/
Autom. Constr. 120 (2020) 103369, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
4D models, Build. Res. Inform. 35 (1) (2007) 70–80.
autcon.2020.103369.
[18] Timo Hartmann, Ju Gao, Martin Fischer, Areas of application for 3D and 4D models
[41] R. Sriram, I. Custovic, D.M. Hall, TCM Curriculum. ETH Zurich, Institute of
on construction projects, J. Construct. Eng. Manage. 134 (10) (2008) 776–785.
Construction and Infrastructure Management (IBI), 2021. https://doi.org/10.3929
[19] B. Huber, P. Reiser, The marriage of CPM and lean construction, in: Annual
/ethz-b-000482232.
Conference OF THE International Group for lean Construction, Citeseer, 2003.
[42] L.M. Waugh, T.M. Froese, Constraint knowledge for construction scheduling, in:
[20] J.E. Kelley, M.R. Walker, Critical-path planning and scheduling. Proceedings of the
1991 First International Conference on Expert Planning Systems, IET, Brighton,
Eastern Joint Computer Conference, 1959.
UK, 1990, pp. 114–118.
[21] Kyunghwan Kim, Jesús M. de la Garza, Phantom float, J. Construct. Eng. Manage.
129 (5) (2003) 507–517.

14