Simulation-Based Approximation of the Gain from Applying Overlapping Activities
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 150, Issue 4
Abstract
Schedule management is essential in construction projects to ensure successful completion. However, the dynamic nature of the construction industry introduces variability, leading to uncertainty and challenges in schedule implementation. This paper explores the use of schedule acceleration through overlapping activities as a solution to mitigate the impact of variability on project timelines. Risks associated with overlapping activities can lead to waste and offset anticipated schedule gains. To challenge the assumption that the schedule gain from activity overlapping is directly proportional to the amount of overlapping, a simulation model is developed and implemented in MATLAB where activities are modeled as beta-distributions. The model gradually increases the overlap percentage and evaluates the mean best-case, overall mean, and mean worst-case durations. An isolated overlap consisting of two activities is used to demonstrate the effect of overlapping. With a ratio between durations, it was found that, when using a 90% overlap, the loss in effect varied from 3.2% to 57.5% with an overall mean loss of 34.2%. These results emphasize that even in the most optimistic combination of distributions, the most likely duration still exceeds initial expectations, indicating the influence of variability on the schedule. Thus, the findings highlight the necessity of project managers to consider the impact of variability on overlapping activities, ensuring a more accurate schedule estimation. The study offers practical recommendations for project managers, including a diagram that advocates applying adjustment coefficients based on the degree of overlap and the ratio between the activity’s durations. The diagram can be adopted in future scheduling to adjust durations when applying overlapping to minimize the risk of schedule delays.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
This research is partially supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Alliance Grant ALLRP 549210-19.
References
AbouRizk, S. M., and D. W. Halpin. 1992. “Statistical properties of construction duration data.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 118 (3): 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1992)118:3(525).
AbouRizk, S. M., D. W. Halpin, and J. R. Wilson. 1994. “Fitting beta distributions based on sample data.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 120 (2): 288–305. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1994)120:2(288).
Alarcón, L. F., and O. Zegarra. 2012. “Identifying the bullwhip effect of last-planner conversations during the construction stage.” In Proc., IGLC 2012—20th Conf. of the Int. Group for Lean Construction. San Diego: Montezume Publishing.
Arashpour, M., and M. Arashpour. 2015. “Analysis of workflow variability and its impacts on productivity and performance in construction of multistory buildings.” J. Manage. Eng. 31 (6): 04015006. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000363.
Ballesteros-Pérez, P. 2017. “Modelling the boundaries of project fast-tracking.” Autom. Constr. 84 (Dec): 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.09.006.
Biruk, S., and P. Jaśkowski. 2020. “Selection of the optimal actions for crashing processes duration to increase the robustness of construction schedules.” Appl. Sci. 10 (22): 8028. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10228028.
Biruk, S., and Ł. Rzepecki. 2021. “A simulation model of construction projects executed in random conditions with the overlapping construction works.” Sustainability 13 (11): 5795. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115795.
Bogus, S. M., J. E. Diekmann, and K. R. Molenaar. 2005. “Evaluating the consequences of overlapping dependent activities.” In Proc., Construction Research Congress 2005: Broadening Perspectives, 725–734. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Chang, C. K., A. S. Hanna, S. Woo, and C. S. Cho. 2019. “Logistic regression modeling to determine projects impacted by schedule compression.” KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 23 (4): 1493–1500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-019-2056-0.
Dehghan, R., J. Y. Ruwanpura, and F. Khoramshahi. 2010. “Activity overlapping assessment in construction, oil and gas projects.” In Proc., Construction Research Congress 2010: Innovation for Reshaping Construction Practice, 1175–1184. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Elmaghraby, S. E., Y. Fathi, and M. R. Taner. 1999. “On the sensitivity of project variability to activity mean duration.” Int. J. Prod. Econ. 62 (3): 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00241-2.
Fente, J., C. Schexnayder, and K. Knutson. 2000. “Defining a probability distribution function for construction simulation.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 126 (3): 234–241. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2000)126:3(234).
Frandson, A., K. Berghede, and I. D. Tommelein. 2014. “Takt-time planning and the last planner.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 22nd Annual Conf. of the Int. Group for Lean Construction: Understanding and Improving Project Based Production, IGLC 2014, 571–580. Oslo, Norway: IGLC & Akademika Forlag.
Garcia-Lopez, N. P., and M. Fischer. 2016. “A construction workflow model for analyzing the impact of in-project variability.” In Proc., Construction Research Congress 2016: Old and New Construction Technologies Converge in Historic San Juan, CRC 2016, 1998–2007. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Grèze, L., R. Pellerin, P. Leclaire, and N. Perrier. 2012. “CIGI2011: A heuristic method for resource-constrained project scheduling with activity overlapping.” J. Intell. Manuf. 25 (Dec): 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-012-0719-5.
Gunatilake, S., and J. Theivendran. 2015. “A study on the impacts of schedule compression techniques on construction project in Sri Lanka.” In Proc., 4th World Construction Symp. 2015: Sustainable Development in the Built Environment: Green Growth and Innovative Directions, 66–75. Bingley, UK: Built Environment Project and Asset Management.
Gutierrez, G. J., and A. Paul. 2001. “Robustness to variability in project networks.” IIE Trans. 33 (8): 649–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/07408170108936861.
Gwak, H.-S., S.-H. Son, Y.-J. Park, and D.-E. Lee. 2016. “Exact time–cost tradeoff analysis in concurrency-based scheduling.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 142 (10): 04016054. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001164.
Hajdu, M., and O. Bokor. 2014. “The effects of different activity distributions on project duration in PERT networks.” Procedia-Social Behav. Sci. 119 (19): 766–775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.086.
Hamzeh, F., G. Ballard, and I. D. Tommelein. 2012. “Rethinking lookahead planning to optimize construction workflow.” Lean Constr. J. 2012 (Apr): 15–34.
Hazini, K., R. Dehghan, and J. Ruwanpura. 2013. “A heuristic method to determine optimum degree of activity accelerating and overlapping in schedule compression.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 40 (4): 382–391. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2012-0380.
Hopp, W. J., and M. L. Spearman. 2000. Factory physics: Foundations of manufacturing management. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Igwe, C., F. Nasiri, and A. Hammad. 2020. “Construction workspace management: Critical review and roadmap.” Int. J. Construct. Manage. 22 (10): 1960–1973. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1756028.
Johnson, D. 1997. “The triangular distribution as a proxy for the beta distribution in risk analysis.” J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. D 46 (3): 387–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9884.00091.
Lindhard, S. M., F. Hamzeh, V. A. Gonzalez, S. Wandahl, and L. F. Ussing. 2019. “Impact of activity sequencing on reducing variability.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 145 (3): 04019001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001618.
Madadi, M., and H. Iranmanesh. 2012. “A management oriented approach to reduce a project duration and its risk (variability).” Eur. J. Oper. Res. 219 (3): 751–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.01.006.
Moazzami, M., R. Dehghan, and J. Y. Ruwanpura. 2011. “Contractual risks in fast-track projects.” Procedia Eng. 14 (Jan): 2552–2557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.321.
Moon, H., H. Kim, V. R. Kamat, and L. Kang. 2015. “BIM-based construction scheduling method using optimization theory for reducing activity overlaps.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 29 (3): 04014048. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000342.
Offermann, P., O. Levina, M. Schönherr, and U. Bub. 2009. “Outline of a design science research process.” In Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, DESRIST ’09. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
Oglesby, C., H. Parker, and G. Howell. 1989. Productivity Improvement in construction. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Salhab, D., S. M. Lindhard, and F. Hamzeh. 2023. Schedule compression and emerging waste in construction: An assessment of overlapping activities. Bingley, UK: Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.
Salhab, D., D. E. Møller, S. M. Lindhard, F. Hamzeh, M. Randrup, and A. Pilgaard. 2022. “Accounting for variability: Identifying critical activities as a supplement to the critical path.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 148 (5): 04022019. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0002266.
Schexnayder, C., K. Knutson, and J. Fente. 2005. “Describing a beta probability distribution function for construction simulation.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 131 (2): 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:2(221).
Srour, I. M., M. A. U. Abdul-Malak, A. A. Yassine, and M. Ramadan. 2013. “A methodology for scheduling overlapped design activities based on dependency information.” Autom. Constr. 29 (Jan): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.08.001.
Wang, J., and Y. I. Lin. 2009. “An overlapping process model to assess schedule risk for new product development.” Comput. Ind. Eng. 57 (2): 460–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2007.12.013.
Webb, C., L. Gao, and L.-G. Song. 2015. “Schedule compression impact on construction project safety.” Front. Eng. Manage. 2 (4): 344–350. https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FEM-2015059.
William Ibbs, C., S. A. Lee, and M. I. Li. 1998. “Fast-tracking’s impact on project change.” Project Manage. J. 29 (4): 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697289802900405.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 150 • Issue 4 • April 2024
Copyright
© 2024 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jun 19, 2023
Accepted: Nov 17, 2023
Published online: Jan 30, 2024
Published in print: Apr 1, 2024
Discussion open until: Jun 30, 2024
ASCE Technical Topics:
- Approximation methods
- Business management
- Construction engineering
- Construction industry
- Construction management
- Continuum mechanics
- Dynamics (solid mechanics)
- Engineering fundamentals
- Engineering mechanics
- Management methods
- Managers
- Methodology (by type)
- Mitigation and remediation
- Models (by type)
- Motion (dynamics)
- Personnel (type)
- Personnel management
- Practice and Profession
- Scheduling
- Simulation models
- Solid mechanics
- Uncertainty principles
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.