IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i5p1926-d1598680.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-Objective Trade-Offs for Construction Projects with Dual Constraints of Schedule Risk and Resources Under a Risk-Driven Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Jun Zhou

    (College of Water Conservancy & Architectural Engineering, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China)

  • Yanjuan Tang

    (College of Water Conservancy & Architectural Engineering, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China)

  • Yong Tian

    (College of Water Conservancy & Architectural Engineering, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China)

Abstract

Project schedules are typically the primary concern for most clients, yet the corresponding schedule risks have not received sufficient attention from project managers during multi-objective trade-offs. Therefore, to select the most valuable schedule plan in a complex risk environment, reveal the objective impact of schedule risks on multi-objective trade-offs, and reflect the decision-maker’s risk mitigation behaviour, this study aims to develop a Time–Cost–Quality Trade-off (TCQT) model constrained by both schedule risks and resources based on risk-driven principles. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis steps for identifying key risk factors are proposed. The Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) methods are introduced to solve the TCQT model and make optimal solution decisions. Case study results demonstrate that the optimal scheduling plan derived from the model improves the total project time, cost, and quality by 11.48%, 4.52%, and 7.05%, respectively, compared to the initial plan formulated by the project team. Additionally, the model identifies the main risk factors affecting the achievement of each objective within the TCQT decision framework, providing crucial insights for decision-makers in formulating effective mitigation strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Jun Zhou & Yanjuan Tang & Yong Tian, 2025. "Multi-Objective Trade-Offs for Construction Projects with Dual Constraints of Schedule Risk and Resources Under a Risk-Driven Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-34, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:5:p:1926-:d:1598680
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/1926/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/1926/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Şeyda Gür & Tamer Eren, 2018. "Scheduling and Planning in Service Systems with Goal Programming: Literature Review," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 6(11), pages 1-16, November.
    2. Yongjun Chen & Xiaojian Li & Jin Wang & Mei Liu & Chaoxun Cai & Yuefeng Shi, 2023. "Research on the Application of Fuzzy Bayesian Network in Risk Assessment of Catenary Construction," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, April.
    3. Ali Namazian & Siamak Haji Yakhchali & Vahidreza Yousefi & Jolanta Tamošaitienė, 2019. "Combining Monte Carlo Simulation and Bayesian Networks Methods for Assessing Completion Time of Projects under Risk," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-19, December.
    4. Stefan Creemers & Erik Demeulemeester & Stijn Vonder, 2014. "A new approach for quantitative risk analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 213(1), pages 27-65, February.
    5. Adriana S. F. Alves & J. P. Oliveira & Radu Godina, 2024. "Advancing Sustainable Decision Making in Additive Manufacturing: A Comprehensive Review of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approaches," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-16, May.
    6. Zheng-Xin Wang & Dan-Dan Li & Hong-Hao Zheng, 2018. "The External Performance Appraisal of China Energy Regulation: An Empirical Study Using a TOPSIS Method Based on Entropy Weight and Mahalanobis Distance," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-18, January.
    7. D. R. Fulkerson, 1961. "A Network Flow Computation for Project Cost Curves," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 167-178, January.
    8. Wanvipa Wongvilaisakul & Paniti Netinant & Meennapa Rukhiran, 2023. "Dynamic Multi-Criteria Decision Making of Graduate Admission Recommender System: AHP and Fuzzy AHP Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-32, June.
    9. Amoozad Mahdiraji, Hannan & Sedigh, Maryam & Razavi Hajiagha, Seyed Hossein & Garza-Reyes, Jose Arturo & Jafari-Sadeghi, Vahid & Dana, Leo-Paul, 2021. "A novel time, cost, quality and risk tradeoff model with a knowledge-based hesitant fuzzy information: An R&D project application," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    10. Babu, A. J. G. & Suresh, Nalina, 1996. "Project management with time, cost, and quality considerations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 320-327, January.
    11. James E. Kelley, 1961. "Critical-Path Planning and Scheduling: Mathematical Basis," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 296-320, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Perrone, G. & Roma, P. & Lo Nigro, G., 2010. "Designing multi-attribute auctions for engineering services procurement in new product development in the automotive context," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 20-31, March.
    2. Byung-Cheon Choi & Changmuk Kang, 2019. "A linear time–cost tradeoff problem with multiple milestones under a comb graph," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 341-361, August.
    3. Mehrnoosh Zohrehvandi & Shakib Zohrehvandi & Mohammad Khalilzadeh & Maghsoud Amiri & Fariborz Jolai & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Jurgita Antucheviciene, 2024. "A Multi-Objective Mathematical Programming Model for Project-Scheduling Optimization Considering Customer Satisfaction in Construction Projects," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-15, January.
    4. A B Hafızoğlu & M Azizoğlu, 2010. "Linear programming based approaches for the discrete time/cost trade-off problem in project networks," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(4), pages 676-685, April.
    5. Herroelen, Willy & Leus, Roel, 2004. "The construction of stable project baseline schedules," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(3), pages 550-565, August.
    6. Nicole Megow & Rolf H. Möhring & Jens Schulz, 2011. "Decision Support and Optimization in Shutdown and Turnaround Scheduling," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 189-204, May.
    7. Hermans, Ben & Leus, Roel & Looy, Bart Van, 2023. "Deciding on scheduling, secrecy, and patenting during the new product development process: The relevance of project planning models," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    8. Jiao Wang & Kai Yang & Ruiqing Zhao, 2017. "The impact of decision criteria on deadline-based incentive contracts in project management," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 643-655, March.
    9. Wolfram Wiesemann & Daniel Kuhn & Berç Rustem, 2012. "Multi-resource allocation in stochastic project scheduling," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 193(1), pages 193-220, March.
    10. Brucker, Peter & Drexl, Andreas & Mohring, Rolf & Neumann, Klaus & Pesch, Erwin, 1999. "Resource-constrained project scheduling: Notation, classification, models, and methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 3-41, January.
    11. Kosztyán, Zsolt T. & Pribojszki-Németh, Anikó & Szalkai, István, 2019. "Hybrid multimode resource-constrained maintenance project scheduling problem," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 6(C).
    12. Hajdu M. & Isaac S., 2016. "Sixty years of project planning: history and future," Organization, Technology and Management in Construction, Sciendo, vol. 8(1), pages 1499-1510, December.
    13. M. Vanhoucke, 2007. "An electromagnetic time/cost trade-off optimization in project scheduling," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 07/457, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    14. Vanhoucke, Mario, 2005. "New computational results for the discrete time/cost trade-off problem with time-switch constraints," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 165(2), pages 359-374, September.
    15. De, Prabuddha & James Dunne, E. & Ghosh, Jay B. & Wells, Charles E., 1995. "The discrete time-cost tradeoff problem revisited," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 225-238, March.
    16. Kolisch, R. & Padman, R., 2001. "An integrated survey of deterministic project scheduling," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 249-272, June.
    17. R L Bregman, 2009. "Preemptive expediting to improve project due date performance," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(1), pages 120-129, January.
    18. Collin Huse & Michael J. Brusco, 2021. "A Tale of Two Linear Programming Formulations for Crashing Project Networks," INFORMS Transactions on Education, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 82-95, January.
    19. Choi, Byung-Cheon & Chung, Jibok, 2014. "Complexity results for the linear time–cost tradeoff problem with multiple milestones and completely ordered jobs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(1), pages 61-68.
    20. Bregman, Robert L., 2009. "A heuristic procedure for solving the dynamic probabilistic project expediting problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(1), pages 125-137, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:5:p:1926-:d:1598680. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.