Payment scheduling under project crashing based on project progress

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• M. Mortazavi Nejad
• H.R. Tareghian
• Z. Sari

Department of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematical Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

10.22067/ijnao.v7i2.46395

Abstract

In this paper, we address a new problem in the context of project payment scheduling when project activities are allowed to be crashed with the purpose of maximizing the contractors net present value (NPV). We assume that the contractor is paid at some pre-specified points of time according to the volume of work performed. Upon completion of activities, the cost of their execution is paid. Two different approaches are used to determine the volume of work performed at so called review points. In the first approach, only completed activities are considered. In the second approach, any portions of the activities that are executed are considered. To increase the volume of work performed at the review points, the contractor may decide to crash some activities and as such possibly increases his NPV. As activity crashing costs the contractor money, a compromise needs to be made. Two mathematical models are developed to study each approach and hence help the contractor to make the best decision. These models offer a means of investigating whether it is advisable to crash some activities and are therefore of practical importance. It is shown that the contractor may increase his NPV, even when he pays for the activity crashing costs. The performance of the mathematical models is illustrated using a numerical example.

Keywords

• Payment scheduling
• Progress payment
• Project crashing
• Con- tractor’s net present value

20.1001.1.24236977.2017.7.2.3.4

---

References

[1] Brooke, A., Kendrick K. and Meeraus, A. GAMS: A Users Guide, The Scientific Press: CA. 1988.

[2] Dayanand, N. and Padman, R. Payments in projects: a contractor’s model. Technical Report, The Heinz School, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, 1993.

[3] Dayanand, N. and Padman, R. On modeling payments in project networks. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48 (1997), 906-918.

[4] Dayanand, N. and Padman, R. A two stage search heuristic for scheduling payments in projects. Annals of Operations Research, 102 (2001), 197-220.

[5] Dayanand, N. and Padman, R. Project contracts and payment schedules: the clients problem. Management Science, 47(12) (2001), 1654-1667.

[6] Elmaghraby, S.E. and Herroelen, W.S. The scheduling of activities to maximize the net present value of projects. European Journal of Operational Research, 49 (1990), 35-49.

[7] Grinold, R.C. The payment scheduling problem. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 19(1) (1972), 123-136.

[8] He, Z. and Xu, Y. Multi-mode project payment scheduling problems with bonus-penalty structure. European Journal of Operational Research, 189(3) (2008), 1191-1207.

[9] He, Z., Wang, N., Jia, T. and Xu, Y. Simulated annealing and tabu search for multi-mode project payment scheduling. European Journal of Operational Research, 198(3) (2009), 688-696.

[10] He, Z., Liu, R. and Jia, T. Metaheuristics for multi-mode capitalconstrained project payment scheduling. European Journal of Operational Research, 223 (2012), 605-613.

[11] Herroelen, W.S., VAN Dommelen P. and Demeulemeester, E.L. Project network models with discounted cash flows a guided tour through recent developments. European Journal of Operational Research, 100 (1997), 97-121.

[12] Kavlak, N., Ulusoy, G., Serifoglu, F.S. and Birbil, S.I. Client-contractor bargaining on net present value in project scheduling with limited resources. Naval Research Logistics, 56(2) (2009), 93-112.

[13] Kazaz, B. and Sepil, C.B. Project scheduling with discounted cash flows and progress payments. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47(1996), 1262-1272.

[14] Mika, M., Waligora, G. and Weglarz, J. Simulated annealing and tabu search for multi-mode resourceconstrained project scheduling with positive discounted cash flows and different payment models. European Journal of Operational Research, 164 (2005), 639-668.

[15] Russell, A.H. Cash Flows in networks. Management Science, 16(5) (1970), 357-373.

[16] Sepil, C. and Ortac, N. Performance of the heuristic procedures for constrained projects with progress payments. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48 (1997), 1123-1130.

[17] Szmereskovsky, J.G. The impact of contractor behaviour on the client’s payment scheduling problem. Management Science, 51(4) (2005), 629-640.

[18] Talbot, F.B. Resource-constrained project scheduling with time-resource trade offs: the nonpreemptive case. Management Science, 28(10) (1982), 1197-1210.

[19] Tantisuvanichkul, V. and Kidd, M. Maximizing net present value a review through literature. 2ndInternational Conference on Construction and Project Management, Singapore, 2011.

[20] Ulusoy, G. and Cebelli, S. An equitable approach to the payment scheduling problem in project management. European Journal of Operational Research, 127 (2000), 262-278.

21] Ulusoy G., Sivrikaya-Serifoglu, F. and Sahin, S. Four payment models for the multi-mode resource constrained project scheduling problem with discounted cash flows. Annals of Operations Research, 102 (2001), 237-261.

[22] Vanhoucke, M., Demeulemeester, E. and Herroelen, W. Progress payments in project scheduling problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 148 ( 2003), 604-620.

[23] Vanhoucke, M. and Debels, D. The discrete time cost trade-off problem under various assumptions exact and heuristic procedures. Journal of Scheduling, 10 (2007), 311-326.