PROJECT SCHEDULING IN A DISTRIBUTED ENVIRONMENT CONSIDERING EMPLOYEES' WORKING HOURS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31732/2663-2209-2024-76-256-265Keywords:
project scheduling, calendarization, agile software development, distributed environment, time zoneAbstract
In recent years, distributed software development has gained significant popularity, enabling companies to enhance productivity by leveraging global resources while simultaneously reducing production costs and time-to-market. However, this organizational model presents management with distinct challenges. One such challenge lies in the complexity of scheduling tasks in a remote, distributed environment. In addition to the traditional factors considered in co-located settings, managers must now account for the diverse working hours and time zones of geographically dispersed team members. Although numerous scheduling techniques have been developed in recent decades, limited research has focused on scheduling in relation to employees' working hours. This research aims to develop a novel scheduling approach that incorporates employee calendar constraints and provides valuable insights for project managers, particularly those operating in remote, distributed environments. The proposed methodology encompasses the development of a new algorithmic approach to produce an optimal project schedule that accounts for employee working hours. Comparative analysis against classical two-phase calendarization method and co-located setups showed the potential to reduce overall project duration by 6% and demonstrates particular efficiency in projects characterized by high task graph complexity. In addition, experiments showed that scheduling with consideration of working hours is even more effective when the time zone difference between subteams is approximately 8 hours, aligning with the typical employee workday. In the future, the proposed technique can be further refined by considering additional factors and constraints in the resource allocation process, specifically the need for synchronization between engineers working in different time zones.
Downloads
References
Blazewicz, J., Lenstra, J. K., & Kan, A. H. G. R. (1983). Scheduling subject to resource constraints: Classification and complexity. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 5(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-218X(83)90012-4
Golab, A., Gooya, E. S., Falou, A. A., & Cabon, M. (2023). A convolutional neural network for the resource-constrained project scheduling problem (RCPSP): A new approach. Decision Science Letters, 12(2), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2023.2.002
Goldratt, E. M. (1997). Critical chain. Great Barrington: The North River Press Publishing Corporation.
Khodakarami, V., Fenton, N., & Neil, M. (2007). Project Scheduling: Improved Approach to Incorporate Uncertainty Using Bayesian Networks. Project Management Journal, 38(2), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280703800205
Franck, B., Neumann, K., & Schwindt, C. (2001). Project scheduling with calendars. OR-Spektrum, 23(3), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00013355
Habibi, F., Barzinpour, F., & Sadjadi, S. J. (2018). Resource-constrained project scheduling problem: Review of past and recent developments. Journal of Project Management, 55–88. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.jpm.2018.1.005
Kreter, S., Schutt, A., & Stuckey, P. J. (2017). Using constraint programming for solving RCPSP/max-cal. Constraints, 22(3), 432–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10601-016-9266-6
Fox, T. L., & Spence, J. W. (1998). Tools of the Trade: A Survey of Project Management Tools. Project Management Journal, 29(3), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697289802900305
Malcolm, D. G., Roseboom, J. H., Clark, C. E., & Fazar, W. (1959). Application of a Technique for Research and Development Program Evaluation. Operations Research, 7(5), 646–669. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.7.5.646
Moder, J. (1988). Network techniques in project management. Project Management Handbook, 2nd edition (pp. 324–373). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Pollack-Johnson, B., & Liberatore, M. J. (1998). Project Management Software Usage Patterns and Suggested Research Directions for Future Developments. Project Management Journal, 29(2), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697289802900205
Vanhoucke, M., & Coelho, J. (2016). An approach using SAT solvers for the RCPSP with logical constraints. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(2), 577–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.08.044
Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442. https://doi.org/10.1038/30918
Zhan, J. (1992). Calendarization of time planning in MPM networks. ZOR, Zeitschrift Für Operations Research Methods and Models of Operations Research, 36(5), 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01415759
Zhang, H., Xu, H., & Peng, W. (2008). A Genetic Algorithm for Solving RCPSP. 2008 International Symposium on Computer Science and Computational Technology, 246–249. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCSCT.2008.255
Cohn, M. (2024, January 2). The Ideal Size for Your Agile Team. https://www.mountaingoatsoftware.com/blog/the-just-right-size-for-agile-teams
Levison, M. (2020, March 13). Scrum Team Size - How Big? How Small? Agile Pain Relief. https://agilepainrelief.com/blog/scrum-team-size.html
Fuqua, A. (2015, May 29). Agile Story Points: How Many Stories Per Sprint? LeadingAgile. https://www.leadingagile.com/2015/05/agile-story-points-how-many-user-stories-per-sprint-rules-of-thumb/
Divakova, G. (2023, October 16). Offshore Developers — Rates in 2024: Best Countries and Best Platforms. YouTeam. https://youteam.io/blog/offshore-developers-rates-in-2020-best-countries-and-best-platforms-to-hire-a-remote-development-team/
Cohn, M. (2022, September 10). Agile Estimation: Why The Fibonacci Sequence Works. Mountain Goat Software. https://www.mountaingoatsoftware.com/blog/why-the-fibonacci-sequence-works-well-for-estimating
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.