Productivity Scheduling Method: Linear Schedule Analysis with Singularity Functions

By Gunnar Lucko1, A.M.ASCE

1
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, The Catholic University of America,
Washington, DC 20064, lucko@cua.edu.

Abstract
This paper describes a new integrated method of linear schedule analysis using singularity
functions. These functions have previously been used for structural analysis and are newly
applied to scheduling. Linear schedules combine information on time and amount of work for
each activity. A general model is presented with which activities and their buffers can be
mathematically described in detail. The algorithm of the new method forms the body of the
paper, including the steps of setting up initial equations, calculating pairwise differences between
them, differentiating these to obtain the location of any minima, and deriving the final equations.
The algorithm consolidates the linear schedule under consideration of all constraints and thus
automatically generates the minimum overall project duration. The model distinguishes time and
amount buffers, which bears implications for the definition and derivation of the critical path.
Future research work will address float and resource analysis using the new model.

CE Database Subject Headings: Scheduling, critical path method, definitions, symbols,

network analysis, geometry, linear analysis, time dependence, location

Introduction
Linear scheduling is a project management technique that creates a schedule in a coordinate
system with a time axis and an axis that displays the amount of work that has been produced.
Values on both axes are cumulative. The progression of several activities yields a collection of
inclined lines in the graphical representation of the linear scheduling method (LSM). Their ratio
of work per time is proportional to their productivity. Related concepts are known under various
names, including vertical production method (O’Brien 1975), velocity diagram (Dressler 1980),
time space scheduling method (Stradal and Cacha 1982), line-of-balance (Arditi and Albulak
1986), linear scheduling method (Chrzanowski and Johnston 1986), flow lines (Russell and
Wong 1993), linear scheduling model (Harmelink and Rowings 1998), repetitive scheduling
method (Harris and Ioannou 1998), and several others. While each of these approaches differ
somewhat in their focus, terminology, and analysis steps, they have in common particularly the
two-dimensional nature of the schedule that integrates time and amount, the ability to enforce the
continuity of activities to optimize resource use, if desired, and the ability to identify conflicts
between activities, e.g. physical interferences, wherever lines touch or cross in the diagram.
Three types of projects where linear scheduling is applied are identified in the literature, which
include geometrically linear projects, either horizontal such as e.g. highways, tunnels, and
pipelines (Arditi et al. 2002), or vertical such as e.g. high-rises and towers (Thabet and Beliveau
1994), and projects with repetitive operations (Hegazy 2001). The latter and the first two may
overlap. Well-balanced operations have parallel lines (Stradal and Cacha 1982); effects of
learning (Arditi et al. 2001) or tiring would be visible as concave or convex curved lines. The
amount axis is sometimes called location axis if it represents a spatial dimension and not just a
count. It may be drawn vertically to mimic the height of the facility that is under construction.

1
Need for Algorithm
A detailed review and critiqued of approaches to linear scheduling has been provided by Mattila
and Abraham (1998). Various different analytical methods were employed, including vector
notation (Russell and Caselton 1988), linear programming (Reda 1990), and dynamic
programming (Moselhi and Hassanein 2003). Predominantly graphical methods were presented
by Harmelink and Rowings (1998) under research for the Iowa Department of Transportation
and by Harris and Ioannou (1998). While they yielded similar results, it was concluded that “the
techniques must be computerized in order to become useful and gain acceptance by the industry”
(Mattila and Park 2003, p63). However, computerization alone in form of a software application
may not be sufficient to elevate linear scheduling from being eclipsed by the critical path method
(CPM), which is ubiquitous in construction scheduling (Galloway 2006). For an updated
approach on linear scheduling to be successful, certain desirable attributes need to be fulfilled,
including “that the model be mathematically based”, which ideally should be independent of the
particular graphical representation, that it provide at least the analytical capabilities of CPM, and
that it use terminology that is familiar from CPM (Russell and Wong 1993, p198f). Mattila and
Abraham (1998, p301) underlined that “a need exists to expand the features of LSM to include
some of the features of CPM.” However, in light of the popularity of the straightforward CPM
algorithm that adds durations along paths of precedence and selects the maximum value at each
merge, a new linear scheduling algorithm should not require advanced mathematics knowledge.
This paper therefore adds to the body of knowledge by introducing a mathematical model of
linear schedules based on singularity functions and describes its analytical algorithm that needs
only algebra and basic calculus. The method is flexible and expansible, yet precise and inclusive.

Definition of Singularity Functions

The mathematical operator of singularity functions is known in German as the Föppl or Klammer
(translated: bracket) symbol after August Otto Föppl (1854-1924), a civil engineer and professor
at the Technical University of Munich (Föppl 1927). In English it is known as Macaulay brackets
after William Herrick Macaulay (1853-1936), a mathematician and Fellow of King’s College in
Cambridge (Macaulay 1919). Singularity functions have originally been used for structural
engineering analysis of beams under complex loads (Beer et al. 2006). Equation 1 gives the basic
term of singularity functions, written with pointed brackets as introduced by Wittrick (1965).
⎧ 0 for x < a
x−a =⎨
n
Eq. 1
⎩( x − a ) for x ≥ a
n

where x is the variable under consideration, a is the upper boundary of the current segment, and
the exponent n is the order of the phenomenon that changes at the end of the segment. The
exponential rule a0 = 1 applies to the brackets. Equations 2 and 3 describe how the brackets can
be differentiated and integrated like regular mathematical functions.
d n −1
x − a = n⋅ x − a
n
Eq. 2
dx
1 n +1
∫ x − a dx = n +1 ⋅ x − a + C
n
Eq. 3

where C is an integration constant. Beyond Equations 1 through 3 the following rules apply:
Parts of two singularity functions can be added or subtracted if the cutoff a and exponent n are
identical. A singularity function can be multiplied by any factor s to scale it. An exponent of n =

2
0 indicates a constant phenomenon where s is the intercept and n = 1 indicates a linear
phenomenon where s is the slope.

Advantages of Singularity Functions

Singularity functions are a family of functions with several mathematical properties that are
desirable for the description and analysis of linear schedules:
• They describe the phenomenon of interest based on geometry;
• They separate the components of the phenomenon of interest;
• They capture any changes in progress across time and amount;
• They can include infinitely many segments of different behavior;
• They are continuous and their value is defined for all arguments;
• They can be scaled with any factor and are independent of units;
• They can be added or subtracted for identical orders and cutoffs;
• They can be differentiated and integrated like regular functions;
• They can be evaluated manually or via computer software.

General Model for Singularity Functions

The following section introduces the terminology and general model for applying singularity
function to linear schedules of construction projects. This author proposes to name the new
method the Productivity Scheduling Method (PSM) to reflect its intuitive way of combining time
and amount information via the measure that links them, productivity. Equation 4 provides the
general model for modeling linear and repetitive activities and their buffers with the Föppl-
Macaulay notation, which is shown in Figure 1.
m − 1 ⎡⎛ y yk − yk −1 ⎞ ⎤
y − y0 k +1 − k
y
y(x ) = y0 ⋅ x − 0 + 1 ⋅ x − 0 + ∑ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⋅ x − xk 1 ⎥
0 1
− Eq. 4
x1 − x0 k =1 ⎜ x ⎟
⎣⎢⎝ k + 1 − x k x k − x k − 1 ⎠ ⎦⎥
where y is the time variable of an activity with m segments, x is the amount variable x, y0 is the
intercept, and yk and xk are pairs of coordinates with the numbering index k. The summation term
contains change terms where the present slope yk / xk is replaced with a new slope yk+1 / xk+1. The
buffer of an activity shall be defined as a distance across time or amount that has to remain free
of any successor activities. It can theoretically take on any shape, but often is a constant and thus
has the same shape as the activity to which it is attributed. A pair of activities thus is typically
related via a buffer between them. Such continuous buffers are a generalization of the previous
use where distances were only checked at isolated points between neighboring activities (Harris
and Ioannou 1998). Those buffers were called horizontal and vertical logic constraints (Thabet
and Beliveau 1994), least distances (Harmelink and Rowings 1998), or time and space
dependencies (Arditi et al. 2002). Amount buffers were also called stage buffers (Reda 1990) or
location buffers (Mubarak 2005).

<Figure 1>

Algorithm of Productivity Scheduling Method

The following sections detail each step of the algorithm for the new method as shown in the
flowchart of Figure 2. The paper then describes how the equivalent of a critical path can be
derived from the mathematical analysis.
<Figure 2>

3
Step 1: Capture Schedule Data
Figure 3 shows a linear schedule that was analyzed under research for the Iowa Department of
Transportation (Harmelink and Rowings 1998). Since time can only progress forward, the
algorithm requires that it is considered the dependent variable y. To reflect this mathematical
convention, the amount is plotted on the x-axis and time on the y-axis. This causes the slope to
represent the inverse of the productivity P, which is defined as amount over time. However, the
mathematical model is separate from the graphical representation. If desired, the time axis can be
drawn along the horizontal axis. Numeric values for time and amount and their buffers were not
provided in the original source and have been derived from the diagram in the original source
(Harmelink and Rowings 1998). Activities A through F are performed in a sequential order of
precedence {A, B, C, D, E, F}. All activities are continuous full-span linear activities (Harmelink
and Rowings 1998). Activities C, E, and F each consist of two segments with changes of
productivities between them, from lower to higher for C1 to C2 and from higher to lower for E1 to
E2 and for F1 to F2. The exact parameters are listed in Table 1, with the time distance DT in days,
the amount distance DA in length units, and the time and amount buffers BT and BA. Compare
this schedule with the simple network diagram in Figure 4. The richness of the two-dimensional
information in linear schedules will allow for a deeper analysis than what is possible under CPM.
<Figure 3>
<Table 1>
<Figure 4>

Step 2: Initial Activity and Buffer Equations

Activities A through F are described in Föppl-Macaulay notation in Equations 5 through 10. For
clarity, the brackets are sorted from left to right by ascending segment boundaries and within that
by ascending exponents. The initial equations are generated by following the order of precedence
and by inserting the buffers of Table 1 between neighboring activities. The maximum value of
y(x) of all predecessors is used as the intercept of the successor. This initial configuration is on
the safe side, as it keeps the successor high above its predecessors without any potential
interference. It is analogous to only permitting finish-to-start relationships in CPM. Figure 5
shows this stacking of activities. Buffers are shown as gray shaded areas in the figure.
<Figure 5>
Equations 5 through 10 are the singularity functions for the activities under consideration of their
time buffers, which act in the vertical direction. The start and finish dates of the equations are
listed in Table 2. The time buffer equations are omitted for brevity, but can be recreated by
adding their BT to the intercept of their activity equation. The equivalent activity equations under
consideration of the amount buffers are also omitted, but their respective start and finish dates
are listed in Table 3. Activity F is the last activity and does not carry any buffers. The simple
case of a constant buffer as per Table 1, which is added to the intercept of its activity equation,
can be extended to the general case of a buffer equation whose shape is entirely independent
from its activity. Step 2 would then alternate between activity and buffer equations.
7
y(x ) A = 0 ⋅ x − 0 + ⋅ x − 0
0 1
Eq. 5
50
4
y ( x )B = 8 ⋅ x − 0 + ⋅ x − 0
0 1
Eq. 6
50

4
 6 ⎛ 6 1⎞
y ( x )C = 13 ⋅ x − 0 +
0 1 1
⋅ x − 0 − ⎜ − ⎟ ⋅ x − 35 Eq. 7
35 ⎝ 35 15 ⎠
7
y ( x )D = 21.9 ⋅ x − 0 + ⋅ x − 0
0 1
Eq. 8
50
1 ⎛ 1 4 ⎞
y ( x )E = 30.7 ⋅ x − 0 + ⋅ x − 0 − ⎜ − ⎟ ⋅ x − 30
0 1 1
Eq. 9
30 ⎝ 30 20 ⎠
3 ⎛ 3 3⎞
y ( x )F = 38.7 ⋅ x − 0 + ⋅ x − 0 − ⎜ − ⎟ ⋅ x − 40
0 1 1
Eq. 10
40 ⎝ 40 10 ⎠
<Table 2>
<Table 3>

Simplifying Amount Buffer Equations

Amount buffers act in the horizontal direction, which is equivalent to shifting the singularity
functions for their activities sideways by the value BA. Equation 11, for example, includes the
shift of Δx = 12.5 in the xk values and by deducting it from the maximum value of x to describe
where the plateau of the amount buffer begins. Similar equations for the remaining amount
buffers are omitted for brevity.
0 1 1
⎛ 50 ⎞ 7 ⎛ 50 ⎞ 7 ⎛ 50 ⎞
y ( x )buf A = 0 ⋅ x − ⎜ − ⎟ + ⋅ x − ⎜ − ⎟ − ⋅ x − ⎜ 50 − ⎟
BA
Eq. 11
⎝ 4⎠ 50 ⎝ 4⎠ 50 ⎝ 4⎠
It is possible to simplify such unwieldy amount buffer equations to cover only positive values of
x. Equations 12 through 16 therefore have slightly larger intercepts. They retain the last term of
xmax - Δx to describe the plateaus. Ratios are simplified to the smallest integer fraction.
7 7
y ( x )buf A = 1.75 ⋅ x − 0 + ⋅ x − 0 − ⋅ x − 37.5
BA 0 1 1
Eq. 12
50 50
4 4
y ( x )buf B = 8 ⋅ x − 0 + ⋅ x − 0 − ⋅ x − 37.5
BA 0 1 1
Eq. 13
50 50
1 1
653 6 11 150 1 255
y ( x )buf C =
0 1
⋅ x−0 + ⋅ x−0 − ⋅ x− − ⋅ x−
BA
Eq. 14
49 35 105 7 15 7
1
7 7 260
y ( x )buf D = 19.8 ⋅ x − 0 + ⋅ x − 0 − ⋅ x −
BA 0 1
Eq. 15
50 50 7
1 1
232 1 1 20 1 80
y ( x )buf E
0 1
= ⋅ x−0 + ⋅ x−0 + ⋅ x− − ⋅ x−
BA
Eq. 16
9 30 6 3 5 3

Step 3: Differences of Activities and Buffers

Pairwise differences are calculated between the time and/or amount buffers of all predecessors
and their successor activity while following the order of precedence. In other words, these
difference equations describe the white spaces in Figure 5. If an activity has several
predecessors, the minimum of these differences is used. The rule applies that the terms of two
singularity functions can be added or subtracted if their orders and cutoffs are identical. This
yields Equations 17 through 21 under consideration of time buffers and Equations 22 through 26
under consideration of amount buffers. Note that the intercept values that are obtained from

5
Tables 2 and 3 are somewhat different between the two groups. However, in determining the
distances only the overall shape of the difference equation matters.

Time Buffers
3
y ( x )B − buf A = 8 ⋅ x − 0 −
0 1
⋅ x−0
BT
Eq. 17
50
⎛ 6 4⎞ 11
y ( x )C − buf B = 5 ⋅ x − 0 + ⎜ − ⎟ ⋅ x − 0 −
0 1 1
⋅ x − 35
BT
Eq. 18
⎝ 35 50 ⎠ 105
⎛ 7 6⎞ 11
y ( x )D − buf C = 8.9 ⋅ x − 0 + ⎜ − ⎟ ⋅ x − 0 +
0 1 1
⋅ x − 35
BT
Eq. 19
⎝ 50 35 ⎠ 105
⎛ 1 7 ⎞ 1
y ( x )E − buf D = 8.8 ⋅ x − 0 + ⎜ − ⎟ ⋅ x − 0 + ⋅ x − 30
BT 0 1 1
Eq. 20
⎝ 30 50 ⎠ 6
⎛ 3 1 ⎞ 1 9
y ( x )F − buf E = 8 ⋅ x − 0 + ⎜ − ⎟ ⋅ x − 0 − ⋅ x − 30 + ⋅ x − 40
BT 0 1 1 1
Eq. 21
⎝ 40 30 ⎠ 6 40

Amount Buffers
3 7
y ( x )B − buf A = 5.25 ⋅ x − 0 −
0 1 1
⋅ x − 0 + ⋅ x − 37.5
BA
Eq. 22
50 50
16 11 4
y ( x )C − buf B = 3 ⋅ x − 0 +
0 1 1 1
⋅ x−0 − ⋅ x − 35 + ⋅ x − 37.5
BA
Eq. 23
175 105 50
1 1
229 11 11 150 1 255
y ( x )D − buf C =
0 1
⋅ x−0 − ⋅ x−0 + ⋅ x− + ⋅ x−
BA
Eq. 24
49 350 105 7 15 7
1
8 1 7 260
y ( x )E − buf D = 5.2 ⋅ x − 0 − ⋅ x − 0 + ⋅ x − 30 + ⋅ x −
BA 0 1 1
Eq. 25
75 6 50 7
1 1
38 1 1 20 1 80 9
y ( x )F − buf E
0 1 1
= ⋅ x−0 + ⋅ x−0 − ⋅ x− + ⋅ x− + ⋅ x − 40
BA
Eq. 26
9 24 6 3 5 3 40

Step 4: Differentiation of Differences

The equations of the pairwise differences are differentiated using Equation 2. Equation 27 is the
derivative of Equation 17; Equation 28 is the derivative of Equation 22; the remaining
derivatives are omitted for brevity. Evaluating them cumulatively across the range of positive
values of x from zero to its maximum allows identifying minima where the difference is concave,
i.e. where the differentiated difference changes its sign from negative to positive. Depending on
whether the neighboring activities overall are diverging or converging (Harris and Ioannou
1998), the boundaries x = 0 or x = xmax are also locations of potential minima. Such critical points
where activities touch via their buffers were also called vertices (Harmelink and Rowings 1998).
The x-coordinates of the critical points are listed in Tables 2 and 3 along with the distances Δy
between the buffers of the respective activity segments and the successor activity. Note that the
time buffer of activity E is closest to activity F in two locations, for x = 0 and for x = 40.
′ BT 3
y ( x ) B − buf A = 0 − ⋅ x − 0
0
Eq. 27
50

6
 3 7
y ( x )' BA
0 0
B − buf A = 0 − ⋅ x − 0 + ⋅ x − 37.5 Eq. 28
50 50

Step 5: Final Activity and Buffer Equations

All activity and buffer equations are consolidated to their earliest possible configuration by
deducting the differences of Tables 2 and 3 from their intercepts cumulatively while following
the order of precedence. Activity A is the first activity and does not need to be rewritten. Shifting
the singularity functions of Equations 6 through 10 and their respective time or amount buffers
downward by the sum of Δy to yield the final Equations 29 through 33 accomplishes the
objective of minimizing the overall project duration (makespan). The final time and amount
buffer equations are omitted for brevity, but can be recreated as described above. Evaluating
these equations yields the start and finish points listed in Table 4.
4
y ( x )B = 4 ⋅ x − 0 + ⋅ x − 0
0 1
Eq. 29
50
6 11
y ( x )C = 5 ⋅ x − 0 + ⋅ x − 0 −
0 1 1
⋅ x − 35 Eq. 30
35 105
7
y ( x )D = 8 ⋅ x − 0 + ⋅ x − 0
0 1
Eq. 31
50
1 1
y ( x )E = 13 ⋅ x − 0 + ⋅ x − 0 + ⋅ x − 30
0 1 1
Eq. 32
30 6
3 9
y ( x )F = 16 ⋅ x − 0 + ⋅ x − 0 + ⋅ x − 40
0 1 1
Eq. 33
40 40
The mathematical analysis as formulated under this algorithm is independent of the graphical
representation of the linear schedule, whether the x-axis is drawn horizontally or vertically.
Essentially, the previous application of the algorithm has analyzed two different schedules,
which happened to yield the same final configuration of activities. A mixture of time and amount
buffers inside a single project schedule can be processed by the algorithm in the same manner, as
both types of buffers are modeled with singularity functions. If an activity has both types of
buffers a case distinction is needed to ensure that all constraints are fulfilled. In this case Steps 2
through 5 shall use whichever buffer yields the maximum intercept for a successor activity.
<Table 4 >

Time and Amount Critical Paths

With the activities and their buffer in their final configuration, it is now possible to construct the
equivalent of a critical path under consideration of the scenario with time buffers as per Table 2
and the scenario with amount buffers as per Table 3. The following rules are used for connecting
the critical locations to obtain the critical path for the scenarios with time or amount buffers:
• It is continuous from earliest start point to latest finish point;
• it follows the order of precedence and may split or merge;
• it may include complete activities or segments thereof;
• it jumps parallel to the time axis across time buffers;
• it jumps parallel to the amount axis across amount buffers.
The time and amount critical paths thus obtained are shown in Figures 6 and 7 as thick lines in
the linear schedule. Critical points are marked with small circles. Several interesting observations
can be made. Examining the figures shows that critical points may occur at starts, changes, or

7
finishes of activities. For example, in Figure 6 the change in activity C at x = 35 induces a time
critical point with its neighboring activity D. There is no equivalent relationship for such
“middle-to-middle” link in CPM. Moreover, the previously observed two closest locations at x =
0 and x = 40 causes the time critical path to split and merge again between the two activities E
and F already. Activities A and B are connected by a finish-to-finish link whereas activities B
and C are connected by a start-to-start link. Activity B is therefore fully time critical, same as
activities A and F. Activities C, D, and E are only partially time critical across segments whose
boundaries are induced by time critical points. The amount critical path shown in Figure 7 is
significantly different. It does not split at all. Only activity A is fully amount critical, all others
are partially amount critical. The boundaries at which they change from being non-critical to
critical and vice versa in Figure 7 are completely different from Figure 6. It is therefore prudent
to distinguish time and amount criticality for activities in linear schedules.
<Figure 6>
<Figure 7>
Comparison with Previous Solution
The amount criticality of activities A and B in Figure 7 also differs from the results from the
graphical analysis by Harmelink and Rowings (1998), which found activity A to be amount
critical from its start point to x = 200/7 ≈ 28.57 and activity B to be amount critical from its start
point to x = 12.5. This inconsistency was noted independently by Kallantzis and Lambropoulos
(2004). It was caused by considering the start of an activity to be critical if no link with any
predecessor had otherwise been established in the downward pass (Harmelink and Rowings
1998) and by checking distances only at discrete critical points, not across a continuous equation.
These least time and distance intervals were discrete themselves, but no equivalent of a time
critical path was derived. In a subsequent paper, time distances were checked during the
graphical analysis of an amount critical path (Harmelink 2001). In comparison, time and amount
buffers are clearly distinguished in PSM and their equations are continuous. The algorithm of
PSM automatically calculates the configuration that minimizes the overall project duration
(makespan) under consideration of all constraints from time and/or amount buffers.

Comparison with Critical Path Method

There is no separate forward and backward pass as under CPM (or upward and downward pass,
respectively) to determine the criticality of activities, but an initial configuration from stacking
activities and their buffers and consolidating them to the final configuration by using minimum
differences. CPM requires specific relationships to exist as input for its algorithm, at the least
finish-to-start links. If predecessor and successor activities shall overlap across time to minimize
the overall project duration, other link types such as finish-to-finish, start-to-finish, or start-to-
start are required. On the other hand, the linear schedule analysis only needs productivities and
the order of precedence as input. The PSM algorithm yields the critical points as output, but also
offers the possibility of implementing additional mathematical constraints, e.g. milestones.
The productivity of each activity is explicitly modeled with its singularity function and is clearly
shown in the 2D diagram, but CPM does not reveal the productivities that are underlying its
durations. A time buffer under PSM is similar to a lead or lag time of CPM, where a relationship
receives a minimum duration. Amount buffers cannot be expressed by CPM, since it is a one-
dimensional analysis. Buffers under PSM can be constant or can have an independent shape.
If the resolution of the analysis shall be increased, the activities in a CPM schedule would have
to be broken down into sub-activities at the desired level of detail to determine intermediate start

8
or finish dates (Lucko 2007). The computational effort thus would increase in proportion to the
number of units on the amount axis. On the other hand, each activity is only represented by one
equation under PSM, which can be evaluated at any desired amount. The computational effort of
PSM would only increase if additional changes are uncovered at a higher resolution, which
would then be modeled with additional change terms within the same singularity function.

Summary and Outlook

This paper has presented the basic concepts of PSM, a new approach for mathematically
analyzing schedules containing linear and/or repetitive activities with singularity functions. It has
described the definition and the general model for using singularity functions to model activities
and their buffers. The major steps of the algorithm, including stacking, differences,
differentiation of distances, and consolidation, have been demonstrated with an example from the
literature. The algorithm processes both time and amount buffers, which leads to distinguishing
time and amount criticality from each other. Rules for accordingly determining time and amount
critical paths from calculated critical points have been derived. A comparison with traditional
CPM scheduling found the analysis of linear schedules with singularity functions to be
computationally efficient and of greater depth due to its focus on productivity. Future research
on the new method will examine different types of float, probabilistic activity durations, and
resource allocation and leveling. It is also planned to deploy PSM on an industry case study to
measure its performance and practicability. The mathematical model of PSM may lead to an
increased application of linear scheduling for the planning and control of construction projects.

Acknowledgement
The support of the National Science Foundation (Grant CMMI-0654318) for portions of the
work presented here is gratefully acknowledged. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect
the views of the National Science Foundation.

Appendix I: References
Arditi, D., Albulak, M. Z. (1986). “Line-of-balance scheduling in pavement construction.”
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 112(3): 411-424.
Arditi, D., Tokdemir, O. B., Suh, K. (2001). “Effect of learning on line-of-balance scheduling.”
International Journal of Project Management 19(5): 265-277.
Arditi, D., Tokdemir, O. B., Suh, K. (2002). “Challenges in line-of-balance scheduling.” Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management 128(6): 545-556.
Beer, F. P., Johnston, E. R., DeWolf, J. T. (2006). Mechanics of materials. 4th ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Chrzanowski, E. N., Johnston, D. W. (1986). “Application of linear scheduling.” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 112(4): 476-491.
Dressler, J. (1980). “Construction management in West Germany.” Journal of the Construction
Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 106(CO4): 447-487.
Föppl, A. O. (1927). Vorlesungen über Technische Mechanik. Dritter Band: Festigkeitslehre.
10th ed., B. G. Teubner, Leipzig, Germany.
Galloway, P. D. (2006). “Survey of the Construction Industry Relative to the Use of CPM
Scheduling for Construction Projects.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 7(1): 697-711.

9
Harmelink, D. J., Rowings, J. E. (1998). “Linear scheduling model: Development of controlling
activity path.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 124(4): 263-268.
Harmelink, D. J. (2001). “Linear scheduling model: Float characteristics.” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 127(4): 255-260.
Harris, R. B., Ioannou, P. G. (1998). “Scheduling projects with repeating activities.” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 124(4): 269-278.
Hegazy, T. (2001). “Critical path method – line of balance model for efficient scheduling of
repetitive construction projects.” Transportation Research Record 1761: 124-129.
Kallantzis, A., Lambropoulos, S. (2004). Discussion of “Comparison of linear scheduling model
and repetitive scheduling method” by Kris G. Mattila and Amy Park. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 8(3): 463-467.
Lucko, G. (2007). “Flexible Modeling of Linear Schedules for Integrated Mathematical
Analysis.” Proceedings of the 2007 Winter Simulation Conference, Washington, District
of Columbia, December 9-12, 2007, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
Piscataway, New Jersey, 2159-2167.
Macaulay, W. H. (1919). “Note on the deflection of beams.” Messenger of Mathematics 48(9):
129-130.
Mattila, K. G., Abraham, D. M. (1998). “Linear scheduling: past research efforts and future
directions.” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 5(3): 294-303.
Mattila, K. G., Abraham, D. M. (1998b). “Resource leveling of linear schedules using integer
linear programming.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 124(3): 232-
244.
Mattila, K. G., Park, A. (2003). “Comparison of linear scheduling model and repetitive
scheduling method.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 129(1): 56-
64.
Moselhi, O., Hassanein, A. (2003). “Optimized scheduling of linear projects.” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 129(6): 664-673.
Mubarak, S. (2005). Construction project scheduling and control. Pearson Education / Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
O’Brien, J. J. (1975). “VPM scheduling for high-rise buildings.” Journal of the Construction
Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 101(CO4): 895-905.
Reda, R. M. (1990). “RPM: Repetitive project modeling.” Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management 116(2): 316-330.
Russell, A. D., Caselton, W. F. (1988). “Extensions to linear scheduling optimization.” Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management 114(1): 36-52.
Russell, A. D., Wong, W. C. M. (1993). “New generation of planning structures.” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 119(2): 196-214.
Stradal, O., Cacha, J. (1982). “Time space scheduling method.” Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 108(CO3): 445-457.
Thabet, W. Y., Beliveau, Y. J. (1994). “HVLS: Horizontal and vertical logic scheduling for
multistory projects.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 120(4): 875-
892.
Wittrick, W. H. (1965). “A generalization of Macaulay’s method with applications in structural
mechanics.” AIAA Journal 3(2): 326-330.

Appendix IIa: Notation

10
The following symbols and abbreviations are used in this paper:
a = amount, cutoff value of range
BA = amount buffer
BT = time buffer
C = integration constant
CPM = critical path method
DA = amount distance
DT = time distance
FA = finish amount
FT = finish time
LSM = linear scheduling method
m = number of segments of activity
n = exponent, order of phenomenon
P = productivity (inverse of slope)
PSM = productivity scheduling method
SA = start amount
ST = start time
t = time
x = variable along horizontal axis
y = variable along vertical axis
= brackets of singularity function

Appendix IIb: Superscripts

BA = amount buffer
BT = time buffer

Appendix IIc: Subscripts

buf = buffer of activity
i = current activity
j = successor activity
k = numbering index for segments of activity
max = maximum

List of Figures

Figure 1: General Model for Singularity Function

Figure 2: Flowchart of Analysis Steps
Figure 3: Linear Schedule (Harmelink and Rowings 1998)
Figure 4: Network Diagram
Figure 5: Activity Stacking with Time Buffers
Figure 6: Time Critical Path
Figure 7: Amount Critical Path

List of Tables

Table 1: Activity List

11
Table 2: Initial Configuration for Time Buffers
Table 3: Initial Configuration for Amount Buffers
Table 4: Final Configuration

12
 y [time]
y3

y2
y1
y0

x0 x1 x2 x3
x [amount]

Figure 1: General Model for Singularity Function

13
Step 1: Capture Schedule Data
Create activity list with names, ranges across
time and amount (or productivity), precedence,
and values of time and/or amount buffer

Step 2: Initial Activity and Buffer Equations

Follow precedence; write initial activity and
buffer equations, use predecessor(s)’ maximum
value as new intercept, simplify amount buffers

Step 3: Differences of Activities and Buffers

Follow precedence; calculate pairs of differences
between predecessor(s)’ time and/or amount
buffers and successor in stacked configuration

Step 4: Differentiation of Differences

Differentiate pairs of differences, evaluate them
to find locations of minimum values, indicating
critical points (activities will touch via buffers)

Step 5: Final Activity and Buffer Equations

Follow precedence; subtract minimum values of
differences from activity and buffer equations
(rewrite intercepts) in consolidated configuration

Figure 2: Flowchart of Analysis Steps

14
 y [time]

22 F
F2
20
18 F1 E
E2
16
D
14 E1
12 C
C2
10
8 B
C1 A
6
4
2
0
10 20 30 40 50
x [amount]

Figure 3: Linear Schedule (Harmelink and Rowings)

15
A B C D E F

Figure 4: Network Diagram

16
y [time]

22
20 C
C2
18
16
C1
14
12 B
10
8
A
6
4
2
0
10 20 30 40 50
x [amount]

Figure 5: Activity Stacking with Time Buffers

17
y [time]

22 F
F2
20
18 F1 E
E2
16
D
14 E1
12 C
C2
10
8 B
C1 A
6
4
2
0
10 20 30 40 50
x [amount]

Figure 6: Time Critical Path

18
y [time]

22 F
F2
20
18 F1 E
E2
16
D
14 E1
12 C
C2
10
8 B
C1 A
6
4
2
0
10 20 30 40 50
x [amount]

Figure 7: Amount Critical Path

19
 Table 1: Activity List

Name Successor Segment DT DA BT BA

A B A1 7 50 1.0 50/4 = 12.50
B C B1 4 50 1.0 50/4 = 12.50
C D C1 6 35 1.9 95/7 ≈ 13.57
C2 1 15 1.9 95/7 ≈ 13.57
D E D1 7 50 1.8 90/7 ≈ 12.86
E F E1 1 30 3.0 70/3 ≈ 23.33
E2 4 20 3.0 70/3 ≈ 23.33
F - F1 3 40 N/A N/A
F2 3 10 N/A N/A

20
Table 2: Initial Configuration for Time Buffers

Time Buffers Critical Time

Name Segment ST FT Points Distance
A A1 00.0 07.0 50 4.0
B B1 08.0 12.0 00 4.0
C C1 13.0 19.0 35 5.9
C2 19.0 20.0 35 5.9
D D1 21.9 28.9 30 3.8
E E1 30.7 31.7 00 5.0
E2 31.7 35.7 40 5.0
F F1 38.7 41.7 - -
F2 41.7 44.7 - -

21
 Table 3: Initial Configuration for Amount Buffers

Amount Buffers Critical Time

Name Segment ST FT Points Distance
A A1 00 07 75/2 = 37.50 3.0
B B1 07 11 00.00 3.0
C C1 11 17 150/7 = 21.43 6.3
C2 17 18 150/7 = 21.43 6.3
D D1 18 25 30.00 2.0
E E1 25 26 80/7 = 26.67 2.0
E2 26 30 80/7 = 26.67 2.0
F F1 30 33 - -
F2 33 36 - -

22
 Table 4: Final Configuration

Name Segment P ST FT SA FA
A A1 7.142 00 07 00 50
B B1 12.500 04 08 00 50
C C1 5.833 05 11 00 35
C2 15.000 11 12 35 50
D D1 7.142 8 15 00 50
E E1 30.000 13 14 00 30
E2 5.000 14 18 30 50
F F1 13.333 16 19 00 40
F2 3.333 19 22 40 50

23