Joint optimization of the high-end equipment development task process and resource allocation

  • Xilin Zhang
  • Yuejin Tan
  • Zhiwei YangEmail author


Considering the various uncertainties in the implementation process of high-end equipment development tasks, the Monte Carlo simulation method is used to simulate the execution process of these tasks. Parameters such as the average duration and cost of the simulation output are used to evaluate the fitness of individuals, and consequently, the development process is optimized using the NSGA-III algorithm. By comparing the optimization results of the development task process under different quantities of resources, the impact of the quantity of resources on the optimization results of the development task process is analyzed. With a view to obtain a more satisfactory development task process, the PSO algorithm is nested into NSGA-III. The Pareto front solution set is obtained from the optimization of the task process. The PSO algorithm is applied to optimize the resource allocation for the development task process. Joint optimization of the high-end equipment development task process and resource allocation is carried out. Finally, the effectiveness of the proposed method is verified by an example.


High-end equipment development task Process optimization NSGA-III Resource allocation Joint optimization 



The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for the valuable comments and suggestions which help us to improve this paper. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation (NSF) of China (No. 71690233) and National Key R&D Program of China under Grant nos. SQ2017YFSF070185.


  1. Abdelsalam HM, Rasmy MH, Mohamed HG (2014) A simulation-based time reduction approach for resource constrained design structure matrix. Int J Model Optim 4(1):51–55Google Scholar
  2. Banks A, Vincent J, Anyakoha C (2007) A review of particle swarm optimization. Part I: background and development. Nat Comput 6(4):467–484MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Banks A, Vincent J, Anyakoha C (2008) A review of particle swarm optimization. Part II: hybridisation, combinatorial, multicriteria and constrained optimization, and indicative applications. Nat Comput 7(1):109–124MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Berthaut F, Pellerin R, Perrier N et al (2014) Time-cost trade-offs in resource-constraint project scheduling problems with overlapping modes. Int J Project Organ Manag 6(3):215–236Google Scholar
  5. Browning R (2016) Design structure matrix extensions and innovations: a survey and new opportunities. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 63(1):27–52MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Browning TR, Eppinger SD (2002) Modeling impacts of process architecture on cost and schedule risk in product development. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 49(4):428–442Google Scholar
  7. Browning TR, Yassine AA (2010a) Resource-constrained multi-project scheduling: priority rule performance revisited. Int J Prod Econ 126(2):212–228Google Scholar
  8. Browning TR, Yassine AA (2010b) A random generator of resource-constrained multi-project network problems. J Sched 13(2):143–161zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Browning TR, Yassine AA (2016) Managing a portfolio of product development projects under resource constraints. Decis Sci 47(2):333–372Google Scholar
  10. Chen DY, Qiu WH, Yang Q et al (2008) DSM-based complex product development process optimization using genetic algorithm. Control Decis 23(8):910–914zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheng H, Chu X (2012) Task assignment with multiskilled employees and multiple modes for product development projects. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 61(1):391–403Google Scholar
  12. Cho SH, Eppinger SD (2005) A simulation-based process model for managing complex design projects. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 52(3):316–328Google Scholar
  13. Ciro GC, Dugardin F, Yalaoui F et al (2016) A NSGA-II and NSGA-III comparison for solving an open shop scheduling problem with resource constraints. IFAC Papersonline 49(12):1272–1277Google Scholar
  14. Collins ST, Yassine AA, Borgatti SP (2009) Evaluating product development systems using network analysis. Syst Eng 12(1):55–68Google Scholar
  15. Cook I, Coattes G (2016) Optimising the time-based design structure matrix using a divide and hybridise algorithm. J Eng Des 27(4–6):306–332Google Scholar
  16. Creemers S (2015) Minimizing the expected makespan of a project with stochastic activity durations under resource constraints. J Sched 18(3):263–273MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Danilovic M, Browning TR (2007) Managing complex product development projects with design structure matrices and domain mapping matrices. Int J Project Manag 25(3):300–314Google Scholar
  18. Deb K, Jain H (2014) An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point based non-dominated sorting approach, part I: solving problems with box constraints. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 18(4):577–601Google Scholar
  19. Dridi O, Krichen S, Guitouni A (2014) A multiobjective hybrid ant colony optimization approach applied to the assignment and scheduling problem. Int Trans Oper Res 21(6):935–953MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Gong YJ, Zhang J, Chung SH et al (2012) An efficient resource allocation scheme using particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 16(6):801–816Google Scholar
  21. Jain H, Deb K (2014) An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point based non-dominated sorting approach, part II: handling constraints and extending to an adaptive approach. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 18(4):602–622Google Scholar
  22. Joglekar NR, Ford DN (2005) Product development resource allocation with foresight. Eur J Oper Res 160(1):72–87zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Kangaspunta J, Salo A (2014) Expert judgments in the cost-effectiveness analysis of resource allocations: a case study in military planning. OR Spectrum 36(1):161–185MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Karniel A, Reich Y (2013) Multi-level modelling and simulation of new product development processes. J Eng Des 24(3):185–210Google Scholar
  25. Leus R, Herroelen W (2004) Stability and resource allocation in project planning. IIE Trans 36(7):667–682Google Scholar
  26. Li HB, Xu Z, Yu J (2015) Multi-objective simulation optimization for the process of R&D projects based on DSM. Syst Eng Theory Pract 35(1):142–149Google Scholar
  27. Lin J, Chai KH, Wong YS et al (2008) A dynamic model for managing overlapped iterative product development. Eur J Oper Res 185(1):378–392zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Lin J, Qian Y, Cui W et al (2010) Overlapping and communication policies in product development. Eur J Oper Res 201(3):737–750zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Maier JF, Wynn DC, Biedermann W et al (2014) Simulating progressive iteration, rework and change propagation to prioritise design tasks. Res Eng Des 25(4):283–307Google Scholar
  30. Meier C, Browning TR, Yassine AA et al (2015) The cost of speed: work policies for crashing and overlapping in product development projects. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 62(2):237–255Google Scholar
  31. Meier C, Yassine AA, BrowningT R et al (2016) Optimizing time–cost trade-offs in product development projects with a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm. Res Eng Des 27(4):1–20Google Scholar
  32. Nasr W, Yassine A, Kasm OA (2016) An analytical approach to estimate the expected duration and variance for iterative product development projects. Res Eng Des 27(1):55–71Google Scholar
  33. Palacios JJ, González-Rodríguez I, Vela CR et al (2014) Robust swarm optimisation for fuzzy open shop scheduling. Nat Comput 13(2):145–156MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Qian Y, Lin J (2014) Organizing interrelated activities in complex product development. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 61(2):298–309Google Scholar
  35. Rebentisch E, Schuh G, Riesener M et al (2016) Assessment of changes in technical systems and their effects on cost and duration based on structural complexity. Procedia Cirp 55:35–40Google Scholar
  36. Steward DV (1981) The design structure system: a method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 3:71–74Google Scholar
  37. Thiruvady D, Ernst AT, Singh G (2016) Parallel ant colony optimization for resource constrained job scheduling. Ann Oper Res 242(2):355–372MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Viana A, Sousa JPD (2000) Using metaheuristics in multiobjective resource constrained project scheduling. Eur J Oper Res 120(2):359–374MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Wynn DC, Echert CM (2017) Perspectives on iteration in design and development. Res Eng Des 28(2):153–184Google Scholar
  40. Xiong J, Liu J, Chen YW et al (2014) A knowledge-based evolutionary multiobjective approach for stochastic extended resource investment project scheduling problems. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 18(5):742–763Google Scholar
  41. Xiong J, Leus R, Yang ZY et al (2016) Evolutionary multi-objective resource allocation and scheduling in the Chinese navigation satellite system project. Eur J Oper Res 251(2):662–675MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Yang Q, Yao T, Lu T et al (2014) An overlapping-based design structure matrix for measuring interaction strength and clustering analysis in product development project. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 61(1):159–170Google Scholar
  43. Yin PY, Wang JY (2006) A particle swarm optimization approach to the nonlinear resource allocation problem. Appl Math Comput 183(1):232–242MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Yuan Y, Xu H, Wang B (2014) An improved NSGA-III procedure for evolutionary many-objective optimization. In: Conference on genetic & evolutionary computation. ACM, pp 661–668Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Systems EngineeringNational University of Defense TechnologyChangshaChina
  2. 2.Business SchoolJiangsu Normal UniversityXuzhouChina

Personalised recommendations