Precedence permutation patterns creating criticality constellations: Exploring a conjecture on nonlinear activities with continuous links

Open access


The inaugural challenge of the 2016 Creative Construction Conference has posed two related questions on how many possible criticality constellations with different behaviors for delays and acceleration exist and how said constellations can occur for nonlinearly and monotonously progressing activities that have continuous relations. This paper systematically solves these questions by performing a thorough literature review, assembling theoretical foundations for link constellations, performing a computer simulation of all possible permutations, and providing a mathematical proof by contradiction. It is found that (for the initially assumed self-contained activities in a network schedule that exhibit only a linearly growing production), three newly hypothesized criticality constellations cannot exist. Nonlinear activity constellations with diverging or converging relative pro­ductivities are examined next. Lags in networks become buffers in linear schedules. It is found that a nonlinear curvature of the progress may induce middle-to-middle relations besides those between start and finish. If multiple curvatures are allowed, then partial segments can form relations, which increase the number of criticality constellations. This paper is extended from the 2017 Procedia Engineering conference version.


  • Allen, J. F. (1983). Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Communications of ACM, 26(11), pp. 832-843.

  • Awwad, R. E., & Ioannou, P. G. (2007). Floats in RSM: Repetitive scheduling method. In: Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress, Grand Bahama Island, The Commonwealth of the Bahamas, May 6-8, 2007, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 1133-1140.

  • Bokor, O., & Hajdu, M. (2015). Investigation of critical activities in a network with point-to-point relations. Procedia Engineering, 123, pp. 198-207.

  • Crandall, K. C. (1973). Project planning with precedence lead/lag factors. Project Management Quarterly, 4(3), PMI-18-PMI-27.

  • Fazar, W. (1962). The origin of PERT. The Controller, 1962(December), pp. 598-621.

  • Fondahl, J. W. (1962). A Non-Computer Approach to the Critical Path Method for the Construction Industry, 2nd ed., November 1961, Revised 1962, Technical Report No. 9, Prepared under research contract NBy-17798, Bureau of Yards and Docks, U.S. Navy, Distributed by The Construction Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 133 pp.

  • Francis, A. (2004). La modélisation chronographique de la planification des projets de construction. Dissertation, École de Technologie Supérieure, Montréal, QC, Canada, 331 pp.

  • Hajdu, M. (1997). Network Scheduling Techniques for Construction Project Management. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

  • Hajdu, M. (2015a). Continuous precedence relations for better modelling overlapping activities. Procedia Engineering, 123, pp. 216-223.

  • Hajdu, M. (2015b). History and some latest developments of precedence diagramming method. Organization, Technology and Management in Construction, 7(2), pp. 1302-1314.

  • Hajdu, M. (2015c). One relation to rule them all: The point-to-point precedence relation that substitutes the existing ones. In: Proceedings of the CSCE International Construction Specialty Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 8-10, 2015, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montréal, QC, Canada, pp. 827-837.

  • Hajdu, M. (2016). How many types of critical activities exist? A conjecture that needs a proof. In: Presentation, Creative Construction Conference, Budapest, Hungary, June 25-28, 2016, Diamond Congress, Budapest, Hungary.

  • Hajdu, M., Lucko, G., & Su, Y. (2017). Singularity functions for continuous precedence relations and nonlinear activity-time-production functions. Automation in Construction, 79(July), pp. 31-38.

  • Hajdu, M., Skibniewski, M. J., Vanhoucke, M., Horvath, A., & Brilakis, I. (2016). How many types of critical activities exist? A conjecture that needs a proof.” Procedia Engineering, 164, pp. 3-11.

  • Harmelink, D. J. (2001). Linear scheduling model: Float characteristics. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(4), pp. 255-260.

  • Harris, R. B. (1978). Precedence and Arrow Networking Techniques for Construction. John Wiley and Sons, New York City, NY.

  • IBM. (1964). User’s Manual for IBM 1440 Project Control System (PCS). International Business Machines, Armonk, NY.

  • Kallantzis, A., & Lambropoulos, S. (2004). Critical path determination by incorporation minimum and maximum time and distance constraints into linear scheduling. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11(3), pp. 211-222.

  • Kelley, J. W., & Walker, M. R. (1959). Critical path planning and scheduling. In: Proceedings of the Eastern Joint Computer Conference, Boston, MA, December 1-3, 1959, National Joint Computer Committee, Association for Computing Machinery, New York City, NY, 16, pp. 160-173.

  • Kelley, J. W., & Walker, M. R. (1989). The origins of CPM: A personal history. pmNetwork, 3(2), pp. 7-22.

  • Kim, S.-Y. (2012). CPM schedule summarizing function of the beeline diagramming method. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 11(2), pp. 367-374.

  • Lucko, G. (2008). Analysis of linear schedules with singularity functions versus critical path method. In: Presented at PMI College of Scheduling Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, May 4-7, 2008, Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA, 12 pp.

  • Lucko, G. (2009). Productivity scheduling method: Linear schedule analysis with singularity functions. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(4), pp. 246-253.

  • Lucko, G., & Gattei, G. (2016). Line-of-balance against linear scheduling: Critical comparison. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Management, Procurement and Law, 169(1), pp. 26-44.

  • Lucko, G., & Peña Orozco, A. A. (2009). Float types in linear schedule analysis with singularity functions. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(5), pp. 368-377

  • Mauchly, J. W. (1962). Critical-path scheduling. Chemical Engineering, April 16, pp. 139-154.

  • Mubarak, S. A. (2015). Construction Project Scheduling and Control, 3rd edn. Pearson/Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

  • Plotnick, F. L. (2006). RDM - relationship diagramming method. In: Transactions of the AACE Annual Meeting, Last Vegas, NV, June 19-22, 2006, Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International, Morgantown, WV, PS.08.1- PS.08.10.

  • Ponce de Leon, G. (2008). Graphical planning method (A new network-based planning/scheduling paradigm). In: Presented at PMI College of Scheduling Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, May 4-7, 2008, Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA, 10 pp.

  • Reis, J. S., & Lucko, G. (2016). Productivity scheduling method with maximum constraints. International Journal of Construction Management, 16(1), pp. 77-93.

  • Rösch, W. (1970). Roy-Typ und Fondahl-Typ: Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Tätigkeitsgraphen in Bauwesen. Dissertation, Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina of Brunswick, Brunswick, Germany, 144 pp.

  • Roy, G. B. (1959). Contribution de la théorie des graphes á l’étude de certains problémes linéaries. Comptes Rendus de Séance de l’Académie des Sciences, 248(April 27, 1959), pp. 2437-2439.

  • Wiest, J. D. (1981). Precedence diagramming method: Some unusual characteristics and their implications for project managers. Journal of Operations Management, 1(3), pp. 121-130.

Organization, Technology and Management in Construction: an International Journal

Co-published with University of Zagreb, Faculty of Civil Engineering

Journal Information


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 9 9 9
PDF Downloads 1 1 1