After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 340340 - feature request: resource leveling
feature request: resource leveling
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 132917
Product: planner
Classification: Other
Component: General
0.13
Other Linux
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: planner-maint
planner-maint
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2006-05-01 20:42 UTC by Joe VanAndel
Modified: 2009-05-21 23:50 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Joe VanAndel 2006-05-01 20:42:13 UTC
It would be very helpful for planner to do "resource leveling".  That is, if I schedule independent tasks for the same "resource"/person, planner should give me a mechanism to avoid overscheduling the person.  Currently, I have to create artificial dependencies between tasks, or artificially adjust a task start date.  Planner should let me automatically adjust start times (perhaps based on task priorities) and/or reduce the percentage time spent on several tasks.
Comment 1 Jon Guiton 2007-03-13 11:02:25 UTC
Planner uses an activity on node model. However, the algorithms for managing projects were developed back in the 60s for use by activity on arc networks e.g. CPM/PERT. 

This makes a lot of things tricky - we need to remember that the representation used by planner is the DUAL of the project network.

Resource levelling is NP-HARD that is it is even worse than NP-Complete. Even for small numbers of resources levelling is VERY time consuming. It is also a whole network operation. 

To be useful, planner MUST include resource levelling - some commentators are correct when they say `that is what a planner is'. Also, it should support uncertain durations if it is going to be useful.

Question: Can the present design be used to support these functions ?
Ans: I really don't know, but somehow we need to prove 
Comment 2 Jon Guiton 2007-03-13 11:17:56 UTC
Planner uses an activity on node model. However, the algorithms for managing projects were developed back in the 60s for use by activity on arc networks e.g. CPM/PERT. 

This makes a lot of things tricky - we need to remember that the representation used by planner is the DUAL of the project network.

Resource levelling is NP-HARD that is it is even worse than NP-Complete. Even for small numbers of resources levelling is VERY time consuming. It is also a whole network operation. 

To be useful, planner MUST include resource levelling - some commentators are correct when they say `that is what a planner is'. Also, it should support uncertain durations if it is going to be useful.

Question: Can the present design be used to support these functions ?
Ans: I really don't know :(

Possibility 1. No. I think this is a real possibility in which case we would need to be realistic about the need for a planner that is consistent with the operations research methodology.

Possibility 2. There are newer algorithms for task on node networks (there should be a collection of theory papers associated with Planner!). 

Possibility 3. Yes, probably though we need some view of the plan network i.e. a view of the inverse dual network of the Planner representation. 

 a) There should be a unique start node
 b) There should be a unique end node
 c) Sometimes dummy activities are needed to ensure that no two tasks (represented as nodes in planner) connect the same two nodes (represented as ??? in planner - the node relations I suppose).

Given that this were true then resource levelling can be solved in exponential time using a linear program solver like GLPK or lpsolve. Usually heuristics are used for this. Then there would be a button or menu option called `Level Resources' to press.

I'm happy to review the operations research stuff and post back but I have a bad feeling that resource levelling could have been a better starting point for a planner than a ghantt chart (which is for displaying properties of the net you have) and that the architecture is weak.

On the +ve side - nice ui and the API should hold up ok. 
Comment 3 Taylor Braun-Jones 2007-12-03 04:18:45 UTC
I would like to second that this is an important feature in a project planner and look forward the release when it is implemented.
Comment 4 Alexandre Franke 2009-05-21 23:50:09 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 132917 ***