Main Article Content


The final agreement on the timing of project completion is one of the obvious problems between project managers and their clients. There have been numerous reports of customers requesting shorter completion times than previously announced. This request will definitely affect the three project factors of overall cost, final quality of the project, and risk of implementation. This paper proposes a multipurpose cumulative complex linear programming to minimize "project overhead," "increase projects total risk" and "increase overall project quality" due to “time constraints." In other words, the proposed study is fully implemented among the four goals mentioned to shorten the project duration. Computational experiments have also been used to evaluate the performance of the proposed model. The main objective of this paper is to optimize the integration of the four factors of the survival pyramid (time, cost, quality, and risk) in industrial projects simultaneously under uncertainty. An innovative solution based on the multi-objective genetic algorithm (NSGA-II) is presented. This model is then used to solve a problem in another study and its results, strengths, and weaknesses compared to the previous model are evaluated. The results show the performance of the proposed model in all four factors is better than the previous models.


Sustainable decision making Model development NSGA-II Survival pyramid

Article Details

How to Cite
Safaei, M. (2020). Sustainable Survival Pyramid Model to Balance Four Factors of Cost, Quality, Risk and Time Limitation in Project Management under Uncertainty. Pakistan Journal of Statistics and Operation Research, 16(2), 287-294.


  1. Afshar, A., Kaveh, A., & Shoghli, O. (2007). Multi-objective optimization of time-cost-quality using a multi-colony ant algorithm. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 8(2), 113-124.
  2. Babu, A., & Suresh, N. (1996). Project management with time, cost, and quality considerations. European Journal of Operational Research, 88(2), 320-327.
  3. Bahr al-Alum, M., Tehrani, R., & Hanifi, F. (2011). Designing a Metabolism Algorithm for Selecting the Optimal Portfolio Tracking Portfolio of the Tehran Stock Exchange. Accounting and Auditing Research, 4(13), 17-39.
  4. Baptiste, P., & Demassey, S. (2004). Tight LP bounds for resource-constrained project scheduling. OR Spectrum, 26(2), 251-262.
  5. Fan, M., Lin, N., & Sheu, C. (2008). Choosing a project risk-handling strategy: An analytical model. International Journal of Production Economics, 112(2), 700-713.
  6. Filyzadeh, M., Mahmoudi, A., Bagherpour, M., & Li, D. (2018). Project crashing using a fuzzy multi-objective model considering time, cost, quality and risk under fast tracking technique: A case study. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 35(3), 3615-3631.
  7. Fuleky, P. (2006). Anatomy of a Cobb‐Douglas Type Production/Utility Function in Three Dimensions. Mimeo: University of Washington.
  8. Gembicki, F., & Haimes, Y. (1975). Approach to performance and sensitivity multiobjective optimization: The goal attainment method. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 20(6), 769-771.
  9. Gembicki, F., & Haimes, Y. (1975). approach to performance and sensitivity multiobjective optimization: The goal attainment method. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 20(6), 769-771.
  10. Hebert, J., & Deckro, R. (2011). Combining contemporary and traditional project management tools to resolve a project scheduling problem. Computers & Operations Research, 38(1), 21-32.
  11. Herroelen, W., Demeulemeester, E., & De Reyck, B. (1999). A Classification Scheme for Project Scheduling. Project Scheduling, 14, 1-26.
  12. Iranmanesh, H., Skandari, M., & Allahverdiloo, M. (2008). Finding Pareto optimal front for the multi-mode time cost quality trade-off in project scheduling. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 40(1), 346-350.
  13. KarimiAzari, A., Mousavi, N., Mousavi, S., & Hosseini, S. (2011). Risk assessment model selection in the construction industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9105-9111.
  14. Kerzner, H. (2017). Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. (12 ed.). USA: John Wiley & Sons.
  15. Mahmoudi, A., & Feylizadeh, M. (2018). A grey mathematical model for crashing of projects by considering time, cost, quality, risk and law of diminishing returns. Grey Systems: Theory and Application, 8(3), 272-294.
  16. Mina, H., Nasrollahi, M., Mirabedin, S., & S.H, P.-M. (2014). An Integrated Fuzzy Analytic Network Process Approach for Green Supplier Selection: A case Study of Petrochemical Industry.
  17. Mohammadipour, F., & Sadjadi, S. (2016). Project cost–quality–risk tradeoff analysis in a time-constrained problem. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 95(1), 111-121.
  18. Nasrollahi, M., & J, R. (2019). A mathematical model for designing an integrated pharmaceutical supply chain with maximum expected coverage under uncertainty. Operational Research, 1-28.
  19. Nasrollahi, M., Mina, H., Ghodsi, R., & Iranmanesh, S. H. (2016). Proposing a Hybrid Model for Resource Leveling by Multi-Criteria Differential Evolution Algorithm under Uncertainty. Journal of Production & Operations Management, 155-178.
  20. Nasrollahi, M., Razmi, J., & Ghodsi, R. (2018). A Computational Method for Measuring Transport Related Carbon Emissions in a Healthcare Supply Network under Mixed Uncertainty: An Empirical Study. Promet-Traffic & Transportation, 693-708.
  21. Nasrollahi, M., Razmi, J., & Shamekhi Amiri, A. (2015). A Multi-Objective Genetic Approach Based on ELECTRE Method for Facility Layout Problem. Applied Mathematics in Engineering, Management, and Technology, 381-389.
  22. Project Management Institute. (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. Atlanta: PMI Book Service Center.
  23. Singh, G., & Ernst, A. (2011). Resource constraint scheduling with a fractional shared resource. Operations Research Letters, 35(9), 363-368.