Transform Schemes Applied on Non-Finish-to-Start Logical

Relationships in Project Network Diagrams

Ming Lu, M.ASCE1; and Hoi-Ching Lam2

Abstract: Critical path analysis on a project network having non-finish-to-start 共FS兲 logical relationships with lags is generally referred
to as precedence diagram method 共PDM兲. A PDM-based scheduling analysis is facilitated by mainstream project scheduling software
共such as P3兲. However, PDM compounds total float determination and interpretation, potentially causing anomalous effects on critical
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

path identification. In the present research, we generalize those particular circumstances that entail applying non-FS logical relationships
on construction projects. We then propose generic transform schemes such that non-FS relationships in a PDM network can be detected
and transformed—automatically—into equivalent FS. Moreover, we provide analytical proofs for the transform schemes being proposed
to justify the logical equivalency between the original PDM network and the transformed activity-on-node 共AON兲 network only having
FS logical relationships. A PDM network example demonstrates that confusions would arise in interpreting P3’s critical path analysis
results, but not in the case of the transformed AON counterpart. In conclusion, the transform schemes being proposed lead to better
understanding of the scheduling results when critical path analysis is performed on a PDM network. This also paves the way for
conducting further sophisticated scheduling analysis 共such as resource loading or Monte Carlo simulation兲 on a PDM network.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲CO.1943-7862.0000062
CE Database subject headings: Scheduling; Critical path method; Construction management.

Introduction and Background
Since its formalization in the 1950’s, the critical path method
共CPM兲 has contributed significantly to planning, control, and per-
formance monitoring of construction projects. To enable CPM-
based scheduling analysis, it is a prerequisite to apply network
diagramming techniques so to represent a project with activity
nodes linked by precedence relationships that are imposed by
construction technology or any other logical constraints on the
project. The resulting network diagram serves as a model of a
complex project system and facilitates analysis and control of
time, resource, and cost. In comparison with the activity-on-arrow
format, activity-on-node 共AON兲 network diagramming does not
require the use of any artificial dummy activities and allows the
planner to specify more than one logical relationship between
activities.
Moreover, AON lends itself well to the object oriented pro-
gramming scheme as implemented in major project management
software systems 共i.e., each activity is a specific instance of the
generic “activity” object definition兲. Herein, we present a brief
history of AON to shed light on how AON originated and evolved
1
Associate Professor, Construction Engineering and Management,
Dept. of Civil and Structural Engineering, Hong Kong Polytechnic Univ.,
Hong Kong, China 共corresponding author兲. E-mail: cemlu@
polyu.edu.hk
2
Research Associate, Dept. of Civil and Structural Engineering, Hong
Kong Polytechnic Univ., Hong Kong, China. E-mail: ceching@
polyu.edu.hk
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 24, 2008; approved on
March 4, 2009; published online on August 14, 2009. Discussion period
open until February 1, 2010; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 135, No. 9, September 1, 2009.
©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/2009/9-863–873/$25.00.
to a more complicated form called precedence diagram method
共PDM兲.
After the circle-and-connecting-line technique 共later called
AON兲 was introduced in a Navy Bureau of Yards and Docks
study in the 1960’s, Fondahl 共1961兲 recognized that AON-based
critical path analysis could not allow overlapping unless activities
were further divided. The PDM was introduced in a 1964 IBM
publication 共the user’s manual for the IBM 1440 program兲, using
three relationships 关finish-to-start 共FS兲, start-to-start 共SS兲, and
finish-to-finish 共FF兲兴 and positive lags to depict partially concur-
ring or overlapped working progress between activities 共Moder
and Philips 1970兲. The start-to-finish 共SF兲 relationship and nega-
tive lags were later added to the PDM by Ponce-Campos 共1970兲.
The PDM permits modeling mutually dependent activities, which
are performed partially in parallel instead of in series. In short,
compared with conventional AON networks featuring FS logic
only, PDM networks with “smart” relationships are more com-
pact, flexible, and realistic to represent construction projects 共i.e.,
Harris 1978; Wiest 1981; Valls and Lino 2001; Lock 2003兲.
Nowadays, popular commercial CPM scheduling software
systems—such as Primavera Project Planner 共P3, Oracle Corp-
oration, Redwood Shores, Calif.兲 and Microsoft Project 共MS
Project, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Wash.兲—provide the
functionality for defining four relationship types between activi-
ties.
Harris 共1978兲 and Ioannou and Harris 共2003兲 emphasized the
need for the use of two links 共SS and FF兲 between two overlap-
ping activities to model consecutive construction processes re-
peating on multiple work units. Notably, MS Project only permits
specifying one relationship between two activities, while P3 is
deemed more construction friendly by providing the flexibility of
connecting two activities with more than one relationship. In Fig.
1, we generalize two common cases for possible use of two smart
relationships to connect two construction activities. The case of
“SS/FF staggered” uses a pair of SS/FF to relate two partially

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009 / 863

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2009.135:863-873.

 FF lag
A Harris 2003兲.
SS lag
B lous effects on critical path identification. Compared with the
a) SS/FF staggered
FF lag
A rowski 1992; Herroelen et al. 1998兲. Although these additional
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
SS lag
B work 共Oberlender 2000兲. Kim and Garza 共2005兲 applied heuristic
b) SS/FF enveloped
Fig. 1. Two scenarios for possible use of two smart relationships in
connecting two activities
concurring activities. Note that FS technological dependency
binds the two activities in regard to a particular unit of work. To
make it more clear, let us consider two foundation tasks in con-
structing a storage building: Activity A “footing excavation” pre-
cedes Activity B “footing concreting” with SS and FF, which bind
the start ends and finish ends of the two activity nodes. The sec-
ond “SS/FF enveloped” case differs in that A precedes B on the
start ends with a SS, while B precedes A on the finish ends with a
FF. As such, Activity B can be seen as being enveloped inside
Activity A. One such practical example is to install a bulky boiler
inside a building services room being constructed: Activity B of
“installing the boiler” is logically enveloped inside Activity A of
“erecting drywall and door” with the use of SS/FF pair.
An industry survey 共Galloway 2006兲 found that construction
professionals tend to prefer the use of smart relationships 共non-FS
logic with lags兲 to describe the partially overlapping logic be-
tween activities or to model simple repetitive projects comprising
a small number of construction units. The ensuing scheduling
analysis is readily facilitated by mainstream CPM computer soft-
ware such as P3. Notably, the present research mainly bears rel-
evance to those projects that lend themselves well to CPM and
related computer tools such as P3. For example, when two work
units are concerned in construction planning, the SS/FF staggered
PDM network 共Fig. 1兲 is sufficient to express the sequence for
executing the two units along with specifying the time duration
for each unit 共which is demonstrated in a non-FS transform
scheme discussed in later sections兲. Given more than three work
units that may differ from one another in terms of work content
and time duration, all work units are bundled inside a PDM ac-
tivity, except for the first one whose time duration can be inferred
from the lag time of SS. Thus, PDM fails to express the execution
sequence among different work units and define time duration for
each work unit in an explicit way. In the case that the planner
intends to schedule complicated repetitive projects comprising a
large number of construction units, instead of CPM, repetitive
scheduling methods 共e.g., techniques based on balancing produc-
tion lines兲 should be employed, with attaining resource work con-
864 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2009.135:863-873.
tinuity as one main consideration in scheduling 共Ioannou and
The smart precedence relationships of PDM potentially com-
plicate float determination and interpretation, and cause anoma-
simple AON format, PDM diagram users have to think harder to
understand the logic depicted, and as a result, “PDM, in its so-
phistication, takes a step backward in communication capability”
共O’Brien and Plotnick 1999兲. One straightforward solution is to
transform non-FS relationships with lags into FS relationships at
the expense of adding additional activities prior to standard for-
ward and backward pass calculations 共Elmaghraby and Kambu-
activities may appear relatively cumbersome, the resulting net-
work diagram provides a clearer understanding of the sequence of
rules to deal with the forward and backward analysis on simple
PDM networks that schedule two or three activities on two dif-
ferent activity calendars. Their analysis of imposing multiple ac-
tivity calendars on PDM networks was much compounded by the
presence of smart relationships with lags. They maintained “if the
lag time property does not correspond to the predecessor’s calen-
dar, the lag can be replaced with an activity that has a different
calendar to correctly represent the lag property.”
It is noteworthy that transformation of non-FS relationships
has been dealt with on case-specific basis in the literature; generic
transform schemes are yet to be formalized for analytically trans-
forming non-FS relationships with lags into straightforward FS
with zero lag. In the present research, we generalize those par-
ticular circumstances that entail applying non-FS logical relation-
ships on construction projects. We then propose generic transform
schemes such that non-FS relationships in a project network can
be detected and transformed—automatically—into equivalent FS.
The proposed transform schemes not only lead to better under-
standing of the scheduling results when CPM analysis is per-
formed on a PDM network with smart relationships, but also pave
the way for conducting sophisticated scheduling analysis based
on the transformed AON network, including 共1兲 imposing activity
calendars and resource calendars, 共2兲 resource leveling and allo-
cation under resource availability constraints, and 共3兲 assessing
the variability in project duration from activity time variability by
the project evaluation and review technique 共PERT兲.
In the present research, we apply the “interruptible” algorithm
on PDM networks, which are formalized in construction planning
textbooks 共e.g., Wiest and Levy 1977; Ahuja et al. 1994兲 and
implemented in mainstream CPM software 共such as P3兲. This
means continuity on activity progress is not a hard constraint;
instead, to satisfy logical constraints of non-FS relationships with
lags, activity progress can be interrupted and activity finish time
can be accordingly delayed. As a result, activity duration 共i.e., the
difference between early finish time and early start time兲 can be
longer than the original activity time input.
Henceforward, we designate a PDM network as an AON net-
work having non-FS logical relationships with positive lags,
while an AON network specifically refers to an AON network
only having FS logical relationships with zero lag. In the follow-
ing section, we first reveal some anomalous effects in total float
共TF兲 determination and critical path identification in relation to
using P3 on PDM networks, with an example project network
containing three types of non-FS logical relationships.
 ST A B D A FF: f
1 day (a)
1 day 1 day
SS: s B
C E FN
(b)
a) PDM Network (with positive/zero lag)
Fig. 2. PDM network containing SS/FF/SF relationships for case
study
A1 A2
(s) (a - s)
Precedence Diagram Method Network Example
B1 B2
We devised a typical PDM project network 共in Fig. 2兲 that con- (b – f) (f)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tains SS/FF/SF relationships with positive lag time. Note a SS b) Equivalent AON Network (without lag)
relationship with 1-day lag and a FF relationship with 1-day lag
relate B to C while a SF relationship with 1-day lag links E to D. Fig. 4. PDM-to-AON conversion—staggered SS/FF
All the other relationships are straightforward FS with zero lag.
The activity times are given in Table 1. Next, we entered the
project data in P3 and executed P3 under the interruptible option
for scheduling activity duration. P3-produced CPM analysis re-
sults are shown in Fig. 3 and in Table 1. finish end. For example, the TF is zero on Activity B’s start,
Note, P3 provides three options for deriving TF for an activity, but 2 days on Activity B’s finish; Activity D has 4-day TF on
namely; 共1兲 the start float 共i.e., the difference between late start its start and 2-day TF on its finish.
time and early start time兲; 共2兲 the finish float 共i.e., the difference 3. By articulating activity start ends or activity finish ends with
between late finish time and early finish time兲; or 共3兲 the most zero TF, a continuous critical path is identified to span Ac-
critical float 共i.e., taking the smaller value of start float and finish tivity A—FS relationship linking A and B—B’s start end—SS
float.兲 The following observations can be made from P3’s sched- relationship linking B and C—Activity C—FS relationship
uling results: linking C and E—Activity E. Adding up activity times and
1. By the “most critical” option, all activities are found critical relationship lags along the critical path results in the total
except for Activity D 共TF= 2 days兲. project duration of 12 days.
2. By contrasting the start float and the finish float, given one The project network used in the case study is small and
particular activity, the presence of non-FS logical relation-
simple. Yet, it is not straightforward to comprehend and commu-
ships leads to various float values on the start end and the
nicate the scheduling results, making it difficult to utilize them to
control project execution. In particular, the following two issues
remain unclear and hence justify further clarification: 共1兲 the TF is
Table 1. Activity Times and P3-Produced TF Results in PDM Case zero on B’s start, but 2 days on B’s finish; what does that imply?
Study 共2兲 How come D has 4d TF on start while only 2 days TF on
TF finish? To clarify the CPM results, we develop transform schemes
Duration 共most critical, for analytically processing non-FS relationships with positive lags
Activity 共days兲 start float, end float兲 in PDM into equivalent FS with zero lag, as presented in the
A 3 0,0,0 following sections.
B 3 0,0,2
C 5 0,0,0
D 2 2,4,2 Transform Scheme for SS/FF Staggered
E 3 0,0,0
Fig. 4 shows the transformation of a SS/FF staggered case into
straightforward FS relationships. Note activity duration is shown
in the bracket inside the activity node and the relationship lag
time is marked next to the relationship arrow. A1 and A2 can be
taken as components of the original Activity A. The duration of
Activities A1 and A2 is “s” 共equal to the SS lag time兲 and “a − s”
共i.e., the duration of whole Activity A minus SS lag time兲, respec-
tively. Similarly, the duration of Activities B1 and B2 is “b − f”
共duration of whole Activity B minus FF lag time兲 and “f” 共FF lag
time兲, respectively. To simplify mathematical representations, we
assume the project start time is zero; and a relative origin on the
timeline aligns with the start event of the preceding Activity A.
The equivalency of the two networks in Fig. 4 共PDM versus
AON兲 in terms of CPM analysis can be analytically proven as
Fig. 3. P3 scheduling results output snapshot will be discussed next.

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009 / 865

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2009.135:863-873.

 Critical Path Analysis on Precedence Diagram Method Table 2. Summary of Start Floats and Finish Floats in Scheme 1
Network PDM network AON network

Forward Pass Calculation Start float Finish float Start float Finish float
For activities with no predecessor relationships, ES = 0 Activity 共LS-ES兲 共LF-EF兲 Subactivity 共LS-ES兲 共LF-EF兲
A 0 T−a− f Al 0 0
Activity A: ESA = 兵project start time = 0其 = 0 共1兲
A2 T−a− f T−a− f
EFA = 兵ESA + DA = 0 + a = a其 = a 共2兲 B T−b−s 0 Bl T−b−s T−b−s

再 冎
B2 0 0
project start time = 0
共3兲

再 冎
Activity B: ESB = max =s
ESA + SSAB = 0 + s

再 冎
EFA2 = a
T = max = max共a + f, b + s兲
ESB + DB = s + b EFB2 = max共a + f, b + s兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

EFB = max = max共a + f, b + s兲 共4兲

EFA + FFAB = a + f 共18兲
Total project duration

T = max 再 EFA = a
EFB = max共a + f, b + s兲
冎 = max共a + f, b + s兲 共5兲
Backward Pass Calculation
For activities with no successor relationships, LF = T

Activity B2: LFB2 = 兵total project duration = T其 = T 共19兲

Backward Pass Calculation
For activities with no successor relationships, LF = T LSB2 = 兵LFB2 − DB2 = T − f其 = T − f 共20兲

Activity B: LFB = 兵total project duration = T其 = T 共6兲

Activity B1: LFB1 = 兵LSB2 = T − f其 = T − f 共21兲
LSB = 兵LFB − DB = T − b其 = T − b 共7兲

再 冎
LSB1 = 兵LFB1 − DB1 = 共T − f兲 − 共b − f兲其 = T − b 共22兲

再 冎
total project duration = T
Activity A: LFA = min =T−f
EFB − FFAB = T − f total project duration = T
Activity A2: LFA2 = min =T−f
共8兲 LSB2 = T − f

再 冎
LFA − DA = T − a − f
LSA = min
LSB − SSAB = T − b − s
共23兲
= min共T − a − f,T − b − s兲 = 0
LSA2 + 兵LFA2 − DA2 = 共T − f兲 − 共a − s兲其 = T − a − f + s 共24兲

再 冎
共9兲
LSA2 = T − a − f + s
Activity A1: LFA1 = min
LSB1 = T − b
Critical Path Analysis on Activity-on-Node Network
= min共T − a − f + s, T − b兲 共25兲
Forward Pass Calculation
For activities with no predecessor relationships, ES = 0 LSA1 = 兵LFA1 − DA1 = min共T − a − f + s,T − b兲 − s其
Activity A1: ESA1 = 兵project start time = 0其 = 0 共10兲 = min共T − a − f, T − b − s兲 共26兲

EFA1 = 兵ESA1 + DA1 = 0 + s = s其 = s 共11兲 The above deductions on the PDM network and the counterpart
AON network arrive at the identical total project time 共T兲, which
Activity A2: ESA2 = 兵EFA1 = s其 = s 共12兲 is max共a + f , b + s兲. In Table 2, we further contrast the TFs result-
ing from early or late activity times, as determined from the for-
EFA2 = 兵ESA2 + DA2 = s + 共a − s兲 = a其 = a 共13兲 ward and backward analysis on the two networks.
The following interpretations of PDM results are made by re-
Activity B1: ESB1 = 兵EFA1 = s其 = s 共14兲 lating to those results from the equivalent AON counterpart:
1. The start float on A is 0 and the finish float on A is T − a − f.
EFB1 = 兵ESB1 + DB1 = s + 共b − f兲 = b − f + s其 = b − f + s 共15兲 This actually denotes that the initial portion of A 共i.e., A1, the

再 冎
duration of which is equal to the SS lag time s兲 has zero TF
and is critical; while the remaining portion of A 共i.e., A2兲 has
EFA2 = a
Activity B2: ESB2 = max = max共a,b − f + s兲 a TF of T − a − f. Thus, A2 can be critical or noncritical, de-
EFB1 = b − f + s pending on the value of T − a − f being equal to zero or not.
共16兲 2. The start float on B is T − b − s and the finish float on B is 0.
This actually denotes that the final portion of B 共i.e., B2, the
EFB2 = 兵ESB2 + DB2 = max共a,b − f + s兲 + f其 = max共a + f, b + s兲 duration of which is equal to the FF lag time f兲 has zero TF
and is critical; while the remaining portion of B 共i.e., B1兲 has
共17兲
a TF of T − b − s. Thus, B1 can be critical or noncritical, de-
Total project duration pending on the value of T − b − s being equal to zero or not.

866 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2009.135:863-873.

 Backward Pass Calculation
A For activities with no successor relationships, LF = T
(a)
SF: s Activity B: LFB = 兵total project duration = T其 = T 共32兲

B LSB = 兵LFB − DB = T − b其 = T − b 共33兲

(b)
Activity A: LFA = 兵total project duration = T其 = T 共34兲
a) PDM Network (with positive/zero lag)

LSA = min 再 LFA − DA = T − a

LFB − SFAB = T − s
冎 = min共T − a, T − s兲 共35兲

A1 A2
(s) (a - s)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Critical Path Analysis on Activity-on-Node Network

B1 B2 Forward Pass Calculation

(b) (0) For activities with no predecessor relationships, ES = 0
b) Equivalent AON Network (without lag) Activity A1: ESA1 = 兵project start time = 0其 = 0 共36兲

Fig. 5. PDM-to-AON conversion of SF relationship EFA1 = 兵ESA1 + DA1 = 0 + s = s其 = s 共37兲

Activity A2: ESA2 = 兵EFA1 = s其 = s 共38兲

Transform Scheme for SF with Lag
EFA2 = 兵ESA2 + DA2 = s + 共a − s兲 = a其 = a 共39兲
The transformation of a SF relationship is shown in Fig. 5. Note
that in Fig. 5, Activities A1 and A2 in the AON network are
components making up the original Activity A in the PDM net- Activity B1: ESB1 = 兵project start time = 0其 = 0 共40兲
work. Symbols used for float times and precedence relationships
are the same as described above. The duration of activities A1 and EFB1 = 兵ESB1 + DB1 = 0 + b = b其 = b 共41兲

再 冎
A2 is s 共SF lag time兲 and a − s 共duration of whole Activity A
minus SF lag time s兲, respectively. Similarly, Activities B1 and EFA1 = s
Activity B2: ESB2 = max = max共b, s兲 共42兲
B2 in the AON are two components making up the original Ac- EFB1 = b
tivity B in the PDM network. It is noteworthy that to represent the
SF logic, Activity B2 in the AON is actually a dummy, which has EFB2 = 兵ESB2 + DB2 = max共b,s兲 + 0其 = max共b, s兲 共43兲
zero duration and denotes the finish milestone for Activity B.
Total project duration

再 冎
Thus, the duration of Activity B1 in the AON network is the same
as that of Activity B in the PDM network 共i.e., b兲. To simplify EFA2 = a
mathematical representations, we assume the project start time is T = max = max共a, b, s兲 共44兲
zero; a relative origin on the timeline is aligned with early start EFB2 = max共b, s兲
events on A and B. The equivalency of the two networks in Fig. 5
共PDM versus AON兲 in terms of CPM analysis can be analytically Backward Pass Calculation
proven as will be shown next. For jobs with no successor relationships, LF = T
Activity B2: LFB2 = 兵total project duration = T其 = T 共45兲
Critical Path Analysis on Precedence Diagram Method
Network
LSB2 = 兵LFB2 − DB2 = T − 0其 = T 共46兲
Forward Pass Calculation
Activity B1: LFB1 = 兵LSB2 = T其 = T 共47兲
For activities with no predecessor relationships, ES = 0

Activity A: ESA = 兵project start time = 0其 = 0 共27兲 LSB1 = 兵LFB1 − DB1 = T − b其 = T − b 共48兲

EFA = 兵ESA + DA = 0 + a = a其 = a 共28兲 Activity A2: LFA2 = 兵total project duration = T其 = T 共49兲

Activity B: ESB = 兵project start time = 0其 = 0 共29兲 LSA2 = 兵LFA2 − DA2 = T − 共a − s兲其 = T − a + s 共50兲

EFB = max 再 ESB + DB = 0 + b

ESA + SFAB = 0 + s
冎 = max共b, s兲 共30兲 Activity A1: LFA1 = min 再 LSA2 = T − a + s
LSB2 = T
冎 = min共T − a + s,T兲

共51兲
Total project duration

T = max 再 EFA = a
EFB = max共b, s兲
冎 = max共a, b, s兲 共31兲
LSA1 = 兵LFA1 − DA1 = min共T − a + s,T兲 − s其 = min共T − a, T − s兲
共52兲

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009 / 867

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2009.135:863-873.

 Table 3. Summary of Start Floats and Finish Floats in Scheme 2
PDM network
Start float Finish float
Activity 共LS-ES兲 共LF-EF兲
A min共T − a , T − s兲 T−a
B T−b min共T − b , T − s兲
Through the above analysis, the transformed AON model
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
yields the same CPM results as the original PDM model, such as
identical total project duration 共T兲, activity start times and finish
times. In Table 3, we further contrast the TFs, which are deter-
mined from early or late activity times as derived from the for-
ward and backward analysis on the two networks.
The following interpretations of PDM results are made by re-
lating to the results from the equivalent AON counterpart:
1. The start float on A is min共T − a , T − s兲 and the finish float on
A is T − a. This actually denotes that the initial portion of A
共i.e., A1, the duration of which is equal to the SF lag time s兲
has a TF of min共T − a , T − s兲; while the remaining portion of
A 共i.e., A2兲 has a TF of T − a. Because min共T − a , T − s兲 is no
greater than T − a, thus, A1 is more critical than 共or at least as
critical as兲 A2. In other words, if A2 is critical 共i.e., T − a
= 0兲, then A1 is also critical and the whole activity A is criti-
cal.
2. The start float on B is T − b and the finish float on B is
min共T − b , T − s兲. With reference to the counterpart AON
network, B1 is equivalent to B, as B2 is a dummy denoting
the finish milestone on B. Thus, Activity B has a TF of T
− b. Thanks to the SF logical constraint imposed between A
and B, B’s finish event needs to be intentionally delayed,
thus possibly resulting in a lesser TF on B’s finish given that
T − s is less than T − b.
It is noteworthy in Fig. 5 when A’s duration 共a兲 is less than the
lag time of SF 共s兲, the duration of A2 in the converted AON 共i.e.,
a − s兲 turns negative. However, this does not overthrow the valid-
ity of the transform scheme, nor brings about confusions on criti-
cal path results from both PDM and AON networks. For instance,
all the floats are actually independent of the difference of a − s 共as
seen from Table 3兲. When a − s is zero or negative, A2 in the AON
can be taken as a dummy inserted for maintaining particular logic.
Next, we apply the above two transform schemes on our case
study so as to shed light on the critical path analysis results from
the PDM example network.
0 3 3 3 1 4 4 2 6 6 2 8
SS A B1 B2
0 0 3 3 0 4 6 2 8 10 4 12
ES Dur EF 4 4 8 8
Task Name C1
LS TF LF 4 0 8 8
Fig. 6. Equivalent AON network of case study
868 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2009.135:863-873.
AON network
Start float Finish float
Subactivity 共LS-ES兲 共LF-EF兲
A1 min共T − a , T − s兲 min共T − a , T − s兲
A2 T−a T−a
B1 T−b T−b
B2 min共T − b , T − s兲 min共T − b , T − s兲
Application on Case Study
Application of the analytical transformation schemes as derived
above leads to automatic production of the equivalent AON net-
work with straightforward FS logical relationships only, as given
in Fig. 6. Also shown in Fig. 6 are activity times and floats cal-
culated by classic CPM. In this case study, additional relation-
ships are inserted to the basic networks for case “SS/FF
staggered” and case “SF” 共i.e., as seen in Fig. 2, an additional FS
relationship is linked to B’s start in the case of SS/FF staggered;
additional FS relationships enter the start ends of D and E, respec-
tively in the “SF” case兲. Nonetheless, the logical equivalency of
the basic networks still holds. In general, the basic network trans-
formation can be dealt with at a local level and then be plugged
into the project at a global level.
The critical path in the original PDM network were identified
from previous P3 analysis as A-B’s start-SSBC-C-E 共12 days in
total project duration兲, which now translates to A-B1-C1-C2-
E1-E2 in the equivalent AON network 共also 12 days in total
project duration shown Fig. 6兲. As to the SS/FF staggered sce-
nario between B and C, the implication of B’s start being critical
and B’s finish having 2-day TF is clarified: the initial portion of B
共i.e., B1, whose duration is equal to the SS lag of 1 day has zero
TF and stays on the critical path, while the remaining portion on
B 共i.e., B2, whose duration is 2 days, or B’s duration of 3d minus
B1’s duration of 1d兲 has 2-day TF and is off the critical path. As
to the SF logic binding E and D, the fact that D has 4d TF on its
start and 2-day TF on its end can be explained as follows: Activity
D has 2-day less TF on its finish is due to an mandatory 2-day
delay on its early finish time imposed by the SF logic.
In short, the transform schemes being proposed can be auto-
matically applied to aid the interpretation of critical path results
for the PDM network featuring SS/FF staggered or SF relation-
ships between activities. To make the proposed approach more
generic so as to address various scenarios for applying non-FS
logical relationships on construction projects, we generalize a
total of six transform schemes that are likely to be encountered in
10 0 10
D1 D2
12 2 12
FF
1 9 9 1 10 10 2 12
C2 E1 E2
0 9 9 0 10 10 0 12
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Examples of PDM-to-AON transformation
planning construction projects 共Fig. 7.兲 Similar to the above
SS/FF staggered scheme and “SF” scheme, we analytically
proved the equivalency of the other four transform schemes,
namely, 共1兲 “SS” with lag, 共2兲 “FS” with lag, 共3兲 “FF” with lag,
and 共4兲 SS/FF enveloped. The proofs along with the contrast of
TF results between the original PDM network and the equivalent
AON network are presented in Appendix 1.
Conclusions
In forming an AON network diagram for project scheduling, con-
struction professionals tend to prefer the use of non-FS logical
relationships with lags 共1兲 to represent the partially overlapping
logic between activities or 共2兲 to model simple repetitive projects
comprising a small number of construction units. Critical path
analysis on the resulting project network is generally referred to
as PDM. The “smart” precedence relationships of PDM com-
pound TF determination and interpretation, potentially causing
anomalous effects on critical path identification. One straightfor-
ward solution is to transform non-FS relationships with lags into
FS with zero lag at the expense of adding extra activities prior to
conducting forward and backward pass calculations. However,
such relationship transformations are dealt with on case-specific
basis in the literature; generic transform schemes are yet to be
formalized.
In the present research, we generalized those particular cir-
cumstances that entail applying non-FS logical relationships on
construction projects. We then proposed generic transform
schemes such that non-FS relationships in a project network can
be detected and transformed—automatically—into equivalent FS.
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009 / 869
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2009.135:863-873.
Moreover, we provided analytical proofs for the transform
schemes being proposed to justify the logical equivalency be-
tween the original PDM networks and the converted AON net-
works only having FS. As illustrated with a P3 application on a
PDM network example featuring SS, FF, and SF, confusions
would arise in interpreting P3‘s results from the PDM network,
but not in the case of its AON counterpart.
In conclusion, the proposed transform schemes lead to better
understanding of the scheduling results when critical path analy-
sis is performed on a PDM network. This also paves the way for
performing further sophisticated scheduling analysis on a PDM
network, as the transformed AON network provides a nonambigu-
ous straightforward foundation to take on the addition of more
complex constraints to project scheduling analysis. Examples are
共1兲 resource requirements can be specified for each activity in the
resulting AON network for conducting resource leveling analysis;
共2兲 by defining pessimistic, optimistic, and most likely times for
each activity on the resulting AON network, the PERT—coupled
with Monte Carlo simulation—can be applied so as to assess
variability in project duration.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by a Niche Area Research Grant of the
Hong Kong Polytechnic University 共A/C No. BB89兲.
Appendix I
The details of PDM-to-AON transformation of four cases 共i.e.,
SS, FS, FF, SS/FF enveloped兲 are shown as follows.
 Table 4. Float Times of PDM Network with SS Relationship and Equivalent AON Network
Network Activity Early start Late start Early finish Late finish TF
PDM A 0 min共T − a , T − b − s兲 a T = max共a , b + s兲 min共T − a , T − b − s兲
B s T−b b+s T = max共a , b + s兲 T−b−s
AON Al 0 min共T − a , T − b − s兲 s min共T − a + s , T − b兲 min共T − a , T − b − s兲
A2 s T−a+s a T = max共a , b + s兲 T−a
B s T−b b+s T = max共a , b + s兲 T−b−s

Start-to-Start Relationship EFA1 = 兵ESA1 + DA1 = 0 + s = s其 = s 共63兲

The details of PDM-to-AON transformation of SS relationships
are summarized in Fig. 7 and Table 4. Activity A2: ESA2 = 兵EFA1 = s其 = s 共64兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Critical Path Analysis on Precedence Diagram Method

Network EFA2 = 兵ESA2 + DA2 = s + 共a − s兲 = a其 = a 共65兲

Forward Pass Calculation. For activities with no predecessor Activity B: ESB1 = 兵EFA1 = s其 = s 共66兲
relationships, ES = 0
Activity A: ESA = 兵project start time = 0其 = 0 共53兲 EFB = 兵ESB + DB = s + b其 = b + s 共67兲
Total project duration
EFA = 兵ESA + DA = 0 + a = a其 = a 共54兲

Activity B: ESB = Max兵ESA + SSAB, 0其 = s 共55兲 T = max 再 EFA2 = a

EFB = b + s
冎 = max共a, b + s兲 共68兲

EFB = 兵ESB + DB = s + b其 = b + s 共56兲

Backward Pass Calculation. For activities with no successor
Total project duration

再 冎
relationships: LF = T
EFA = a
T = max = max共a, b + s兲 共57兲 Activity B: LFB = 兵total project duration = T其 = T 共69兲
EFB = b + s

LSB = 兵LFB − DB = T − b其 = T − b 共70兲

Backward Pass Calculation. For activities with no successor
relationships, LF = T
Activity A2: LFA2 = 兵total project duration = T其 = T 共71兲
Activity B: LFB = 兵total project duration = T其 = T 共58兲
LSA2 = 兵LFA2 − DA2 = T − 共a − s兲其 = T − a + s 共72兲
LSB = 兵LFB − DB = T − b其 = T − b 共59兲

Activity A: LFA = 兵total project duration = T其 = T 共60兲 Activity A1: LFA1 = min 再 LSA2 = T − a + s
冎
再 冎
LSB = T − b
LFA − DA = T − a = min共T − a + s, T − b兲 共73兲
LSA = min = min共T − a, T − b − s兲
LSB − SSAB = T − b − s
共61兲 LSA1 = 兵LFA1 − DA1 = min共T − a + s,T − b兲 − s其
= min共T − a, T − b − s兲 共74兲
Critical Path Analysis on Activity-On-Node Network

Forward Pass Calculation. For activities with no predecessor Finish-to-Start Relationship

relationships, ES = 0
The details of PDM-to-AON transformation of FS relationships
Activity A1: ESA1 = 兵project start time = 0其 = 0 共62兲 are summarized in Fig. 7 and Table 5.

Table 5. Float Times of PDM Network with FS Relationship and Equivalent AON Network
Network Activity Early start Late start Early finish Late finish TF
PDM A 0 0 a a 0
B a+ f a+ f a+b+ f T=a+b+ f 0
AON A 0 0 a a 0
L a a a+ f a+ f 0
B a+ f a+ f a+b+ f T=a+b+ f 0

870 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2009.135:863-873.

 Table 6. Float Times of PDM Network with FF Relationship and Equivalent AON Network
Network Activity Early start Late start Early finish Late finish TF
PDM A 0 T−a− f a T− f T−a− f
B 0 T−b max共a + f , b兲 T = max共a + f , b兲 min共T − b , 0兲
AON A 0 T−a− f a T− f T−a− f
Bl 0 T−b b− f T− f T−b
B2 max共a , b − f兲 max共a , b − f兲 max共a + f , b兲 T = max共a + f , b兲 0

Critical Path Analysis on Precedence Diagram Method LSB = 兵LFB − DB = 共a + b + f兲 − b其 = a + f 共92兲

Network
Activity L: LFL = 兵LSB = a + f其 = a + f 共93兲
Forward Pass Calculation. For activities with no predecessor
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

relationships, ES = 0 LSL = 兵LFL − DL = a + f − f = a其 = a 共94兲

Activity A: ESA = 兵project start time = 0其 = 0 共75兲
Activity A: LFA = 兵LSL = a其 = a 共95兲
EFA = 兵ESA + DA = 0 + a = a其 = a 共76兲
LSA = 兵LFA − DA = a − a = 0其 = 0 共96兲
Activity B: ESB = 兵EFA + FSAB = a + f其 = a + f 共77兲
Finish-to-Finish Relationship
EFB = 兵EFB + DB = a + f + b其 = a + b + f 共78兲
The details of PDM-to-AON transformation of FF relationships
Total project duration
are summarized in Fig. 7 and Table 6.
T = 兵EFB = a + b + f其 = a + b + f 共79兲
Critical Path Analysis on Precedence Diagram Method
Network
Backward Pass Calculation. For activities with no successor
relationships: LF = T Forward Pass Calculation. For activities with no predecessor
Activity B: LFB = 兵total project duration = T其 = T 共80兲 relationships, ES = 0
Activity A: ESA = 兵project start time = 0其 = 0 共97兲
LSB = 兵LFB − DB = 共a + b − f兲 − b其 = a + f 共81兲
EFA = 兵ESA + DA = 0 + a = a其 = a 共98兲
Activity A: LFA = 兵LSB − FSAB = a + f − f = a其 = a 共82兲
Activity B: ESB = 兵project start time = 0其 = 0 共99兲
LSA = 兵LFA − DA = a − a = 0其 = 0 共83兲
EFB = max兵EFA + FFAB,ESB + DB = a + f,b其 = max兵a + f,b其
Critical Path Analysis on Activity-on-Node Network 共100兲
Total project duration
Forward Pass Calculation. For activities with no predecessor
relationships, ES = 0 T = max兵EFA, EFB其 = max兵a + f, b其 共101兲
Activity A: ESA = 兵project start time = 0其 = 0 共84兲
Backward Pass Calculation. For activities with no successor
EFA = 兵ESA + DA = 0 + a = a其 = a 共85兲 relationships, LF = T
Activity B: LFB = 兵total project duration = T其 = T 共102兲
Activity L: ESL = 兵EFA = a其 = a 共86兲
LSB = 兵LFB − DB = T − b其 = T − b 共103兲
EFL = 兵ESL + DL = a + f其 = a + f 共87兲
Activity A: LFA = 兵LFB − FFAb = T − f其 = T − f 共104兲
Activity B: ESB = 兵EFL = a + f其 = a + f 共88兲
LSA = 兵LFA − DA = T − f − a其 = T − a − f 共105兲
EFB = 兵ESB + DB = a + f + b其 = a + b + f 共89兲
Total project duration Critical Path Analysis on Activity-on-Node Network
T = 兵EFB = a + b + f其 = a + b + f 共90兲
Forward Pass Calculation. For activities with no predecessor
relationships, ES = 0
Backward Pass Calculation. For activities with no successor
Activity A: ESA = 兵project start time = 0其 = 0 共106兲
relationships, LF = T
Activity B: LFB = 兵total project duration = T其 = T 共91兲 EFA = 兵ESA + DA = 0 + a = a其 = a 共107兲

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009 / 871

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2009.135:863-873.

 Table 7. Float Times of PDM Network with SS/FF Enveloped Relationship and Equivalent AON Network
Network Activity Early start Late start Early finish Late finish TF
PDM A 0 min共T − a , T − b − f − s兲 max共a , b + f + s兲 T = max共a , b + f + s兲 min共T − a , T − b − f − s , 0兲
B s T−b− f b+s T− f T−b− f −s
AON Al 0 min共T − a , T − b − f − s兲 s min共T − a + s , T − b − f兲 0
A2 s T−a+s a− f T− f T−a
A3 max共a − f , b + s兲 T− f max共a , b + f + s兲 T = max共a , b + f + s兲 0
B s T−b− f b+s T− f T−b− f −s

Activity B1: ESB1 = 兵project start time = 0其 = 0 共108兲 EFB = 兵ESB + DB = s + b其 = b + s 共122兲
Total project duration
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

EFB1 = 兵ESB1 + DB1 = 0 + 共b − f兲 = b − f其 = b − f 共109兲

T = 兵EFA其 = max共a, b + f + s兲 共123兲

Activity B2: ESB2 = max 再 EFA = a

EFB1 = b − f
冎 = max共a, b − f兲 Backward Pass Calculation. For activities with no successor
relationships, LF = T
共110兲
Activity A: LFA = 兵total project duration = T其 = T 共124兲

再 冎
EFB = 兵ESB + DB = max共a, b − f兲 + f其 = max共a + f, b兲
LFA − DA = T − a
共111兲 LSA = min
LSB − SSAB = T − b − f − s
Total project duration
= min共T − a, T − b − f − s兲 共125兲
T = 兵EFB2其 = max共a + f, b兲 共112兲
Activity B: LFB = 兵LFA − FFBA = T − f其 = T − f 共126兲
Backward Pass Calculation. For activities with no successor
LSB = 兵LFB − DB = 共T − f兲 − b其 = T − b − f 共127兲
relationships, LF = T

Activity B2: LFB2 = 兵total project duration = T其 = T 共113兲 Critical Path Analysis on Activity-on-Node Network

LSB2 = 兵LFB2 − DB2 = T − f其 = T − f 共114兲 Forward Pass Calculation. For activities with no predecessor
relationships, ES = 0
Activity B1: LFB1 = 兵LSB1 = T − f其 = T − f 共115兲 Activity A1: ESA1 = 兵project start time = 0其 = 0 共128兲

LSB1 = 兵LFB1 − DB1 = T − f − 共b − f兲其 = T − b 共116兲 EFA1 = 兵ESA1 + DA1 = 0 + s = s其 = s 共129兲

Activity A: LFA = 兵LSB1 = T − f其 = T − f 共117兲 Activity A2: ESA2 = 兵EFA1 = s其 = s 共130兲

LSA = 兵LFA − DA = T − f − a其 = T − a − f 共118兲 EFA2 = 兵ESA2 + DA2 = s + 共a − s − f兲 = a − f其 = a − f 共131兲

Start-to-Start/Finish-to-Finish Enveloped Relationship

Activity A3: ESA3 = max 再 EFA2 = a − f
EFB = b + s
冎 = max共a − f, b

The details of PDM-to-AON transformation of SS/FF enveloped + s兲 共132兲

relationships are summarized in Fig. 7 and Table 7.
EFA3 = 兵ESA3 + DA3 = max共a − f, b + s兲 + f其 = max共a, b + f + s兲
Critical Path Analysis on Precedence Diagram Method
Network 共133兲

Forward Pass Calculation. For activities with no predecessor Activity B: ESB = 兵EFA1 = s其 = s 共134兲
relationships, ES = 0
EFB = 兵ESB + DB = s + b其 = b + s 共135兲
Activity A: ESA = 兵project start time = 0其 = 0 共119兲
Total project duration

EFA = max 再 ESA + DA = 0 + a

EFB + FFBA = b + s + f
冎 = max共a, b + f + s兲
T = max兵EFA3其 = max共a, b + f + s兲 共136兲

共120兲 Backward Pass Calculation. For activities with no successor

relationships, LF = T
Activity B: ESB = 兵ESA + SSAb = 0 + s其 = s 共121兲 Activity A3: LFA3 = 兵total project duration = T其 = T 共137兲

872 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2009.135:863-873.

 LSA3 = 兵LFA3 − DA3 = T − f其 = T − f
Activity A2: LFA2 = 兵ESA3 = T − f其 = T − f
LSA2 = 兵LFA2 − DA2 = T − f − 共a − s − f兲其 = T − a + s 共140兲
共138兲 networks under generalized precedence relations 共GPRs兲.” Manage.
Sci., 38共9兲, 1245–1263.
共139兲 Fondahl, J. W. 共1961兲. “A non-computer approach to the critical path
method for the construction industry.” Technical Rep. No. 9, Stanford
Univ., Stanford, Calif.
Galloway, P. D. 共2006兲. “Survey of the construction industry relative to

Activity A1: LFA1 = min 再 LSA2 = T − a + s

LSB = T − b − f
冎 = min共T − a
the use of CPM scheduling for construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 132共7兲, 697–711.
Harris, R. B. 共1978兲. Precedence and arrow networking techniques for
+ s, T − b − f兲 共141兲 construction, Wiley, New York.
Herroelen, W., De Reyck, B., and Demeuleulemeester, E. 共1998兲.
LSA1 = 兵LFA1 − DA1 = min共T − a + s,T − b − f兲 − s其 = min共T “Resource-constrained project scheduling: A survey of recent devel-
opments.” Comput. Oper. Res., 25共4兲, 279–302.
− a, T − b − f − s兲 共142兲 Ioannou, P. G., and Harris, R. B. 共2003兲. “Discussion of ‘Algorithm for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

determining controlling path considering resource continuity’ by Mo-

Activity B: LFB = 兵ESA3 = T − f其 = T − f 共143兲 hammed A. Ammar and Emad Elbeltagi.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng.,
17共1兲, 68–70.
LSB = 兵LFB − DB = T − f − b其 = T − b − f 共144兲 Kim, K., and Garza, J. M. D. L. 共2005兲. “Critical path method with
multiple calendars.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 131共3兲, 330–342.
Lock, D. 共2003兲. Project management, 8th Ed., Gower Publishing Ltd.,
Hampshire, England.
Notation Moder, J. J., and Philips, C. R. 共1970兲. Project management with CPM
and PERT, 2nd Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
The following symbols are used in this paper: O’Brien, J. J., and Plotnick, F. L. 共1999兲. CPM in construction manage-
a ⫽ duration of Activity A; ment, 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
b ⫽ duration of Activity B; Oberlender, G. D. 共2000兲. Project management for engineering and con-
f ⫽ lag time of FS or FF relationship; struction, 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
s ⫽ lag time of SS or SF relationship; and Ponce-Campos, G. 共1970兲. Precedence network based CPM: An introduc-
T ⫽ total project duration. tion, training manual, Townsend and Bottum, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Valls, V., and Lino, P. 共2001兲. “Criticality analysis in AON networks with
minimal time lags.” Ann. Operat. Res., 102, 17–37.
References Wiest, J. D. 共1981兲. “Precedence diagramming method: Some unusual
characteristics and their implications for project managers.” J. Opera-
Ahuja, H. N., Dozzi, S. P., and Abourizk, S. M. 共1994兲. Project manage- tions Manage., 1, 121–130.
ment: Techniques in planning and controlling construction projects, Wiest, J. D., and Levy, F. K. 共1977兲. A management guide to PERT/CPM
2nd Ed., Wiley, New York. with GERT/PDM/DCPM and other networks, 2nd Ed., Prentice-Hall,
Elmaghraby, S. E., and Kamburowski, J. 共1992兲. “The analysis of activity Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009 / 873

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2009.135:863-873.