Advertisement

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 1484–1492 | Cite as

Schedule Risk Analysis using a Proposed Modified Variance and Mean of the Original Program Evaluation and Review Technique Model

  • Solomon Sackey
  • Byung-Soo KimEmail author
Construction Management
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

The Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) model uses parameters such as the specified project completion time, mean, and variance to estimate the probability of project completion time. However, this model uses a weighted average and unweighted value in the variance, which is based on six sigma of the mean. Despite many proposed modifications to improve the traditional PERT model, the hidden error in the calculation of the variance and mean of the PERT approach has not been adequately addressed. This error leads to underestimation of the schedule risk. Considering the impact of variance and mean on the probability of project completion times, this study contributes to the improvement of the accuracy of schedule risk estimation by proposing a modified variance and mean of the original PERT model. The original PERT model was first used to estimate the project completion time. However, using the proposed modified model to estimate the completion time, a 95% confidence interval assumption and the corresponding distribution within ±2 standard deviation of the mean and standard or Z values were employed to model the new mean and variance equations. To prove the validity of the proposed modified variance and mean assumptions, we performed a schedule risk analysis through simulation using Oracle Crystal Ball for comparison. The results showed that the proposed PERT model had a better mean error rate of 2.46% as compared to 3.31% of the original PERT model.

Keywords

simulation PERT schedule risk analysis project completion times probability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Avlijas, G. (2018). “Examining the value of monte carlo simulation for project time management.” Management: Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies, pp. 1–11, DOI: 10.7595/management.fon.2018.0004.Google Scholar
  2. Ballesteros-Pérez, P. (2017). “M-PERT: Manual project-duration estimation technique for teaching scheduling basics.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 143, No. 9, 04017063, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dawson, R. J. and Dawson, C. W. (1998). “Practical proposals for managing uncertainty and risk in project planning.” International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 299–310, DOI: 10.1016/S0263-7863(97)00059-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hajdu, M. and Bokor, O. (2014). “The effects of different activity distributions on project duration in PERT networks.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 119, No. 19, pp. 766–775, DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hajdu, M. and Bokor, O. (2016). “Sensitivity analysis in PERT networks: Does activity duration distribution matter?” Automation in Construction, Vol. 65, pp. 1–8, DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2016.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Herrerías-Velasco, J. M., Herrerías-Pleguezuelo, R., and Van Dorp, J. R. (2011). “Revisiting the PERT mean and variance.” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 210, No. 2, pp. 448–451, DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2010.08.014.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Jun, H. B., Park, J. Y., and Suh, H. W. (2006). “Lead time estimation method for complex product development process.” Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 313–328. DOI: 10.1177/1063293X06073302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lee, D. E. (2005). “Probability of project completion using stochastic project scheduling simulation.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131, No. 3, pp. 310–318, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:3(310).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee, D. E., Arditi, D., and Son, C. B. (2013). “The probability distribution of project completion times in simulation-based scheduling.” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, KSCE, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 638–645, DOI: 10.1007/s12205-013-0147-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Malcolm, D. G., Roseboom, J. H., Clark, C. E., and Fazar, W. (1959). “Application of a technique for research and development program evaluation.” Operations Research, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 646–669, DOI: 10.1287/opre.7.5.646.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Mccabe (2003). “Monte Carlo simulation for schedule risks.” Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference, IEEE, New Orleans, LA, USA, pp. 1561–1565, DOI: 10.1109/WSC.2003.1261603.Google Scholar
  12. Mishakova, A., Vakhrushkina, A., Murgul, V., and Sazonova, T. (2016). “Project control based on a mutual application of pert and earned value management methods.” Procedia Engineering, Vol. 165, pp. 1812–1817, DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.11.927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Park, H. and Cutkosky, M. R. (1999). “Framework for modeling dependencies in collaborative engineering processes.” Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 84–102, DOI: 10.1007/PL00003885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Razaque, A., Bach, C., salama, N., and Alotaibi, A. (2012). “Fostering project scheduling and controlling risk management.” International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 3, No. 14, pp. 118–127, DOI: arxiv.org/abs/1210.2021.Google Scholar
  15. Reis, J. S. and Lucko, G. (2016). “Productivity scheduling method with maximum constraints.” International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 77–93, DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2015.1130674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Trietsch, D. and Baker, K. R. (2012). “PERT 21: Fitting PERT/CPM for use in the 21st century.” International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 490–502, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Trietsch, D., Mazmanyan, L., Gevorgyan, L., and Baker, K. R. (2012). “Modeling activity times by the parkinson distribution with a lognormal core: Theory and validation.” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 216, No. 2, pp. 386–396, DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2011.07.054.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Udoumoh, E. F. and Ebong, D. W. (2017). “A review of activity time distributions in risk analysis.” American Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 7, No. 6, pp. 356–371, DOI: 10.4236/ajor.2017.76027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Vanhoucke, M. (2012). “Dynamic scheduling: Integrating schedule risk analysis with earned value management.” Measurable News, Vol. 2, pp. 11–13, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-16416-3_18.Google Scholar
  20. van Slyke, R. M. (1963). “Monte carlo methods and the PERT problem.” Operations Research, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 839–860, DOI: 10.1287/opre.11.5.839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Civil Engineers 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of Civil EngineeringKyungpook National UniversityDaeguKorea

Personalised recommendations