Schedule Risk Analysis using a Proposed Modified Variance and Mean of the Original Program Evaluation and Review Technique Model
- 34 Downloads
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.
Keywordssimulation PERT schedule risk analysis project completion times probability
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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