Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Construction Management
  • Published:
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  MATH  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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Civil Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, 41566, Korea

    Solomon Sackey & Byung-Soo Kim

Authors
  1. Solomon Sackey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Byung-Soo Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Byung-Soo Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sackey, S., Kim, BS. Schedule Risk Analysis using a Proposed Modified Variance and Mean of the Original Program Evaluation and Review Technique Model. KSCE J Civ Eng 23, 1484–1492 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-019-1826-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-019-1826-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation