Contingent Analysis for Project Management Using Multiple Worlds

  • John C. Kunz
  • Thomas Bonura
  • Marilyn J. Stezlner
  • Raymond E. Levitt


This article reports on creating and analyzing contingencies in project plans using an Artificial Intelligence (AI) technique called “multiple worlds”. Using modest extensions of common expert systems techniques, we specified decisions which a project manager might have to make, implications of those decisions, criteria for quickly excluding scenarios of little interest, and criteria for evaluating scenarios of potential interest. Hybridized with a rule and a frame system of a knowledge-based system development shell, the multiple worlds facility automatically generates all possible contingencies, applies user-specified selection criteria to eliminate uninteresting scenarios, analyzes remaining contingencies with respect to the user-specified evaluation criteria, presents results to the user graphically and supports interactive analysis of alternatives. We illustrate use of these techniques with an example. Our experience with a prototype project management application indicates that users can develop intuitive understanding of the implications of local decisions by analyzing contingencies using the multiple worlds facility. We speculate that users develop intuitive understanding as they select particular decision options and easily identify both their local detailed and their global implications. The multiple worlds facility operates quickly and thus allows the user to work interactively. In addition, the multiple worlds facility is hybridized in a knowledge-based system shell which presents results graphically and allows the user to change scenarios easily.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Allen, J.F. “Towards a General Theory of Action and Time.” Artificial Intelligence 28, 2 (1984), 123–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barr, A., Feigenbaum, E.A. The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence. William Kaufmann, Inc., Los Altos, CA, 1982. Volume II, Section VI.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Kleer, J. Choices Without Backtracking. Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1984, pp. 79–85.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Doyle, J. “A truth maintenance system.” Artificial Intelligence 12 (1979), 231–272.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dym, C.L. New Approaches to Computer-Aided Engineering. Xerox Palo Alto Research Center(PARC) Palo Alto, CA, April, 1984.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fagan, L.M., Kunz, J.C., Feigenbaum, E.A., Osborn, J.J. Extensions to the Rule-Based Formalism for a Monitoring Task. In Rule-based Expert Systems, Buchanan, B.G., and Shortliffe, E.H., Eds., Addison Wesley, 1984.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levitt, R.L., Kunz, J.C. “Using Knowledge of Construction and Project Management for Automated Schedule Updating.” Project Management Journal (December 1985).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McDermott, D., Doyle, J. “Non-Monotonic Logic I.” Artificial Intelligence 13, 1–2 (1980), 41–72.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Howard Raiffa. Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices Under Uncertainty. Addison Wesley, 1968.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rehak, D.R., and Fenves, S.J. “Expert Systems in Civil Engineering, Construction and Construction Robotics.” 1984 Annual Research Review , Robotics Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (March 1985).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Williams, C. ART The Advanced Reasoning Tool — Conceptual Overview. Inference Corporation, 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • John C. Kunz
    • 1
  • Thomas Bonura
    • 1
  • Marilyn J. Stezlner
    • 1
  • Raymond E. Levitt
    • 2
  1. 1.IntelliCorpKnowledge Systems DivisionMountain ViewUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations