An Innovative DSS for the Contingency Reserve Estimation in Stochastic Regime

  • Fahimeh Allahi
  • Lucia CassettariEmail author
  • Marco Mosca
  • Roberto Mosca
Conference paper


The problem of sizing and managing contingency reserve is always critical in project management, because of its impact on the project margin. A correct assessment of the contingency reserve to be allocated is, therefore, a main requirement to lead to success the project manager actions. In this research, the Authors propose an innovative Decision Support System to size, starting from an objective phase of risk assessment, the correct contingency reserve. The proposed solution provides the project manager a clear vision of the residual risk of cost overruns to be managed. The Decision Support System uses Failure Mode Effect Analysis and Monte Carlo Simulation.


Contingency cost Decision Support System Monte Carlo simulation Project management Risk analysis Stochastic estimation 


  1. 1.
    I. Ahmad, Contingency allocation: a computer-aided approach. AACE Trans., 28 June–1 July 1992, Orlando, F.4, pp. 1–7Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P.A. Thompson, J.G. Perry, Engineering Construction Risks (Thomas Telford, London, 1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F.T. Hartman, Don’t Park Your Brain Outside (PMI, Upper Darby, PA, 2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Baccarini, Estimating project cost contingency—beyond the 10% syndrome, in Conference Paper Open Access (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Y.-C. Kuo, S.-T. Lu, Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approach to enhance risk assessment for metropolitan construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31, 612–314 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Yim, J. Castaneda, T. Doolen, I. Toomer, R. Malak, A study of the impact of project classification on project risk indicators. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33(4), 863–876 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Hartono, S.R. Sulistyo, P.P. Praftiwi, D. Hasmoro, Project risk: theoretical concepts and stakeholders’ perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32(3), 400–411 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R.B. Lorance, R.V. Wendling, Basic techniques for analyzing and presenting cost risk analysis. Cost Eng. 43(6), 25–31 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E.W. Merrow, B.R. Schroeder, Understanding the costs and schedule of hydroelectric projects. AACE Trans. 1(3), 1–7 (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Chen, F.T. Hartman, A neural network approach to risk assessment and contingency allocation, in AACE Transactions, 24–27 June 2000, Risk, pRIS07Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.S. Chou, I.T. Yang, W.K. Chong, Automation in construction, in Probabilistic Simulation for Developing Likelihood Distribution of Engineering, vol. 18 (2009), pp. 570–577Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Howell, C. Windahl, R. Seidel, A project contingency framework based on uncertainty and its consequences. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28, 256–264 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Idrus, M.F. Nuruddin, M.A. Rohman, Development of project cost contingency estimation model using risk analysis and fuzzy expert system. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 1501–1508 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.S. Chou, Cost simulation in an item-based project involving construction engineering and management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29, 706–717 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    F. Allahi, L. Cassettari, M. Mosca, A stochastic risk analysis through Monte Carlo simulation to the construction phase of a 600 MW gas turbine plant, in Proceedings of the MAS 2017, 18–20 Sept, Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    F. Allahi, L. Cassettari, M. Mosca, Stochastic risk analysis and cost contingency allocation approach for construction projects applying Monte Carlo simulation, in Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering. Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science, 5–7 July 2017, London, U.K., pp. 385–391Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. Cassettari, P.G. Giribone, M. Mosca, R. Mosca, The stochastic analysis of investments in industrial plants by simulation models with control of experimental error: theory and application to a real business case. Appl. Math. Sci. 4(76), 3823–3840 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. Cassettari, R. Mosca, R. Revetria, Monte Carlo simulation models evolving in replicated runs: a methodology to choose the optimal experimental sample size. Math. Probl. Eng. 2012, 0–17 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Mosca, P. Giribone, R. Revetria, L. Cassettari, S. Cipollina, Theoretical development and applications of the MSPE methodology in discrete and stochastic simulation models evolving in replicated runs. J. Eng. Comput. Archit. 2(1), 1934–7197 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fahimeh Allahi
    • 1
  • Lucia Cassettari
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marco Mosca
    • 2
  • Roberto Mosca
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Energetics, Management and Transports (DIME)University of GenoaGenoaItaly
  2. 2.Polytechnic SchoolUniversity of GenoaGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations