Risk Management of Construction Schedule by PERT with Monte Carlo Simulation

Abstract:

It has been proved that the construction schedule management was an uncertain problem. Traditional CPM method was a good way to define the total duration and critical paths but can not solve uncertainty. The paper use CPM to define the duration and critical path firstly, then defined the parameters with Delphi and make Monte Carlo simulation. Through simulation results, it is found that the probability to finish the work on time was only 35.3%. The following step is to make sensitivity analysis, through the calculation, the work which has large influence was found and treat as key control points. It is proved that Monte Carlo simulation is useful to solve the problem of construction schedule management.

• Periodical: Applied Mechanics and Materials (Volumes 548-549)
• Pages: 1646-1650
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.548-549.1646
• Online since: April 2014
• Authors: Yang Liu*, Yan Li
• Keywords: Construction Schedule Management, CPM, Monte Carlo Simulation, PERT, Risk Management (RM)

References

[1] S. Chanas, P. Zielin´ ski, Critical path analysis in the network with fuzzy activity times, Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 122 (2001), p.195–204.

DOI: 10.1016/s0165-0114(00)00076-2

[2] J.J. Buckley. Positivistic linear programming with triangular fuzzy numbers, Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 26 (1988), p.135–138.

DOI: 10.1016/0165-0114(88)90013-9

[3] S. Chanas, D. Dubois, P. Zielin´ ski, On the sure criticality of tasks in activity networks with imprecise durations, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part B: Cybernetics 32 (2002), p.393–407.

DOI: 10.1109/tsmcb.2002.1018760

[4] S. Chanas, J. Kamburoswk. The use of fuzzy variables in PERT, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 5 (1981) p.1–9.

DOI: 10.1016/0165-0114(81)90030-0

[5] S. Chanas, P. Zielin´ ski, The computational complexity of the criticality problems in a network with interval activity times, European Journal of Operational Research 136 (2002) , p.541–550.

DOI: 10.1016/s0377-2217(01)00048-0

[6] M.F. Shipley, A. de Korvin, K. Omer, BIFPET methodology versus PERT in project management: fuzzy probability instead of the beta distribution, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 14 (1997) 49–65.

DOI: 10.1016/s0923-4748(97)00001-5

[7] K. Kurihara, N. Nishiuchi, Efficient Monte Carlo simulation method of GERT-type network for project management, Computers & Industrial Engineering 42 (2002), p.521–531.

DOI: 10.1016/s0360-8352(02)00050-5

[8] C. Ragsdale, The current state of network simulation in project management theory and practice, Omega 17 (1989) , p.21–25.

DOI: 10.1016/0305-0483(89)90016-9

[9] Kenzo Kurihara, Nobuyuki Nishiuchi. Efficient Monte Carlo simulation method of GERT-type network for project management. Computers & Industrial Engineering. Volume 42, Issues 2–4, 11 April 2002, P. 521–531.

DOI: 10.1016/s0360-8352(02)00050-5

[10] MCCAULLEY, JW. AN INTRODUCTION TO PERT AND CPM . COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM. 1963. VOL. 7. No. 6.P. 364-365.

[11] Zhiwei Zhu; Heady, R.B. A simplified method of evaluating PERT/CPM network parameters Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on. 1994. VOL. 41. NO. 4.P. 426-430.

DOI: 10.1109/17.364568

[12] Ming Lu;S. M. AbouRizk. Simplified CPM/PERT Simulation Model . Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2000. VOL. 126. NO. 3.P. 219-226.

DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2000)126:3(219)

[13] WEBER, A. PROJECT-MANAGEMENT WITH CPM, PERT AND PRECEDENCE DIAGRAMMING, 3RD EDITION - MODER, J, PHILLIPS, C, DAVIS,E. DATA MANAGEMENT. 1984. VOL. 22. NO. 5. P. 8.