Simplified CPM/PERT Simulation Model
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 126, Issue 3
Abstract
Formal stochastic simulation study has been recognized as a remedy for the shortcomings inherent to classic critical path method (CPM) project evaluation and review technique (PERT) analysis. An accurate and efficient method of identifying critical activities is essential for conducting PERT simulation. This paper discusses the derivation of a PERT simulation model, which incorporates the discrete event modeling approach and a simplified critical activity identification method. This has been done in an attempt to overcome the limitations and enhance the computing efficiency of classic CPM/PERT analysis. A case study was conducted to validate the developed model and compare it to classic CPM/PERT analysis. The developed model showed marked enhancement in analyzing the risk of project schedule overrun and determination of activity criticality. In addition, the beta distribution and its subjective fitting methods are discussed to complement the PERT simulation model. This new solution to CPM network analysis can provide project management with a convenient tool to assess alternative scenarios based on computer simulation and risk analysis.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
AbouRizk, S. M., Halpin, D. W., and Wilson, J. R. (1991). “Visual interactive fitting of beta distributions.”J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 117(4), 589–605.
2.
AbouRizk, S. M., Halpin, D. W., and Wilson, J. R. (1994). “Fitting beta distributions based on sample data.”J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 120(2), 288–305.
3.
Ahuja, H., Dozzi, S. P., and AbouRizk, S. M. (1995). Project management techniques in planning and controlling construction projects. 2nd Ed., Wiley, N.Y.
4.
Cottrell, W. D. (1999). “Simplified program evaluation and review technique (PERT).”J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 125(1), 16–22.
5.
Halpin, D. W. (1990). MicroCYCLONE user's manual. Div. of Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind.
6.
Halpin, D. W. (1998). “Construction simulation: A status report.” Proc., 5th Can. Constr. Res. Forum, NSERC/Alberta Construction Industry Research Chair, Edmonton, Alberta, 33–42.
7.
Halpin, D., and Riggs, L. (1992). Planning and analysis of construction operations. Wiley, New York.
8.
McLaughlin, F., and Pickhardt, R. (1979). Quantitative techniques for management decisions. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
9.
Pidd, M. (1996). Tools for thinking, modelling in management science. Wiley, London.
10.
Pritsker, A., Sigal, C., and Hammesfahr, R. (1989). SLAM II network models for decision support. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
11.
ProjectGear Inc. (Risk+ for MS Project). 〈http://www.cs-solutions.com/riskplus.htm〉 “Monte Carlo;ot 3.0 for Primavera.” (1995). Project Risk Analysis Software, Primavera Systems, Inc., Bala Cynwyd, Pa.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 126 • Issue 3 • May 2000
Pages: 219 - 226
History
Received: May 24, 1999
Published online: May 1, 2000
Published in print: May 2000
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.