Modeling Project Performance for Decision Making
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 122, Issue 3
Abstract
This paper presents a performance modeling methodology for application to individual projects. The model combines experience captured from experts with assessments from the project team. The methodology consists of a conceptual, qualitative-model structure and a mathematical-model structure. The conceptual-model structure, called the general performance model (GPM), is a simplified model of the variables and interaction that influence project performance. The mathematical model uses concepts of cross-impact analysis and probabilistic inference to capture the uncertainties and interactions among project variables. The GPM allows management to test different combinations of project-execution options and predict expected cost, schedule, and other performance impacts. The methodology provides a systematic and structured process for a project-team discussion on relevant planning issues in a project. Researchers should benefit from the exploratory and analytical capabilities of the methodology, as well as the flexible knowledge structure to update models and data. Computer implementation is also attractive as a means to disseminating research results.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Alarcón-Cárdenas, L. F. (1992). “Project performance modeling: a methodology for evaluating project execution strategies,” PhD dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
2.
Alarcón-Cárdenas, L. F., and Ashley, D. B. (1992). “Project performance modeling: a methodology for evaluation project execution strategies.”Rep. Prepared for Constr. Industry Inst., Univ. of Texas at Austin; Source Document 80 .
3.
Ashley, D. B., and Alarcón-Cárdenas, L. F. (1990). “A pilot study on construction incentives.”Rep. Prepared for CII Proj. Team Risk/Reward Task Force.
4.
Bennett, P. (1980). “Reflections on construction productivity.”Constr. Productivity Frontiers, Technol., 5–9.
5.
Business Roundtable. (1983). “More construction for the money: summary report of the construction industry cost effectiveness project.” New York, N.Y.
6.
Chung, E. K. (1989). “A survey of process modeling tools.”Tech. Rep. No. 7, Comp. Integrated Constr. Res. Program, Dept. of Arch. Engrg., Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA.
7.
Craver, J. K. (1973). “A practical method for technology assessment.”Proc., 1st Conf. on Technol. Assessment .
8.
Construction Review. (1987). U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. (July–Aug.).
9.
Enzer, S. (1983). Interax-interactive analysis for strategic planning . Ctr. for Futures Res., Univ. of Southern California.
10.
Gordon, T., and Hayward, H.(1968). “Initial experiments with the cross-impact method of forecasting.”Futures, 1(2), 100–116.
11.
Gordon, T., Rochberg, R., and Enzer, S. (1970). “Research on cross-impact techniques with selected problems in economics, political science and technology assessment.” Inst. for the Future, Menlo Park, Calif.
12.
Gregerman, I. B. (1981). “Worker productivity-characteristics and measurement.”AACE Trans., I.2.1–I.2.5.
13.
Honton, E. J., Stacey, G. S., and Millett, S. M. (1985). “Future scenarios: the BASICS computational method.” Battelle, Columbus Div., Ohio.
14.
Judson, A. S.(1982). “The awkward truth about productivity.”Harvard Business Rev., 82(5), 93–97.
15.
Kim, J. H., and Pearl, J. (1983). “A computational model for causal and diagnostic reasoning in inference systems.”Proc., 8th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1, 190–193.
16.
Moder, J. J., Phillips, C. R., and Davis, E. W. (1983). Project management with CPM, PERT and precedence diagramming, 3rd Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, N.Y.
17.
Pearl, J.(1987). “Evidential reasoning using stochastic simulation of causal models.”Artificial Intelligence, 32, 245–257.
18.
Porter, A., Roper, T., Mason, T., Rossini, F., Banks, J., and Bradley, J. (1991). Forecasting and management of technology . John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
19.
Sanvido, V. E., and Medeiros, D. J. (1990). “Applying computer-integrated manufacturing concepts to construction.”J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 116(2).
20.
Sanvido, V. E., Kumara, S., and Ham, I.(1989). “A top-down approach to integrating the building process.”Engrg. with Comp., 5, 91–103.
21.
Sink, D. S. (1985). Productivity management: planning, measurement and evaluation, control and improvement . John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
22.
Stover, J., (1975). “The use of probabilistic system dynamics in the analysis of national development policies: a study of economic growth and income distribution in Uruguay.”Proc., 1975 Summer Comp. Simulation Conf.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 122 • Issue 3 • September 1996
Pages: 265 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Sep 1, 1996
Published in print: Sep 1996
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.