A Simulation Approach to the PERT/CPM Time-Cost Trade-Off Problem

Abstract

The traditional method of crashing Project Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) networks ignores the stochastic nature of activity completion times, reducing the stochastic model to a deterministic Critical Path Method (CPM) model and simply using activity time means in calculations. The project is then arbitrarily crashed to some desired completion date, without consideration for what the penalty for late completion of the project is. Additionally, the method ignores the fact that reducing some activity times may reduce the mean project completion time more than others, due to such factors as bottlenecks. The authors use a computer simulation model to determine the order in which activities should be crashed as well as the optimal crashing strategy for a PERT network to minimize the expected value of the total (crash + overrun) cost, given a specified penalty function for late completion of the project. Three extreme network types are examined, each with two different penalty functions.

Keywords

simulation crashing PERT networks cost/penalty function

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ameen

D. A.

(1987, April). A computer assisted PERT simulation. Journal of Systems Management, 6–9.

Badiru

A. B.

(1991). A simulation approach to network analysis. Simulation, 57(4), 245–255.

Coskun

(1984). Optimal probabilistic compression of PERT networks. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 110(4), 437–446.

Feng

, Liu

, & Burns

(2000). Stochastic construction time-cost tradeoff analysis. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 14(2), 117–126.

Grygo

(2002). Downscaling for better projects. InfoWorld, 24(9), 62–63.

Haga

W. A.

(1998). Crashing PERT networks. Doctoral dissertation, Applied Statistics Department, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado.

Haga

W. A.

, & O'Keefe

(2001). Crashing PERT networks: A simulation approach. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Academy of Business and Administrative Sciences. Quebec, Canada.

Johnson

G. A.

, & Schou

C. D.

(1990). Expediting projects in PERT with stochastic time estimates. Project Management Journal, 21(2), 29–32.

Jorgensen

(2003). Situational and task characteristics systematically associated with accuracy of software development effort estimates. Proceedings of the 2003 Information Resources Management Association International Conference. Philadelphia, PA.

10.

Keil

(1995). Pulling the plug: Software project management and the problem of project escalation. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 421.

11.

Klingel

A. R.

Jr. (1966). Bias in PERT project completion time calculations for a real network. Management Science 13(4), 194–201.

12.

Navy Special Project Office, Bureau of Naval Weapons (1958). PERT summary report—phase I. National Technical Information Service, AD-735902.

13.

Nellenbach

(2001, June). Poor leadership causes huge losses on IS projects. PM Network, 9.

14.

Ramini

(1986). A simulation approach to time-cost trade-off in project network. Modeling and Simulation on Microcomputers: 1986 proceedings of the conference, 115–120.

15.

Roe

, & Elton

(1998). Bringing discipline to project management. Harvard Business Review, 76(2), 151.

16.

Van Slyke

R. M.

(1963). Monte Carlo methods and the PERT problem. Operations Research, 13, 141–143.

17.

Williams

(1999). Towards realism in network simulation. Omega, 27(3), 305.