Coşkunoḡlu, O (1984) Optimal probabilistic compression of PERT networks. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 110(4), pp. 437-446. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
An approach is developed to determine an optimal activity compression policy when a project is required to be completed at a certain time with a prespecified probability. The approach is based on a probabilistic version of linear programming, called chance constrained linear programming (CCLP). In the CCLP formulation of the optimal network compression, each activity duration is not replaced by the mean duration. Instead each constraint is required to be satisfied by a prespecified probability. These chance constraints can be replaced by equivalent deterministic constraints when the mean and variance of each activity duration is known. The resulting CCLP formulation is solved for a numerical example. The solution has several managerial implications. Most significantly, the solution provides a quantitative means to assess the trade-off between the cost and risk associated with the project duration. Moreover, computational efforts necessary to solve CCLP are no greater than those necessary to solve deterministic linear programming formulation of optimal network compression.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | compression, linear programming, variance, duration |
| Subjects: | measurement and scaling, material properties and characteristics, algorithms, project controls |
| Topics: | Time Control, Digital Applications, Construction Materials, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here