Abourizk, S M and Halpin, D W (1992) Statistical properties of construction duration data. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118(3), pp. 525-544. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Simulators of construction operations often must approximate the underlying distribution of a random process using a standard statistical distribution (e.g., lognormal, normal, and beta). In many of these cases, the underlying distribution of the random process remains unknown to the modeler and its properties have to be inferred from the available sample of data or from experience with similar processes. This paper summarizes the findings of research aimed at investigating the statistical properties of construction duration data. Seventy-one samples of durations of construction activities are analyzed by: (1) Plotting the sample’s coefficient of skewness and kurtosis on a β1-β2 plane; and (2) constructing histograms for each sample and comparing them with the shapes of known probability density functions. The results of the research indicate that flexible distributions (e.g., the beta distribution and Pearson system) are required to ensure proper modeling for the diversified characteristics of construction duration data.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | density, construction operation, construction activity, duration, modelling |
| Subjects: | project controls, construction operations, analytical methods |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Urban Studies, Time Control, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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