Diaz, C F and Hadipriono, F C (1993) Nondeterministic networking methods. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(1), pp. 40-57. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Several probabilistic methods use risk analysis for construction networking. In this study, the writers compare and evaluate five nondeterministic methods: (1) Program evaluation review technique (PERT); (2) probabilistic network evaluation technique (PNET); (3) narrow reliability bounds (NRB), (4) Monte Carlo simulation (MCS); and (5) simplified Monte Carlo simulation (SMCS). To compare the five methods, the writers solved 31 networks using each of the methods. The results obtained by each method were compared and evaluated based on the survival function and computer time. The writers found that PERT is the simplest method and yields the most optimistic results, while MCS and SMCS produce the most conservative result. The gap between the survival function obtained with PERT and that obtained with the two simulation methods (MCS and SMCS) is wider for positively skewed distributions of network activities.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | Monte Carlo simulation, survival, networking, evaluation technique, risk analysis, program |
| Subjects: | evaluation and assessment methods, environmental science, modelling and simulation, communication, software systems, environmental hazards |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Sustainability, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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