Fente, J; Schexnayder, C and Knutson, K (2000) Defining a probability distribution function for construction simulation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(3), pp. 234-241. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Simulation is widely applied as a practical tool for planning and analysis in many industries. However, in the case of construction processes, it has not yet emerged from the research stage into practice. The lack of confidence in selection of a probability distribution function (PDF) for an activity duration has limited the use of simulation as a practical tool for constructors. A modified β1-β2 plane analysis by AbouRizk and Halpin revealed that most of the construction data sets they analyzed laid in the beta region. Based on research in experimental psychology, it is recommended that the subjective information used to define beta parameters include the minimum and maximum activity durations, as well as the mode and the 75th or 25th percentiles. This paper presents a method to determine a beta PDF for use in construction simulation modeling.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | construction simulation, construction process, psychology, probability distribution, modelling, duration |
| Subjects: | analytical methods, modelling and simulation, statistical analysis, behavioral psychology, project controls, building construction |
| Topics: | Site Management, Time Control, Digital Applications, Engineering Principles, 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