Nasir, D; McCabe, B and Hartono, L (2003) Evaluating risk in construction-schedule model (ERIC-S): Construction schedule risk model. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(5), pp. 518-527. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Research was undertaken to develop a method to assist in the determination of the lower and upper activity duration values for schedule risk analysis by program evaluation and review technique analysis or Monte Carlo simulation. A belief network was the modeling environment used for this purpose, and the resulting model was named Evaluating Risk in Construction-Schedule Model. The development of the belief network model consisted of four steps. First, construction schedule risks were identified through a literature review, an expert review, and a group review by a team of experts. Second, cause effect relationships among these risks were identified through an expert survey. This led to the development of the structure of belief network model. Third, probabilities for various combinations of parents for each risk variable were obtained through an expert interview survey and incorporated into the model. Finally, sensitivity analysis was performed. The model was tested using 17 case studies with very good results.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; models; risk analysis; scheduling |
| Index terms: | risk analysis, sensitivity analysis, scheduling, interview, survey, literature review, belief network, modelling, duration, case study, programme evaluation and review technique, Monte Carlo simulation |
| Subjects: | project controls, probabilistic model, environmental hazards, data collection methods, modelling and simulation, operations research, data analysis and analytics, analytical methods |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Time Control, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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