Advertisement

A New Method to Tackle the Duration Risks of a Construction Project

  • Wen-der Yu
  • Hsien-kuan Chang
  • Shao-tsai Cheng
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

The most well-known traditional approach to deal with the uncertainties of the activity durations in a project was the Project Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT). PERT is however impractical and seldom adopted in the construction projects due to the unreliable estimation based on the three-point durations. This paper proposes a new approach to tackle the risks with the activity durations by evaluating the seven constraints associated with different required construction resources. A quantitative model considering the seven risk-levels of activity duration is proposed. A risk-based critical path scheduling method (R-CPSM) is developed. A tennis court construction project is selected as an example for implementation of the proposed R-CPSM to demonstrate its applicability. It is found that the proposed R-CPSM replaces the lump-sum uncertain duration estimation of the traditional PERT with a systematic method that considers the 7-risk-level resource constraints, which tackles duration risks more appropriately. Moreover, it also provides a real-time risk updating mechanism that is lacked in the traditional PERT. As a result, it is concluded that the proposed R-CPSM has a potential to improve the management of duration risks in a construction project.

Keywords

Project time management Risk management Scheduling Critical path method Activity duration estimation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research project was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under project No. MOST 105-2221-E-324-025-MY2. Sincere appreciations are given to the sponsor by the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Dodge (2017) Dodge estimating guide. https://construction.com. Visited June 2017
  2. 2.
    Gong D (1997) Optimization of float use in risk analysis-based network scheduling. Int J Proj Manag 15(3):187–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gong D, Rowings JE Jr (1995) Calculation of safe float use in risk-analysis-oriented network scheduling. Int J Proj Manag 13(3):187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hsu K-H (2006) Project management: a view of the body of knowledge. Hua Tai Publishing, Taipei (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jun DH, El-Rayes K (2011) Fast and accurate risk evaluation for scheduling large-scale construction projects. J Comput Civil Eng 25(5):407–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kılıç M, Ulusoy G, Şerifoğlu FS (2008) A bi-objective genetic algorithm approach to risk mitigation in project scheduling. Int J Prod Econ 112(1):202–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Luu VT, Kim SY, Tuan NV, Ogunlana SO (2009) Quantifying schedule risk in construction projects using Bayesian belief networks. Int J Proj Manag 27(1):39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Means (2017) RS means book. https://www.rsmeans.com. Visited June 2017
  9. 9.
    Mol T (2003) Productive safety management. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moon H, Kim H, Kamat VR, Kang L (2015) BIM-based construction scheduling method using optimization theory for reducing activity overlaps. J Comput Civil Eng ASCE 29(3).  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cp.1943-5487.0000342
  11. 11.
    Schatteman D, Herroelen W, Van de Vonder S, Boone A (2008) Methodology for integrated risk and proactive scheduling of construction projects. J Constr Eng Manag 134(11):885–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vanhoucke M (2011) On the dynamic use of project performance and schedule risk information during project tracking. Omega 39(4):416–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yi KJ, Langford D (2006) Scheduling-based risk estimation and safety planning for construction projects. J Constr Eng Manag 132(6):626–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zafra-Cabeza A, Ridao MA, Camacho EF (2004) An algorithm for optimal scheduling and risk assessment of projects. Control Eng Pract 12(10):1329–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zafra-Cabeza A, Ridao MA, Camacho EF (2008) Using a risk-based approach to project scheduling: a case illustration from semiconductor manufacturing. Eur J Oper Res 190(3):708–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Construction EngineeringChaoyang University of TechnologyTaichungTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringChung Hua UniversityHsinchuTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of Construction ManagementChung Hua UniversityHsinchuTaiwan

Personalised recommendations