SIMPLIFIED CPM/PERT SIMULATION MODEL

By Ming Lu1 and S. M. AbouRizk2

ABSTRACT: Formal stochastic simulation study has been recognized as a remedy for the shortcomings inherent
to classic critical path method (CPM) project evaluation and review technique (PERT) analysis. An accurate and
efficient method of identifying critical activities is essential for conducting PERT simulation. This paper discusses
the derivation of a PERT simulation model, which incorporates the discrete event modeling approach and a
simplified critical activity identification method. This has been done in an attempt to overcome the limitations
and enhance the computing efficiency of classic CPM/PERT analysis. A case study was conducted to validate
the developed model and compare it to classic CPM/PERT analysis. The developed model showed marked
enhancement in analyzing the risk of project schedule overrun and determination of activity criticality. In ad-
dition, the beta distribution and its subjective fitting methods are discussed to complement the PERT simulation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

model. This new solution to CPM network analysis can provide project management with a convenient tool to
assess alternative scenarios based on computer simulation and risk analysis.

INTRODUCTION stochastic simulation study. In such a study, the true properties

The classic critical path method (CPM) has been widely
used for network analysis and project planning in industry and
in academe ever since its invention in the 1950s. Project eval-
uation and review technique (PERT) was originally oriented
to the time elements of a project and used probabilistic time
estimates to aid in determining the probability that a project
could be completed by a given date. Both techniques identify
a project critical path, activities that cannot be delayed, and
slack activities that can be delayed without lengthening the
project completion time.
Deterministic CPM is easy to use for the purpose of project
control. However, lack of flexibility and uncertainty consid-
erations limit its effectiveness. Most industry professionals
view such an analytical method as potentially hemming them
into a fixed definition or performance (Halpin 1998). This
‘‘straight jacket’’ based on theoretical assumptions such as the
estimated normal activity duration and project completion time
is not attractive to practitioners who are used to incorporating
personal experience and the ever-changing actual conditions
into their decision making. This reflects the early (1970s) re-
action to CPM scheduling. Most professionals were against its
use as CPM was viewed as enforcing arbitrary or unattainable
goals (Halpin 1998).
PERT, which can be thought of as an improvement to CPM
that incorporates uncertainty and risk analysis, still proves baf-
fling to practitioners because of its underlying theoretical as-
sumptions. Based on the central limit theorem of statistics, the
classic CPM/PERT analysis takes into account the uncertainty
of activity duration or costs to analyze the overrun risk of the
project schedule or cost. However, the PERT calculated mean
project time is always an underestimate of the true project
mean (Ahuja et al. 1995). This bias in the mean estimate is
called the ‘‘merge event bias.’’ Ahuja et al. (1995) give a thor-
ough analysis and theoretical explanation of the PERT draw-
backs and argue that the solution to the PERT’s inherent prob-
lems is to conduct the network analysis through a formal
1
PhD Candidate, Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., 103 Civ. Engrg. Build.,
Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta., Canada T6G 2G7. E-mail: mlu@
ualberta.ca
2
Prof., Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., 220 Civ. Engrg. Build., Univ. of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alta., Canada T6G 2T3. E-mail: abourizk@civil.
ualberta.ca
Note. Discussion open until November 1, 2000. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on May 24, 1999. This paper is part of the Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 126, No. 3, May/
June, 2000. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 0733-9634/00/0003-0219–0226/$8.00 ⫹ $.50
per page. Paper No. 21099.
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MAY/JUNE 2000 / 219
of the activity duration distributions (including all of its sta-
tistical descriptors such as mean and variance) are used, and
the concept of activity criticality rather than path criticality is
used to overcome most of the PERT shortfalls (Ahuja et al.
1995).
To perform PERT analysis through simulation, two relevant
issues need to be studied carefully. They are (1) how to de-
termine the critical path; and (2) how to model activity dura-
tion statistically.
The following section, Review of CPM/PERT Simulation,
first reviews the classic CPM and two approaches specially
devised for PERT simulation. Next, the simplified CPM/PERT
simulation model is presented, which is an enhancement in-
tended to tackle PERT simulation more effectively and more
efficiently. In the section entitled Fitting Distribution for Ac-
tivity Duration, the beta distribution along with its role in
PERT simulation and its fitting methods is discussed.
REVIEW OF CPM/PERT SIMULATION
In the classic CPM analysis, earliest start time ES, latest
start time LS, earliest finish time EF, latest finish time LF, and
total float TF must be documented for every activity. The crit-
icality of an activity can be decided based on TF. The classic
CPM analysis is straightforward and effective for simple,
small-scale CPM networks.
However, when facing complex, large-scale CPM networks
with a great number of nodes and activities, the classic CPM
algorithm becomes cumbersome and inefficient for two rea-
sons. First, the duration for all the activities must be tracked
and stored during the forward pass calculation to conduct the
ensuing backward pass calculations. Second, five time attri-
butes (ES, EF, LS, LF, and TF ) must be calculated prior to
determining the criticality of an activity. A real project may
consist of hundreds of distinct activities. To expose the implicit
schedule risk of each activity and of the whole project, the
simulation may need to be run hundreds of times. It is only
in recent years, with the dramatic upgrading of computer tech-
nology, that such CPM-based risk analysis tools appeared in
the market. The major software includes Risk⫹ by Project-
Gear Inc. (a companion of MS Project) and Monte Carlo by
Primevera (a companion of P3).
Pritsker et al. (1989) presented an approach to PERT sim-
ulation in which the backward pass is processed as a ‘‘re-
versed’’ forward pass. To have the same time duration for
backward and forward passes for each activity of the network,
a separate random stream number is used to generate the du-
ration for each activity. Pritsker et al.’s approach still falls into
the category of the classic CPM in that the activity criticality
is determined based on the TF of an activity. Pritsker et al.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2000.126:219-226.

 pointed out that after a sufficient number of simulation runs,
a ranking of the activities by high value of average slack (TF)
time becomes a possible method for ordering the activities that
can be delayed. A more appropriate ranking is based on the
ratio of the average slack time to the standard deviation of
activity duration. A higher ratio value indicates that there is
less likelihood that the average slack time will be exceeded
due to the value of the basic variability inherent in the per-
formance of the activity. A low ratio value indicates there is
little leeway in the start time for the activity. The above anal-
ysis demands some in-depth knowledge of statistics and is not
easy for the common practitioner to use.
Pritsker et al.’s (1989) final conclusion was that ‘‘there is a
large positive correlation between the ranking of critical activ-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ities based on the ratio of average slack (TF ) to activity du-
ration standard deviation and the criticality index.’’ Criticality
index CI for an activity in a percentage term is defined as the
number of simulation runs in which the activity is critical,
divided by the total number of simulation runs.
Halpin and Riggs (1992) presented a PERT simulation ap-
proach using CYCLONE (Halpin 1990). By performing non-
cyclic simulation in CYCLONE, the forward pass calculation
was solved and the statistics for total project completion time
were obtained; these were the average project completion
time recorded by a COUNTER node of CYCLONE. However,
Halpin and Riggs pointed out that ‘‘a somewhat troublesome
aspect in the interpretation of any computer simulation of a
network regards the critical path.’’ They identified the statistics
of the waiting times of entities converging at a merge node in
the CPM network as a good indication of activity criticality;
the lower the average waiting time, the more critical the ac-
tivity (Halpin and Riggs 1992).
The limitation of this CPM is that the ‘‘amount of time an
entity had to wait in a QUEUE node (converging activity)
before being processed by the following COMBI activity
(merge node)’’ is actually the local slack or free float in CPM
terminology. According the CPM analysis, the condition re-
quired for an activity to be deemed critical is for the TF value
FIG. 1. Processing Complex Node
FIG. 2. CPM Network for Sample Application
220 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MAY/JUNE 2000
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2000.126:219-226.
(not free float) to be equal to 0. As in the classic CPM, de-
termination of TF for each activity requires the backward pass
calculation.
In the proposed ‘‘simplified CPM/PERT simulation’’ algo-
rithm, the strategy used in the forward pass is similar to PERT
simulation in CYCLONE; however, a new backward pass al-
gorithm is devised to identify the critical activities in a simple
and efficient manner and does not calculate TF to determine
the critical path.
STRUCTURE AND ELEMENTS OF SIMPLIFIED
CPM/PERT SIMULATION
The simplified CPM/PERT simulation follows the conven-
tion of the classic CPM network, which is built using the ac-
tivity-on-arrow structure. The network is constructed with two
basic elements that are interconnected by arrows; these are the
merge node and the burst node. In the proposed model, a
merge node is strictly defined as a node with two or more
incoming branches (activity arrows) and only one outgoing
branch, and a burst node is defined as a node with only one
incoming branch and two or more outgoing branches. If a node
has only one incoming branch and only one outgoing branch,
it is treated as a burst node for the sake of simplicity in cal-
culation, because no attribute needs to be tracked and deter-
mined in the calculation for a burst node. (This is clarified
later in the section entitled Forward Pass Calculation.) If a
node has more than two incoming branches and more than
two outgoing branches, as is often encountered in the CPM
network, it must be changed into a merge node and a burst
node by adding one dummy activity between nodes as shown
in Fig. 1.
Only one terminal node is allowed to exist in a network to
earmark the finish milestone of the whole project. A dummy
activity (zero duration) is added to link the last node of the
CPM network to a terminal node, as shown in Fig. 2.
As long as a node has no preceding activities or incoming
branches, it is defined as an origin node. The following rules
apply to the origin node:
• A network may have more than one origin node.
• At a particular control moment when the prerequisite ac-
tivities of a merge node or a burst node are all completed,
the merge node or burst node mutates into an origin node
dynamically.
• An origin node is closely associated with a control time
at which moment the origin node releases a simulation
entity. At the planning stage (i.e., before the implemen-
tation of project), the control time may be set to zero or
to the expected project commencement date in the future.
During the execution stage (i.e., when the project is un-
derway), the control time may be set to the current time
or calendar date.
 ALGORITHM OF SIMPLIFIED CPM/PERT SIMULATION
Discrete Event Modeling
A discrete event simulation system consists of discrete en-
tities that occupy discrete states that will change over time
(Pidd 1996). The simplified CPM/PERT simulation takes the
discrete event modeling approach. An entity is an object that
is created at the start of simulation, processed in the simulation
model, and terminated at the end of simulation. The states and
behaviors of an entity within the model will be explicitly
tracked as simulation proceeds such as ‘‘Start activity ij ’’ and
‘‘Finish activity ij .’’ The entity persists in a state for a defined
period of time; for instance, ‘‘Being processed by activity ij ’’
state is maintained for the duration of activity ij. The time at
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
which the entity changes its state is known as an event. For
instance, ‘‘Arriving at a simple burst node (one incoming
branch and one outgoing branch)’’ event changes the entity
state from ‘‘Being processed by the previous activity’’ to ‘‘Be-
ing processed by the next activity.’’ The complex logic con-
straining an event can be defined as a set of prerequisite con-
ditions. For instance, the ‘‘Departing from a merge node’’
event (batch entities and release one entity) will not occur
unless all entities have arrived from the incoming branches.
An activity or arrow in the network always begins with a ‘‘De-
parting from a node’’ event and ends with an ‘‘Arriving at a
node’’ event.
Forward Pass Calculation
The algorithm of the simplified CPM/PERT simulation for
computing simulation event times on the forward pass can be
summarized as follows:
1. At the control time of an origin node, entities are created.
The number of entities created is equal to the number of
branches emanating from the origin node.
2. Starting from the origin node, entities travel along the
forward direction of the network (usually from left to
right) until arriving at a merging node I that has N con-
verging branches (N ⱖ 2).
3. When N entities all arrive at merge node I, N entities
will be batched into one entity.
4. The batched entity will immediately be released from
node I and travel along the network path until arriving
at another merge node.
5. Steps 3 and 4 will be repeated until an entity arrives at
the terminal node, at which point the entity is terminated.
It should be noted that calculation only occurs at all the
merge nodes and the terminal node in the CPM network, as
is discussed next.
If the merge node I has N converging branches (N ⱖ 2),
then 2N variables are needed to capture the entity arrival times
AT and entity waiting times WT of the N branches. One extra
variable is used to capture the departure time of the batched
entity released from the merge node. Therefore, 2N ⫹ 1 var-
iables suffice to keep track of all the event time information
associated with a merge node. The calculations are given in
the following formulas. Notice that k corresponds to the kth
converging branch at the merge node I, k = 1, 2, . . . , N.
The remainder of this section outlines the computations that
take place during simulation.
Entity Arrival Time (AT )
To calculate AT on a given branch, two cases must be dif-
ferentiated:
1. If the entity is released from an origin node (i.e., if in-
coming branch k can be traced back directly to an origin
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MAY/JUNE 2000 / 221
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2000.126:219-226.
node without any other merge node in its way), then AT
at merge node I from branch k can be calculated as
shown
AT(k) = ControlTime ⫹ PathDur(k) (1)
where AT(k) = arrival time of the entity coming from
branch k; ControlTime = control time of the origin node;
and PathDur(k) = sum of activity duration along the path
from merge node I to the origin node.
2. If the entity is released from a merge node (i.e., if in-
coming branch k can be traced back to previous merge
node J that is closest to current merge node I in the
network), AT at merge node I from branch k can be cal-
culated as shown
AT(k) = DT(J ) ⫹ PathDur(k) (2)
where AT(k) = arrival time of the entity coming from
branch k; DT(J ) = departure time of the entity from
merge node J; PathDur(k) = sum of activity durations
along the path from current merge node I to previous
merge node J.
DT from Merge Node
The DT of the batched entity from merge node I depends
on AT from all the converging branches, dictated by
DT(I ) = AT(c) (3)
where DT(I ) = entity departure time from merge node I; and
c corresponds to the incoming branch that gives the maximum
AT from Steps 1 and 2, in other words, the entity from incom-
ing branch c arrives last.
WT at Merge Node
WT(k) = DT(I ) ⫺ AT(k) (4)
where WT(k) = waiting time of the entity coming from branch
k; AT(k) = arrival time of the entity coming from branch
k; and DT(I ) = batched entity departure time from merge
node I.
Once the above event times are all determined on a merge
node, the same process is repeated on every other merge node
in the network until the terminal node is reached.
The total project completion time is equal to AT at the ter-
minal node as given by
project completion time = AT(end dummy) (5)
Backward Passing Processing
The simplified CPM/PERT simulation algorithm is a stream-
lined network analysis method, which is reflected in the back-
ward pass calculation. It is unnecessary to calculate LS, LF,
and TF of each activity to determine activity criticality. Fur-
ther, unlike Pritsker et al.’s approach (1989), no simulation
entity is involved in the backward pass. The backward pass
calculation can be treated as a postprocessing of the PERT
simulation.
In the backward pass calculation, four steps are followed:
1. Associate a CI variable of ‘‘byte type’’ (i.e., 1 or 0) with
each branch or activity
CIIJ = 1 or 0
where I = activity start node; and J = end node; CIIJ =
1 indicates activity I-J being critical, 0 being noncritical.
2. Initialize CI for the end dummy activity with 1.
3. Next, apply the following two criticality rules along the
 backward path (usually from right to left in the CPM
network).
• Rule 1 (applicable to a merge node): If the emanating
branch of a merge node has a CI value equal to 1, then
the CI value is set to 1 only for the converging branch
that is associated with the zero WT; for the other con-
verging branches, CI values are all equal to 0.
If the emanating branch of a merge node has a CI
value equal to 0, then the CI values for all the con-
verging branches are set to 0.
The WT is calculated in the forward pass.
• Rule 2 (applicable to a burst node): If the sum of the
CI values for all the emanating branches of a burst
node is equal to zero, then the incoming branch must
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
have a CI value of 0; otherwise, the CI value of the
incoming branch is 1.
Rule 2 is also applicable to a burst node that has
only one outgoing branch.
4. Rules 1 and 2 are applied in the backward direction until
the origin nodes are reached.
Once the backward path processing of one simulation run is
completed, it is easy to detect all critical activities, which are
distinctly marked by the CI value of 1.
COMPARISON BETWEEN SIMPLIFIED CPM/PERT
SIMULATION AND CLASSIC CPM
As discussed in the previous sections, computing efficiency
regarding activity criticality is essential for successful PERT
simulation on a large-scale network. The simplified CPM/
PERT simulation exceeds the performance of the classic CPM
in terms of computing efficiency in the following two ways.
Number of Event Times
As discussed in the Forward Pass Calculation section, by
using the simplified CPM/PERT simulation, calculations are
only performed on the merge nodes and the terminal node. No
entity event times need to be tracked for burst nodes and origin
nodes. The number of event time variables required is ex-
pressed as follows:
冘 In the following sections, the beta distribution and its fitting
m
{2N ⫹ 1}i (6)
i=1
where m = total number of merge nodes (note that the terminal
node here is also treated as a merge node with only one in-
coming branch); and N = number of converging branches for
merge node I, (N ⱖ 2, except N = 1 for the terminal node).
The simplified CPM/PERT simulation ignores the burst
nodes and origin nodes in the forward pass and does not need
to calculate TF in the backward pass. Therefore, much fewer
event time variables are stored than with the classic CPM, in
which five time variables are required for every activity (ES,
EF, LS, LF, and TF ). Additionally, in the classic CPM, the
duration of every activity needs to be stored in a variable for
the purpose of the backward pass calculation. So each activity
needs a total of six time variables for classic CPM/PERT anal-
ysis. In contrast, in the simplified CPM/PERT simulation, ac-
tivity duration is used only once in the forward pass calcula-
tion and does not need to be stored. Given a CPM network
with 17 activities, the simplified CPM/PERT takes up only
one-third of the time variables that are needed for the classic
CPM analysis. This means savings of computer memory and
enhancement of computing efficiency, which will become even
more considerable for large-scale networks.
222 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MAY/JUNE 2000
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2000.126:219-226.
Roundup Error
Internal roundup errors arising from the computer’s inability
to accommodate float point notation are often encountered in
the backward pass calculation of the classic CPM; this may
result in errors in the determination of the critical path. For
instance, if the earliest and latest finish time of an activity are
both 10, then TF will be zero and the activity is deemed crit-
ical. However, the computer may return 9.9999 as the latest
finish time, hence the TF will be calculated as 10 ⫺ 9.9999
= 0.0001, which may lead to the wrong conclusion.
Because the backward algorithm of the simplified CPM/
PERT simulation does not need the determination of TF, it
avoids the roundup error problem completely.
Observations
From the above comparison, it can be observed that the
simplified CPM/PERT simulation is both simple and robust.
The efficiency enhancement and memory savings of the sim-
plified CPM/PERT simulation will be even greater when per-
forming multiple-run PERT simulations on large-scale CPM
networks.
The simplified CPM/PERT simulation can be easily vali-
dated by applying it to any simple CPM network. Some quick
manual calculations will lead to the identical critical path and
project completion time as that determined by using the classic
CPM. Mathematical proofs of Rules 1 and 2 are included in
Appendix I.
FITTING DISTRIBUTION FOR ACTIVITY DURATION
Despite the CPM utilized, the statistical distribution fitting
of activity duration always plays a pivotal role in PERT sim-
ulation.
Cottrell (1999) attempts to reduce the number of time esti-
mates required for activity duration by using the normal dis-
tribution instead of the beta distribution in a simplified version
of PERT. Only the ‘‘most likely time’’ and the ‘‘pessimistic
time’’ are estimated and are considered sufficient to fit a nor-
mal distribution. However, the gain of one less time estimate
carries the loss of ‘‘a fixed, skewed distribution that can ap-
proximate activity duration with long tails’’ (Cottrell 1999).
Therefore, if the simplified CPM/PERT simulation is imple-
mented in PERT simulation, beta distribution should be used.
methods are overviewed, and the methods of fitting beta dis-
tribution based on subjective time estimates are discussed.
Beta Distribution
Beta distribution, which was originally used in the classic
CPM-based PERT to model activity duration, has been thor-
oughly studied and conditioned. Many methods have been
found to fit a beta distribution and have been documented in
literature (AbouRizk et al. 1991, 1994). When a sufficient
amount of sample data is available (this may be historically
accumulated or simulation generated), an objective approach
can be taken to fit the parameters of beta distribution to the
sample data. If sample data is unavailable, or if historical data
is missing or too expensive and time-consuming to be col-
lected, a subjective approach may be utilized to fit a beta dis-
tribution based on human experience. Furthermore, during the
project planning and execution stages of a project, subjective
beta distribution fitting provides a more flexible and effective
means for the project manager to experiment with different
scenarios and analyze the risk of schedule overrun through
PERT simulation. This is demonstrated later in the section en-
titled Sample Application. In short, an accurate and efficient
method to fit the beta distribution parameters based on sub-
 TABLE 1. Activity Description and Duration Estimates
Activity Optimistic time Most likely time Pessimistic time
description Description Source of uncertainty estimate L estimate M estimate U
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1-3 Order/prefab metal building Past experience with supplier 20 22 25
1-2 Clear site Weather 5 10 15
2-3 Underground and foundation Unforeseen conditions underground may be 5 10 15
unfavorable
3-4 Erect prefab building Possibility of cold weather, precipitation, 8 10 20
etc.
4-5 Finish interior Labor productivity 9 10 11

jective time estimates will make PERT simulation more useful TABLE 2. Base Case Scenario: PERT Simulation Results ver-
to assist risk analysis and decision making. sus Classic PERT Analysis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Simplified
Subjective Beta Distribution Fitting Statistics of project CPM/PERT Classic CPM/
completion time simulation PERT analysis
Three time estimates describing the activity duration are (days) results results
used in fitting the beta distribution (McLaughlin and Pickhardt (1) (2) (3)
1997):
Minimum duration 39.3 N/A
Maximum duration 48.9 N/A
• The ‘‘most optimistic’’ time, which is an estimate of the Mean 43.6 43.5
minimum time required to complete an activity and be Standard deviation 2.1 2.2
obtained only if everything goes right. 95% confidence interval 43.2–44.1 N/A
• The ‘‘most pessimistic’’ time is an estimate of the maxi- Probability of completing by Day 45 72% 75%
mum time required to complete an activity and be ob-
tained only if everything goes wrong. TABLE 3. Base Case Scenario: Comparison of Activity Criti-
• The ‘‘most likely’’ time is an estimate of the normal time cality and Path Criticality
required to complete an activity. It is an estimate of the
result that would occur most often if the activity were CI (simplified On/off critical
repeated a large number of times. CPM/PERT path (classic
simulation) CPM/PERT
Activity description (%) analysis)
The two shape parameters of the beta distribution can be de-
(1) (2) (3)
termined using five methods from subjective time estimates
(AbouRizk et al. 1991). The mean and variance specified 1-3 (Prefab metal building) 85 On
1-2 (Clear site) 15 Off
method is found to be accurate and efficient to fit the shape 2-3 (Foundations) 15 Off
parameters and is recommended for use in the simplified CPM/ 3-4 (Erect building) 100 On
PERT simulation. 4-5 (Finish building) 100 On

SAMPLE APPLICATION
standard deviation of which are obtained based on the central
Base Case Scenario limit theorem. In the sample application, the mean and stan-
dard deviation of a normal distribution from the classic PERT
The sample CPM network for building a convenience store
analysis are determined as 43.5 and 2.2, respectively [refer to
is taken from Ahuja et al. (1995, Chapter 15) as shown in Fig.
Ahuja et al. (1995) for details]. Next, the control date is con-
2, which was originally used to illustrate the PERT calculation.
verted to a standardized term for the standard normal distri-
The activity description, the factors causing uncertainty, and
bution [(45 ⫺ 43.5)/2.2 ⫺ 0.6818]. By looking up the standard
the time estimates of activity duration are listed in Table 1. In
normal distribution table, the cumulative probability of com-
the sample application, the simplified CPM/PERT simulation
pleting the project by Day 45 can be determined to be 75%.
and mean and variance specified method are utilized to do a
The comparison in Table 2 exposes the drawback of the
PERT simulation analysis. Note that in the CPM network (Fig.
classic CPM/PERT analysis due to the merge event bias: the
2); node 1 is an origin node with the control time set to zero;
mean calculated by PERT is an underestimate of the mean
node 6 is the terminal node; node 3 is a merge node; and nodes
resulting from simulation (43.5 < 43.6), and the schedule over-
2, 4, and 5 are the three burst nodes.
run risk is also underestimated (72% < 75%). If the network
A program is developed using Microsoft Excel 97 and Vi-
is larger and has more merge nodes, the bias will become more
sual Basic for application to conduct beta distribution fitting
obvious.
and random sampling and to implement the simplified CPM/
In Table 3, the activity criticality in terms of CI resulting
PERT simulation. For the base case scenario, the simulation
from simplified CPM/PERT simulation is compared to the path
results are generated after 100 runs as listed in Tables 2 and
criticality resulting from the classic CPM/PERT analysis. It is
3, and are compared with classic CPM/PERT analysis results
observed that simplified CPM/PERT simulation can better
if applicable. The histogram and cumulative probability curve
quantify the criticality of an activity than the classic CPM/
of the project completion time drawn from the simulation re-
PERT analysis. This is more obvious in Scenario 1.
sults are shown in Fig. 3.
Note that for the simplified CPM/PERT simulation, the
Scenario 1
probability of completing the project by Day 45 is read from
the generated cumulative probability curve, as shown in Fig. If the general contractor feels uncomfortable with the over-
3. For the classic CPM/PERT analysis calculation, the proba- run risk of project schedule, it is easy to do some simulation
bility of completing the project by Day 45 is calculated from experiments by changing duration estimates for an alternative
a theoretical normal cumulative distribution, the mean and scenario. The following scenario is an example: What if the
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MAY/JUNE 2000 / 223

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2000.126:219-226.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 3. PERT Simulation Results for Base Case Scenario

general contractor cooperates with another fabrication subcon- TABLE 4. PERT Simulation Results: Scenario 1 versus Base
tractor who is able to deliver the job in a shorter time? Based Case
on factors such as reputations and past experiences on similar Simplified Simplified
work, the three time estimates for activity 1-3 are reevaluated Statistics of project CPM/PERT CPM/PERT
for an alternative supplier as L = 18, M = 20, and U = 22. completion time simulation simulation
Next, the general contractor runs the simplified CPM/PERT (days) scenario 1 base case
simulation again and obtains the results for a different scenario (1) (2) (3)
(scenario 1) as shown in Tables 4 and 5 and Fig. 4. Minimum duration 37.4 39.3
Table 4 compares the overrun risk of project schedule to Maximum duration 50.1 48.9
that of the base case scenario as well, showing that turning to Mean 42.4 43.6
the alternative supplier can reduce the overrun risk of project Standard deviation 2.7 2.1
95% confidence interval 41.9–42.9 43.2–44.1
schedule. For example, the mean project completion time is
Probability of completing by Day 45 85% 72%
reduced from 43.6 to 42.4 days, and the probability of com-
pleting the project within 45 days increases from 72% in the
base case scenario to 85% in scenario 1.
The change of CI shown in Table 5 reveals that the value
of CI for activity 1-3 decreases from 85 to 48%. With the TABLE 5. Scenario 1: Comparison of Activity Criticality and
classic CPM/PERT analysis, activity 1-3 is off the critical path Path Criticality
and therefore may not be brought to the project manager’s CI (simplified On/off critical
attention. However, the simplified CPM/PERT simulation re- CPM/PERT path (classic
sults give a CI value for activity 1-3 that is only 4% less than simulation CPM/PERT
that of activities 1-2 or 2-3, which are on the critical path from scenario 1) analysis
the classic CPM/PERT calculation. Therefore, to complete the Activity description (%) scenario 1)
convenience store project within schedule, the general con- (1) (2) (3)
tractor should almost equally prioritize prefab metal building 1-3 (Prefab metal building) 48 Off
(activity 1-3), clear site (activity 1-2), and foundations (activity 1-2 (Clear site) 52 On
2-3). This demonstrates the advantage of the activity criticality 2-3 (Foundations) 52 On
3-4 (Erect building) 100 On
concept in PERT simulation over the path criticality concept 4-5 (Finish building) 100 On
in the classic CPM/PERT analysis.

FIG. 4. PERT Simulation Results for Scenario 1

224 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MAY/JUNE 2000

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2000.126:219-226.

 CONCLUSIONS
By taking a discrete event modeling approach and incor-
porating a simplified critical activity identification method, the
proposed simplified CPM/PERT simulation model is validated
through the comparison with the classic CPM/PERT analysis
and is proved to be both simple and robust. This new solution
to CPM network analysis can provide project management
with a convenient tool to assess alternative scenarios based on
computer simulation and risk analysis.
APPENDIX I. PROOFS OF CRITICALITY RULES
Proof of Rule 1
Part 1 of Rule 1 can be put into a simple mathematical
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
representation as follows:
For a merge node I given CIIJ = 1, if WTkI = 0, then CIkI = 1;
otherwise CIkI = 0
where CIIJ = criticality index variable for activity I-J, which
emanates from node I and flows into node J, as shown in Fig.
5; WTkI = waiting time of an entity flowing into merge node
I from converging branch k; CIkI = criticality index of con-
verging branch k; k = 1, 2, 3, . . . , N, N = total number of
converging branches. (Seasoned schedulers will soon realize
the equivalence of the term WT in the classical CPM: the local
slack or free float.)
Because CIIJ = 1, branch I-J must be on the critical path by
the definition of CI. According to the classic CPM, TF for the
branch I-J (TFIJ) must be 0, therefore
TFIJ = LSIJ ⫺ ESIJ = 0 (7)
Hence
ESIJ = LSIJ (8)
where ESIJ = earliest start time of activity I-J in the classic
CPM terms; and LSIJ = latest start time of activity I-J in the
classic CPM terms.
By the definition of the arrival time of converging branch
k at merge node I, ATkI is equivalent to the earliest finish time
of converging branch EFkI , therefore
EFkI = ATkI (9)
From (8) and (9) we can have
WTkI = DT(I ) ⫺ ATkI = ESIJ ⫺ EFkI (10)
where DT(I ) = entity departure time or earliest release time
from node I and should be equal to the ESIJ .
If WTkI = 0, then from (10) ESIJ ⫺ EFkI = 0, and so we have
ESIJ = EFkI from (8), and
LSIJ = EFkI (11)
In the classic CPM backward pass calculation, we have
LFkI = LSIJ (12)
i.e., the latest finish time of converging branch k is equal to
the latest start time of merge node I.
From (11) and (12), we have
LFkI = EFkI (13)
FIG. 5. Illustration for Proving Rule 1
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MAY/JUNE 2000 / 225
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2000.126:219-226.
Based on (13), we can conclude that TFkI = LFkI ⫺ EFkI = 0.
Accordingly, by the definition of the classic CPM, converg-
ing branch k with WT = 0 is a critical activity; hence we set
CIkI = 1.
For the other converging branches at merge node I, with
WTkI > 0, from (10) we have WTkI = ESIJ ⫺ EFkI > 0, then
ESIJ > EFkI from (8), LSIJ > EFkI from (12), and LFkI > EFkI .
Thus, TFkI = LFkI ⫺ EFkI > 0, we can clearly conclude that
the other converging branches at merge node I, with WTkI >
0, must be off the critical path; therefore we assign 0 to CIkI ,
which proves the first part of Rule 1.
Part 2 of Rule 1 can be put into a simple mathematical
representation as follows:
For a merge node I given CIIJ = 0, then CIkI = 0
for all the converging branches at the merge node I
Because CIIJ = 0, the emanating activity I-J must be noncritical
so that we can have TFIJ > 0 or
ESIJ < LSIJ (14)
We also know
EFkI ⱕ ESIJ (15)
i.e., the earliest finish time of converging branch k must be
less than or equal to the earliest start time of merge node I.
Now from (14) and (15), we can have
EFkI < LSIJ (16)
It also holds true that
LFkI = LSIJ (17)
i.e., the latest start time of merge node I is equal to the latest
finish time of any converging branch. Now from (16) and (17),
we can have EFkI < LFkI , i.e.
TFkI = LFkI ⫺ EFkI > 0 (18)
If CIIJ = 0, any converging branch at the merge node is non-
critical; hence, the CI values for all of them should be equal
to 0, i.e., CIkI = 0, which proves the second part of Rule 1.
Proof of Rule 2
Rule 2 can be put into a simple mathematical representation
as follows:
For a burst node I given 兺 CIIk = 0, then CIJI = 0;
otherwise, i.e., 兺 CIIk > 0, then CIJI = 1
where k = 1, 2, . . . , N, N = total number of outgoing branches
at burst node I shown in Fig. 6.
If 兺 CIIk = 0 (i.e., none of the emanating branches at the
burst node is critical, hence TFIk > 0 for every emanating
branch) or LSIk ⫺ ESIk > 0, we have
ESIk < LSIk (19)
At burst node
ESIk = ES(I ) (20)
i.e., the earliest start times of all the emanating activities equal
to the earliest start time of burst node I
FIG. 6. Illustration for Proving Rule 2
 min[LSIk] = LS(I ) (21)
i.e., the latest start time of burst node I is equal to the mini-
mum of the latest start time of all the emanating activities.
From (19) and (21), we have
ES(I ) < LS(I ) (22)
i.e., the earliest start time of burst node I is less than its latest
start time. Also, based on the classic CPM, we have
ES(I ) = EFJI (23)
i.e., the earliest start time of burst node I is equal to the earliest
finish time of its incoming branch J-I
LS(I ) = LFJI (24)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
i.e., the latest start time of burst node I is equal to the latest
finish time of its incoming branch J-I.
From (22)–(24), we can conclude EFJI < LFJI or TFJI = LFJI
⫺ EFJI > 0, thus the incoming branch J-I burst node I is not
critical, and a 0 value is accordingly assigned to CIJI , which
proves the first part of Rule 2.
If 兺 CIIk > 0 (i.e., at least one of the emanating branches,
say branch k, at burst node I is critical), we have TFIk = 0 or
ESIk = LSIk (25)
For burst node I, according to the classic CPM
ES(I ) = ESIk (26)
i.e., the earliest start time of burst node I is equal to the earliest
start times of all the emanating branches
LS(I ) ⱕ LSIk (27)
i.e., the latest start time of burst node I is less than or equal
to the latest start times of all the emanating branches. From
(25)–(27), we have LS(I ) ⱕ ES(I ). Because the latest start
time is impossible to be less than earliest start time for a merge
node, we conclude
LS(I ) = ES(I ) (28)
From (28), along with (23) and (24), we know LFJI = EFJI ,
thus TFJI = LFJI ⫺ EFJI = 0, the incoming branch at merge
node I must be critical, and a value of 1 is accordingly as-
signed to CIJI .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was funded by a number of construction companies in Al-
berta, Canada, and by the National Science and Engineering Research
Council of Canada under grant number IRC-5558/96.
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES
AbouRizk, S. M., Halpin, D. W., and Wilson, J. R. (1991). ‘‘Visual in-
teractive fitting of beta distributions.’’ J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt.,
ASCE, 117(4), 589–605.
226 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MAY/JUNE 2000
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2000.126:219-226.
AbouRizk, S. M., Halpin, D. W., and Wilson, J. R. (1994). ‘‘Fitting beta
distributions based on sample data.’’ J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt.,
ASCE, 120(2), 288–305.
Ahuja, H., Dozzi, S. P., and AbouRizk, S. M. (1995). Project management
techniques in planning and controlling construction projects. 2nd Ed.,
Wiley, N.Y.
Cottrell, W. D. (1999). ‘‘Simplified program evaluation and review tech-
nique (PERT).’’ J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 125(1), 16–22.
Halpin, D. W. (1990). MicroCYCLONE user’s manual. Div. of Constr.
Engrg. and Mgmt., Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind.
Halpin, D. W. (1998). ‘‘Construction simulation: A status report.’’ Proc.,
5th Can. Constr. Res. Forum, NSERC/Alberta Construction Industry
Research Chair, Edmonton, Alberta, 33–42.
Halpin, D., and Riggs, L. (1992). Planning and analysis of construction
operations. Wiley, New York.
McLaughlin, F., and Pickhardt, R. (1979). Quantitative techniques for
management decisions. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Pidd, M. (1996). Tools for thinking, modelling in management science.
Wiley, London.
Pritsker, A., Sigal, C., and Hammesfahr, R. (1989). SLAM II network
models for decision support. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
ProjectGear Inc. (Risk⫹ for MS Project). 具http://www.cs-solutions.com/
riskplus.htm典
‘‘Monte Carlo娃 3.0 for Primavera.’’ (1995). Project Risk Analysis Soft-
ware, Primavera Systems, Inc., Bala Cynwyd, Pa.
APPENDIX III. NOTATIONS
The following symbols are used in this paper:
CI = criticality index variable for corresponding activity;
DT = entity departure time or earliest release time from corre-
sponding node;
ES = earliest start time of corresponding activity or node;
L = subjective estimate of lower end point of beta distribution
(i.e., optimistic time to complete corresponding activity);
LS = latest start time of corresponding activity or node;
M = subjective estimate of the mode of beta distribution (i.e.,
most likely time to complete corresponding activity);
N = total number of incoming branches at merge node or out-
going branches at burst node;
TF = total float of the corresponding activity;
U = subjective estimate of the upper end point of beta distri-
bution (i.e., pessimistic time to complete corresponding
activity); and
WT = waiting time of entity flowing into merge node from cor-
responding branch.
Subscripts
IJ = branch or activity starting from node I and ending at node
J;
I, J = network node ID;
Ik = kth outgoing branch linking with burst node I;
k = positive integer index, k = 1, 2, 3, . . . , N; Ik or kI also
stands for kth branch linking with node I; and
kI = kth incoming branch linking with merge node I.