PROBABILISTIC MONITORING OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE

USING SS-CURVES
By Gabriel A. Barraza,1 Member, ASCE, W. Edward Back,2 Associate Member, ASCE,
and Fernando Mata3

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to develop a new concept of project control. This new concept
uses stochastic S-curves (SS-Curves) as an alternative to using the deterministic S-curve technique commonly
employed in professional practice. SS-curves are developed by determining the activity level variability in cost
and duration. Simulation is the recommended approach for obtaining SS-curves, similar to the way that stochastic
schedules are currently developed. SS-curves provide probability distributions for expected cost and duration
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Hong Kong on 02/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

for a given percentage of work completed. Monitoring project performance is performed by comparing the most
likely budget and duration values, obtained from respective probability distributions for actual progress, with
the project’s actual data and cumulative cost. By using this method, an evaluation of actual project performance
can be developed that appropriately considers the natural variability of construction costs and duration, rather
than utilizing only one possible deterministic outcome. Given the probabilistic characteristics of SS-curves,
additional benefits are presented that enable a more comprehensive project control methodology.

INTRODUCTION been presented in risk analysis studies (Touran 1993; Sha⬘ath

As part of the project management function, planning and
control require the integration of time, cost, and quantity of
work. Since the early 1950s, the classical scheduling methods
—i.e., the Critical Path Method (CPM) and the Program Eval-
uation and Review Technique (PERT)—have been used not
only for planning, but also for controlling construction
projects. These methods provide useful information required
for control of project performance (i.e., early/late dates, free/
total floats, and critical activity identifications). As comple-
mentary control aids, two integrated methods were proposed
in the early 1980s for monitoring project performance. These
are the Integrated Cost/Schedule/Work Method (Stevens 1983)
and the Earned Value System, proposed by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy (1979). Such methods use S-curves—repre-
sentations of cumulative cost linked, or linearly related, to the
project schedule—as the primary tool for integrated cost and
schedule control.
In spite of the common use of CPM (or PERT) and S-
curves, a significant proportion of construction projects over-
run the cost estimation and/or fall behind schedule (Sha⬘ath
and Singh 1994). Aside from the problems associated with
poor cost or duration estimates, both classical scheduling
methods, CPM and PERT, have strong limitations when trying
to mimic the variable nature of projects, especially construc-
tion projects, that involve a substantial number of factors that
are difficult or impossible to control (i.e., weather, labor
productivity, etc.). CPM, being basically a deterministic
method, defines the duration of project as a single specific
number. Similarly, although PERT provides the distribution of
possible project durations, it does not consider different pos-
sible critical paths (merge event bias) once the most likely
duration for each activity has been determined (Crandall
1976).
Using simulation techniques, a more realistic approach has
1
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Industrial Engrg., Tecnológico de Monterrey,
Monterrey, N.L. 64849, México.
2
Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29630.
3
Prof., Mgmt. Grad. School, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Monterrey, NL
64849, México.
Note. Discussion open until September 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 December 4, 1998. This paper is part of the Jour-
nal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 126, No. 2,
March/April, 2000. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 0733-9634/00/0002-0142–0148/$8.00
⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 19777.
142 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 2000
and Singh 1994; Rao and Grobler 1995). Instead of estimating
a specific total cost or specific depletion date, simulation meth-
ods have been developed to evaluate expected total cost and
final duration for different levels of certainty. Simulation has
also been used to develop probabilistic schedules avoiding the
merge-event-bias (Crandall 1977; Crandall and Woolery 1982;
Pritsker and Sigal 1983; Touran 1994; Senior 1995).
In recent years, the practical application of simulation has
been significantly improved with advances in computational
technology and by the improved understanding of probability
concepts by engineers and users (Touran 1994). Commercial
computer programs have been developed with the specific pur-
pose of developing integrated, stochastic cost and duration es-
timating [e.g., Monte Carlo (1993) and @RISK for Project
(1993)]. Unfortunately, despite the advanced development of
probabilistic planning methods, no method is currently avail-
able for monitoring project performance which integrates cost,
duration, and progress data, while incorporating the variable
nature of project activities.
The objective of this research is to develop the concept of
probabilistic project performance monitoring. A review of the
two more frequently used deterministic methods for monitor-
ing project performance is first presented. An abbreviated dis-
cussion of published methods for probabilistic planning is also
presented. A new representation of S-curves is then proposed
to facilitate probabilistic monitoring of project performance
using project progress as the independent variable (progress-
based S-curves or PB-S-curve). Using a simulation approach,
where a possible PB-S-curve is obtained for each simulation
iteration, a probabilistic criterion is proposed to monitor
project performance. The set of all possible PB-S-curves, de-
fined here as stochastic S-curves (SS-curves) is used for the
purpose of monitoring actual performance at any percentage
of work completed. Finally, SS-curves are introduced as a po-
tential tool to develop a more comprehensive project control
system.
DETERMINISTIC METHODS FOR MONITORING OF
INTEGRATED PROJECT PERFORMANCE
Two deterministic methods for monitoring project perfor-
mance have been widely adopted in the practice of construc-
tion project management, namely, the Cost and Schedule Con-
trol System Criteria (C/SCSC), also known as the Earned
Value Method, and the Integrated Cost/Schedule/Work
Method. These methods, explained below, allow for the inte-
gration of the cost and schedule control functions required for
developing an integrated project performance monitoring.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2000.126:142-148.

 Integrated Cost/Schedule/Work Method
Using the project cost estimate and CPM information, a plot
of cumulative budgeted cost, as time progresses, can be easily
generated. Cumulative-cost graphs are commonly called ‘‘S-
curves’’ because they often resemble the shape of the letter S
(in the earlier stages as well as in the latter stages of construc-
tion project execution, less work is performed and less cost is
accumulated than in the middle stages as a function of time).
A similar graph for ‘‘work completed’’ (cumulative pro-
gress) can also be obtained. The progress S-curve can be
linked to the cost S-curve, thus graphically defining the rela-
tionship between cost and accomplished work during the ex-
ecution time period of the construction project. This technique
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Hong Kong on 02/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
requires the user to define the project budget and assumes a
fully defined scope. The project budget can be measured as
cost, labor-hours, or physical quantity of work. Because of the
diversity of units of work, and resources, in a construction
project, the easiest way to represent project is by measuring
percentage of work completed, based on the budget for each
activity in the project (Ward and Lithfield 1980). Fig. 1 shows
an example of integrated S-curves. In this research, for the
purpose of facilitating graphical explanation, the plot of cu-
mulative progress is represented as a straight line, although
the variation in time versus cumulative progress will generally
resemble an S-curve.
Stevens (1983) explains the use of integrated cost and pro-
gress S-curves shown in Fig. 1 as follows: In Fig. 1, actual
progress (point A) is plotted above the planned progress curve,
indicating that the project is ahead of schedule. The actual time
variation can be determined by extending a horizontal line
from point A to point B on the planned progress curve. This
measure defines the time variance (TV). Fig. 1 also shows that
actual cost (point E) is located above the scheduled budget,
but the amount of the present variation in this parameter is not
immediately apparent. The budgeted cost for the actual pro-
gress, rather than the budget listed for the current date, must
be compared with the actual cost. By extending a vertical line
from point B on the scheduled progress until it intersects the
cumulative budget at point C, it can be determined what the
cost for actual progress should have been. Thus, cost perfor-
mance is evaluated by extending a horizontal line from point
C to point D on the current date, and measuring the cost var-
iance (CV) as the vertical difference between D and E. The
actual cost situation is, in this representative case, a cost un-
derrun.
FIG. 1. Integrated Cost and Progress S-Curves
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 2000 / 143
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2000.126:142-148.
Earned Valued Method
Singh (1991) recommends the Earned Value Method as a
means to achieve successful, state-of-the-art construction man-
agement to determine if the work is proceeding according to
plan. This method can be used following the Criteria for Con-
tract Performance Measurement of the U.S. Department of En-
ergy (U.S. DOE 1979; Neil 1986, 1987).
Schedule performance is evaluated measuring the schedule
variance (SV), that is, the comparison of the budgeted cost of
work scheduled (BCWS or budgeted cost) to the budgeted cost
of work performed (BCWP or earned value). If the budgeted
cost is less than the earned value, more was accomplished than
planned and the project is ahead of schedule. The reverse
would place the project behind schedule. Cost performance is
evaluated by measuring the cost variance (CV), the compari-
son of the earned value to the actual cost of work performed
(ACWP or actual cost). If more was paid for than is actually
completed, the project is over budget. The previous relation-
ships can be expressed as follows:
SV = BCWP ⫺ BCWS (1)
CV = BCWP ⫺ ACWP (2)
The graphical representation of BCWS, ACWP, and BCWP,
as they accumulate over time, also resembles the form of an
S-curve. Fig. 2 shows these curves and also representations of
CV and SV. Although it is not defined by the C/SCSC, it is
helpful to know the deviation in time (time variance) between
actual progress and planned progress, especially in cases when
monetary units are used, since SV is not as clear as the cases
when work units are used. This time variance (TV) can be
found as the difference ‘‘in time’’ between BCWS and BCWP.
TV is also presented in Fig. 2. As can be observed, if the time
planned to do the present earned value is larger than the actual
elapsed time, the project is ahead of planned schedule.
Comparing both graphical representations of the previously
presented methods (i.e., Figs. 1 and 2), it can be concluded
that, given a project progress pj⬘ and actual cost cj⬘ at actual
date dj⬘, point D in Fig. 1 represents the value of BCWP in
Fig. 2. Thus, both representations are equivalent and provide
the same CV, SV, and TV values. Although these deterministic
methods are limited with respect to their ability to capture
project variability, their use is justified because they identify
the interaction between cost and time for a specific progress.
In the opinion of Oberlander (1993), S-curves are a very useful
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Hong Kong on 02/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 2. Earned Value S-Curves

FIG. 3. Cost and Schedule Probabilistic Estimating

tool that allows the manager to effectively control the project,
taking corrective actions as necessary when actual perfor-
mance of the project differs from the originally planned. How-
ever, recognizing the stochastic nature of construction project
activities, the effectiveness of the control function can be se-
verely limited if a specific, planned S-curve (Figs. 1 or 2) is
used as the evaluation basis because of its very low likelihood
of occurrence.
PROBABILISTIC COST AND DURATION ESTIMATING
When attempting to capture the variable behavior of activity
costs and durations, the first applications of probabilistic plan-
ning were limited to final cost or project duration estimations,
each one typically treated independently from the other. Most
of them used the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) approach
(Crandall 1977; Diekmann 1983).
Recently, commercial computer programs have been devel-
oped with the specific purpose of probabilistic estimating [e.g.,
Monte Carlo (1993) and @RISK for Project (1993)]. These
simulation applications are capable of developing integrated
probabilistic cost and duration estimating performance CPM
calculations in order to find the early and late event times for
144 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 2000
each activity. If, in each iteration, values of cost are found for
each time increment, a possible S-curve can be generated. The
final graph will have a representation similar to that shown in
Fig. 3, where the envelope of completion cost and duration
values includes the end point of each simulated S-curve (Bent
and Humphreys 1996). From the simulation results, probabil-
ity density functions (PDF) for final cost and project duration
can be obtained, as well as their cumulative distribution func-
tions (CDF), thus providing the required information to de-
velop an integrated risk analysis. From the CDF, cost and du-
ration values can be obtained for different levels of certainty.
Fig. 3 shows probability distributions for final cost and
project duration. From these distributions, values of cost and
duration, with an acceptable probability of cost and schedule
underrun, are independently chosen as the planned cost and
time budgets, respectively. For instance, cost and duration es-
timates corresponding to 80% of certainty for cost underrun
and finishing on time, are shown in Fig. 3. The target final
project outcome shown in this figure is found intersecting the
target final duration and the target total budget, which are usu-
ally taken as the expected final duration value (␮dn) and the
expected budgeted cost (␮bn), respectively. The difference be-

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2000.126:142-148.

 tween planned and targeted (cost and time) estimates corre-
sponds to the planned (cost and time, respectively) contin-
gency.
More recently, Sha⬘ath and Singh (1994), as well as Rao
and Grobler (1995), created computer programs for probabi-
listic project scheduling and cost estimating, integrating the
effect of correlation between activity cost and duration varia-
bles. Unfortunately, despite the advanced development of
probabilistic planning methods, no method is currently avail-
able for monitoring project performance which integrates cost,
duration, and progress data, while also incorporating the var-
iable nature of individual project activities.
PROBABILISTIC MONITORING USING TB-S-CURVES
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Hong Kong on 02/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The integrated S-curves and the earned value S-curves were
previously presented as deterministic methods of integrated
monitoring of project performance. Both methods are classi-
fied here as time-based S-curves (TB-S-curves), because time
is treated as an independent variable, and cost and progress
are treated as time-dependent variables. In this section, the
integrated S-curve representation (Fig. 1) will be used to de-
velop the proposed probabilistic monitoring method because
it includes all the variables necessary for an integrated project
performance evaluation (i.e., cost, time, and work progress).
Using a simulation approach, cumulative cost and work pro-
gress can be obtained for different values of elapsed time (S-
curve values) in each simulation iteration. Considering all sim-
ulated S-curves, probability distributions of cumulative cost
and elapsed time for different values of work programs can be
obtained. Notice that once the project scope is defined, exe-
cution of a particular activity represents the same quantity of
work (percentage of project progress), independently of what
its cost and duration might actually be. In other words, project
progress can be considered as a deterministic variable, while
project cost and duration may be considered probabilistic var-
iables.
With the cost and time distributions for a particular project
progress, equivalent performance indexes to CV and TV can
be defined for the probabilistic monitoring approach. In this
case, since in probabilistic methods the term ‘‘variance’’ has
a specific statistical meaning, the term ‘‘variation’’ will be
used to represent measures of probabilistic project perfor-
mance. Thus, the cost variation (CV) and time variation (TV)
FIG. 4. Probabilistic Monitoring Using Integrated S-Curves
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 2000 / 145
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2000.126:142-148.
can be defined as follows. The same abbreviations for perfor-
mance measures as used in deterministic methods are proposed
to facilitate their interpretations.
CV is evaluated as the difference between the expected
(mean value) budgeted cost (␮V) for actual percentage of work
progress ( p), and actual cost (c). TV is evaluated as the dif-
ference between the expected (mean value) time duration (␮t)
for actual percentage of work progress ( p) and actual elapsed
duration (d ). These definitions can be expressed as follows:
CV = ␮v ⫺ c (3)
TV = ␮t ⫺ d (4)
The graphical representation of the probabilistic monitoring
is shown in Fig. 4. In this figure, duration and budget distri-
butions are illustrated for actual progress ( pj), CV represents
the difference between the expected (mean) budgeted cost
value (␮vj) and actual cost (cj), and TV represents the differ-
ence between the expected (mean) planned duration (␮tj) and
actual duration (dj). Unfortunately, although localization of the
planned duration distribution is possible for a specific project
progress, localization of the possible correspondent budget dis-
tribution is quite difficult because of the overlapping of budget
envelopes for different project progresses. To address this
problem, a new graphical representation is presented below to
allow for the graphical monitoring of probabilistic integrated
project performance.
PROGRESS BASED S-CURVES
In the practice of construction project management, progress
is most often measured in terms of the amount of work com-
pleted, rather than in the time expended to complete the work.
Progress charts in the form of progress graphs, histograms,
and line-of-balance (LOB) charts are part of the language of
many construction practitioners (Pultar 1990).
As mentioned earlier, the integrated S-curves and the earned
value S-curves are actually TB-S-curves, because time is
treated as an independent variable, and cost and progress are
treated as time-dependent variables. Instead of using the pre-
vious convention, the independent variable could be the
planned percentage of accomplished work (progress), because
it depends only on the project scope (same for actual and for
 TABLE 1. Progress-Based Performance Monitoring Informa- 5 and 6 represent actual elapsed time (e) and actual cost (c),
tion respectively. If observation periods were assumed to be tabu-
Period Planned Planned Elapsed Actual lated at constant increments of percentage of accomplished
number Progress time value time cost work (w), for actual progress values different from those orig-
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) inally tabulated in column 2, corresponding values of d and b
0 0 0 0 0 0 could be found simply with appropriate interpolations. Thus,
1 w1 d1 b1 e1 c1 since actual cost is directly related to planed progress, column
2 w2 d2 b2 e2 c2 4 also represents the earned value, and CV and TV can be
⭈ ⭈ ⭈ ⭈ ⭈ ⭈ obtained for a particular project progress directly with the cost
⭈ ⭈ ⭈ ⭈ ⭈ ⭈ and time variables of the correspondent row. CV is the differ-
⭈ ⭈ ⭈ ⭈ ⭈ ⭈ ence between the cost values of columns 4 and 6, while TV
i wi di bi ei ci
i⫹1 wi ⫹1 di ⫹1 bi ⫹1 is the difference between the time values of columns 3 and 5.
⭈ ⭈ ⭈ ⭈ The following equations define these performance indexes for
⭈ ⭈ ⭈ ⭈ a Wi percent of project progress.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Hong Kong on 02/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

⭈ ⭈ ⭈ ⭈
m 100 dm bm
planned performance) and project time and cost could be
treated as progress-dependent variables (usually different for
actual and planned performance).
Thus, integrated performance monitoring can be accom-
plished by evaluating the cumulative percentage of accom-
plished work and the corresponding cumulative cost and
elapsed time for both planned and actual project execution.
Table 1 shows the information required for progress-based
monitoring.
In Table 1, columns 2, 3, and 4 represent the percentage of
project progress (w), the planned duration (d ), and the budget
(b), respectively, for each one of the (m) observation periods
(column 1). For the correspondent project progress, columns
CV = bi ⫺ ci (5)
TV = di ⫺ ei (6)
Fig. 5 shows PB-S-curves obtained with the data shown in
Table 1. If project progress is defined with respect to the
project cost estimate, the time versus progress curve will re-
semble an inverted S-curve (i.e., a given progress increment
is completed in less time in the middle stages of a project than
in the first and last stages of the project execution), and the
cost versus progress curve will be, in this case, a straight line.
Considering the previous discussion, deterministic inte-
grated performance monitoring can also be represented with
PB-S-curves simply as shown in Fig. 5. As mentioned before,
the use of TV is found to be more convenient than using SV
for determining schedule performance, if SV is evaluated us-
ing monetary units.

FIG. 5. Progress-Based Integrated S-Curves

146 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 2000

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2000.126:142-148.

 PROBABILISTIC MONITORING USING
STOCHASTIC S-CURVES
Graphical probabilistic monitoring can be represented in a
more practical and simple manner than in Fig. 4, using PB-S-
curves instead of TB-S-curves. From the project simulation,
different planned duration and budget values can be obtained
for each project progress percent, wherever project perfor-
mance valuations are required, obtaining a sample of possible
PB-S-curves. The set of possible PB-S-curves is defined here
as integrated stochastic S-curves (SS-curves). Fig. 6, which is
an example of integrated SS-curves, shows the expected var-
iability of cost and time for different progress values. As can
be observed in Fig. 6, SS-curves provide the representation of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Hong Kong on 02/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
CV = ␮bi ⫺ ci (7)
TV = ␮di ⫺ ei (8)
It is important to mention that probabilistic performance
variations found with (7) and (8) can be quite different from
deterministic performance variations found with (1) and (2)
[or with (5) and (6)]. Since deterministic S-curves are usually
obtained from the cost estimate and project schedule evaluated
with the most likely (mode) activity cost and duration values,
when project activities have skewed costs and/or duration PDF
(mean and mode values are different), the deterministic
planned S-curves will differ from the expected (mean) SS-
curves. In this situation, deterministic monitoring can result in
inaccurate evaluation of actual project performance, making

budget and time probability distributions, without envelopes
overlapping, for a given percentage of work completed.
Now, probabilistic monitoring of integrated project perfor-
mance can be performed in a similar way, as previously ex-
plained, but using integrated TB-S-curves. For actual progress
(wi), the CV (cost variation) is the difference between the ex-
pected planned budget (␮ bi) and the actual cost (ci), and the
TV (time variation) is the difference between the expected
time value (␮di) and the elapsed time (ei). Expressions for CV
and TV using the progress-based representation are given by
(7) and (8). Fig. 6 shows both variations:
probabilistic monitoring a more meaningful and accurate
method for evaluation of actual project performance.
KEY BENEFITS OF SS-CURVES
Although SS-curves do not solve the problems associated
with fundamentally poor estimates, they are preferred to de-
terminist S-curves because they provide information relative
to the range of likely outcomes for the project at any percent
of its progress.
Using a simulation approach for obtaining the SS-curves,

FIG. 6. Probabilistic Performance Monitoring Using SS-Curves

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 2000 / 147

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2000.126:142-148.

 correlation information can be incorporated allowing a
stronger advantage of this method over deterministic estimat-
ing and monitoring methods. Three types of correlation may
be specified: correlation between cost variables, correlation be-
tween schedule variables, and correlation between cost and
schedule variables (Rao and Grobler 1995).
Also, because of the probabilistic characteristics of SS-
curves, several significant benefits are achieved that enable a
more comprehensive project control system. Project managers
can make management decisions considering the natural var-
iability in the budget and the planned schedule instead of using
a specific (deterministic) S-curve, which will have a very low
likelihood of occurrence. The concept of SS-curves facilitate
a more meaningful forecasting of possible final cost and com-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Hong Kong on 02/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
pletion date distributions using actual cost and actual progress
and the expected variability in future activities. Also, project
control can be performed based on a range of acceptable per-
formance variations. If actual performance variations are in-
dicated to be larger than those acceptable, corrective action
strategies could be identified (i.e., changing activity prece-
dence relations, changing activity crews, changing equipment
uses, etc.). Finally, selection of the more convenient corrective
action, or combination of corrective actions, could be accom-
plished comparing forecasted distributions with those of orig-
inally planned SS-curves.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
The lack of integration between cost and schedule variables
results in an ineffective project control system. Even though
actual deterministic control methods allow integration of the
cost and schedule control function, they are still quite limited
with respect to incorporating the stochastic behavior of project
activities.
Probabilistic planning and forecasting methods have been
demonstrated to be more accurate than deterministic methods.
However, the practice of project control is still primarily based
on deterministic methods that apply, as the principal tool, the
use of deterministic S-curves. A possible reason for this situ-
ation is the lack of a graphical representation capable of in-
tegrating the stochastic project cost and duration variables and
linking them to the project progress. To solve this problem,
the progress-based representation of elapsed time and cumu-
lative project cost (PB-S-curves) were proposed. Using PB-S-
curves, cost and schedule project performances can be deter-
mined by evaluating CV and TV, respectively.
TB-S-curves are commonly used in the actual practice of
project performance monitoring. Two methods that use TB-S-
curves were presented, the C/SCSC (earned value) method and
the Integrated S-curves method. The integrated S-curves
method has the advantage of using project progress as an ad-
ditional performance variable in the graphical representation.
Although the use of the C/SCSC method is more popular, it
has the characteristic of using the same performance units
(dollars or man-hours) for evaluating cost and schedule per-
formances (CV and SV, respectively). As an advantage over
the C/SCSC method, PB-S-curves allow the determination of
duration (schedule) performance with the evaluation of time
variance (TV), which is directly obtained in time units.
With the purpose of developing a probabilistic method to
monitor project performance, and as an alternative to using
deterministic S-curves, the concept of integrated stochastic S-
curves (SS-curves) has been proposed. Integrated SS-curves
represent a sample of possible cost and elapsed time PB-S-
curves, which are obtained by incorporating the stochastic per-
148 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 2000
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2000.126:142-148.
formance of each project activity. Simulation is the recom-
mended approach for obtaining SS-curves, having the
capability of including correlation between activity perfor-
mance variables.
Since SS-curves provide probability distributions of budg-
eted cost and planned elapsed time for a given percentage of
progress, project performance can be monitored evaluating
cost and time variations (CV and TV, respectively) by com-
paring the expected (mean) budgeted cost and planned dura-
tion with actual cumulative cost and elapsed time, respectively.
This represents an important advantage of the probabilistic
control method, since the performance indexes can be quite
different if actual cost and time values are compared against
specific planned values (deterministic approach) instead of ex-
pected values (probabilistic approach).
Because of the probabilistic characteristics of SS-curves,
several additional benefits are available for a more compre-
hensive project control system. SS-curves can be applied for
more meaningful forecasting of possible final cost values and
completion date distributions using actual cost and actual pro-
gress, and by simulating the variability of future activities.
Additionally, project control decisions can be developed based
on defined ranges of acceptable cost and time variations. If
the project behavior were out of the control variation limits,
detailed study of corrective action strategies could be accom-
plished by comparing distributions of planned SS-curves with
those of forecasted SS-curves.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Bent, J., and Humphreys, K. (1996). Effective project management
through applied cost and schedule control. Marcel Dekker, New York.
Crandall, K. C. (1976). ‘‘Probabilistic time scheduling.’’ J. Constr. Div.,
ASCE, 102(3), 415–423.
Crandall, K. C. (1977). ‘‘Analysis of schedule simulations.’’ J. Constr.
Div., ASCE, 103(3), 387–394.
Crandall, K. C., and Woolery, J. C. (1982). ‘‘Schedule development under
stochastic scheduling.’’ J. Constr. Div., ASCE, 108(2), 321–329.
Diekmann, J. E. (1983). ‘‘Probabilistic estimating: mathematics and ap-
plications.’’ J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 109(3), 297–308.
Monte Carlo娃 Version 2.0. (1993). Primavera Systems, Inc., Bala Cyn-
wyd, Pa.
Neil, J. N. (1986). ‘‘Project control for engineering.’’ Publication No. 6-
1, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Tex.
Neil, J. N. (1987). ‘‘Project control for construction.’’ Publication No. 6-
5, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Tex.
Oberlander, G. D. (1993). Project management for engineering and con-
struction. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Pritsker, A. A. B., and Sigal, C. E. (1983). Management decision making:
a network simulation approach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Pultar, M. (1990). ‘‘Progress-based construction scheduling.’’ J. Constr.
Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 116(4), 670–688.
Rao, G. N., and Grobler, F. (1995). ‘‘Integrated analysis of cost risk and
schedule risk.’’ Proc., Comp. in Civ. Engrg., ASCE, New York, 1404–
1411.
@RISK for Project娃. (1993). Palisade, Inc., Newfield, N.Y.
Senior, B. A. (1995). ‘‘Simulation and critical path method software con-
nectivity.’’ Proc., Comp. in Civ. Engrg., ASCE, New York, 1412–1419.
Sha⬘ath, K. K., and Singh, G. (1994). ‘‘A PC-based stochastic project
scheduling and costing module.’’ Proc., Comp. in Civ. Engrg., ASCE,
New York, 9–16.
Singh, A. (1991). ‘‘Developing and implementing C-SCSC.’’ J. Profl.
Issues in Engrg. Educ. and Pract., ASCE, 117(3), 295–308.
Stevens, W. M. (1983). ‘‘Cost control: integrated cost/schedule perfor-
mance.’’ Proc., Improving Productivity, ASCE, New York, 16–27.
Touran, A. (1993). ‘‘Probabilistic cost estimation with subjective corre-
lations.’’ J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 119(1), 58–71.
Touran, A. (1994). ‘‘Probabilistic modeling of scheduling uncertainty:
methods and tools.’’ Proc., Comp. in Civ. Engrg., ASCE, New York,
380–383.
Ward, S. A., and Lithfield, T. (1980). Cost control in design and con-
struction. McGraw-Hill, New York.