Probabilistic Forecasting of Project Duration Using Bayesian

Inference and the Beta Distribution

Byung-cheol Kim1 and Kenneth F. Reinschmidt2

Abstract: Reliable forecasting is instrumental in successful project management. In order to ensure the successful completion of a
project, the project manager constantly monitors actual performance and updates the current predictions of project duration and cost at
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 02/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

completion. This study introduces a new probabilistic forecasting method for schedule performance control and risk management of
on-going projects. The Bayesian betaS-curve method 共BBM兲 is based on Bayesian inference and the beta distribution. The BBM provides
confidence bounds on predictions, which can be used to determine the range of potential outcomes and the probability of success.
Furthermore, it can be applied from the outset of a project by integrating prior performance information 共i.e., the original estimate of
project duration兲 with observations of new actual performance. A comparative study reveals that the BBM provides, early in the project,
much more accurate forecasts than the earned value method or the earned schedule method and as accurate forecasts as the critical path
method without analyzing activity-level technical data.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9364共2009兲135:3共178兲
CE Database subject headings: Forecasting; Scheduling; Bayesian analysis; Construction management.

Introduction measuring, analyzing, and communicating the actual performance

Forecasting is an essential element of project management
throughout the life cycle of a project. Reliable forecasts are criti-
cal once a project gets started because, even with a detailed plan,
there are inherent risk factors that may influence the actual per-
formance of a project. As a result, the project manager constantly
seeks leading indicators for potential problems so that appropriate
actions can be taken in a timely manner. That is, a current devia-
tion from the plan serves as an early indicator of potential devia-
tion of the project duration and cost at completion from the
project’s objectives.
This paper focuses on the probabilistic schedule forecasting of
ongoing projects. In the project management community, two
common practices for performance forecasting are 共1兲 to use the
earned value method 共EVM兲 for cost and schedule forecasting
and 共2兲 to use the EVM for cost forecasting and the critical path
method 共CPM兲 for schedule forecasting 共Fleming and Koppelman
2006兲. CPM is based on activity-level time estimates and prece-
dence relationships among the activities in the project network
schedule. In spite of its mathematical simplicity, applying CPM to
large, complex projects requires extensive and detailed technical
knowledge of all activities and the logical precedences among
them. On the other hand, EVM relies only on summary project-
level cumulative progress data and provides a systematic way of
1
Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, Ohio Univ., 114 Stocker
Center, Athens, OH 45701-2927. E-mail: kimb@ohio.edu
2
Professor of Civil Engineering and J. L. “Corky” Frank/Marathon
Ashland Petroleum LLC Chair in Engineering Project Management,
Zachry Dept. of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M Univ., 3136 TAMU,
College Station, TX 77843-3136.
Note. Discussion open until August 1, 2009. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. The manuscript for this paper
was submitted for review and possible publication on January 4, 2008;
approved on October 15, 2008. This paper is part of the Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 135, No. 3, March 1,
2009. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/2009/3-178–186/$25.00.
of a project. EVM also has the advantage of being universally
applicable over a wide range of project types and sizes because
every project, no matter how large or complex, is represented by
three functions: the planned value 共PV or the budgeted cost of
work scheduled兲, the earned value 共EV or the budgeted cost of
work performed兲, and the actual cost 共AC or the actual cost of
work performed兲.
However, these methods are fundamentally deterministic and
fail to account for the inherent uncertainty in project planning,
execution, and performance measurement. The need for forecast-
ing arises only when there is uncertainty about the future. Fur-
thermore, uncertainty is an important factor in planning and
making decisions about the future progress of a project. However,
conventional methods such as EVM and CPM do not provide
confidence bounds on predictions, which are essential to effective
decision making under uncertainty. The program evaluation and
review technique 共PERT兲 provides a simplified probabilistic
evaluation of project duration. However, it has been criticized for
bias due to neglecting the influence of near-critical paths and its
assumption of the independence of activities.
The objective of this paper is to present a new probabilistic
forecasting method for project duration, which relies only on
summary project-level performance information and updates the
current prediction of project duration in the light of new perfor-
mance information. The ultimate goal of project performance
forecasting is to provide decision makers with objective and re-
fined forecasts in a timely manner. However, actual performance
data, which are probably the most objective and reliable source of
predictive performance information, are limited early in the
project. Therefore, a major challenge in project performance fore-
casting is to make use of subjective judgment or prior knowledge
to overcome the lack of measured performance data to work with
共Gardoni et al. 2007兲 during the early phase of a project.
The method presented in this paper, Bayesian betaS-curve
method 共BBM兲, is developed based on Bayesian inference and a
curve fitting technique using the beta distribution. The BBM is a

178 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2009

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2009.135:178-186.

 Table 1. Typical Approaches for Ongoing Project Forecasting
Categories Description Examples
I. The original estimate • Actual performance data are atypical. CPM
• Typically early in a project.
II. A new estimate • Original estimates are not reliable Bottom up estimating, check list
and actual performance data are atypical.
• Additional time and cost.
• Typically during the closing phase.
III. The original estimate modified by • Actual performance data are typical. EVM, regression models
past performance data • Applicable only when significant data are available
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 02/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

regression model that fits an S-curve function to cumulative
progress curves of a project and updates the parameter estimates
of the S-curve using a Bayesian inference approach. Recently,
two new models based on this concept have been reported 共Gar-
doni et al. 2007; Kim and Reinschmidt 2007兲. In those models,
actual performance records are fitted by a single or a group of
rather simple S-curve functions with two parameters. As a result,
their efficiency depends on the existence of S-curve functions that
fit a specific progress pattern with an acceptable accuracy. The
BBM in this paper exploits the potential of the combined use of
Bayesian inference and S-curve functions in project performance
forecasting, with emphasis on ease of implementation and robust-
ness in quantifying various prior performance information from
various sources, such as project plans, historical data, and subjec-
tive judgments.
This paper is organized as follows. The next section reviews
conventional project performance forecasting methods. In the
subsequent section, two component methodologies—S-curve
models and Bayesian inference—are reviewed. The BBM is then
formulated based on the general framework of the Bayesian adap-
tive forecasting method and a curve fitting technique using the
beta distribution. Numerical examples using real project data are
presented in order to demonstrate the predictive properties of the
BBM. In addition, the life-cycle forecasting accuracy of the BBM
is evaluated and compared against a state-of-the-art EVM sched-
ule forecasting method and the CPM.
Review of Project Performance Forecasting
Methods
Typical forecasting approaches to update the original estimates
with actual performance data from an ongoing project can be
grouped into three categories, depending on the decision maker’s
perception of the relationship between past and future perfor-
mance 共PMI 2004兲. Table 1 summarizes basic properties and ex-
amples of the three categories. Approaches in Categories I and II
are valid only when actual performance data observed from a
project are considered irrelevant to the future performance of re-
maining jobs. The Category I approach can be applied when the
original estimates are still believed reliable. For example, the
CPM updates the project duration at completion given delays in
some critical path activities in the past, but typically assumes that
the causes that affected past activities will not affect future ones.
When the remaining jobs are considered as a new project, the
Category II approach can be applied.
Category III methods address the situations in which project
duration and cost at completion are updated using both the origi-
nal estimate and actual performance data up to the time of fore-
casting. A typical case of the Category III forecasting is the
earned value method. In EVM, the schedule and cost performance
of a project are analyzed in terms of four performance indicators:
共1兲 cost variance 共CV兲 = EV− AC; 共2兲 cost performance index
共CPI兲 = EV/ AC; 共3兲 schedule variance 共SV兲 = EV− PV; and 共4兲
schedule performance index 共SPI兲 = EV/ PV. The standard EVM
prediction for the project duration and cost at completion rests on
the assumption that the cumulative performance indices 关SPI共t兲
= EV共t兲 / PV共t兲 and CPI共t兲 = EV共t兲 / AC共t兲兴 will represent the per-
formance efficiency of the jobs in the future. The estimate at
completion 共EAC兲 at time t is then equal to the cost already spent
共AC兲 plus the adjusted cost for the remaining work
EAC共t兲 = AC共t兲 + 关BAC − EV共t兲兴/CPI共t兲 = BAC/CPI共t兲 共1兲
where BAC= budget at completion. Although the use of EVM
forecasting formulas for cost performance has been supported
widely, many modified versions of the standard formula have
been suggested 共Anbari 2003; Christensen 1993兲. However, those
methods are typically linear extrapolations, assuming, for ex-
ample, that the computed CPI, which has changed in the past 共or
it would always equal 1.00兲, will not change in the future.
On the other hand, forecasting project duration using the cu-
mulative planned value 共PV兲 and earned value 共EV兲 has been
criticized for systematic distortion in results 共Lipke 2003; Vande-
voorde and Vanhoucke 2006兲. To improve schedule forecasting
with EVM, several modified forecasting formulas have been sug-
gested 共Anbari 2003; Lipke 2003兲. Recently, Vanhoucke and
Vandevoorde 共2007兲 conducted a comprehensive comparative
study against three EVM-based schedule forecasting methods in
the literature and reported that the earned schedule method 共Lipke
2003兲 outperforms, on the average, other methods. In the earned
schedule method 共ESM兲, the earned schedule at time t, ES共t兲, is
defined as the planned time to achieve the current earned value
EV共t兲. The estimated duration at completion at time t, EDAC共t兲,
is then calculated as
EDAC共t兲 = t + 关PD − ES共t兲兴/共ES共t兲/t兲 共2兲
where PD= planned project duration.
However, application of these present methods to schedule
forecasting of ongoing projects has some limitations. First, all
these methods are deterministic and fail to provide confidence
bounds on predictions. The level of uncertainty in forecasts may
influence decisions about planning and controlling projects. In
addition, most methods forecast the final outcome of a project
based on the assumption that the current status measurements are
accurate and without any errors, which is unrealistic because
there are inherent errors in both measuring time to report and
measuring performance at the reporting times. Furthermore, EVM
forecasting formulas are not recommended early in a project be-
cause of large prediction errors due to few reporting intervals to

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2009 / 179

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2009.135:178-186.

 sum over 共small sample size兲 共Fleming and Koppelman 2006兲.
The stabilization period that is required to get reliable EVM fore-
casts may change from one project to another and no study has
been done about how to determine in advance the right time, for
a specific project, after which the current EVM forecasting for-
mulas can be applied with acceptable reliability.
Methodologies
The Bayesian betaS-curve method is developed based on two
well-known approaches in project management and engineering:
S-curve models and Bayesian inference. This section reviews
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 02/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
these two methodologies with an emphasis on their fundamental
properties that characterize the BBM.
S-Curve Models
Typical cumulative progress curves of projects show S-like pat-
terns, regardless of the unit of measurement; for example, cumu-
lative costs, labor hours, or percentage of work 共PMI 2004兲.
S-curve representations have long been widely used in the man-
agement of real projects. In project management, S-curves, which
are also called progress curves 共Schexnayder and Mayo 2003兲,
represent cumulative progress over time, which represents the
amount of work done or to be done by a specific time throughout
the execution period. In the construction industry, S-curves have
been used as a graphical tool for measuring progress 共Barraza et
al. 2000; Miskawi 1989兲, as control limits based on early start and
late start dates of activities 共Schexnayder and Mayo 2003兲, and as
a cash flow forecasting tool at relatively early stages of the project
life cycle 共Fellows et al. 2002兲. Touran et al. 共2004兲 introduced a
financial model for measuring the effect of new U.S. Department
of Transportation prompt pay provisions, in which a beta distri-
bution function was used for the expenditure S-curve.
However, previous studies of the use of the S-curve as a quan-
titative performance management tool for ongoing projects, not
just visual displays, are very limited. Murmis 共1997兲 generated a
symmetric S-curve from a normal distribution and forced it to
pass fixed points of the cumulative progress curve in order to
detect problems in project performance. Cioffi 共2005兲 modified a
typical sigmoid curve used frequently in ecology to develop a
more flexible S-curve. Barraza et al. 共2000, 2004兲 tried to use a
set of S-curves generated from a network-based simulation as a
visual project control tool and extended the concept to a probabi-
listic forecasting method by adjusting the parameters of probabil-
ity distributions of future activities with performance indices 共the
CPI and SPI in the EVM兲 of finished activities. Useful as they
are, these previous works are not suitable to the objective of
probabilistically forecasting at-completion project duration of on-
going projects, largely because of poor flexibility of the suggested
S-curves and the lack of a mathematically sound forecasting
framework based on actual performance information available at
the time of forecasting.
Bayesian Inference
Bayesian inference provides a systematic way of updating knowl-
edge in the light of new observations 共Gelman et al. 2003兲. A
Bayesian approach also provides a systematic way of combining
all pertinent information from various sources in terms of prob-
ability distributions. If a project manager has an initial estimate of
project progress 共that is, a project plan兲 and if this progress curve
180 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2009
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2009.135:178-186.
is fitted to some known model with associated parameters 共⌰兲,
the project manager’s belief in the individual model parameters
can be updated with actual performance data 共D兲 as the project
proceeds. Bayes’ law for this case can be written as
P共⌰兩D兲 = P共D兩⌰兲P共⌰兲/P共D兲 共3兲
where P共⌰兲 = prior distribution reflecting the belief in the param-
eters before observing new outcomes; P共D 兩 ⌰兲 = conditional prob-
ability that the particular outcomes D would be observed, given
the parameters ⌰; P共D兲 = marginal distribution of the observables
D; and P共⌰ 兩 D兲 = posterior distribution of the parameters ⌰ given
that the outcomes D were observed.
Formulation of the Bayesian BetaS-Curve Method
Assumptions and the General Framework of Bayesian
Adaptive Forecasting Using S-Curve Functions
Every project is unique and can be characterized by a unique
S-curve 共Kenley and Wilson 1986兲. The Bayesian adaptive fore-
casting method is developed based on the premise that every
project proceeds following a characteristic cumulative progress
curve 共Kim 2007兲. The underlying strategy of the approach is to
identify the characteristic progress curve of a project using the
prior performance information and to use that curve, which is
named the progress curve template, to forecast future progress of
the project.
A reasonable way, probably the most reliable way, of obtaining
the progress curve template is to construct it from the detailed
plans of the project itself. For example, the planned value distrib-
uted over time, which is used as the baseline of project perfor-
mance analysis in the EVM, can be directly used as a progress
curve template for forecasting. Once the progress curve template
for a project is determined, it is approximated by fitting some
S-curve models. If a model is found that fits the progress curve
template acceptably well, it is used to forecast future performance
of the project by updating the parameters of the model based on
actual performance data. This approach is valid under the assump-
tion that an actual progress curve of an ongoing project or job will
follow the same S-curve model that approximates the progress
curve template. In projects, if the actual progress deviates signifi-
cantly from the plan, then something is amiss with the project.
The general framework of the Bayesian adaptive forecasting
method consists of three steps: 共1兲 generating prior distributions
of model parameters; 共2兲 updating model parameters based on
reported data; and 共3兲 using the updated model for forecasting.
Once the prior performance information of a project is developed,
the information is used to generate the corresponding prior distri-
butions of model parameters. The periodic performance data dur-
ing execution are then used to revise prior beliefs on the model
parameters through Bayesian inference. Finally, updated distribu-
tions of model parameters are used to forecast meaningful project
information such as the estimated duration at completion
共EDAC兲, the range of possible outcomes, and the probability of
meeting the planned project duration. Based on the assumptions
and the general framework of the Bayesian adaptive forecasting
method, the Bayesian betaS-curve method is developed. The re-
maining part of this section discusses the definition of the betaS-
curve function and its application to the formulation of the BBM.
 BetaS-Curve Function
The betaS-curve function is a S-curve function derived based on
the beta distribution. The beta distribution has a long history of
application in engineering and project management 共AbouRizk et
al. 1991; Malcolm et al. 1959; Perry and Greig 1975兲. The pri-
mary advantage of applying the beta distribution is the fact that
the beta distribution can generate a wide range of shapes with
only two parameters 共Touran et al. 2004兲. In statistics, the beta
distribution is a continuous probability distribution on a finite
interval A to B with two shape parameters ␣ and ␤. The probabil-
ity density function 共PDF兲 of a beta random variable X is
1 共x − A兲␣−1共B − x兲␤−1
f共x;␣,␤兲 = ␣ ⬎ 0,␤ ⬎ 0,A 艋 x 艋 B
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 02/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
B共␣,␤兲 共B − A兲␣+␤−1
where B共␣ , ␤兲⫽beta function
冕
1
B共␣,␤兲 = t␣−1共1 − t兲␤−1dt
0 performance information is defined as all relevant performance
The cumulative distribution function of the beta distribution is
F共x;␣,␤兲 = B共共x − A兲/共B − A兲;␣,␤兲/B共␣,␤兲
where B共共x − A兲 / 共B − A兲 ; ␣ , ␤兲⫽incomplete beta function, which
is defined as
冕
s resents the best probabilistic estimate of the project duration,
B共s;␣,␤兲 = t␣−1共1 − t兲␤−1dt
0 mon probabilistic schedule planning methods such as PERT 共Mal-
The betaS-curve function is defined over a range 关0 , T兴, where
T represents the project duration. The ranges of the two shape
parameters are restricted to ␣ 艌 1 and ␤ 艌 1 in order to confine the
plausible solution space to S-curves with unimodal PDF. The uni-
modal shape resembles the typical resource level distribution of
projects during the execution period. It should be noted that a
uniform PDF based on ␣ = 1 and ␤ = 1 is also included in the
solution space. In addition, a new parameter m is introduced to
represent the location of the mode. The betaS-curve function is
then defined as
B共x/T;␣,␤兲
BetaS-curve共x;␣,m,T兲 =
B共␣,␤兲
where ␣ 艌 1, 0 ⬍ m ⬍ 1, T ⬎ 0, and ␤ = 共␣ − 1兲 / m − 共␣ − 2兲.
Input Elements
The primary information that should be relied on for project per-
formance forecasting is the past performance data observed in the
project itself. Early in a project, however, project managers may
suffer from a lack of sufficient actual performance data to make
reliable forecasts, resulting in deferring any judgment about per-
formance control at the risk of missing the opportune time to take
appropriate corrective actions. Therefore, for a method based on
actual performance data to be also applicable during the early
phase of a project, the method should have an adaptive nature that
updates an original estimate developed during the planning phase
in the light of new performance data reported periodically during
the execution phase. The Bayesian betaS-curve method makes use
of all relevant performance information available from standard
project management practices and theories. Information used in
the method can be grouped into two categories: the prior perfor-
mance information and the actual performance data. The prior
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2009 / 181
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2009.135:178-186.
Progress ($) Prior probability distribution of
the project duration
BAC
Progress curve template
Actual performance data
t PDAC
共4兲
Fig. 1. Two elements of the prior performance information and the
actual performance data
共5兲
information other than actual performance data, which is avail-
able even before the inception of a project.
共6兲 In the BBM, the prior performance information consists of two
elements: the prior probability distribution of project duration and
the progress curve template. Fig. 1 shows these elements in a
graphical way. First, the prior distribution of project duration rep-
共7兲 which is made before observing actual performance data. Com-
colm et al. 1959兲 and network-based simulation 共Lee 2005兲 can
be used to generate the distribution of project duration. In the
absence of detailed project plans, a subjective probability estimate
can be made using subjective estimating methods such as three-
point estimates and range estimating techniques. The second ele-
ment of prior performance information, the progress curve
template, represents the prior knowledge of the project manager
and project engineers about the plausible progress pattern of the
actual performance. The progress curve template of a project rep-
resents the characteristics of the project in terms of the cumula-
tive progress over time.
共8兲
Step 1—Generation of Prior Distributions of
BetaS-Curve Parameters
In the Bayesian approach, the three parameters 共␣, m, and T兲 of
the betaS-curve function are not single valued and deterministic,
but rather are random variables themselves, with their own prob-
ability distributions. Depending on the types of prior information
available and the level of confidence a decision maker puts on
that information, different types of priors can be used for the
betaS-curve parameters. Table 2 summarized the types of prior
distributions recommended in the Bayesian betaS-curve method.
Because the duration parameter 共T兲 explicitly represents the
project duration, probabilistic, not single-point, priors should be
used in order to get probabilistic predictions of the completion
date. When reliable probabilistic estimates of project duration are
available prior to the start of a project, informative prior distribu-
tion of T can be used. Otherwise, a noninformative prior should
be used for parameter T. In this case, predictions are made based
only on actual performance reports from the project.
For the shape parameters, ␣ and m, both single-point estimates
and probabilistic estimates can be used, depending on the types of
information used in forecasting. For example, when a single
 Table 2. Types of Prior Distribution for the BetaS-Curve Parameters
Parameters Informative
Duration parameter 共T兲 • Recommended when prior performance information is
considered relevant to actual performance.
• E.g., T ⬃ PERT 共optimistic, most likely, pessimistic兲; T
⬃ normal 共␮ , ␴2兲.
Shape parameters 共␣ and m兲 • Recommended when prior performance information is
considered • Recorelevant to actual performance.
• E.g., ␣ ⬃ normal 共␮ , ␴2兲 and m ⬃ normal 共␮ , ␴2兲 for
probabilistic priors. ␣ ⬃ ␣ˆ and m⬃m̂ for single-point priors.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 02/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
planned progress curve is used, single-point estimates of ␣ and m
can be obtained by a common curve fitting technique. This ap-
proach is fairly simple and applicable to most projects that are
planned and monitored with cumulative progress curves. When
there is a network schedule and the project manager can extract
probabilistic estimates of activity durations, a more refined ap-
proach can be used to build probability distributions of ␣ and m
共Kim 2007兲. The method proceeds through three steps: 共1兲 given
a network schedule and probabilistic estimates of activity dura-
tions, generate a large sample of potential progress curves, which
are collectively called stochastic S-curves of the project 共Barraza
et al. 2000, 2004兲, using a simulation approach; 共2兲 for each of the
stochastic S-curves, calculate the best-fit parameters 共␣ , m , T兲
using a betaS-curve function; 共3兲 repeat this fitting process to all
the random S-curves generated and obtain a set of marginal
probability distributions of the shape parameters—
p共␣兲 , p共m兲 , p共T兲—along with the correlation coefficients between
them. With this method, the stochastic nature of the progress
curves of a project can be quantified in a systematic way and
represented as a set of prior probability distributions of the betaS-
curve parameters. It should be noted that information used for
prior distribution generation is not limited to documented plans
for a specific project. Historical data from similar projects contain
valuable information about possible outcomes of a future project
and, adjusted with appropriate professional judgments, a project
manager may be able to develop useful prior distributions.
Step 2—Parameter Updating with Bayesian Inference
Because the shape parameters are random variables themselves,
estimates of their numerical values can and should be revised
whenever any new information becomes available. With the
betaS-curve function, the Bayesian updating process in Eq. 共3兲 is
formulated as follows. Let ⌰ denote the set of parameters
兵␣ , m , T其. The parameters are chosen independently so that the
prior probability distribution of the parameter set is represented as
p共⌰兲 = p共␣兲p共m兲p共T兲 共9兲
Once a project gets started, actual progress is reported periodi-
cally and the data can be represented as a series of discrete values
D 2007兲 that consume large amounts of computer time.
D:共wi,ti兲,i = 1, . . . ,N 共10兲
where wi represents the cumulative progress reported at time ti;
and N = number of records up to the time of forecasting.
The likelihood of the data conditional on the parameters cho-
sen is measured based on the deviations between the actual times
of performance reporting and the planned times determined by the
betaS-curve parameters T共wi 兩 ⌰兲. The goal is to seek a set of
182 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2009
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2009.135:178-186.
Prior types
Noninformative
• Recommended when prior performance information is not
relevant to actual performance.
• Use uniform distribution over a reasonable range, e.g., T
⬃ uniform共0 , 3 * PD兲.
• Recommended when no information about plausible
progress curve is available.
• E.g., ␣ ⬃ uniform共1 , 9兲, m ⬃ uniform共0 , 1兲.
parameters that make the deviations normally distributed with
zero mean and standard deviation ␴. It is assumed that the ran-
dom errors corresponding to different observations are uncorre-
lated. The likelihood of the data conditional on the parameters
can then be calculated as the product of the likelihood of each
observation
N
p共D兩⌰兲 = 兿
i=1
p共ti,wi兩⌰兲
N
= 兿 共1/冑2␲␴兲exp关− 共1/2兲共关ti − T共wi兩⌰兲兴/␴兲2兴 共11兲
i=1
The value of ␴ is determined by the forecaster to adjust the sen-
sitivity of predictions to the actual data reported.
The marginal distribution of the observed actual progress D is
determined from
冕
p共D兲 = p共D,⌰兲d⌰ 共12兲
where the joint probability distribution of data and parameters is
constructed from Eqs. 共9兲 and 共11兲 as p共D , ⌰兲 = p共D 兩 ⌰兲p共⌰兲.
The goal of the Bayesian updating is to obtain a revised or
posterior marginal distribution of each model parameter condi-
tional on the observed data. Using fundamental properties of con-
ditional distributions, the posterior marginal distribution of a
parameter, for example ␣, can be derived by integrating the joint
parameter distribution conditional on the observed data, which is
determined from Eqs. 共9兲–共12兲, with respect to the remaining pa-
rameters ⌰−␣ = 兵m , T其
冕
p共␣兩D兲 = p共⌰兩D兲d⌰−␣ 共13兲
It should be noted that computing the posterior distributions
derived above requires multifold integration over the parameters
used in the analysis. In this work, a Monte Carlo integration tech-
nique has been successfully applied without resorting to more
sophisticated methods such as importance sampling 共Gardoni et
al. 2007兲 and Markov chain Monte Carlo method 共Ghosh et al.
Numerical Examples
The Bayesian betaS-curve method has been implemented for the
convenience of the spreadsheet user as an add-in for Microsoft
Excel and applied here to two examples of ongoing projects being
monitored with monthly progress reports. Fig. 2 shows the
 100
90
80
% Complete
70 Planned, 24
60
50
40 Planned
30
20 Actual
10 Planned F it
0 0
0 5 10 15 20
Month
(a) Project A
Fig. 2. Progress curves of the example projects
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 02/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
planned progress 共planned value or budgeted cost of work sched-
uled兲 and actual progress 共earned value or budgeted cost of work
performed兲 curves from the monthly progress reports of the ex-
ample projects. Project A is an engineering project with a budget
over 25 million US dollars. The planned duration of Project A is
24 months and it is slightly ahead of schedule with 58% comple-
tion as of the eleventh month. Project A represents a case of
on-the-schedule projects. On the contrary, Project B represents a
typical case when a project suffers perpetual schedule delay.
Project B is a plant project with over 11 million US dollar budget
and its network schedule consists of over 1,000 activities. Origi-
nally scheduled to finish within 25 months, Project B is 68%
complete as of the eighteenth month.
The primary objective of these examples is to demonstrate
advanced properties of BBM, such as the range of possible
completion dates and potential advantages from using appropriate
prior performance information in combination with actual perfor-
mance data. In order to do that, two different prior distributions
are used for the project duration parameter T and the estimated
duration at completion 共EDAC兲 is updated every month with a
new monthly progress report. The prior distributions used for the
betaS-curve parameters are summarized in Table 3. The informa-
tive prior for project duration is determined from subjective judg-
ment of possible outcomes of project duration using the PERT
range estimates. In this paper, planned project duration is used as
the most likely 共ML兲 estimate of the project duration, while the
optimistic estimate 共O兲 and pessimistic estimate 共P兲 of the project
duration are assumed as 80% and 140%, respectively, of the
planned duration. For example, the PERT estimates of Project B
are O = 20 months, ML= 25 months, and P = 35 months. On the
other hand, a uniform distribution spanning from zero to three
times planned project duration is used to represent noninforma-
tive prior distribution for project duration. For the shape param-
eters, ␣ and m, least-square estimates of the best-fit betaS-curve
function to the planned progress curves are used.
The BBM is repeatedly applied to the two projects using the
two prior cases and the time histories of the EDAC are shown in
Figs. 3 and 4. In the graphs, the thick solid line represents the
Table 3. Priors Used in Numerical Examples
Project A
Informative T Noninformative T
T ⬃ PERT 共O = 19.2; ML= 24; P = 34兲 T ⬃ Uniform 共0 , 72兲
␣ ⬃ ␣ˆ = 2.00 ␣ ⬃ ␣ˆ = 2.00
m ⬃ m̂ = 0.47 m ⬃ m̂ = 0.47
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2009 / 183
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2009.135:178-186.
100
90
80
% Complete
70
60 Planned, 25
50
40
Planned
30
20 Actual
10 Planned F it
25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Month
(b) Project B
mean of the posterior distribution of the EDAC over the forecast-
ing time. The upper and lower bounds are determined at the 10%
confidence level on each side. Therefore, the confidence bounds
have 80% probability of including the actual project duration.
That is, a forecasting method is derived such that the lower bound
indicates a completion date that a project will finish later than
with 90% probability.
Forecasts made for Project A are shown in Fig. 3. The results
reveal that the use of informative prior for the duration parameter
关Fig. 3共b兲兴 provides a more stable EDAC profile than the nonin-
formative T. On the other hand, when the noninformative prior is
used 关Fig. 3共a兲兴, the mean of the EDAC responds quickly to early
project reports. The results indicate that the same actual data have
a stronger influence on the revision of EDAC when a noninfor-
mative prior is used. However, influence from prior information
diminishes as more data accrue from the project. The diminishing
impact of prior information is also found in the profiles of the
prediction intervals. Results in Fig. 3 show that the width of the
prediction interval narrows, as it should, as more data are ob-
served. However, the rate of narrowing is greater with noninfor-
mative prior than PERT estimates of T.
The results for Project B 共Fig. 4兲 show similar patterns dis-
cussed with Project A and, more importantly, demonstrate the
benefits of using BBM when a project is behind schedule. Obvi-
ously, this is the case when project managers start to keep a close
eye on their projects. In such cases, the prediction bounds on the
EDAC provide an objective, quantitative indicator of the signifi-
cance of the gap between the planned progress and the actual. For
example, the lower bounds in Figs. 4共a and b兲 indicate that,
10 months after the project start, the probability of completing the
project within its original duration 共25 months兲 is highly unlikely
共falls below 10%兲. Of course, one can adjust the confidence level
according to his or her accepted level of risk, for example, to 95%
or to 99%. The point here is that the BBM method provides
project managers with additional information about schedule risk
of their projects, which deterministic methods cannot convey.
It should be noted that a forecast can only be as accurate as the
information used. Whether one should use an informative prior or
Project B
Informative T Noninformative T
T ⬃ PERT 共O = 20; ML= 25; P = 35兲 T ⬃ Uniform共0 , 75兲
␣ ⬃ ␣ˆ = 3.39 ␣ ⬃ ␣ˆ = 3.39
m ⬃ m̂ = 0.42 m ⬃ m̂ = 0.42
 40 EDAC(t) 40
EDAC(t)
35 Upper Bound 35 Upper Bound
Lower Bound
30 30 Lower Bound

EDAC

EDAC
25 Planned, 24 25 Planned, 24

20 20

15 15
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Month Month

(a) Using noninformative T (b) Using PERT estimates of T

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 02/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. EDAC共t兲 of Project A

a noninformative prior depends on whether prior knowledge and
beliefs available are considered important and useful in predicting
the performance of the current project. The greater the emphasis
placed on prior knowledge, the less the emphasis on current data
when making project predictions. In practice, informative prior
for the three parameters of the betaS-curve model can be gener-
ated with a variety of information sources such as similar projects
in the past, in-house project database, specific project plans, or
subjective judgment based on personal experience. It is a project
manager’s call to select the most appropriate information source
or to combine all information available using his or her own
judgment. Although the writers relied on rough PERT estimates
for the informative prior distribution of the duration parameter,
project managers in real projects may be able to extract valuable
information about the plausible distribution of all the three betaS-
curve parameters using other approaches discussed in previous
sections. When reliable information is not available, noninforma-
tive prior should be used so that a prediction be made based only
on actual performance data from the current project.
Life-Cycle Accuracy Profile
In this study, the BBM is compared with the earned schedule
method 关Eq. 共2兲兴 and CPM in terms of forecasting accuracy at
different stages of a project. Such a life-cycle accuracy profile
provides the project manager with useful information about how
reliable a prediction is at a specific completion point. In order to
get statistically meaningful results, each forecasting method
should be independently applied to a large set of sample projects
that represent diverse progress patterns in real projects 共Kim
2007; Vanhoucke and Vandevoorde 2007兲. Comparing different
forecasting methods based on a limited number of projects does
not prove much because with a small sample size it would almost
always be possible to find some other contradicting cases. This
would be like trying to determine the probability distribution of a
general class of coins by flipping only a couple of coins.
In this study, a large set of artificial projects are used to over-
come limited and often incomplete real project data. More spe-
cifically, 30 projects with 200 activities are generated with a
random network generation technique combined with a network-
based schedule simulation 共Barraza et al. 2000; Kim 2007兲. Indi-
vidual projects have different network structures and different
levels of schedule complexity. For each project, 100 “actual”
progress curves are simulated. Being randomly generated, these
3,000 sets of actual project data are unbiased and independent of
each other, representing the range of project outcomes that might
be realized in networks of 200 activities. In this example, a
network-based simulation technique is used to generate informa-
tive prior distributions for the duration parameter T.
In this paper, the life-cycle accuracy profiles of BBM, ESM,
and CPM are measured with the mean absolute percentage error
共MAPE兲, which is defined as a function of time t

40 EDAC(t) 40 EDAC(t)

35 Upper Bound 35 Upper Bound

Lower Bound Lower Bound
30 30
EDAC

EDAC

25 Planned, 25 25 Planned, 25
Overrun Overrun
Warning Warning
20 Point 20 Point

15 15
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Month Month

(a) Using noninformative T (b) Using PERT estimates of T

Fig. 4. EDAC共t兲 of Project B

184 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2009

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2009.135:178-186.

 20%
17.3% ESM
MAPE
15% CPM
12.6% BBM
10%
7.1%
5%
0%
5%PD 10%PD 20%PD 30%PD 40%PD 90%C
Fig. 5. MAPE at different stages of completion
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 02/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
冉 冊兺
N
100 兩APDUi − EDACi共t兲兩
MAPE共t兲 = 共14兲
N i=1 APDUi
where APDUi = actual project duration of random execution i,
which is generated by a network-based schedule simulation ap-
proach.
Fig. 5 shows the MAPE obtained from the 3,000 project ob-
servations at six evaluation points. Among the six evaluation
points, the first five evaluation points 共5%PD, 10%PD, 20%PD,
30%PD, 40%PD, and 90%C兲 correspond to the time points, at 5,
10, 20, 30, and 40% of the planned project duration. However, the
last evaluation point 共90%C兲 is determined at the time point when
actual project progress reaches the 90% complete point of the
project.
The results in Fig. 5 can be summarized as follows:
• Early in the project, the ESM has significantly larger errors
than the CPM and the BBM. The forecasting accuracy of the
ESM improves over time. However, it still takes about 30% of
the planned project duration to get comparable MAPE to the
other methods.
• Although the ESM gives predictions of project duration that
are not accurate early in the project, both the CPM and the
BBM have MAPE less than 5% even very early in the project
共even at 5% of the planned duration, for example兲, when reli-
able forecasts are most valuable. Therefore, both these meth-
ods should give, on the average, forecasts of project duration
that are accurate enough for use by project managers through-
out the project.
• The BBM outperforms, on the average, the CPM at the first
two evaluation points. However, the MAPE of the BBM con-
verges to that of the ESM, resulting in slightly larger mean
errors than the CPM during the following evaluation points.
Statistical tests revealed that all the MAPEs in Fig. 5 were
statistically different from each other at every time period at
the ␣ = 0.05 level, except for the BBM and the EVM at 30%PD
and 40%PD, which were not significantly different.
The example here does not demonstrate that the proposed
method produces more accurate forecasts than the CPM network
method. It does demonstrate that the proposed method generates
forecasts that are much more accurate than the ESM early in the
project and just as accurate as CPM forecasting, while being
much easier to use than CPM. It should be noted that the BBM
does not require detailed information about the status of indi-
vidual activities as the CPM does or revised durations of future
activities. Therefore, it can be concluded that, for the given
project, both the CPM and the BBM provide forecasts sufficiently
accurate to be usable, and the BBM provides quick, and still,
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2009 / 185
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2009.135:178-186.
much more accurate predictions than the ESM without drilling
down into activity level information.
Note that the predictions of project durations made by all these
methods are algorithmic; they combine the information embedded
in periodic updated project progress reports with 共perhaps兲 infor-
mation and beliefs available before the project starts. They do not
model the attitudes or psychology of the project manager, owner,
contractors, or others engaged in the project such as what actions
these people will take in response to the forecasts, when they will
take those actions, and whether those actions will work success-
fully. In response to the predictions made, some project managers
may rebaseline 共modify the project duration or BAC兲 and some
may not. Moreover, the predictions themselves may be self-
negating. Consider the example in Fig. 4. Suppose that at month
10, the project manager determines that 10% is unacceptable, and
takes action to restore the schedule; subsequently, as a result of
these actions, the project gets back on its track at 18 months.
Does this prove that the forecast at month 10 is manifestly
wrong? Or was it—it was this forecast that inspired the project
manager to take action, and without this action the project would
have been late. The only way in which the accuracy of predictive
methods can be obtained would be if project managers took their
hands off the wheel and put the project on autopilot, and this is
not going to happen. The only claim for the predictive method
proposed in this paper is that it squeezes more information out of
a set of project data than other methods can, and the value of this
is to provide better analyses to the project manager with which to
make, hopefully, better decisions.
Conclusions
A new probabilistic schedule forecasting method has been devel-
oped. The Bayesian betaS-curve method is a probabilistic method
that provides confidence bounds on predictions. It is also an adap-
tive method that starts with the original estimate of project dura-
tion and adjusts the influence of prior performance information on
prediction as actual performance data accrue. Furthermore, the
BBM relies on project-level performance data, which make the
method seamlessly integrated into common project performance
metrics, such as the earned value and percent complete in various
units.
Combined with a curve fitting technique, the BBM is ex-
tremely robust in quantifying all relevant performance informa-
tion from various sources. The flexibility of the betaS-curve
function enables the BBM to possess a greater capability of rep-
resenting extreme cases and variability in project progress pat-
terns compared to common two-parameter S-curve functions in
the literature 共Kim and Reinschmidt 2007兲. Using two real
projects, it has been demonstrated that the BBM extracts more
information from common monthly progress reports and provides
more informative predictions than the conventional methods,
which can be used as an objective, quantitative indicator of sched-
ule risk of ongoing projects.
This paper also provides a comparative study about the life-
cycle accuracy of three forecasting methods: the BBM, the ESM,
and the CPM. In order to draw statistically meaningful conclu-
sions, a large test set of artificial project data are generated inde-
pendently from these methods and used to obtain the mean
absolute percentage error 共MAPE兲 at different stages of a project
life cycle. The results reveal that, for a project group scheduled
with 200 activities, the ESM, even though it has been asserted to
be the best EVM schedule forecasting method 共Vanhoucke and
 Vandevoorde 2007兲, has, early in the project, stunningly larger
errors than the BBM. Both the BBM and the CPM provide suffi-
ciently accurate forecasts: MAPE less than 5% even very early in
the project. However, it should be noted that the BBM does not
rely on activity level performance data and analysis as the CPM
does.
References
AbouRizk, S. M., Halpin, D. W., and Wilson, J. R. 共1991兲. “Visual inter-
active fitting of beta distributions.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 117共4兲,
589–605.
Anbari, F. T. 共2003兲. “Earned value project management method and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 02/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
extensions.” Comments Mol. Cell. Biophys., 34共4兲, 12–23.
Barraza, G. A., Back, W. E., and Mata, F. 共2000兲. “Probabilistic monitor-
ing of project performance using SS-curves.” J. Constr. Eng. Man-
age., 126共2兲, 142–148.
Barraza, G. A., Back, W. E., and Mata, F. 共2004兲. “Probabilistic forecast-
ing of project performance using stochastic S curves.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 130共1兲, 25–32.
Christensen, D. S. 共1993兲. “The estimate at completion problem: A re-
view of three studies.” Comments Mol. Cell. Biophys., 24共1兲, 37–42.
Cioffi, D. F. 共2005兲. “A tool for managing projects: An analytic param-
eterization of the S-curve.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 23, 215–222.
Fellows, R., Langford, D., Newcombe, R., and Urry, S. 共2002兲. Construc-
tion management in practice, 2nd Ed., Blackwell Publishing, Malden,
Mass.
Fleming, Q. W., and Koppelman, J. M. 共2006兲. Earned value project
management, 3rd Ed., Project Management Institute, Newtown
Square, Pa.
Gardoni, P., Reinschmidt, K. F., and Kumar, R. 共2007兲. “A probabilistic
framework for Bayesian adaptive forecasting of project progress.”
Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng., 22共3兲, 182–196.
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., and Rubin, D. B. 共2003兲. Bayesian
data analysis, 2nd Ed., Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Fla.
Ghosh, B., Basu, B., and O’Mahony, M. 共2007兲. “Bayesian time-series
model for short-term traffic flow forecasting.” J. Transp. Eng.,
186 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2009
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2009.135:178-186.
133共3兲, 180–189.
Kenley, R., and Wilson, O. D. 共1986兲. “A construction project cash flow
model—An idiographic approach.” Constr. Manage. Econom., 4共3兲,
213–232.
Kim, B. C. 共2007兲. “Forecasting project progress and early warning of
project overruns with probabilistic methods.” Ph.D. thesis, Texas
A&M Univ., College Station, Tex.
Kim, B. C., and Reinschmidt, K. 共2007兲. “An S-curve Bayesian model for
forecasting probabilistic distributions on project duration and cost at
completion.” Proc., 25th Anniversary Conf. of Construction Manage-
ment and Economics: Past, Present, and Future, 136.
Lee, D.-E. 共2005兲. “Probability of project completion using stochastic
project scheduling simulation.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 131共3兲,
310–318.
Lipke, W. H. 共2003兲. “Schedule is different.” Measurable News, 31–34.
Malcolm, D. G., Roseboom, J. H., Clark, C. E., and Fazar, W. 共1959兲.
“Application of a technique for research and development program
evaluation.” Oper. Res., 7共5兲, 646–669.
Miskawi, Z. 共1989兲. “An S-curve equation for project control.” Civ. Eng.
Pract., 7共2兲, 115–124.
Murmis, G. M. 共1997兲. “‘S’ curves for monitoring project progress.”
Comments Mol. Cell. Biophys., 28共3兲, 29–35.
Perry, C., and Greig, I. D. 共1975兲. “Estimating the mean and variance of
subjective distributions in PERT and decision analysis.” Manage. Sci.,
21共12兲, 1477–1480.
PMI. 共2004兲. A guide to the project management body of knowledge, 3rd
Ed., Project Management Institute, Inc., Newtown Square, Pa.
Schexnayder, C. J., and Mayo, R. 共2003兲. Construction management fun-
damentals, McGraw-Hill, Boston.
Touran, A., Atgun, M., and Bhurisith, I. 共2004兲. “Analysis of the United
States Dept. of Transportation prompt pay provisions.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 130共5兲, 719–725.
Vandevoorde, S., and Vanhoucke, M. 共2006兲. “A comparison of different
project duration forecasting methods using earned value metrics.” Int.
J. Proj. Manage., 24共4兲, 289–302.
Vanhoucke, M., and Vandevoorde, S. 共2007兲. “A simulation and evalua-
tion of earned value metrics to forecast the project duration.” J. Oper.
Res. Soc., 58共10兲, 1361–1374.