Premium
Sensitivity curves for effective project management
Author(s) -
Bowman R. Alan
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
naval research logistics (nrl)
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.665
H-Index - 68
eISSN - 1520-6750
pISSN - 0894-069X
DOI - 10.1002/nav.10064
Subject(s) - computer science , key (lock) , sensitivity (control systems) , task (project management) , range (aeronautics) , schedule , set (abstract data type) , scheduling (production processes) , operations research , function (biology) , project management , risk analysis (engineering) , mathematical optimization , mathematics , systems engineering , engineering , computer security , electronic engineering , medicine , evolutionary biology , biology , programming language , aerospace engineering , operating system
A key problem in project management is to decide which activities are the most important to manage and how best to manage them. A considerable amount of literature has been devoted to assigning “importance” measures to activities to help with this important task. When activity times are modeled as random variables, these activity importance measures are more complex and difficult to use. A key problem with all existing measures is that they summarize the importance in a single number. The result is that it is difficult for managers to determine a range of times for an activity that might be acceptable or unacceptable. In this paper, we develop sensitivity curves that display the most useful measures of project performance (in terms of schedule) as a function of an activity's time. The structure of the networks allows us to efficiently estimate these curves for all desired activities, all desired time ranges, and all desired measures in a single set of simulation runs. The resulting curves provide insights that are not available when considering summarized measures alone. Chief among these insights is the ability to identify an acceptable range of times for an activity that will not lead to negative scheduling consequences. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics 50: 481–497, 2003