7 views

Uploaded by eviroyer

Astro mechanics and mathematical models

- Am s 20 x Practice Final
- Project Management Professional (Pmp) - Certification Study
- pom notes
- Activity on Node Network Diagram
- MSPROJECT
- Program Evaluation and Review Technique
- Pert and Cpm
- PERT,gannt,MBO
- UG-Psychology.pdf
- Baseline Schedule Narrative Report
- JJ616_chapter_4.0
- 7793250 Cpm Pert Example
- CPM Technique
- MB0049 Project Management
- 13[1]. Controlling
- Final Report - 09bme026
- PERT.CPM
- ITPM PPT
- lec17 (1).pdf
- Ch16 Plus Homework (1)

You are on page 1of 53

Announcements

Posted

Primavera tutorials Complicated scheduling case Problem set 4 (Scheduling; due Monday April 5)

Activities shown on nodes O(n) Forward/backward pass to determine ES/EF/LS/LF Multiple types of relationships

Example Applications

TASK NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TASK NAME Place and Secure Trusses Install Roof Deck Apply Vapor Barrier Apply Roof Cladding Construct Roof Overhang Install Soffits Apply Flashing DURATION (in days) 2 7 2 2 4 4 6

Forward Pass

Backwards Pass

Multiple relationships (SS, SF, FF) beyond FS Lags (negative as leads)

X, Y { S, F }, t Interpretation is that event Y of activity B can occur no earlier than t units after evnt X occurs for activity A Think of relationships as linking events

Notation

Arrow on left side of node indicates a start relationship Arrow on right side of node indicates finish relationship

Finish-to-Start Lead Finish-to-Start Lag

Lay-Out & Excavate Install Fuel Tanks

FS = -1

Pour 4th-Floor Slab

FS = +14

Install Pipe

Start-to-Start Lag

Partially Adapted from Kellegeiros, 2003

SS = +1

Finish-to-Finish Lag

Excavate Trench Lay Pipe

FF = +3

Start-to-Finish Lag

SF = +1

Install Carpeting

SF

Partially Adapted from Kellegeiros, 2003

SF

PDM Caveats

Can have different semantics, but same result Asymmetries complicate reasoning Make sure you understand the meaning of relationships for the software you use! Lag and Lead lack standard definition May have different floats for same activity

Start float (LS-ES) Finish float (LF-EF) Arises from successors for these events

E.g. Finish-to-start vs. Start-to-start Think of critical path as running through events

w/o splitting, can be counter-intuitive (longer duration leads to shorter critical path!) Finish-finish constraints with leads can lead to vanishing critical path How critical path displayed depends on software

Example of Counter-Intuitive

The longer A20 is, the smaller the critical path duration and quicker can complete!

A30 FF2

A20 SS A10

Vs.

Key Point: PDM relationships often represent relationships between particular parts of an activity. Think about

On what portion of an activity the other activity depends On how dependency would change if target activity duration changed

Multiple Relationships

Vs.

Asymmetries

Vs.

Legal

Method 1

Method 2

Some algorithms allow division of an activity into two non-sequential pieces Advantages: Allows more flexibility in time, resource demands

Permits shorter critical paths Eliminates counter-intuitive cases where prefer longer activity Allows predecessor activities connected via SF and SS relationships to begin Allows successor activities connected via SF or FF relationships to begin bulk of work early, and then just wait for event to finish

Example of Counter-Intuitive

The longer A20 is, the smaller the critical path duration and quicker can complete!

A30 FF2

A20 second

Example

Because of executive offices, cant finish carpeting until wood panelling starts Problem: Want carpenters for other work Answer: Split wood paneling

Do all carpeting except executive offices Allow carpenters to work on executive offices Finish carpeting work for the executive offices Carpenters back to finish job once available

Turns monolithic tasks into sub-tasks that operate in parallel Typically increases resource demand Typically done manually (generally not enough information to permit automation) Often represent with S-S constraint

Bubble Patterns when Splitting Tasks

Before P 10 Q 9 P1 5 After Q1 4

48 48

58 58

58 58

67 67

48 48

53 53

53 54 1

57 58 0 58 58 Q2 5 63 63

53 53 0

P2 5

58 58 0

Activity Windows

Mechanism for imposing time constraints on absolute activity times Can impose constraint for any of times

ES, EF, LS, LF By set WES=WLS, fix exact timing

INITIAL TIME WESk WEFk - Dk EFk = ESk + Dk EFp + FSpk ESp + SSpk EFp + FFpk - Dk ESp + SFpk - Dk

ESk = Maxall p

Moder

Key factor: Cannot start until all predecessors ready! Must take maximum of predecessors values

TERMINAL TIME WLFk WLSk + Dk LSs - FSks LFs - FFks LSs - SSks + Dk LFs - SFks + Dk

LFk = Minall s

, LSk = LFk - Dk

Moder

Key factor: Must finish in time for all successors to start in time! Otherwise will delay project completion time => Must take min of successors values.

Be careful about meaning! Basic approach: Convert AON into AOA-like form

Start/Finish Nodes explicit for every activity Very helpful for thinking through meaning

8 Si 1 PS 3 4 i 5 Fi 6 PF Fj 7

Sj 2

Unified Algorithm

Calculations for the Unified Network Model with Negative Link Durations

Forward Pass: Step 1: Set PL(i) = - and TL(i) = - , where Set TL(PS) = 0 where PS = the project start node PL(i) = the maximim distance from PS to node i TL(i) = the maximim distance from PS to node i found at intermediate stages Step 2: Select node i for which TL(i) is the maximum among all nodes. Set PL(i) = TL(i) and TL(i) = - For each link originating at node i, If PL(j) = - and PL(i) + D(i, j) > TL(j), then set TL(j) = PL(i) + D(i, j). If PL(j) = - and PL(i) + D(i, j) < TL(j), then do not change the labels on j. If PL(j) > - and PL(i) + D(i, j) > PL(j), then set PL(j) = - and TL(j) = PL(i) + D(i, j). If PL(j) > - and PL(i) + D(i, j) > PL(j), then do not change the label on j. Step 3: Step 4: Backward Pass: Repeat application of the algorithm with the following changes: 1. Reverse each link direction. 2. Start with the project finish node PF with TL(PF) = 0. 3. At the end of step 3, set the latest event time, L(i) = E(PF) - PL(i) for all nodes i. Repeat step 2 until PL(PF) > -

Set the earliest event time for each node, E(i) = PL(i).

Weather occurrences, design duration, productivity, delivery times, subcontractor quality, regulatory changes, etc

Clients, community may want to know milestones, finish date with confidence

Reasoning about schedule constraints such as weather, seasonal traffic Extensions may be much worse than early completion

Vendors Airlines

Described in Modern Steel Construction article (posted on STELLAR site) Accounting for

Emergency helicopter usage Patient area activity Limited time windows for work (2-4am) Contingencies regarding telephone switch relocation

Assume expected duration Hope errors cancel

Optimistic scenario Most likely scenario Pessimistic scenario

Developed by US Navy, Booz-Allen Hamilton and Lockheed Corporation Polaris Missile/Submarine (1958) Captures probabilistic activity durations Allows analytic solution for Schedule duration Schedule variance

PERT Basics

Beta Distribution for Activity Duration Assume normally distributed project duration

Project Duration Tends to be Normally Distributed (approx. sum of random variables) Assumes Independent Activity Durations - Not Always Satisfied

Beta Distribution

Stochastic Approach

Optimistic Most Likely (mode not mean) Pessimistic Expected Duration Variance Standard Deviation

d=

_

a m b

1 1 a + 4m + b ( ) m + a + b = 2 3 2 6

ba s= 6

v=s

Obtain ak, mk (mode) and bk Compute expected activity duration (mean) dk=te Compute activity variance vk=s2

Compute expected project duration D=Te using standard CPM algorithm Compute Project Variance V=S2 as sum of critical path activity variance (this assumes independence!)

In case of multiple critical paths use the one with the largest variance Assuming project duration normally distributed

PERT Example

Calculated

Activity Predecessor A B C D A E C F A G B,D,E a 1 5 2 1 4 3 1 m 2 6 4 3 5 4 2 b 4 7 5 4 7 5 3 d 2.17 6.00 3.83 2.83 5.17 4.00 2.00 v 0.25 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.11

Forward Pass

Backward Pass

Te = 11 S = V [C ] + V [ E ] + V [G ]

2

P(T Td ) = P(T 10) 10 Te = P z S 10 11 = P z 0.7817

) = P( z 12793 . ) = 1 P( z 12793 .

= 1 0.8997 = 01003 . = 10%

13 11 P( T 13) = P z 07817 .

) = P( z 25585 . = 09948 .

P(TL T TU ) = P( 9 T 15) . ) P( T 9 ) = P( T 115 . 11 115 9 11 = P z P z 0.7817 0.7817 = P( z 0.6396) P( z 2.5585) = P( z 0.6396) [1 P( z 2.5585) ] = 0.7389 [1 0.9948] = 0.7389 0.0052 = 0.7337

- Am s 20 x Practice FinalUploaded byAnonymous omxmIe2e
- Project Management Professional (Pmp) - Certification StudyUploaded byshakeelzafar
- pom notesUploaded byrajan
- Activity on Node Network DiagramUploaded byNicole Gordon
- MSPROJECTUploaded byJuan Carlos Prado Rivas
- Program Evaluation and Review TechniqueUploaded byUmesh Patil
- Pert and CpmUploaded byDeeksha Ankit Bhatla
- PERT,gannt,MBOUploaded byRiya Joy
- UG-Psychology.pdfUploaded byshiv mahato
- Baseline Schedule Narrative ReportUploaded byMuhammad
- JJ616_chapter_4.0Uploaded byWan Muhamad Faiz
- 7793250 Cpm Pert ExampleUploaded bymysterium610
- CPM TechniqueUploaded byFrankWarning
- MB0049 Project ManagementUploaded bySolved AssignMents
- 13[1]. ControllingUploaded byhamza omar
- Final Report - 09bme026Uploaded byAbhishek Kumar
- PERT.CPMUploaded byAnonymous pTZCrF7
- ITPM PPTUploaded byNamanThakur
- lec17 (1).pdfUploaded byNitesh Singh
- Ch16 Plus Homework (1)Uploaded bymadhur
- Schedule Review ChecklistUploaded byErwin Obenza
- puneetUploaded byPuneet Jindal
- Management Science Nr220401Uploaded byNizam Institute of Engineering and Technology Library
- Soal Tugas IIUploaded byNanang Catur Wahyudi
- DistributionsUploaded byAbdalmoedAlaiashy
- Nagpur Class- Project Management- FinalUploaded byNavdeep Singh
- IntroductionUploaded byaddressitto
- 2do periodoUploaded byBrendaNataliaPerez
- probility distributionUploaded bynitindhiman30
- 3Uploaded byShoniqua Johnson

- Single and Double Loop LearningUploaded byNhơn Phạm Thành
- MIT15_317SUM09_lec04Uploaded byeviroyer
- MIT15_317SUM09_lec11Uploaded byeviroyer
- MIT15_317SUM09_lec07Uploaded byeviroyer
- MIT15_317SUM09_lec01Uploaded byeviroyer
- 09 Integer Programming 2 PrintUploaded byeviroyer
- MIT15_067S11_lec03Uploaded byeviroyer
- MIT15_067S11_lec13Uploaded byeviroyer
- Leader DevUploaded byNhơn Phạm Thành
- MIT15_067S11_introUploaded byeviroyer
- MIT15_067S11_lec02.pdfUploaded byeviroyer
- MIT15_067S11_lec11Uploaded byeviroyer
- lec19brealoptions.pdfUploaded byeviroyer
- MIT15_401F08_rec06Uploaded byeviroyer
- MIT15_401F08_rec05Uploaded byeviroyer
- FixedIncomeSecurities_2Uploaded bywelcometoankit
- 07 Conflicting ObjectivesUploaded byeviroyer
- 12 LocationUploaded byeviroyer
- 04 Lp Intro PrintUploaded byeviroyer
- 08 Integer Programming 1 PrintUploaded byeviroyer
- 14 VariabilityUploaded byNejbel M Ab
- 03 Networks 2 PrintUploaded byeviroyer
- 02 Assignment PrintUploaded byeviroyer
- Peach State Case StudyUploaded byeviroyer
- 13 NonlinearUploaded byeviroyer
- MIT15_075JF11_chpt04Uploaded byBhupender Singh Kanwar
- MIT15_075JF11_chpt02Uploaded byGopi Krishnaa
- MIT15_075JF11_chpt05Uploaded byeviroyer
- lec9Uploaded byeviroyer

- Proposed Model of Old Age System of Sustainable Income Security OASIS to the Norganized Labor in IndiaUploaded byInternational Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
- Chapter 1 Corporate FinanceUploaded bydia
- CH5 Unit Roots and Cointegration in PanelsUploaded byHafizAhmad
- Basics of HartUploaded byOutofbox
- Time Domain Analysis 1 of 2.McdxUploaded bymmarinmr
- c18-1Uploaded byVinay Gupta
- Isatis Case Studies MiningUploaded byrenzoquim
- Assignment Peer Evaluation.docxUploaded byFui Figthers
- Sample Size Estimation in Prevalence StudiesUploaded byRajiv Kabad
- 13-070.pdfUploaded bySascha Schlinghoff
- P Sample SolutionUploaded byLoh Hui Yin
- Response Surface Methodology and MINITABUploaded byarunsunder
- CRM Handout - Probability DistributionsUploaded byMönycka Delc
- Abode - Kernel Home Range for ArcGISUploaded byrkalsi
- Chapter 11Uploaded byLinh Dinh
- Final Cheat SheetUploaded byJosh Potash
- Long-term Forecasting and EvaluationUploaded byPrilvesh Krishna
- Deutsch Jared L 201512 PhDUploaded byWladimir Rondan
- Cell Radius Inaccuracy _ a New Measure of Coverage ReliabilityUploaded byFelix Von Bormann
- Pile 2Uploaded byprash_mce
- Appendix AUploaded byabriyo
- Lin Et Al (2013) Exact CS, BSSAUploaded byCepi Herdiyan
- 215066912 Msc Maths 2015Uploaded byAlok Thakkar
- Math t AssignmentUploaded byDeryneTee
- Rifat Edi̇zkan Resw-2015 Redizkan 18 Ocak_2Uploaded byangarali26
- 130216_Latihan Soal Probstat_2.docUploaded byAhmad Nurcholis Majid
- RefresherUploaded byHaritha Atluri
- Project_2 WitnessUploaded byPaula
- HTS DocumentUploaded byFrankie Tuan
- Are the Skewness and Kurtosis Useful StatisticsUploaded bygschiro