Please login or join to subscribe to this thread
To be honest, I make simulation if I can use a software simulation tool. Sometimes when I do not have a software I make some work on MS Project trying to adjust duration based on some variables I created to do that (most of them tied to risk). Usually because I use Barry Bohem´s Cone of Uncertainty this helps me to avoid simulation. Returning to the point, I use the whole schedule because if I use the critical path only when I run the simulation the critical pah could change.
It depends both detailed schedule and summary schedule are used for simulation. When High level or WBS level component are mostly in serial fashion and activities also mostly in serial fashion and form a critical path, project schedule can be simulated by shorter version where you can very logically demonstrate impact on schedule with respect to completed activities. But if in your schedule activities form parallel relations and float values are small then a meaningful simulation can be done with detailed schedule since there may be frequent changes in critical paths with delay in one or more activities.
Barry Bohem Cone is a excellent base at the start of the project. You are right during simulation the critical path can change. That is one thing I teach in my courses on risk, the critical path can change from month to month update also.
Do you make a general ponderation of risk for your project or by some group of activities or individually?
I understand that on a linear schedule the high level is use.
and for more complex schedules that have multiple path the full schedule is use in the simulation.
Do you put the same ponderation on all activities or by group or individually?
Barry Bohem Cone???
You can find information on Barry Boehm Cone of uncertainty with this link
It concern Software development, but I believe the concept work on all industries
Thanks for sharing, Vincent.
Please login or join to reply