Using fuzzy logic to improve the project time and cost estimation based on Project Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT)

Habibi, F.; Birgani, O.; Koppelaar, H.; Radenović, S.

Growing Science » Journal of Project Management » Using fuzzy logic to improve the project time and cost estimation based on Project Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT)

Journals

JPM Volumes

Volume 1 (8)
- Issue 1 (5)
- Issue 2 (3)

Volume 2 (13)
- Issue 1 (4)
- Issue 2 (3)
- Issue 3 (3)
- Issue 4 (3)

Volume 3 (17)
- Issue 1 (4)
- Issue 2 (5)
- Issue 3 (4)
- Issue 4 (4)

Volume 4 (24)
- Issue 1 (4)
- Issue 2 (8)
- Issue 3 (8)
- Issue 4 (4)

Volume 5 (20)
- Issue 1 (5)
- Issue 2 (5)
- Issue 3 (5)
- Issue 4 (5)

Volume 6 (20)
- Issue 1 (5)
- Issue 2 (5)
- Issue 3 (5)
- Issue 4 (5)

Volume 7 (21)
- Issue 1 (5)
- Issue 2 (5)
- Issue 3 (5)
- Issue 4 (6)

Volume 8 (21)
- Issue 1 (6)
- Issue 2 (5)
- Issue 3 (5)
- Issue 4 (5)

Volume 9 (35)
- Issue 1 (6)
- Issue 2 (5)
- Issue 3 (9)
- Issue 4 (15)

Volume 10 (15)
- Issue 1 (15)

Countries

Journal of Project Management

ISSN 2371-8374 (Online) - ISSN 2371-8366 (Print) Quarterly Publication Volume 3 Issue 4 pp. 183-196 , 2018

Using fuzzy logic to improve the project time and cost estimation based on Project Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) Pages 183-196 Download PDF

Authors: Farhad Habibi, Omid Taghipour Birgani, Henk Koppelaar, Stojan Radenović

DOI: 10.5267/j.jpm.2018.4.002

Keywords: Project management, Time estimation, Cost estimation, PERT, Fuzzy logic, Trapezoidal fuzzy numbers

Abstract: Among different factors, correct scheduling is one of the vital elements for project management success. There are several ways to schedule projects including the Critical Path Method (CPM) and Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT). Due to problems in estimating dura-tions of activities, these methods cannot accurately and completely model actual projects. The use of fuzzy theory is a basic way to improve scheduling and deal with such problems. Fuzzy theory approximates project scheduling models to reality by taking into account uncertainties in decision parameters and expert experience and mental models. This paper provides a step-by-step approach for accurate estimation of time and cost of projects using the Project Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) and expert views as fuzzy numbers. The proposed method included several steps. In the first step, the necessary information for project time and cost is estimated using the Critical Path Method (CPM) and the Project Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT). The second step considers the duration and cost of the project activities as the trapezoidal fuzzy numbers, and then, the time and cost of the project are recalculated. The duration and cost of activities are estimated using the questionnaires as well as weighing the expert opinions, averaging and defuzzification based on a step-by-step algorithm. The calculating procedures for evaluating these methods are applied in a real project; and the obtained results are explained.

How to cite this paper

 Habibi, F., Birgani, O., Koppelaar, H & Radenović, S. (2018). Using fuzzy logic to improve the project time and cost estimation based on Project Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT).Journal of Project Management, 3(4), 183-196.

Refrences

Adler, P. S., Mandelbaum, A., Nguyen, V., & Schwerer, E. (1995). From project to process manage-ment: An empirically-based framework for analyzing product development time. Management sci-ence, 41(3), 458-484.
Anavi-Isakow, S., & Golany, B. (2003). Managing multi-project environments through constant work-in-process. International Journal of Project Management, 21(1), 9-18.
Azaron, A., Perkgoz, C., & Sakawa, M. (2005). A genetic algorithm approach for the time-cost trade-off in PERT networks. Applied mathematics and computation, 168(2), 1317-1339.
Bhosale, V., Shastri, S. S., & Khandare, M. A. (2017). A Review of Genetic Algorithm used for op-timizing scheduling of Resource Constraint construction projects.
Chanas, S., & Kamburowski, J. (1981). The use of fuzzy variables in PERT. Fuzzy sets and sys-tems, 5(1), 11-19.
Chanas, S., & Zieliński, P. (2001). Critical path analysis in the network with fuzzy activity times. Fuzzy sets and systems, 122(2), 195-204.
Chen, C. T., & Huang, S. F. (2007). Applying fuzzy method for measuring criticality in project net-work. Information sciences, 177(12), 2448-2458.
Chitra, K., & Halder, P. (2017). Scheduling Project Crashing Time Using Linear Programming Ap-proach: Case Study. International Journal of Research in Industrial Engineering, 6(4), 283-292.
Dolabi, H. R. Z., Afshar, A., & Abbasnia, R. (2014). CPM/LOB scheduling method for project dead-line constraint satisfaction. Automation in Construction, 48, 107-118.
Habibi, F., Barzinpour, F., & Sadjadi, S. (2018). Resource-constrained project scheduling problem: review of past and recent developments. Journal of Project Management, 3(2), 55-88.
Kaufmann, A., & Gupta, M. M. (2003). Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic: theory and applications. 1985. Von nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Mazlum, M., & Güneri, A. F. (2015). CPM, PERT and Project Management with Fuzzy Logic Tech-nique and Implementation on a Business. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 210, 348-357.
Mon, D. L., Cheng, C. H., & Lu, H. C. (1995). Application of fuzzy distributions on project manage-ment. Fuzzy sets and systems, 73(2), 227-234.
Shipley, M. F., de Korvin, A., & Omer, K. (1997). BIFPET methodology versus PERT in project management: fuzzy probability instead of the beta distribution. Journal of Engineering and Tech-nology management, 14(1), 49-65.
Zadeh, L. A. (2005). Toward a generalized theory of uncertainty (GTU)––an outline. Information sci-ences, 172(1-2), 1-40.
Zareei, S. (2018). Project scheduling for constructing biogas plant using critical path meth-od. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 756-759.