Assessment of Cost Uncertainties for Large Technology Projects: A Methodology and an Application

References

• Clemen R. T., Reilly T. Correlations and copulas for decision and risk analysis. Management Sci. (1999) 45(2):208–224Link, Google Scholar
• Clemen R. T., Fischer G. W., Winkler R. L. Assessing dependence: Some experimental results. Management Sci. (2000) 46(8):1100–1115Link, Google Scholar
• Gokhale D. V., Press S. J. Assessment of a prior distribution for the correlation coefficient in a bivariate normal distribution. J. Royal Statist. Soc. (1982) 145:237–249Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hora S. C., Iman R. L. Expert opinion in risk analysis: The NUREG 1150 methodology. Nuclear Sci. Engrg. (1989) 102(4):323–331Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson N. L., Kotz S.Continuous Univariate Distributions, Vol. 1 (1970) (Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
• Kahneman D., Tversky A. Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures. TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences (1979) 12:313–327Google Scholar
• Keeney Ralph, von Winterfeldt Detlof. Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problems. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management (1991) 38(3):191–201Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merrow Edward. Understanding the Outcomes of Megaprojects (1988) (RAND Corporation, R-3560-PSSP, Santa Monica, CA) Google Scholar
• Morgan M. G., Henrion M.Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis (1990) (Cambridge University Press, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morris Peter. Research at Oxford into the preconditions of success and failure of major projects. Proc. Project Management Inst. Seminar/Symposium, Montreal, Canada (1986) 53–66Google Scholar
• Office of Management and BudgetGuidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs (1995) (Washington, DC)Google Scholar
• Palisade Corporation@Risk: Risk Analysis for Modeling for the PC (1988) (Newfield, NY)Google Scholar
• The SSC's end: What happened? And what now?Physics Today (1994) 47(3):13–15+Google Scholar
• Putnam, Hayes, and Bartlett, Inc.DOE TritiumProduction Options: PHB Final Report on Cost Analysis (1995) . Washington, DC, September 1Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science (1974) 185(4157):1124–1131Crossref, Google Scholar
• US Department of EnergyReport to Congress on the Reassessment of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program (1989) (Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Washington, DC) Google Scholar
• US Department of Energy Record of decision: Tritium supply and recycling programmatic environmental impact statement. Federal Register (1995a) . December 12Google Scholar
• US Department of EnergyTechnical Reference Report for Tritium Supply and Recycling (1995b) . DOE/DP-0134. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
• US General Accounting OfficeNuclear Waste: Yucca Mountain Project Behind Schedule and Facing Major Scientific Uncertainties (1993) . GAO/RCED-93–124. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
• US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1991) . Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five US Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG 1150). Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
• US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionRegulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook (1997) . (NUREG/BR-0184). Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
• Von Winterfeldt Detlof, Schweitzer Eric. An assessment of tritium supply alternatives in support of the US nuclear weapons stockpile. Interfaces (1998) 28(1):92–112Link, Google Scholar
• Williams Kent. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (1995) Presentation on tritium supply alternatives: Contingency analysis. Cost Assessment MeetingSeptember 6Irvine, CAGoogle Scholar