Total Cost Control in Project Management via Satisficing

References

• Adler PS, Mandelbaum A, Nguyen V, Schwerer E. From project to process management: An empirically-based framework for analyzing product development time. Management Sci. (1995) 41(3):458–484Link, Google Scholar
• Allais M. Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque, critique des postulats et axiomes de l'école Américaine. Econometrica (1953) 21(4):503–546Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barbour AD, Jensen JL. Local and tail approximations near the Poisson limit. Scandinavian J. Statist. (1989) 16(1):75–87Google Scholar
• Ben-Tal A, Nemirovski A. Robust convex optimization. Math. Oper. Res. (1998) 23(4):769–805Link, Google Scholar
• Ben-Tal A, Goryashko A, Guslitzer E, Nemirovski A. Adjustable robust solutions of uncertain linear programs. Math. Programming (2004) 99(2):351–376Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ben-Yair A. Justification of using beta-distribution in project management. 17th IPMA World Congress on Project Management (IPMA-2003) (2003) June 3–6Moscow:293–298Google Scholar
• Bertsimas D, Popescu I. Optimal inequalities in probability theory: A convex optimization approach. SIAM J. Optim. (2005) 15(3):780–804Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertsimas D, Sim M. The price of robustness. Oper. Res. (2004) 52(1):35–53Link, Google Scholar
• Black K. Business Statistics: Contemporary Decision Making (2008) 5th ed.(Wiley, Hoboken, NJ) Google Scholar
• Bowman RA. Stochastic gradient-based time-cost tradeoffs in PERT networks using simulation. Ann. Oper. Res. (1994) 53(1):533–551Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown DB, Sim M. Satisficing measures for analysis of risky positions. Management Sci. (2009) 55(1):71–84Link, Google Scholar
• Brown DB, De Giorgi E, Sim M. Aspirational preferences and their representation by risk measures. Management Sci. (2012) 58(11):2095–2113Link, Google Scholar
• Chau KW. The validity of the triangular distribution assumption in Monte Carlo simulation of construction costs: Empirical evidence from Hong Kong. Construction Management Econom. (1995) 13(1):15–21Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen X, Sim M, Sun P, Zhang J. A linear decision-based approximation approach to stochastic programming. Oper. Res. (2008) 56(2):344–357Link, Google Scholar
• Cohen I, Golany B, Shtub A. The stochastic time-cost tradeoff problem: A robust optimization approach. Networks (2007) 49(2):175–188Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen Y, Sadeh A. A new approach for constructing and generating AOA networks. J. Engrg. Comput. Architecture (2007) 1(1):1–15Google Scholar
• Dawson RJ, Dawson CW. Practical proposals for managing uncertainty and risk in project planning. Internat. J. Project Management (1998) 16(5):299–310Crossref, Google Scholar
• Demeulemeester E, Vanhoucke M, Herroelen W. A random network generator for activity-on-the-node networks. J. Scheduling (2003) 6(1):13–34Crossref, Google Scholar
• El-Ghaoui L, Oustry F, Lebret H. Robust solutions to uncertain semidefinite programs. SIAM J. Optim. (1998) 9(1):33–52Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellsberg D. Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quart. J. Econom. (1961) 75(4):643–669Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fleming Q, Koppelman J. Earned Value Project Management (2005) 3rd ed.(Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA) Google Scholar
• Fulkerson D. A network flow computation for project cost curves. Management Sci. (1961) 7(2):167–178Link, Google Scholar
• Goh J, Sim M. Distributionally robust optimization and its tractable approximations. Oper. Res. (2010) 58(4, part 1):902–917Link, Google Scholar
• Goh J, Sim M. Robust optimization made easy with ROME. Oper. Res. (2011) 59(4):973–985Link, Google Scholar
• Golenko-Ginzburg D, Gonik A. Stochastic network project scheduling with non-consumable limited resources. Internat. J. Production Econom. (1997) 48(1):29–37Crossref, Google Scholar
• Golenko-Ginzburg D, Gonik A. High performance heuristic algorithm for controlling stochastic network projects. Internat. J. Production Econom. (1998) 54(3):235–245Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gutjahr WJ, Strauss C, Wagner E. A stochastic branch-and-bound approach to activity crashing in project management. INFORMS J. Comput. (2000) 12(2):125–135Link, Google Scholar
• Hall NG, Posner ME. Generating experimental data for computational testing with machine scheduling applications. Oper. Res. (2001) 49(6):854–865Link, Google Scholar
• Hendrickson C, Au T. Project Management for Construction (2000) 2nd ed.(Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh) Google Scholar
• Herroelen W, Leus R. Project scheduling under uncertainty: Survey and research potentials. Eur. J. Oper. Res. (2005) 165(2):289–306Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hughes MW. Why projects fail: The effects of ignoring the obvious. Indust. Engrg. (1986) 18(1):14–18Google Scholar
• Kapur KC. An algorithm for project cost-duration analysis problems with quadratic and convex cost functions. AIIE Trans. (1973) 5(4):314–322Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kelley JE, Walker MR. Critical-path planning and scheduling. Proc. Eastern Joint Computer Conf. (1959) December 1–3Boston:160–173Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kerzner H. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling (2009) 10th ed.(Wiley, Hoboken, NJ) Google Scholar
• Klastorin TD. Project Management: Tools and Trade-Offs (2004) 1st ed.(Wiley, Hoboken, NJ) Google Scholar
• Kwak YH, Ingall L. Exploring Monte Carlo simulation applications for project management. Risk Management (2007) 9(1):44–57Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leach LP. Critical chain project management improves project performance. Project Management J. (1999) 30(2):39–51Crossref, Google Scholar
• McCullagh P, Nelder JA. Generalized Linear Models (1989) 2nd ed.(Chapman & Hall, London) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Might RJ, Fischer WA. The role of structural factors in determining project management success. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management (1985) 32(2):71–77Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mitchell G, Klastorin T. An effective methodology for the stochastic project compression problem. IIE Trans. (2007) 39(10):957–969Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nesterov Y, Nemirovski A. Interior-Point Polynomial Algorithms in Convex Programming (1994) 1st ed.(SIAM, Philadelphia) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pells DL. Seven good reasons for the rapid growth of project management in IT and why that trend will continue. PM World Today (2008) 10(6):1–14Google Scholar
• Pender S. Managing incomplete knowledge: Why risk management is not sufficient. Internat. J. Project Management (2001) 19(2):79–87Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perry C, Greig ID. Estimating the mean and variance of subjective distributions in PERT and decision analysis. Management Sci. (1975) 21(12):1477–1480Link, Google Scholar
• Philips P. Lessons for post-Katrina reconstruction: A high-road vs. low-road recovery. (2005) . Briefing Paper 166, Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
• Project Management Institute (2010) . Last accessed December 5, 2012, http://www.pmi.org/Google Scholar
• Regnier E. Hidden assumptions in project management tools. (2005) . Newsletter, Issue 11, Defense Resources Management Institute, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CAGoogle Scholar
• Rockafellar RT, Uryasev S. Optimization of conditional value-at-risk. J. Risk (2000) 2(3):21–41Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schonberger RJ. Why projects are “always” late: A rationale based on manual simulation of a PERT/CPM network. Interfaces (1981) 11(5):66–70Link, Google Scholar
• Sion M. On general minimax theorems. Pacific J. Math. (1958) 8(1):171–176Crossref, Google Scholar
• Soyster AL. Convex programming with set-inclusive constraints and applications to inexact linear programming. Oper. Res. (1973) 21(5):1154–1157Link, Google Scholar
• Standish Group, The Chaos report. (2006) . The Standish Group, BostonGoogle Scholar
• Tavares LV. A review of the contribution of operational research to project management. Eur. J. Oper. Res. (2002) 136(1):1–18Crossref, Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Defense DOD and NASA guide: PERT cost systems design. (1962) . U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
• U.S. Navy PERT summary report, phase I. (1958) . Defense Technical Information Center, AD-735 902, Special Projects Office, Bureau of Naval Weapons, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
• Value Based Management.net Product life cycle—Industry maturity stages. (2009) . Last accessed December 5, 2012, http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_product_life_cycle.htmlGoogle Scholar
• van Dorp JR, Duffey MR. Modeling statistical dependence in risk analysis for project networks. Internat. J. Production Econom. (1999) 58(1):17–29Crossref, Google Scholar
• White D, Fortune J. Current practice in project management—An empirical study. Internat. J. Project Management (2002) 20(1):1–11Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wiesemann W, Kuhn D, Rustem B. Multi-resource allocation in stochastic project scheduling. Ann. Oper. Res. (2012a) 193(1):193–220Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wiesemann W, Kuhn D, Rustem B. Robust resource allocations in temporal networks. Math. Programming (2012b) 135(1–2):437–471Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams T. The contribution of mathematical modeling to the practice of project management. IMA J. Management Math. (2003) 14(1):3–30Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zammori FA, Braglia M, Frosolini M. A fuzzy multi-criteria approach for critical path definition. Internat. J. Project Management (2009) 27(3):278–291Crossref, Google Scholar
• 1000ventures.com Change management. (2009) . Last accessed December 5, 2012, http://1000ventures.com/business_guide/crosscuttings/change_management.htmlGoogle Scholar