~] UTTERWORTH

I N E M A N N
International Journal of Project Management Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 187-194, 1995
Copyright ©1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0263-7863/95 $10.00 + 0.00

0263-7863 (94) 00004-2

Calculation of safe float use in risk-

analysis-oriented network scheduling

Daji Gong and James E Rowings Jr

Centre for Building Studies, Concordia University, 1455 Maisonneuve Boulevard West, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada H3G 1MB

One of the criticisms of the PERT/CPM technique is that it ignores the uncertainty influence of
noncritical activities on project-duration estimation. As a result of this problem, the PERT/CPM
technique gives an optimistic estimation of project duration and float use. The paper introduces
a new concept of time-disturbance analysis for a project network. Time-disturbance analysis
is a process of simulating the change of the expected time of a given merge event or total project
duration with the changes in float use of noncritical activities. The computations of the late start
and finish times of the noncritical activities on the basis of the rational use of the float are
introduced by using the back-forward uncertainty estimation (BFUE) procedure, an analytical
risk-analysis model. Time-disturbance analysis can assist in project scheduling to reduce project
risks rationally.
Keywords: risk analysis, network scheduling, float

In project-duration estimation, there is a common pheno-
menon which can be called time disturbance. This refers to
the disturbance of the scheduled activities caused by the
variance of activity durations in a network. A time dis-
turbance can be caused by an activity finishing either later
than or in advance of the project-schedule date. In project
planning, the disturbances caused by delays in some
activities are of greatest concern. An activity delay can
easily lead to the interruption of the scheduled following
operations and a delay in the total project. Then, an adjust-
ment to the original project plan, acceleration of the fol-
lowing activity operations, and an increase in the project
cost may be necessary. Avoiding an activity delay, or
reducing the influence of an activity delay, is one of the
main tasks in project time planning and project control.
A time disturbance can be caused by uncertainty of
critical activities in a network. We can estimate this type of
time disturbance by using the PERT/CPM(Program Evaluation
Review Technique/Critical Path Method) technique. A
time disturbance can also be caused by the uncertainty of
noncritical activities. In particular, when noncritical activities
consume some or all of their floats, the possibility of a time
disturbance caused by noncritical activities can increase.
The PERT/CPMtechnique cannot estimate this type of time
disturbance. In early studies ~, this type of problem was
expressed in terms of the uncertainty of near-critical paths
influencing the estimate of project duration. The study
results show that there is a bias relating to the estimate
using the PERT/CPMtechnique and the techniques combining
the uncertainty of noncritical activities into the estimation
of project time. The actual calculated project duration can
be longer than the one estimated with the PERT/CPM tech-
nique when the uncertainties of noncritical activities are
considered. Several techniques have been introduced to
correct the bias. These techniques include the analytical
model developed by Clark 2 in 1961, the Monte Carlo
simulation model developed by Van Slyke in 19633, and
the analytical model developed by Ang et al. in 19754.
However, these early pieces of research only concentrate
on the forward-pass calculation of a network. The use of
float is not considered as a factor in influencing project
duration in risk-analysis-oriented scheduling techniques.
The effect of float use on project duration can be ex-
plained by the early research about near-critical activities.
Consider that a noncritical activity can become a near-
critical activity with the increase of float use, or become a
critical activity when the total float is used. Then, the float
use can influence the project duration if the results of the
early research about the influence of near-critical paths on
the total project duration are applied.
The phenomenon of the influence of float use on project
time is called the combined influence problem in this paper.
The combined-influence problem indicates the joint influence
of float use and the uncertainty of noncritical activities on
the project time. An unsolved problem in risk-analysis-
oriented network scheduling is that of how to measure the
time risks caused by the combined influence.
The results of early research on the merge-event bias

187
Calculation of safe float use in risk-analysis-oriented network scheduling: D Gong and J E Rowings Jr
correction problem indicates a way of measuring the time
risks caused by the combined influence. One of the early
results (see the summaries by Moder and Phillips (Reference
5 p 229)) can be interpreted as follows. At a given merge
event with one critical activity and at least one noncritical
activity, the calculated expected time of the merge event can
be different when the expected finish times of the noncritical
activities change. The expected time of the merge event
increases when the expected finish times of the noncritical
activities are closer to the expected finish time of the critical
activity. This result can be extended for a discussion of the
combined-influence problem. The expected finish time of a
noncritical merging activity can be the sum of its earliest
expected finish time and the float use along the path con-
nected with the merging activity:
E, [ t l = EE, [t] + FU, (1)
where Ea [ t] is the expected finish time of the merging
activity a. EEa [t] is the earliest expected finish time of
the merging activity a, and FUa is the float use of the
merging activity a. With an increase use of float, the ex-
pected finish time of the noncritical merging activity a
gradually moves closer to the expected finish time of the
critical merging activity concerned. Then the expected time
of the given merge event increases correspondingly,
according to the results of the early research.
To solve the combined-influence problem, two new
concepts, time-disturbance analysis and safe float use, are
introduced for the backward-pass calculation in the risk-
analysis-oriented network scheduling in this paper. The
time-disturbance analysis is used to study the consequences
of the float use in a network. It is a process of simulating
the change of the expected time of a given merge event with
the changes of the float use by noncritical activities. The
main tasks in time-disturbance analysis can be summarized
as follows:
• Measure the possible time disturbances and their schedule
impact caused by the time uncertainties and the float use
of noncritical activities.
• Indicate a solution related to the float allocation to
reduce the time disturbance in a network.
Technically, the time-disturbance analysis will examine the
changes of the expected time and time variance of a merge
event caused by the time uncertainties and the float use of
the preceding activities in a network. The concept of the
safe float use indicates how to use float safely to reduce the
risk of project delay caused by noncritical activities.
In early studies of the merge-event bias, one conclusion
was that the PERT/CPM technique gives an optimistic
estimation of the total project time. The concept of safe
float use illustrates the fact that the optimistic results of the
PERT/CPM technique include the estimation of total project
duration, float use, and the latest start and finish times of
noncritical activities. The main conclusions in this paper
are as follows:
The combined influence on the project time can be
measured.
When float use along the noncritical paths is limited to
the suggested safe range, the risk of time overrun caused
by the noncritical activities can be reduced.
188
Basic concepts
Back-forward time-uncertainty estimation procedure.
In 1993, an analytical procedure called the back-forward
uncertainty estimation (BFUE) procedure was presented by
Gong et al. 6. This procedure can be applied to estimate
the influence of the noncritical activities at each merge
event in a project network. Equations 2 - 4 present a basic
mathematical model in the ~FUE procedure. This basic
model is applied to calculate the expected time and time
variance for a merge event in a project network when two
merging activities a and b are connected with this merge
event:
E(t) = f o t [f~(T~)Fb(Tb) +fb(To)F,(T~) ] dt (2)
o~ (t) =
-~o (t - E [t] )2 [f~(T~)Fb(Tb ) +fb(To)F,(T~)] dt (3)
t-E,[t]
L=
oa(t)
(4)
t-Eo[t]
Tb=
Ob(t)
where t is the time variable of a merge event, E [t] and
a 2 (t) are the expected time and time variance of a merge
event connected with two merging activities a and b,
E, [t] and a,(t) are the expected finish time of and its
standard deviation from the merging activity a, f, (T,) and
F,(T~) are the probability density function and the
cumulative probability function for the finish time of the
merging activity a, Eb [t] and ab(t) are the expected
finish time of and its standard deviation from the merging
activity b, and fb(Tb) and Fb(To) are the probability
density function and the cumulative probability function for
the finish time of the merging activity b.
By substituting EEa I t ] + FU, and EEb[t] + FUb for
E, [t] and Eb [t l, respectively, in Equations 4, according
to Equation 1, the float use FU becomes one of the variables
in the calculation of the expected time and time variance
(see Equations 5) for a merge event:
t-(EEa[t] + FU,)
To=
tr,(t)
(5)
t - (EEb [ t ] + FUb)
oh(t)
Equations 2, 3 and 5 present a general model for merge-
event time-uncertainty estimation. In the forward-pass
calculation of a network, FU is zero. In the backward-pass
calculation, the earliest expected time is known. The
influence of the float use FU can then be calculated. This
model is based on the assumption that the correlation
between the two merging activities a and b is zero. When
there are more than two merging activities, this basic model
is applied repeatedly in the BFUE procedure 6.
Example
Figure 1 shows a simple network with two merging
 Calculation of safe float use in risk-analysis-oriented network schedufing: D Gong and J E Rowings Jr
V, A: t-45, s=6.
Start
W Equation 7 indicates that there is no change in the value of
B: t=25, s=4.5.
Figure 1 Network with two parallel activities
activities A and B. The two merging activities are mutually
independent. The mean time is 45 for merging activity A,
and 25 for merging activity B. The standard deviation is 6
for merging activity A, and 4.5 for merging activity B.
Merging activity A is a critical activity. The total float is 20
for activity B.
These data are substituted into Equation 5 as follows:
t - 45
TA--
6 called a noncritical event. Any change in the expected time
t - (25 + FU B)
r~=
4.5
By substituting* for TA and TB in Equation 2, we can test
the influence of the float use along the noncritical activity
B on the expected time of the network.
The curve in Figure 2 illustrates this influence. FU on the
horizontal axis represents the float use. E[t] on the vertical
axis represents the change of the expected time of the
network. When the float use FU is zero, the expected time
is 45. When FU is equal to 20, which is the total float, the
expected time reaches its largest value: 48. Note that the
total project time of a network is calculated in a forward-
pass calculation in which the float use is zero. The differ-
ence o f the expected time in Figure 2 then indicates a time
disturbance or a potential project delay if the total float is
used. Since this time disturbance is related to the uncertainty
and the float use of the activity B, this time disturbance is
caused by the combined influence.
Safe float range
In Figure 2, when FU is less than or equal to 6, there is
virtually no change in the expected time. When FU is larger
than 6, the expected time starts to increase. This indicates
that the use of float in a certain range does not lead to time
disturbance. To avoid time disturbance caused by float use,
the float use at the activity B should be limited within the
fiat-curve range. This range is called the safe range of float
use (SFU). The safe range of float use is defined as follows:
Definition 1: The safe range of float use is the amount o f
float use in noncritical activities that does not lead to a
disturbance in the total project time.
Mathematically, we can show that the safe range of float
use is as follows:
*To simplify the calculation, the probability distributions of the activity
times are assumed to be normal for both activity A and activity B.
Equations 5 can be calculated using the author's prototype computer
program or other software, such as Excel.
E(T~ = EE a [t] )
End = E ( Ta = EE, [ t ] + FUa) FU~, <<,SFU~, (7)
the expected time of a merge event in Equation 2 when the
float use at merging activity a is less than its safe range of
float use SFUa.
On the basis of the safe range of float use, the latest start
time for activity B should be 6 rather than 20 in the above
case.
There are different types of disturbance in a network. Some
disturbances can affect the total project duration. Some dis-
turbances have an influence on a part of the network only.
To cater for the concept of critical and noncritical activities
in a network, the time disturbance leading to a change in
the total project time is called a critical disturbance. A time
disturbance which affects only a part of a network is called
a noncritical disturbance. An event on a critical path is
called a critical event, and an event on a noncritical path is
(6)
of a critical event is a critical disturbance.
Time-disturbance analysis in backward-pass
calculation
In the preceding section, we introduced the basic concepts
of time-disturbance analysis. In this section, we illustrate
backward-pass calculation and time-disturbance analysis in
a network (see Figure 3) with the BFUE procedure. The
network in Figure 3 is developed from a real bridge
project 7. The details of applying the BFUE procedure are
presented in Reference 6. The results o f forward-pass
calculation with the BFUE are presented in Table 1. The
application o f the BFUE procedure to backward-pass
calculation is described below.
In backward-pass calculation, the basic rule for calculating
the event time with the BFUE procedure is the same as for
the CPM technique. The latest time of an event is decided
by the smallest value of the latest start time for the activities
which connect and follow the event. When an event is
followed by one activity, its latest event time is the same
as the latest start time of this activity. For instance, the
latest expected time o f event 10 is the same as the latest start
time of activity L (see Figure 3).
The difference lies in the calculation of merge-event
times. At a merge event, the float used in the merging
z[t]
4@
47-
46-
45-
i
44 t ]:U
Figure 2 Influence of float use at merging activity B on expected
time of network
189
Calculation of safe float use in risk-analysis-oriented network scheduling." D Gong and J E Rowings Jr

Event
: Critical Activity
L , Non-CriticalActivity
3,17(0.3t)
~ StandardDeviation
ActivityMeanTime
3.17(0.313E ,(~ 3(o3F

4,5(0.94) 3.67[0,833

23,17(3,44)4,17(1,56} 2(0.63)
J

4.9(2.g3)/~,, 5.17(0.94) 22.17(3.44)

G "-- k~ I : @ K :

Figure 3 Real project network for time-disturbance analysis

activities should be adjusted to the safe float range so that Critical merge event
the float use will not lead to a critical disturbance or Merge event 10 is a critical merge event which connects
changes in the latest expected time of the merge event. three merging activities. To avoid a critical disturbance,
Then the latest start and finish times for each noncritical the expected time of merge event 10 should not be dis-
activity are calculated on the basis of safe float use. turbed. This implies that we should define a safe range of
There are two merge events in the network in Figure 3. float use for noncritical merging activities J and F so that
Merge event 8 is a noncritical merge event, and merge event the float use will not influence the expected time of merge
10 is a critical merge event. The time-disturbance analyses of event 10.
these two types of merge event are discussed separately. To define the safe range of float use for the merging
activities related to a critical merge event, we can go
through the following steps*. Let the safe range of float use
Table 1 Forward-pass calculation for network in Figure 3 with BFUE along a merging activity i be SFUi. In the case of n
procedure noncritical merging activities preceding a merge event,
Activity Event
• Step 1: set the float use F ~ equal to zero (j :~ i ; j = 1,
Activity EFT o Number E [t ] o 2 . . . . . i - 1, i + 1 . . . . . n) for each merging activity
A 4.50 0,94 2 4.50 0.94 except the merging activity i;
B 8,17 1,13 3 8.17 1.13 • Step 2: define SFUi, the safe range of float use along
C 12.17 1.30 4 12.17 1.30 the merging activity i, with the BFUE procedure.
G 13.08 2,32 5 13.08 2.32
H 17.34 3,10 6 17.34 3.10 Since merge event l0 is a critical event, its expected time
1 18.25 2.51 7 18.25 2.51
should be the same in both the backward-pass and forward-
E 11.34 1.17 pass calculations. The expected time is 40.41. Table 2
8 15.17 1.44
D 15.17 1.44
shows the calculation of the total float FT of merging
K 40.41 4.26 activities F, J and K. The total float is 16.74 weeks for
J 23.67 3.16 9-10 40.41 4.26
F 18.17 1.44
merging activity J, and 22.24 weeks for merging activity F.
Let the float use for the merging activities F and J be FUF
L 63.59 5,47 11 63.59 5.47
N 67.76 5.69 12 67,76 5.69
and FUj, respectively. We can analyze the influences of
O 69.76 5.72 13 69.76 5.72 FUe and FU~ on the expected time of merge event 10. The
following procedure analyzes the influence of FUj.
[Time unit: week. EFT: earliest finish time.]
• Step 1: Set FU F to zero.
Table 2 Float calculation for merging activities preceding merge • Step 2: Identify the nearest crosseventt of merging
event 10
Merging activity EFT Expected event time Total float
F 18.17 40,41 22.24 *A mathematical proof for applying these steps at a critical merge event
J 23.67 40,41 16.74 is presented in Reference 7.
K 40.41 40.41 0.00 tThe identification of the nearest crossevent copes with the assumption
of the basic model in Equations 2 and 3, The concept of the nearest
[Time unit: week. EFT: earliest expected finish time. ] crossevent is explained in Reference 6.

190
 Calculation of safe float use in risk-analysis-oriented network scheduling: D Gong and J E Rowings Jr

activities F and K required in the BFUE procedure. The Table 3 Time-disturbance estimation at merge event 10 with float use
nearest crossevent here is event 3. at merging activity J
• Step 3: Substitute the earliest expected finish time, the FU Event 10 End event
time variances of merging activities F and K, and the
time variance of the nearest crossevent 3 (see Table 1) 0.00 40.41 69.75
10.00 40.62 69.96
in Equation 5 as follows: 12.00 40.88 70.22
15.00 41.67 71.01
t - 40.41 16.74 42.42 71.76
T~=
( 4 . 2 6 2 - 1.132) '~ [Time unit: week. ]

t- 18.17 • Step 7: Compute the expected time of merge event 10

~=
( 1 . 4 4 2 - 1.132) v2
where 40.41 and 4.262 are the expected finish time and
time variance of merging activity K, 18.17 and 1.442
are the earliest expected finish time and time variance of
merging activity F, and 1.132 is the time variance of
the nearest crossevent 3.
• Step 4: Compute the combined expected finish time and
time variance of merging activity K and F with Equations
2 and 3. These are 40.41 and 4.262, respectively.
• Step 5: Identify the nearest crossevent of combined
activities F and K and merging activity J. The nearest
crossevent here is also event 3.
• Step 6: Replace the parameters of merging activity J and
the combined expected time and time variance of merging
activity K and F in Equations 5 again as follows:
t - 40.41
TF.K=
(4.26 l - 1.132) '/2
t - (23.67 + FUj)
(1.442 - 1.132) '~
where 40.41 and 4.262 are the combined expected
finish time and time variance of merging activities F and
K, and 23.67 and 3.162 are the earliest expected finish
time and time variance of merging activity J.
with each given value of float use FUj by substituting
Equations 5 into Equation 2, and compute the safe range
of float use by applying Equation 7.
The results of the calculation are listed in Table 3. According
to the information in Table 3, when the float use along
merging activity J is less than ten weeks, there is little
change in either the expected time of merge event 10 or the
total project time. This indicates that, if the float use is
around ten weeks, no large critical disturbance is caused by
the float use of merging activity J for the expected time of
merge event 10. This conclusion is illustrated in curve A in
Figure 4. Curve A starts at E[t] = 40.41, which is the
expected time of merge event 10. It is fiat when FU is less
than 10. When the float use is greater than ten weeks, the
expected time increases quickly. When all the float of
merging activity J is used, the increase in the expected time
of merge event 10 is two weeks (see Table 3). This implies
that the maximum disturbance to merge event 10 is two
weeks, which is caused by the float use along merging
activity J. SFUj, therefore, should be about ten weeks.
Similarly, we can set FUj equal to zero, and define the
safe range of float use for merging activity F by repeating
the BFUE procedure demonstrated above. Curve B in Figure
4 illustrates the relation between the expected time of
merge event l0 and the float use of merging activity F.
There is a flat part of curve B when the float use for
merging activity F is less than 18 weeks. This curve

E[t]
45
Time unit: week

44

43
A

42

40.41
4.

40

39

88 FU
0 5 10 15 20

Figure 4 Time-disturbance analysis at merge extent 10

[Time unit: week. ]

191
Calculation of safe float use in risk-analysis-oriented network scheduling: D Gong and J E Rowings Jr

indicates that SFUF along merging activity F is 18 weeks.
On the basis of the above time-disturbance analysis at
merge event 10, to keep the event time of merge event 10
undisturbed, we should restrict the use of the float to about
ten weeks for merging activity J, and about 18 weeks for
merging activity F. Then, the latest expected finish time is
D (see Figure 3), and the time variance of event 3 is
1.132. By substituting the earliest expected finish time, the
time variances of merging activities E and D, and the time
variance of the nearest crossevent 3 into Equations 5, the
expected time of merge event 8 can be set as a function of
the conditional SFUE as follows:

10 + 23.67 = 33.67 t - ( 11.34 + FUE)

T~=
for activity J, where 23.67 is the earliest expected finish ( 1.172 - 1-132) '/2
time of activity J (see Table 4), and t - 15.17
18 + 18.17 = 36.17 To = (1.442 -- 1.132) '/2

for activity F, where 18.17 is the earliest expected finish
time of activity J (see Table 4).
Noncritical merge event
A noncritical merge event has an earliest event time and
a latest event time. When the uncertainty of merging
activities influences the latest event time, the total project
time is disturbed. The time-disturbance analysis at a
noncritical merge event identifies the safe float ranges of
the merging activities which do not disturb the latest event
time. To analyze the time disturbance at a noncritical merge
event, the following procedure is recommended:
• Step 1: Identify the merging activity i which has, for the
noncritical merging activities, the largest value of the
earliest expected finish time.
• Step 2: Define the conditional safe range of the float use
along a merging activity j which corresponds to the
merging activity i identified in step 1.
• Step 3: Define the safe float use of a merging activity by
summing the conditional safe range of the float use and
the difference between the latest and earliest expected
times of the noncritical merge event.
where 11.34 and 1.172 are the earliest expected finish time
and time variance of the merging activity E, and 15.17 and
1.442 are the earliest expected finish time and time
variance of the merging activity D.
By substituting for TE and To in Equation 2, and apply-
ing Equation 7, we can estimate the conditional SFUe of
the merging activity E. The results in Table 5 show that,
when the float use of merging activity E is less three weeks,
there is little change in the value of the earliest expected
time of merge event 8. The conditional safe range of float
use for merging activity E is two weeks.
Since the difference between the latest and earliest
expected times of merge event 8 is 33.17 - 15.17 = 18
weeks (see Table 4), the safe range of float use for merging
activity D is then 18 weeks. The safe range of float use for
merging activity E is the sum of the conditional SFUF and
18 weeks. The calculation indicates that, when the float use
Table 4 Comparison of latest finish times for PERT/CPM and BFUE
procedures
Activity Event
Activity EFT LFT~P LFT~B Number Expected time*

This procedure* is demonstrated in the time-disturbance A 4.50 4.50 4.50 2 4.5/4.5

analysis at merge event 8. Merge event 8 is a noncritical B 8.17 8.17 8.17 3 8.17/8.17
merge event. It is connected with merging activity E and D C 12.17 28.91 22.17 4 12.17/22.17
G 13.07 13.07 13.07 5 13.07/13.07
(see Figure 3). On the basis of the time-disturbance H 17.34 34.08 27.34 6 17.34/27.34
analysis at merge event 10, the latest expected finish time I 18.24 18.24 18.24 7 18.24/18.24
o f activity F is 36.17 weeks. The latest expected time of E 11.34 37.41 31.34
merge event 8, which is also the latest expected start time D 15.17 37.41 33.17 8 15.17/33.17
of activity F, is K 40.41 40.41 40.41
J 23.67 40.41 33.67 9-10 40.41/40.41
36.17 - 3 = 33.17 F 18.17 40.41 36.17
L 63.58 63.58 63.58 11 63.58/63.58
where 3 is the mean time of activity F (see Figure 3). N 67.75 67.75 67.75 12 67.75/67.75
Two merging activities E and D are connected with 0 69.75 69.75 69.75 13 69.75/69.75
merge event 8. Merging activity D has a larger value of the
[*Earliest expected time/latest expected time. Time unit: week. EFT:
earliest expected finish time (see Table 4). According to the
earliest finish time, L F T ~ : latest finish time using vEr~T/CVMprocedure,
step, the conditional safe range of float use along merging LFT__B: latest finish time using BFUE procedure. ]
activity E can be defined. The procedure of defining the
conditional safe range of float use is similar to the procedure
recommended for the critical merge event, except that the Table 5 Time-disturbance estimation at merge event 8 with float use
at merging activity E
critical merging activity is substituted for by the merging
activity which, for the noncritical merging activities, has FU Event 8
the larger value of the earliest expected finish time. The
0.00 15.17
nearest crossevent is event 3 for merging activities E and 1.00 15.17
2.00 15.18
3.00 15.27
3.83 15.55
*A mathematical proof for applying these steps at a noncritical merge
event is presented in Reference 7. [Time unit: week.]

192
 Calculation of safe float use in risk-analysis-oriented network scheduling: D Gong and J E Rowings Jr
is limited to FUo <<,18 weeks for merging activity D, and
FUF <~ 20 weeks for merging activity E, there is no
critical disturbance in the network. The latest expected
finish time of merging activity D can be calculated by
summing the earliest expected finish time EFT of activity D
and the safe range of float use SFU for merging activity D.
We can compute the latest finish time of merging activity
E in similar fashion. The results are listed in Table 4. The
latest finish time is 31.34 weeks for merging activity E, and
33.17 weeks for merging activity D.
The remaining events in Figure 3 are each connected with
only one activity. On the basis of the derived latest finish
times of activities J, F, D and E with the safe use of float,
we can calculate the latest start time and finish time for
these remaining activities. The calculation rule is similar to
the backward-pass calculation in the CPM technique. The
results are also presented in Table 4.
Discussion and conclusions
One of the recognized conclusions from the merge-event
bias study is that the PERT procedure gives an optimistic
estimation of the total project time. This conclusion is
reached from the forward-pass calculation of network
scheduling. By introducing the float-use concept into the
merge-event bias study, we can draw additional conclusions
from the backward-pass calculation. The results from the
preceding sections show that the PERT/CPM procedure gives
an optimistic estimation for float use, because it ignores the
combined influence in a network.
Table 4 lists the latest expected finish times of the acti-
vities with the PERT/CaM procedure and 8FUE procedure.
The latest expected finish times of the noncritical activities
are less in the BFUE procedure than in the PERT/CPM pro-
cedures. This occurs because the BFUE procedure restricts
the float use from the total float FTto the safe float use SFU
to avoid a critical disturbance in a network. In the BFUE
procedure, the latest expected finish time is the sum of the
earliest expected finish time of a noncritical activity and the
safe range of float use SFU. In the PERTprocedure, however,
it is the sum of the earliest expected finish time for a
noncritical activity and the total float FT. Since the safe
range of float use SFU is less than the total FT, the latest
expected finish times of the noncritical activities are,
therefore, less in the BFUE procedure than in the PERT/CPM
technique.
The earliest and the latest expected finish times of the
critical activities are the same in the BFUE procedure (see
Table 4). This is also a conclusion from the PERT/CaM
technique. However, the PERT/CPM technique achieves this
by ignoring the combined influence on the total project
time. Unlike the PERT/CPM technique, the BFUE procedure
produces this result by restricting the float use of the
noncritical activities to eliminate the critical disturbances
caused by the combined influence. The introduction of safe
float use in a network can lead to the elimination or
reduction of the risk of project time overruns caused by
noncritical activities.
Figure 4 shows the changes in the expected time of merge
event 10 with respect to the changes in the float use of the
two noncritical merging activities. When the float use is
zero, the expected time of merge event 10 is 40.41 weeks.
With an increase in float use, the expected time of merge
event 10 increases gradually. The changes of magnitude of
E[t] Time unit week
74
72 .6
Monte Carlo Simulation Method
70 8
69 ~ BFUE Procedure
68
67
66J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FU
0 5 10 15
Figure 5 Total project time influenced by float use at noncritical
activity J
the expected time of a merge event can be viewed as the
change in the risk of time disturbance. In many cases, this
change may not be significant. For instance, when the float
use of merging activity J is 12 weeks, the expected time of
merge event 10 is 40.88 weeks (see Table 3). The expected
time is only increased by 0.47 weeks in comparison with the
case in which the float use is zero in merging activity J. The
magnitude of this difference can be ignored. Defining the
safe range of float use, therefore, may be related to the
project manager's attitude to the magnitudes of the changes
in the expected time of a merge event. In the above example,
if the 0.47 week change is an acceptable risk to a project
manager, the float use of 12 weeks can still be within the
safe range of float use. When the float use is about 16
weeks, the increase in the expected time of merge event 10
is two weeks, compared with no float use along merging
path J. The two-week delay could be an unacceptable risk.
In this case, the float use of 16 weeks is not within the safe
range of float use.
In a risk-analysis problem, indicating the trend in the
time disturbance may be more important than giving a
precise value of the time disturbance. To see whether the
BFUE procedure can indicate the trend in the time disturbance
in a network properly, the result of the BFUE procedure for
time-disturbance analysis is compared with the result of
Monte Carlo simulation. Since the results of Monte Carlo
simulation can vary when different assumptions are made
about the activity duration's probability distributions, this
comparison is carried out under one condition: the mean
activity durations and their variances are approximately the
same for the aFUE procedure and the Monte Carlo simulation.
This condition can be achieved by adjusting the probability-
density distributions of the activity duration in the Monte
Carlo simulation according to the same data of optimistic,
pessimistic and most likely estimation used in both the BFUE
procedure and the Monte Carlo simulation.
The two curves in Figure 5 show the changes in the total
project time with respect to the change of float use at
activity J. The broken-line curve is the result from the BFUE
procedure. The solid curve shows the result from the
Monte Carlo method*. The two curves develop in almost
*The Monte Carlo simulation software used was supported by Primavera
Systems.
193
Calculation o f safe float use in risk-analysis-oriented network scheduling: D Gong and J E Rowings J r
the same manner. This shows that the results of simulating
the trend in the total project time with respect to the float
use are similar for both the BFUE procedure and the Monte
Carlo method.
On the basis of the above discussions, w e can draw
several conclusions, as follows:
• The PERT/CPM technique gives an optimistic estimation
of not only the total project time, but also the float
available for noncritical activities.
• When the float use for noncritical activities is limited to
the safe float use, the risk of time overrun caused by
noncritical activities can be eliminated or reduced.
• The definition of the safe range of float use can be
related to the project manager's attitude to the time-
disturbance level.
Dr Gong received a doctor's degree
from the Norwegian Institute of
Technology, Norway, in 1993. He
works as a researcher at the Center
for Building Study, Concordia
University, Canada. His research
area is related to risk analysis in
project scheduling and the automation
o f project management. His working
experience includes eight years o f
construction project management in
China.
194
References
1 MacCrimmon, K R and Ryavec, C A 'An analytical study of the
PERT assumptions' Operations Research 1964 12 (1)
2 Clark, C E 'The greatest of a finite set of random variables'
Operations Research 1961 9 (2)
3 Van Slyke, R M 'Monte Carlo methods and the PERT problem'
Operations Research 1963 11 (5)
4 Ang, A H-S, Abdelnour, J and Chaker, A A 'Analysis of activity
networks under uncertainty' J Engineering Mechanics Division, Proc
American Society of Civil Engineers 1975 101 (EM4)
5 Moder, J J, Phillips C R and Davis, E W Project Management with
CPM, PERT and Precedence Diagramming (3rd ed) Van Nostrand
Reinhold (1983)
6 Gong, D and Hugsted, R 'Time uncertainty analysis in a project
network with a new merge-event time-estimation technique' Int J
Project Management 1993 11 (3)
7 Gong, D 'Risk analysis oriented network scheduling - - backward pass
calculation and time disturbance analysis' Dissertation (1993)
Dr Rowings is the professor-in-charge
of the construction-engineering
program at Iowa State University,
USA. He has taught courses at the
University of Kansas, USA, in project
scheduling, estimating, cost control,
contracting, construction admini-
stration, site engineering and equip-
ment utilization, and construction-
company administration. He has
conducted research related to
scheduling and estimating. He
received a BS, an MS and a PhD
from Purdue University, USA, in
civil engineering. He has acted as a consultant for several construction
firms, design firms, and governmental agencies. He is a member of the
American Arbitration Association Panel of Commercial Arbitrators.
His work experience ranges from a period as a boilermaker to a three-
year assignment as the project engineer for a multibillion dollar
petrochemical facility in Saudi Arabia.