How variance affects a project’s timeframe and costs.

Authors

  • Juan Manuel Izar Landeta Instituto Tecnológico Superior de Rioverde
  • Olga Edith Villalón Piña
  • Javier Ruiz Aguilar

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.19136/hitos.a32n93.6397

Keywords:

project timeframe, critical path, expected activity time, activity variance, beta probability distribution.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To study the application of several methods to estimate the timeframe of a project, in order to analyze the correlation between the variance of the project and the completion of the timeframe and penalty costs.

MATERIAL AND METHOD: Several methods were applied to estimate the timeframe and the variance of the project, starting with PERT and continuing with other methods derived from PERT, along the triangular distribution, the Ballesteros-Pérez et al., and the Montecarlo simulation.

RESULTS: The methods were applied to an illustrative project case. The methods of Suckey and Kim, Shankar and Sireesha, Golenko-Ginzburg, and Grubbs yielded the shortest project completion times and the lowest penalty costs for delays. PERT achieved an intermediate position, indicating that it is not the best solution.

CONCLUSIONS: It is confirmed that variance does have a direct relationship with both the project timeline and its costs in the case of delays. PERT has been placed in an intermediate position both in terms of project timeline and penalty costs for delays.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

  • Juan Manuel Izar Landeta, Instituto Tecnológico Superior de Rioverde

    Doctor en Administración.

  • Olga Edith Villalón Piña

    Maestra en Educación.

  • Javier Ruiz Aguilar

    Ingeniero Industrial. 

References

Abdelkader, Y. H. (2004). Evaluating Project completion times when activity times are Weibull distributed. European Journal of Operational Research, 157, 704-715, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217/(03)00269-8.

Acebes-Senovilla, F., González-Varona, J. M., Pajares-Gutiérrez, J., & López-Paredes, A. (2025). Simulación Monte Carlo como herramienta para priorizar los riesgos de los proyectos. Dirección y Organización, 85, 43-56, https://doi.org/10.37610/85.689.

Aguilar-Cartagena, C. C. y Pascual-Coronel, R. S. (2021). Predicción y evaluación en el sistema de gestión de tiempos y costos mediante el enfoque ANSI – 748 Montecarlo y su impacto en proyectos urbanísticos de la municipalidad de Carabayllo 2020 [Tesis de licenciatura no publicada]. Universidad Privada del Norte.

Ariza-Flores, V. A. y Zavala-Ascaño, G. (2025). Quantitative risk analysis framework for cost and time estimation in road infrastructure projects. Infrastructures, 10(6), 139, https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures10060139.

Ballesteros-Pérez, P., Cerezo-Narváez, A., Otero-Mateo, M., Pastor-Fernández, A., Zhang, J. y Vanhoucke, M. (2020a). Forecasting the Project Duration Average and Standard Deviation from Deterministic Schedule Information. Applied Sciences, 10, 654, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10020654.

Ballesteros-Pérez, P., Sanz-Ablanedo, E., Soetanto, R., González-Cruz, M.C., Larsen, G.D. y Cerezo-Narváez, A. (2020b). Duration and cost variability of construction activities: An empirical study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(1), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001739.

Chanas, S. y Nowakowski, M. (1988). Single value simulation of fuzzy variable. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 25(1), 43-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(88)90098-X.

Ebid, A. M., Ammar, T., Mahdi, I. y Hegazy, H. (2025). Evaluating the planning efficiency for repetitive construction projects using Monte Carlo simulation. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 27520. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-12779-w.

Farnum, N. R. y Stanton, L. W. (1987). Some results concerning the estimation of beta distribution parameters in PERT. Journal of the Operations Research Society, 38(3), 287-290.

Flyvbjerg, B., Budzier, A., Lee, J. S., Keil, M. y Lunn, D. (2022). The empirical reality of IT project cost overruns: Discovering a power-law distribution. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.01573.

Golenko-Ginzburg, D. (1989). PERT assumptions revisited. Omega, 17, 393-396.

Grubbs, F. E. (1962). Attempts to validate certain PERT statistics or ‘Picking on PERT’. Operations Research, 10, 912–915.

Hahn, E. (2008). Mixture densities for project management activity times: A robust approach to PERT. European Journal of Operational Research, 210, 450–459.

Hajdu, M. y Bokor, O. (2014). The Effects of Different Activity Distributions on Project Duration in PERT Networks. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 119, 766-775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.086.

Herrerías-Velasco, J. M., Herrerías-Pleguezuelo, R. y Van Dorp, J. R. (2011). Revisiting the PERT mean and variance. European Journal of Operational Research, 210, 448-451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.08.014.

Italiya, D. G., Pitroda, J. R. y Raichura, C. (2025). A comprehensive review of cost overrun factors in construction projects. International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management, 9(11), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsrem53645.

Izar-Landeta, J. M. (2017). Cómo implementar un proyecto exitoso. Revista Conexxión de Economía y Administración, 3(8), 9-13. https://www.aliatuniversidades.com.mx/conexxion/portada?s=89

Izar-Landeta, J. M., Castillo-Ramírez, A. y Hernández-García, V. (2014, 23 de abril). Métodos alternos para subsanar las limitaciones de PERT al estimar el plazo de un proyecto. Congreso Anual de Investigación en Ciencias Administrativas, ACACIA y Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Tijuana, B. C. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3553.5529.

Kamburowski, J. (1985). An upper bound on the expected completion time of PERT networks. European Journal of Operational Research, 21(2), 206-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(85)90032-3.

Kamburowski, J. (1997). New validations of PERT times. Omega, 25(3), 323-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(97)00002-9.

Kartika, D. y Setiawan, B. (2025). The Economic Impact of Project Risk Management on Cost Efficiency and Time Performance in Medium-Scale Construction Projects. Mustard Journal De Ecobusin, 2(4), 204-217. https://doi.org/10.37899/mjde.v2i4.274.

Kulkarni, V. G. y Adlakha, V. G. (1986). Markov and Markov-regenerative PERT network. Operations Research, 34(5), 769-781. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.34.5.769.

Magott, J. y Skudlarski, K. (1993), Estimating the mean completion time of PERT networks with exponentially distributed duration of activities. European Journal of Operational Research, 69(3), 360-370, https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(93)90131-Q.

Ramadhan, J. S. y Waty, M. (2025). Impact of Change Orders on Cost Overruns and Delays in Large-Scale Construction Projects. Engineering, Technology and Applied Science Research, 15(1), 20291-20299, https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.9449.

Sackey, S. y Kim, B-S. (2019). Schedule Risk Analysis using a Proposed Modified Variance and Mean of the Original Program Evaluation and Review Technique Model. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 23(4), 1484-1492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-019-1826-z.

Shankar, N. R. y Sireesha, V. (2009). An Approximation for the Activity Duration Distribution, Supporting Original PERT. Applied Mathematical Sciences, 3(57), 2823-2834.

Song, Y. y Vanhoucke, M. (2025). Schedule risk analysis for project control with risk interactions. Annal of Operations Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-025-06668-8.

Triangular distribution–Three-point estimating technique. (2023, abril14). https://www.projectmanagement.com/wikis/540506/triangular-distribution---three-point-estimating-technique.

Downloads

Published

2026-05-11

How to Cite

Izar Landeta, J. M., Villalón Piña, O. E., & Ruiz Aguilar, J. (2026). How variance affects a project’s timeframe and costs. HITOS DE CIENCIAS ECONÓMICO ADMINISTRATIVAS, 32(93), 165-182. https://doi.org/10.19136/hitos.a32n93.6397