Paradoxes of the Multi-Chain Critical Paths as the Dissipative Structures

Nazymko, Viktor; , Liudmila

doi:10.25673/115704

Proceedings of International Conference on Applied Innovation in IT · 2024/03/07 · Vol. 12 · Issue 1 · pp. 225–231

Paradoxes of the Multi-Chain Critical Paths as the Dissipative Structures

Viktor Nazymko, Liudmila Zakharova and Denis Boulik

📄 Download PDF DOI: 10.25673/115704

Abstract

Parametric and structural uncertainties complicate the project management processes. The critical path is one of the pivotal parameters, which helps to control the project schedule and is used to determine the criticality of the tasks and activities that are the most decisive and should be treated during a project expediting or controlling. There may be a set of the critical paths in uncertain environment. Therefore, the main question is which of the critical paths to select. The aim of this paper is to answer to this question. We used Monte Carlo simulation to investigate the multiple critical paths. We revealed and explained several paradoxes that emerged as results of the multiple critical paths occurrence. They are inevitable late bias of the project duration under uncertainty, the tasks probability and their correlation effects, the impact of concurrent chains of the tasks on their criticality, multiplicity of the critical paths and especially multi-chain critical paths. We demonstrated that multiple critical paths are not negative effect. On the contrary, they play extraordinary useful role and are the reliable criterion of the project robustness and stability.

Keywords

Project Scheduling Simulation Multiple Critical Paths Multi-Chain Critical Path Parametric Uncertainty Structural Uncertainty

References

APM Body of Knowledge, 7th edition, Association of Project Management, Buckinghamshire, 2022.
S. Monghasemi and M.R. Nikoo, “A Novel Multi Criteria Decision Making Model for Optimizing Time-Cost-Quality Trade-off Problems in Construction Projects,” Expert Systems with Applications, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.032.
G.N. Stock, J. Chia-An Tsai, and G. Klein, “Coping with uncertainty: Knowledge sharing in new product development projects,” International Journal of Project Management, 10 October 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.10.001.
J. Bröchner, “Project tragedies,” International Journal of Project Management, 11 April 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.04.001.
M. Wauters and M. Vanhoucke, “A study on complexity and uncertainty perception and solution strategies for the time/cost trade-off problem,” Project Management Journal, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 29–50, 2016, doi: 10.1177/875697281604700404.
J.E. Kelly and M.R.M. Walker, “Critical-path planning and scheduling,” in Proc. of the Eastern Joint Computer Conference, pp. 160–173, 1959, doi: 10.1145/1460299.1460318.
R.M. Van Slyke, “Letter to the editor-monte carlo methods and the PERT problem,” Operations Research.
A. Bakó, “All paths in an activity network,” Mathematische Operationsforschung und Statistik, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 851-858, 1976, doi: 10.1080/02331887608801343.
Z. Cai, X. Li, and J. Gupta, “Critical path-based iterative heuristic for workflow scheduling in utility and cloud computing,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2013, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-45005-1_15.
V. Nazimko and L. Zakharova, “Project Schedule Expediting under Structural and Parametric Uncertainty,” Engineering Management Journal, 2022, doi: 10.1080/10429247.2022.2030179.
D.P. Kroese, T. Brereton, T. Taimre, and Z.I. Botev, “Why the Monte Carlo method is so important today,” WIREs Computational Statistics, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 386–392, 2014, doi: 10.1002/wics.1314.
Project Management Institute, “A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide),” 6th ed., 2017.
R.A.T. Rena, “Project management: A simulation-based optimization method for dynamic time-cost tradeoff decisions (M.S. thesis),” Rochester, NY: Rochester Institute of Technology, 2009.
M.K. Floyd, K. Barker, C.M. Rocco, and M.G. Whitman, “A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Technique for Stochastic Task Criticality in Project Management,” Engineering Management Journal, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 165-178, 2017, doi: 10.1080/10429247.2017.1340038.
M.A. Stephens, “EDF Statistics for Goodness of Fit and Some Comparisons,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 69, no. 347, pp. 730-737, 1974, doi: 10.2307/2286009.
P. Glansdorff and I. Prigogine, “Thermodynamic theory of structure, stability and fluctuations,” J. Willey & Sons, New York, 1971, doi: 10.1002/bppc.19720760520.