Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis for Infrastructure ...microplanning.com.au/wp-content/uploads/downloads/... · Schedule Estimates Develop Risk Register Assess Risk Factors Quantify

PMI College of Scheduling‘’PMI’ is a registered trade and service

mark of the Project Management institute, Inc.

May 9, 2006

Quantitative Cost and Schedule

Risk Assessment and Management

for Large Infrastructure Projects

RT-05

Bill Roberds, Sc.D.

Travis McGrath, Ph.D., P.E.

Golder Associates, Inc.

Redmond, WA

PMI College of Scheduling‘’PMI’ is a registered trade and service mark of the Project Management institute, Inc.

2May 9, 2006

Introduction

Cost and Schedule overruns are common on large infrastructure projects. Historically1:

•90% of estimates for transportation infrastructure projects have been low

•On average, cost estimates for road projects have been 20% short of final costs

•Estimates for some projects have been off by 100% or more (e.g., the “Big Dig”)

1. Flyvbjerg et.al., Journal of the American Planning Association, Summer, 2002.


3May 9, 2006

Project Cost and Schedule Uncertainty

Poor cost and schedule estimates lead to:

•Cost and schedule over-runs or under-runs

•Poor decisions (i.e., among alternatives)

•Resource competition among projects

•Media attention

•Public mistrust (and therefore funding problems)


4May 9, 2006

Probabilistic Cost and Schedule Risk Assessment and Risk Management

(RA/RM)

Mitigate these problems by:

•Quantifying project cost and schedule uncertainty

• Identifying and prioritizing critical risks and key opportunities

•Quantifying potential benefits of risk-management strategies

• Improving project understanding and communication

• Increasing confidence in estimates and budgets


5May 9, 2006

Outline

•Key Concepts

•Process and Examples

•Performance to Date

•Challenges for Better Implementation


6May 9, 2006

Key Concepts

•Comprehensive look at the project at appropriate level of detail

•Quantify uncertainty in key project assumptions

•Utilize independent perspective (for validation)

•Employ a collaborative, team approach

•Achieve consensus (when possible)

•Focus attention on the key issues

•Update as the project changes significantly


7May 9, 2006

Key Concepts, cont’d

•Quantify uncertainty in project cost and schedule, which is a function of:

– Sequence of all significant project activities

– “Base” activity costs and durations

– Risks, Opportunities, and other uncertainties

•Prioritize critical activities, risks, and opportunities

• Identify and evaluate strategies to improve project performance


8May 9, 2006

Describing Uncertainty

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF)

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Pro

bab

ilit

yValue

Range in values

Rel

ativ

e L

ikel

ihood

Probability Density Function (PDF)

Standard

Deviation

Mean

(Expected)

Value

Percentiles

10th 90th

80% confidence interval


9May 9, 2006

“Base + Risk” Approach versus Traditional Single-Valued Approach

Cost0

Rel

ati

ve

Lik

elih

oo

d

Aggregate Risk and Opportunity

Base (with uncertainties)

“Base + Risk”

Traditional

Contingency

“below the line”

Traditional

Conservative

“above the line”

Traditional

Single-valued

(Deterministic) Estimate

+ =


10May 9, 2006

Outline

•Key Concepts





11May 9, 2006

Steps in Quantitative Cost and Schedule Risk Assessment and Risk Management

Structuring: Review Project Plan, Develop “Flow Chart,” and Document Assumptions

Review Cost and Schedule Estimates

Develop Risk Register

Assess Risk Factors

Quantify Uncertainty and Sensitivity in Cost,

Schedule, and Other Measures

Develop Cost and Schedule

Uncertainty Model

Update Periodically or at Key Milestones

Identify and Evaluate Risk-Management Strategies

Develop Base Factors

Project team

implements

mitigation

strategy and

monitors

performance

Workshop setting

Collaborative effort


12May 9, 2006

Steps: Structuring the RA/RM


• Project team presents current plan

• Clarify project scope and delivery strategy

• List all significant project assumptions

• Develop project “flow chart” for each alternative:

– Sequence of major project activities (all precedence requirements)

– Based on team’s strategy and schedule

– Reasonableness / accuracy check on schedule logic

– Appropriate level of detail

– Basis for integrated cost and schedule model


13May 9, 2006

Example Project “Flow Chart”

14

Widen Existing

Embankment

15

Construct New

Embankment

16

Remaining Bridge

Construction

19

Demo Old

Bridge

22

Remove Old

Alignment

23

Close-out

Items

24

Complete

25

Open to

Traffic

21

Bridge Approaches

17

In-Water

Bridge

Construction

18

S + 1 month

Paving

20

Develop

Alternatives

2Design

and ROW

Funding

1Env Resource

Inventory

3

Design to 10%

4

Prepare

Resource

Reports

5

Environmental

Doc + Approval

6

Design to 60%

8

Finalize Design

and PS&E

9

Acquire

ROW

11

Permitting

12

Ad / Bid /

Award / NTP

14

Construction

Funding

13

14

F-1 month

Relocate

Utilities

10Design to 30% +

Design Approval

7

S+50%

S+50%Programmed:

1/1/2005

Programmed:

1/1/2007

Pre-Construction Activities

Construction Activities

14

Widen Existing

Embankment

15

Construct New

Embankment

16

Remaining Bridge

Construction

19

Demo Old

Bridge

22

Remove Old

Alignment

23

Close-out

Items

24

Complete

25

Open to

Traffic

21

Bridge Approaches

17

In-Water

Bridge

Construction

18

S + 1 month

Paving

20

Develop

Alternatives

2Design

and ROW

Funding

1Env Resource

Inventory

3

Design to 10%

4

Prepare

Resource

Reports

5

Environmental

Doc + Approval

6

Design to 60%

8

Finalize Design

and PS&E

9

Acquire

ROW

11

Permitting

12

Ad / Bid /

Award / NTP

14

Construction

Funding

13

14

F-1 month

Relocate

Utilities

10Design to 30% +

Design Approval

7

S+50%

S+50%Programmed:

1/1/2005

Programmed:

1/1/2007


Develop

Alternatives

2Design

and ROW

Funding

1Env Resource

Inventory

3

Design to 10%

4

Prepare

Resource

Reports

5

Environmental

Doc + Approval

6

Design to 60%

8

Finalize Design

and PS&E

9

Acquire

ROW

11

Permitting

12

Ad / Bid /

Award / NTP

14

Construction

Funding

13

14

F-1 month

Relocate

Utilities

10Design to 30% +

Design Approval

7

S+50%

S+50%Programmed:

1/1/2005

Programmed:

1/1/2007


Construction Activities

Critical path


14May 9, 2006

Steps: Reviewing Project Estimates



• Collaborative effort

• Confirm that cost matches scope

• Confirm that schedule matches scope

• Check reasonableness of design and strategy

• Identify and remove contingency and conservatism

• Note: Estimate is for the ultimate cost and schedule


15May 9, 2006

Steps: Defining the “Base”




• The “Base”

– The planned scope and strategy, with no problems

– Unbiased, excluding contingency and/or float

• “Map” the “base” estimates to flow chart activities

• For each flow chart activity, develop:

– Base cost (current $)

– Base duration (calendar time)

– Cost-escalation rate

• Include significant uncertainties and correlations


16May 9, 2006

Example Base Factors (excerpt)

Flowchart Number

Project Activity Base Cost 1

(2005 $M)

Base Duration 1

(months)

Average Escalation

Rate 1 (%/yr) 0 Costs to Date 0.11 -

1 Design and ROW Funding milestone -

2 Develop Alternatives 0.02 1.0 3.0

3 Env. Resource Inventory 0.02 0.5 3.0 4 Design to 10% 0.30 6.0 3.0

5 Prepare Resource Reports 0.10 3.0 3.0 6 Environmental Doc + Approval 0.05 2.0 3.0

7 Design to 30% + Approval 0.30 4.0 3.0

… … … … … 14 Ad / Bid / Award / NTP 0.05 2.5 3.0

15 Widen Existing Embankment 1.30 2.0 3.0 16 Construct New Embankment 1.85 3.5 3.0

17 Bridge Approaches 1.75 3.0 3.0 18 In-Water Bridge Construction

0.37 0.75 3.0

19 Remaining Bridge Construction

2.13 3.0 3.0

… … … … … 24 Close-out Items 0.57 1.0 3.0 25 Complete milestone -

Note 1. May be uncertain and described with probability distributions; only the expected values are shown here.


17May 9, 2006

Steps: Developing the Risk Register





• Identify all potential events - risks and opportunities -outside the “base” assumptions

• Comprehensive and non-overlapping

• Appropriate level of detail

• Include significant relationships among risks

• Consider possible causes and effects


18May 9, 2006

Steps: Quantifying the Risks




Assess Risk FactorsDevelop Base Factors

For each risk and opportunity, quantify:

• Consequences if event occurs

– Changes in costs and durations to affected activities

– Other measures?

• Likelihood of occurrence, consistent with consequences

• Include significant uncertainties and correlations

• Ensure consistent with “base”


19May 9, 2006

Steps: Quantifying the Risks, cont’d





Risk-factor assessments:

• Based on objective analysis when data are available

• Based on subjective assessments (from the experience and judgment of SMEs) if data are limited

•When properly elicited, subjective assessments have been shown to be accurate, defensible, and ‘the best we can do’


20May 9, 2006

Example Event Tree for Structuring Risks and Opportunities

Vertical

Concept &

Location

1. Tunnel

P1

3. Bridge /

Aerial

P3 = 1-P1-P2

2. At-grade

P2

Structure

Type A. Cut-and-Cover

PA|1

B. Bored / Mined

PB|1 = 1- PA|1

C. Concrete Box

PC|3

D. Steel Plate Girder

PD|3 = 1 - PC|3

Note: Probability of alternative concepts may consider factors other than cost or duration

Probability ∆∆∆∆$ ($M) ∆∆∆∆Months

PA|1P1 0 (“base”) 0

PB|1P1 +5 +2

P2 -4 -3

PC|3P3 -2 -1

PD|3P3 -3 -1


21May 9, 2006

Example Risk Register and Risk Factors (excerpt)

Item Risk or Opportunity Affected Project

Activities

Probability of

Occurrence

Cost Change (2005 $M)

Duration Change

(months)

D8

Project alignment different than assumed Includes related design, ROW, and construction impacts Potential mutually-exclusive outcomes include:

A. EIS alignment (“base”), which passes through town on existing roadway alignment

B. Alternative alignment #1, which bypasses town to north on new alignment

C. Alternative alignment #2, which passes through town on new alignment to east of EIS alignment

60% Design and

ROW Acquisition

Discrete distribution: A. 40%

(Base) B. 40% C. 20% Cost change perfectly correlated to duration change

A. 0 (Base) B. 1.0 to

Design; -5 to ROW C. 1.0 to

Design; Uniform

(2, 10) to ROW

A. 0 (Base) B. 6 to

Design; -3 to ROW C. 6 to

Design; Uniform

(3, 9) to ROW

P4

Delays in required transportation agency approvals Several agencies have review and approval authority over the design. Delays in approval are possible from delays in review cycle.

60% Design

Discrete distribution: A. 10% (Base) B. 60% C. 30%

Additional escalation costs are simulated as a function of duration change

Discrete distribution: A. 0 (base) B. 3 C. 6


22May 9, 2006

Steps: Developing the Integrated Cost and Schedule Model






Uncertainty Model

• Probabilistic computer model

• Can include

– Shut-down “windows”

– Decisions and other “triggered”actions

– Funding or other resource constraints

– Uncertainty in critical path

– Delay-related costs


23May 9, 2006

Steps: Quantifying Uncertainty in Project Cost and Schedule








Uncertainty Model

• Combine base and risk factors in the model

• Simulate results of interest


24May 9, 2006

Integrated Cost and Schedule Model

Activity “Base” Costs (and Uncertainties)

Activity “Base” Durations (and Uncertainties)

Activity A

Activity C

Activity B

Start End

Uncertainty in

Total Escalated

Project Cost

and Duration, plus

Sensitivities

$

T

7 56

12111 0

8 4

21

9 3

_

7 56

1 21 11 0

8 4

21

9 3

_

Risk Events (likelihood of occurrence, and uncertainty

in activity cost and duration changes if the event occurs)

Event Y

Event X

time

escalation

cash flow


25May 9, 2006

Example Monte Carlo Sample Set Showing Cost and Schedule Correlation

Dec-11

Dec-12

Dec-13

Dec-14

Dec-15

Dec-16

Dec-17

Dec-18

Dec-19

Dec-20

Dec-21

0 200 400 600 800

Total Project Cost ($M)

4th

Bo

re O

pen

ing

Da

te

unescalated

escalated

Dec 2021

Dec 2020

Dec 2019

Dec 2018

Dec 2017

Dec 2016

Dec 2015

Dec 2014

Dec 2013

Dec 2012

Dec 2011


26May 9, 2006

Example CDF for Project Cost Showing Contributing Factors

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2,4

00

2,5

00

2,6

00

2,7

00

2,8

00

2,9

00

3,0

00

3,1

00

3,2

00

3,3

00

3,4

00

3,5

00

3,6

00

3,7

00

3,8

00

3,9

00

4,0

00

4,1

00

4,2

00

4,3

00

4,4

00

4,5

00

Total Project Cost (2005 $Million or YOE $Million)

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Pro

ba

bil

ity

(Per

cen

tile

)Base (with no risk or opportunity; in 2005 $)

With Risk and Opportunity, but Without Escalation (2005 $)

With Risk and Opportunity and Escalation (Year-of-Expenditure $)

With Risk and Opportunity and $400M/year Funding Constraint (YOE $)

Mean risk and

opportunity

Mean cost

escalation

Mean

funding

constraint


27May 9, 2006

Example CDF for Project Schedule Showing Contributing Factors

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%Ja

n 2

01

5

Jan

20

16

Jan

20

17

Jan

20

18

Jan

20

19

Jan

20

20

Jan

20

21

Jan

20

22

Jan

20

23

Jan

20

24

Overall Project Completion Date

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Pro

ba

bil

ity

(Per

cen

tile

)Base (with no risk or opportunity)

With Risk and Opportunity but Without Funding Constraint

With Risk and Opportunity and $400M/year Funding Constraint

Mean risk and

opportunity

Mean impact of funding

constraint


28May 9, 2006

Example Probability of Meeting Specified Target

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2,4

00

2,5

00

2,6

00

2,7

00

2,8

00

2,9

00

3,0

00

3,1

00

3,2

00

3,3

00

3,4

00

3,5

00

3,6

00

3,7

00

3,8

00

3,9

00

4,0

00

4,1

00

4,2

00

4,3

00

4,4

00

4,5

00

Total Project Cost (2005 $Million or YOE $Million)

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Pro

ba

bil

ity

(Per

cen

tile

)Base (with no risk or opportunity; in 2005 $)

With Risk and Opportunity, but Without Escalation (2005 $)

With Risk and Opportunity and Escalation (Year-of-Expenditure $)

With Risk and Opportunity and $400M/year Funding Constraint (YOE $)

Probability of

meeting $3.7B

budget = 85%

Probability of

meeting $3.7B

budget = 37%

Alternatively,

could identify required

budget for desired

confidence level

(e.g., 80th percentile)


29May 9, 2006

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

Year

Pro

ject

Ca

sh F

low

Wit

ho

ut

$4

00

M/y

ear

Fu

nd

ing

Co

nst

rain

t (Y

OE

$M

)

Cumulative - 90th Percentile

Cumulative - Mean

Cumulative - 10th Percentile

Annual - 90th Percentile

Annual - Mean

Annual - 10th Percentile

Example Uncertainty in Cash Flow of Expenditures

(Unconstrained Funding Scenario)


30May 9, 2006

Example Impact of Scenario Assumptions on Uncertainty in Cash Flow

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025

Year

An

nu

al

Ca

shfl

ow

(Y

OE

$M

)

No Funding Constraint - 90th Percentile

No Funding Constraint - Mean

No Funding Constraint - 10th Percentile

Funding Constraint - 90th Percentile

Funding Constraint - Mean

Funding Constraint - 10th Percentile

Constraint delays

peak expenditure

by 5 years

Constraint

reduces peak

expenditure

by $270M

at the mean However, constraint

increases total cost

significantly

(increased schedule

and thus escalation)


31May 9, 2006

Steps: Quantifying Sensitivity in Project Cost and Schedule








Uncertainty Model

• Evaluate sensitivity of cost and schedule to the uncertain “base”and “risk” factors:

– Mean

– Standard Deviation

– Percentile (combination)

• Prioritize critical activities and risks in costs and time


32May 9, 2006

Example Sensitivity of 80th Percentile of Project Cost to Uncertain Inputs

34.7

23.2

16.3

11.8

11.7

7.8

6.7

6.5

6

5.2

4.9

3.9

3.8

3.6

2.9

2.4

2

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.6

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.1

1

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

B.3. Limited Number of Qualified Bidders

D.26. Extended Pre-Construction Admin Costs

C.35. Extended Construction Admin Costs

Identified Minor Risks (aggregate)

Unidentified Risks (aggregate)

E.1. Challenge to ROD/FONSI due to public opposition

C.25. Unanticipated Mitigation of Construction Traffic

B.11. Non-Responsive Low Bid

D.7. Unanticipated Mitigation for Impacts Outside of ...

C.14. Valid Differing Site Condit ions (DSC) (e.g., ...

C.7. Inexperienced Contractor (Separate from C.5 ...

D.5. More Fire Protection / Ventilat ion Required

D.14. Conversion from Metric to English Units

C.5. Contractor Unfamiliarity with CalTrans Admin...

W Tunnel

C.15. Tunnel Face Instability / Excessive Inflow

E Tunnel

C.29. Unanticipated Work Stoppage due to Adverse...

E.5. Unexpected / Late Number of Public Comments ...

B.6. Poor Material Prices and Availability

C.20. Slope Instability / Retaining Wall Failure

B.5. Opposition from Local Contractors / Business...

D.16. Problems in Design Coordination (Including ...

D.17. Design Changes / Breakage (Separate from ...

E13. Additional Impact Analysis

August 2005$ / non-ROW escalat ion rate

C.16. Tunnel Collapse During Construction

D.4. Change in Design Standards (e.g., Seismic) ...

Uncertain Factors (base

uncertainty or

risk/opportunity)

Contribution ($M) to 80th Percentile

of Escalated Project Cost


33May 9, 2006

Steps: Managing Risk




Assess Risk Factors




Uncertainty Model

Identify and Evaluate Risk-Management Strategies


Project team

implements

mitigation

strategy and

monitors

performance

• Identify potential risk-management actions (e.g., prevention; mitigation)

• Quantify likely implementation costs

• Quantify likely benefits

• Simulate net effect

• Ties in to Value Engineering


34May 9, 2006

Risk Management

Performance (e.g., cost)

Relative

Likelihood Total with

Risk Management

Risks and Opportunities with

Risk Management

Note: Base costs include mitigation implementation costs

Base (with uncertainties; now

including RM costs)


35May 9, 2006

Example Risk Management: Mitigated Cost Uncertainty (if Mitigation Succeeds)

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

32

0

33

0

34

0

35

0

36

0

37

0

38

0

39

0

Total Project Cost (Future $M)

Pro

ba

bil

ity

Mitigated (Workshop Plan)

Unmitigated (July 19 2003)

The mitigation planwould save$10M at the owner’s desired confidence level (80th percentile)


36May 9, 2006

Example Risk Management: Mitigated Schedule Uncertainty

0%10%20%

30%40%50%60%70%

80%90%

100%

Jun

20

08

Sep

20

08

Dec

20

08

Mar

20

09

Jul

20

09

Oct

20

09

Jan

20

10

May

20

10

Revenue Service Date

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Pro

ba

bil

ity

(Per

cen

tile

)

July 2004 Mitigated

July 2004 Unmitigated

The mitigation planwould save7-8 months at the owner’s desired confidence level (80th percentile)


37May 9, 2006

Outline

•Key Concepts





38May 9, 2006

Performance

• Not many projects evaluated using this approach have been completed

• Can’t fully evaluate performance (yet)

• As an interim measure, compared results from risk assessments to published costs for completed projects

• Favorable reaction from public (i.e., public “ok”with ranges expressing uncertainty)

• Improved project team understanding

• Focused risk management

• Improved confidence in cost and schedule estimates, however…


39May 9, 2006

Performance: Bias Comparisons

•Flyvbjerg et. al. (2002) calculated inaccuracy (bias) in cost estimates for completed projects as the percent difference between actual (ultimate) project cost and estimated cost at the

time of decision to build

•As an interim measure, the authors calculated the “apparent bias” in project team estimates relative to the mean RA/RM results for projects still in design as follows:

[mean unescalated cost from risk assessment – team cost estimate (unescalated)]

team cost estimate (unescalated)


40May 9, 2006

Performance: Results from Risk Assessments vs. Published Results for Completed Projects

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Bias in Cost Estimate (%) 1

(numbers are upper bounds for bins)

Fre

qu

ency

From 62 Risk Assessments (2002 to 2005) on

Northwestern US Road Projects

After Flyvbjerg et. al. (2002) for 167

Completed Road Projects (Worldwide)

Mean = 20%

Standard deviation = 30%

Mean = 14%


0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Bias in Cost Estimate (%) 1

(numbers are upper bounds for bins)

Fre

qu

ency

From 62 Risk Assessments (2002 to 2005) on


After Flyvbjerg et. al. (2002) for 167

Completed Road Projects (Worldwide)

Mean = 20%


Mean = 14%


Note: Larger variability in completed projects likely reflects larger data set and variability among agencies

Similar partial validation of approach


41May 9, 2006

Performance: Apparent Bias in Cost Estimate versus Design Level

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Design Level at Time of Risk Assessment

Bia

s in

Co

st E

stim

ate

(%

) 1

From 62 Risk Assessments on


Conceptual Preliminary Final

Mean

Mean plus one standard deviation

Mean minus one standard deviation-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Design Level at Time of Risk Assessment

Bia

s in

Co

st E

stim

ate

(%

) 1

From 62 Risk Assessments on


Conceptual Preliminary Final

Mean

Mean plus one standard deviation

Mean minus one standard deviation


42May 9, 2006

Outline

•Key Concepts





43May 9, 2006

Challenges for Better Implementation

• If properly implemented and averaged over many projects, risk-based approaches appear to “get closer” to the ultimate project cost than does deterministic estimating,

•However, RA/RM is not perfect:

– Bids for some recent projects evaluated using probabilistic RA/RM (by the authors and by others) have fallen outside the RA/RM ranges

– Effort for RA/RM for some projects has been excessive

•This implies that probabilistic RA/RM still needs improvement


44May 9, 2006


1. Convincing the owner that the RA should include all significant uncertainties

• Excluding major uncertainties makes the results:

– Conditional on key assumptions (often forgotten)

– Underestimate the true range of uncertainty, and perhaps inaccurate as well

• Examples of major uncertainties that are often excluded for political or other reasons:

– Uncertainty in the amount or timing of funding

– Potential delays due to process and management inefficiencies

– Uncertainty in key policies within stakeholder orgs

– Uncertainty in project scope (i.e., evaluating a particular scope instead of all possible project scopes)


45May 9, 2006


2. Removing optimism and/or “management bias” (e.g., hidden agendas) from assessments

• Consensus is desirable, but should not be achieved at the expense of accuracy

• If necessary, risk assessors should infuse their experience from other projects to de-bias and/or expand ranges of critical assessments to ensure reasonable results


46May 9, 2006


3. Making results of RA/RM understandable and useful to the owner

• Make sure the RA addresses the owner’s specific needs

• Educate the owner on how to interpret and use the results

• Don’t let the owner assign more certainty or precision to the results than is justifiable

• Qualify any limitations to avoid misunderstanding


47May 9, 2006

Summary

•Probabilistic risk assessment and risk management for large infrastructure projects can cost-effectively provide

– Better understanding and communication of project uncertainties

– More confidence in estimates

– Better project management and decision making

•However, careful (and better) implementation is required to ensure accurate and defensible results


48May 9, 2006

Dr. Travis McGrath, P.E.

Golder Associates, Inc.

18300 NE Union Hill Rd, Suite 200

Redmond, WA 98052

(425) 883-0777

[email protected]

Contact Information

Documents

Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis for Infrastructure ...microplanning.com.au/wp-content/uploads/downloads/... · Schedule Estimates Develop Risk Register Assess Risk Factors Quantify