174 European Journal of OperationalResearch43 (1989) 174-183

North-Holland

Theory and Methodology

Stochastic and fuzzy PERT

F.A. L O O T S M A
Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, Delft University of Technology, P. 0. Box 356, 2600 AJ Delft,
Netherlands

Abstract: Network-planning techniques are considered based on stochastic and fuzzy models of the activity
durations. The stochastic versions of PERT are generally intractable, and they cannot be used to draw up
tight plans for action. Fuzzy models are closer to reality, simpler to use, but theoretically not well
established. The impact of a stochastic and a fuzzy version of PERT is illustrated via a numerical example.
Finally, the representation of uncertainty in network planning is discussed, when the activity durations are
estimated by human experts.

Keywords: Network planning, minimum project duration, gamma distributions, maxima of stochastic
variables, fuzzy numbers, triangular membership functions, maxima of fuzzy numbers, normative modell-
ing, descriptive modelling, randomness, vagueness

1. Introduction materials at the right moment, and to control the

Ever since the first publication (the PERT Sum-
mary Report, 1958; see also Malcolm et al., 1959),
the Project Evaluation and Review Technique PERT
has been a successful tool of Operations Research.
With the activities of a project as the arcs and the
milestones or events as the nodes, the network
model visualizes the order in which the activities
must be carried out. It is typically a directed,
acyclic network with exactly one initial node, the
start, and one terminal node, the completion of
the project. Moreover, if there is enough certainty
to express each activity duration by exactly one
estimate, the minimum project duration is unam-
biguously determined by the longest path from the
initial to the terminal node. The earliest and the
latest event times, also calculated by the longest-
path algorithm, provide a framework for plan-
ning: they enable the user to contract labour and
Received May 1988; revisedJuly 1988
0377-2217/89/$3.50 1989, ElsevierSciencePublishers B.V.(North-Holland)
execution of the project.
The PERT team also tried to model uncertainty.
They proposed to ask three estimates for each
activity duration (the optimistic, the most-likely,
and the pessimistic estimate), they modelled each
activity duration as a stochastic variable with an
appropriate beta distribution, and they proposed a
simple method to calculate the expectation and the
variance of the event times approximately.
There is a systematic error in this simple version
of PI~RT, however. At every milestone where several
activities join together, the earliest event time is
the maximum of a number of generally dependent
stochastic variables. By the simple approximate
maximization in the original method, the expected
event times, and henceforth the expected mini-
mum project duration, are underestimated. Ini-
tially, this prompted several authors (Clark, 1961;
Fulkerson, 1962; MacGrimmon and Ryavec, 1964;
Martin, 1965; Hartley and Wortham, 1966;
Lootsma, 1966; Elmaghraby, 1967, 1977; Burt and
Garman, 1971) to improve the method by a more
 F.A, Lootsma / Stochastic and fuzzy PERT
sophisticated, but nevertheless approximate maxi-
mization, and also by simulation. Later authors
(Kleindorfer, 1971; Robillard and Traham, 1977;
Shogan, 1977; Meilijson and N~tdas, 1979; Nhdas,
1979; Gaul, 1981; Cleef and Gaul, 1983; Klein
Haneveld, 1986) admitted that the problem of
finding the distribution or the moments of the
minimum project duration is intractable: theoreti-
cally too complicated, even if the activity dura-
tions are supposed to be independent, and compu-
tationally too expensive. Instead, they turned to a
worst-case analysis. They attempted to derive an
upper bound for the expected violation of a pre-
determined project delivery moment by a maximi-
zation over the class of joint distributions compat-
ible with the marginal activity durations.
Since the pioneering work of Zadeh (1965) in
fuzzy-set theory, it is questionable whether the
above, stochastic models yield a proper represen-
tation of the uncertainty in a project. The activity
durations are estimated by human experts, some-
times under unique circumstances, so that we are
confronted with the vagueness of their judgemen-
tal statements. Modelling with fuzzy concepts was
considerably improved by Dubois and Prade
(1978a) when they established arithmetic oper-
ations on fuzzy numbers. They applied the ideas
immediately to the PERT problem of finding the
event times and the minimum project duration
(1978b). In addition, Chanas and Kamburowski
(1981) suggested to use fuzzy numbers with trian-
gular membership functions based on the optimis-
tic, the most-likely, and the pessimistic estimates
of the respective activity durations. Fuzzy num-
bers of this type, thoroughly studied by Van
Laarhoven and Pedrycz (1983), have successfully
been used in multi-criteria analysis (see Lootsma,
1987). We are convinced that they will also be
workable tools for project planning.
This leads us to the purposes of the present
paper. First, we discuss the important issue of
tight planning. Even if the activity durations are
uncertain, the project leader and the subcontrac-
tors cannot work without commitments, both be-
tween themselves and with the outside world. They
have to make certain promises, they have to make
agreements about the delivery of labour, raw
materials, tools, machinery, etc. Normally, each
activity duration, uncertain or not, is replaced by
a planned activity duration (in practice always the
expected activity duration), which is taken to rep-
175
resent the length of the corresponding arc in the
project network. It is a common experience that
project leaders and their subcontractors generally
expect the planned minimum project duration to
be equal to the length of a longest path from the
initial to the terminal node. Otherwise, there would
be positive floats along every path from start to
finish: this would create serious conflicts during
the execution of the project. Next, we summarize
our extended stochastic version of PERT (1966) as
well as a fuzzy version based on fuzzy activity
durations with triangular membership functions.
Thereafter, we calculate the earliest event times
and the minimum duration of a particular project
via these two methods, and also via simulation, in
order to show the discrepancies between the re-
sults; to our knowledge, such a comparison has
never been made. With this example as a vehicle
for discussion, we finally turn to the representa-
tion of uncertainty in projects where the activity
durations are estimated by human experts. In
doing so, we also refute the biting criticism of
French (1987) on the modelling of vague phenom-
ena.
2. Tight planning
We consider a directed, acyclic network with
node set (1, 2 . . . . . n }. The unique initial node has
number 1, the unique terminal node number n.
The network of project NABLAin Figure 1, which
will be used to clarify the results of the stochastic
and the fuzzy versions of PERT, is a typical exam-
ple of such a 'project network'.
Figure 1. Network visualizing the order relations of the activi-
ties (the arcs) in project NABLA. Activity ( j , k) cannot start
before all activities (i, j ) , i ~ Bj, have been completed
176 F.A. Lootsma / Stochastic and fuzzy P~Rr
In the deterministic case, alternatively referred
to as the crisp or non-fuzzy case, each arc (i, j )
has a non-negative number dij associated with it:
the activity duration, estimated by the subcontrac-
tor who is responsible for the activity. The earliest
event times are defined by the forward recursion
ta = 0 , tj= max(ti+dij ),
i~Bj
where Bj stands for the set of nodes 'immediately
before' j. Obviously, t n represents not only the
earliest event time of the terminal node, but also
the minimum project duration.
The latest event times are similarly defined by
the backward recursion
r, = t,, ~ = rain (% - djk ),
k~Aj
where Aj denotes the set of nodes 'immediately
after' j. It must be true, of course, that Zl = 0.
There is at least one longest path, a so-called
critical path, from 1 to n, It is easy to show that
node j is on a critical path if, and only if, tj -- ~).
Moreover, activity (i, j ) is on a critical path if,
and only if, its total float z j - (t i + d~j) is zero.
With these properties, the event times constitute
an excellent framework for a tight plan. By execut-
ing each activity within the respective time limits,
the project leader and the subcontractors will
complete the project as soon as possible. The
completion time (delivery time) will indeed be
minimized because the plan contains at least one
path without floats (a critical path).
In a stochastic version, each activity (i, j ) has
associated with it a stochastic activity duration
_dij. Usually, the probability distribution of _d~j
has a non-negative support; this is at least the case
with the beta distribution originally proposed by
the PERa- team (1958), and with the gamma distri-
bution introduced by Lootsma (1966, 1969). The
earliest event times are clearly defined by the
forward recursion
~1 = 0 , tj = max(t_i+d_ij).
i~Bj
The expected earliest event times satisfy the
inequalities
E(t_j)=E[max(t_i+d_ij)]
t i~j
>/max [ E ( t i ) + E ( d i j ) ] ,
i~Bj
whereas for many distributions the strict in-
equality sign holds. This has significant implica-
tions. Taking the expected activity durations to
stand for the lengths of the corresponding arcs, we
find that the expected minimum project duration
is generally greater than the length of a longest
path from the initial to the terminal node. So a
(1)
plan, drawn up with the expected event times to
schedule the supply of labour and materials and to
control the project, cannot be tight. There will be
positive floats, even along critical paths. The ex-
ample of Figure 1 will show that the expected
minimum project duration may easily exceed the
length of the longest path by more than 10%.
Calculating the distribution or the moments of
(2) the minimum project duration _tn has appeared to
be an intractable problem. There are not only
theoretical complications. One also has to solve
the computational question of how to process and
to store the stochastic dependence between the
quantities _ti + _dij in formula (4). These are heavily
dependent if they have a long 'common history' in
the project. Dependence is due to the network
structure, and it occurs even when the activity
durations are independent.
The original, simple version of PERT. The PERT
team originally introduced approximate expecta-
tions Ep(t_;) calculated according to the forward
recursion
Ep (t~) = 0,
E p ( , j ) = max
, Bj [Ep(ti) + E(_d,j)]. (5)
Obviously, these quantities constitute a framework
for a tight plan, when the expected activity dura-
tions are taken to be the arc lengths in the project
network. That is the reason why (5) is currently
used in network planning (see Smith, 1982). More-
over, uncertainty was, and still is, incorporated as
follows. Let Pk stand for the longest path from 1
to k; then the approximation Vp(_tk) to the vari-
ance V(t k) is given by
(3)
Vp(-tk) = E V(_d,j). (6)
(i,j)~Pk
If Pk is not unique, then Ve(t_k) is the maximum
total variance over all longest paths from 1 to k.
The earliest event times are further assumed to be
normally distributed.
(4) We did not realize how important the require-
ment of tight planning is until we came up with a
 F.A. Lootsma / Stochastic and fuzzy PERT
proposal to implement an extended version of
PERT in a network-programming code, a version
with improved approximations to E(t_j) and V(t_j).
With the expected activity durations as arc lengths,
the resulting plans would naturally have positive
floats along any path from 1 to n. For the project
leaders and their subcontractors, this was totally
unacceptable! A tight plan constitutes a trans-
parent basis for discussions and negotiations. A
non-tight plan, however, creates conflicts about
the floats. The project leaders fear that they can-
not keep the subcontractors under control and
that the floats will prematurely be squandered.
The subcontractors will indeed use up any availa-
ble slack in the plan, thus jeopardizing the planned
delivery of the project.
To our knowledge, the issue of tight planning is
overlooked in the literature on PERT. Hence, one
also ignores the phenomenon that crude ap-
proximations like the Ep(t_j) are acceptable for
planning purposes whereas the true values E(_tj)
are not! Other frameworks for planning (possibly
the medians of the event times, with the medians
or the modes of the activity durations as arc
lengths) have not been considered either. In fact,
we found in many textbooks for Operations Re-
search a n d / o r Project Planning that the authors
ignored the opportunity to discuss the representa-
tion of uncertainty via the example of PERT-plan-
ning (see, for instance, Moder and Phillips, 1970;
Hillier and Liebermann, 1974; Wagner, 1975;
Eiselt and yon Frajer, 1977; Elmaghraby, 1977;
Smith, 1982; Eppen, Gould and Schmidt, 1987;
Ravindran, Phillips and Solberg, 1987). Un-
certainty is a major issue in Operations Research,
and network planning with uncertain activity
durations is typically an area where stochastic
concepts may be unworkable, as we will see in the
sections to follow.
3. Stochastic and fuzzy activity durations
Activity durations are mostly expressed in days,
weeks, or months, and not seldom in integer num-
bers of these time units. Even if the activity ends
in the middle of a day, for instance, the project
organization is often so rigid that the succeeding
activities cannot start before the next morning. So,
if the activity duration is uncertain, a discrete
probability distribution seems to be a proper model
177
for it, at least at first sight. Now, let us consider
an activity duration _d with such a distribution,
and let us take Pk to denote the probability, sup-
plied by the subcontractor, that the activity will be
completed in k units of time. To be even more
specific, let us suppose that he has chosen P8 =
0.10, P9 = 0.20, Pl0 = 0.60, Pll = 0.10. Now,
imagine that the subcontractor comes under pres-
sure and that he is asked to reconsider the chance
of completing the activity in 9 time units. He still
has at least one degree of freedom: he may argue
that the activity should be completed to such an
extent that succeeding activities can start. So, a
slight shift in the concept of 'completion' is suffi-
cient for him to come up with a new 'probability
estimate' for k = 9, almost as high as Pl0. We may
go even further. The vague definition of 'comple-
tion' enables him to assign to any integer k a new
number c k, 0 <~c k <~1, expressing the credibility
(at least in his eyes) that the activity will be
'completed' in k time units. The slightly varying
notions of 'completion' may be overlapping. It
may also happen that they do not cover all possi-
ble states of 'completion'. Anyway, the credibili-
ties do not necessarily add up to 1. By these steps
we have remodelled the activity duration as a
fuzzy number J with a discrete support.
The transition from discrete to continuous
probability distributions or from discretely to con-
tinuously supported fuzzy numbers is frequently
made when the resulting distributions or member-
ship functions can be described by a few parame-
ters. We shall also do it here with the activity
duration. There are three estimates at our dis-
posal: the optimistic estimate a which would al-
most always (in roughly 99% of all cases) be
exceeded, the most-likely estimate m, and the
pessimistic estimate b which would almost never
(in roughly 1% of all cases) be exceeded. With
these data we modelled (see Lootsma, 1966, 1969)
the stochastic activity duration d_ as a gamma dis-
tribution with the density function
~F--~a)(d-a) 5-1 exp(-X(.- a))
f(d) =
| if d>~a,
\0 if d < a.
The shape parameter a and the scale parameter X
must be positive. If a > 1, the duration d has a
178 FA. Lootsma / Stochastic and fuzzy PERT

unique mode, which is set to m so that
a-1
m=--+a.
X 1 at m. In what follows, we shall refer to a, m and
Moreover, we have
Ot
E(_d) = ~- + a.
It is usual in PERT-planning tO employ the
expected activity duration in order to draw up a
time schedule (see Section 2). The expectation
should not therefore be below the most-likely
estimate, because the subcontractor responsible
for the activity and for the estimate must be taken
seriously. Of course, there is no obvious reason
why the expectation should be above the most-
likely estimate, but mostly we have b - m >> m -
a, and then some extra time seems to be accepta-
ble (see also Section 5; the fuzzy model will not
give extra time for planning). Hence, we have
E(_d) > m, and we obtain
)t = 1 > 0,
E(d)-m
e(d)-a
= - > 1.
E(d ) -m
For the fuzzy activity duration d we adopt the
simplest possible model: a triangular membership
function with the basis [a, b] and the top value of
b as the lower value L ( d ) , the modal value M ( d ) ,
and the upper value U ( d ) respectively.
Note. One of the referees suggested us to use a
triangular density function for a stochastic activity
duration, so that the stochastic and the fuzzy
model would be as similar as possible. Although it
is a valuable idea, we finally decided not to follow
the suggestion. First, the resulting stochastic ver-
sion of PERT would also lead to a non-tight plan.
Second, such a version would yield a higher
expected project duration than the version based
on a gamma distribution: the triangular distribu-
tion has the expectation ~(a + m + b), which
exceeds (9) in the usual case that b - m >> m - a.
Our gamma distribution is rather similar to the
traditional, widely-accepted beta distribution but
it has, in its turn, a somewhat higher expectation.
(7)
4. Maxima of stochastic variables and fuzzy num-
(8) bers

The original PERT formula for the expected
activity duration was based on a beta distribution
for _d. In an attempt to find an almost similar
formula for E ( d ) , such that E(_d) > m, we started
off by setting
E(d_)= ~(b+ 5m). (9)
With the results (7)-(9), the tall probability P(_d >
b) appears to be dependent on the ratio r = (b -
m)/(m-a) only. Moreover, for a reasonable
range of values of r (r = 1, 2 . . . . ,5) the tail prob-
ability is roughly 1%, so that we accepted formula
(9). Finally, the variance of _d is simply expressed
by
Ot
V ( d ) = -~ = (E(d_) - a)(E(d_) - m). (10)
Obviously, the gamma distribution is not only
more natural than the original beta distribution, it
is also simpler: there is a straightforward relation-
ship between the estimates a, m, and b on the one
hand and the parameters a and X on the other.
This is important for simulation experiments.
In stochastic PERT, whether we have beta or
gamma distributions for the activity durations, we
shall follow the original assumption that the
earliest event times _ti, as well as the quantities
_ti + d o are reasonably taken to be normally dis-
tributed. We are accordingly in the position to
calculate the moments of
tj = m a x (t, + 4 , j )
iEBj
by using the formulas derived by Clark (1961).
For ease of exposition, we consider two normally
distributed variables _x and y, and we set _z=
max(x, y). Then
E ( z ) = E ( x ) ~ ( 7 / ) + E ( y ) # ( - ~ l ) + sea(n),
(11)
e(z 2) = + E(_/) ( - . )
+ + (12)
where @ and ea denote the distribution function
and the probability density function of the normal
 F.A. Lootsma / Stochastic andfuzzy PERT
distribution with zero mean and variance 1. The
quantities s > 0 and ~ are defined by
s 2 = V ( x ) + V ( y ) - 2 cov(x, y ) ,
= {E(x)- E(_yl)/s
The dependence between z, x and y is processed
via the expressions
cov(z, x ) = V ( x ) ~ ( ~ / ) + cov(x, y ) O ( - 7 / ) ,
(13)
cov(z, y) = cov(_ , +
(14)
Finally, if x, y and w_ stand for normally distrib-
uted variables with known covariances, then we
have
cov(_, w)= cov(x, coy(y,
(15)
In the rest of the paper we concern ourselves
with two versions of PERT: a stochastic version
with a gamma distribution for the activity dura-
tions and Clark's formulas to carry out the maxi-
mization at the milestones (in contrast to the
simple version of PERT we call it extended), as well
as a fuzzy version with triangular membership
functions for the activity durations and the maxi-
mization formulas of Dubois and Prade (1978a).
(a) An extended, stochastic version of PERT. The
essential feature of an extended version is an
improved approximation to the moments of
_tj = m a x ( L + d_ij).
i~Bj
Suppose that Bj = { p, q, r }, and set
x = _tp + _dpj, _y = _tq + dqj, w = _tr + G : ,
where p, q and r are chosen such that E ( x ) >
E ( y ) >t E(w) (numerical experience indicates that
this order may be disrupted without serious effects
on the quantities to be calculated). Compute the
desired moments of z=max(_x, y) and _tj=
max(y, w) according to Clark's formulas (11)-
(15). It will be obvious how the calculations pro-
ceed if Bj has more or less than three elements.
Finally, compute the covariances of _tj and any
other event time in the network which has already
been 'attained' in the computational process.
179
In what follows we shall take Ec(t_j ) and Vc(_tj)
to denote the resulting approximations to the
expectation and the variance of _tj. Simulation
experiments with small networks have shown that
these approximations are workable (see also the
next section with a hitherto unpublished example).
We always have
Ec Ep(#),
which implies that the improved approximations
E c ( t j ) do not constitute a framework for a tight
plan when the expected activity durations are taken
to stand for the arc lengths.
(b) A fuzzy version of PERT. In fuzzy PERT the
calculations are much simpler, at least as far as
the lower, modal and upper values of the earliest
event times are concerned. The membership func-
tions, however, do not keep the simple triangular
form associated with the activity durations. In the
discussion of the results, we shall nevertheless
assume that deviations from that form may be
ignored. Considering the relation
max(
i~Bj
,+ 4),
and using the results of Dubois and Prade (1978a)
for the lower, modal and upper values of maxima,
we have
L(Tj) = m a x ( L ( 7 , ) + L ( a ~ j ) ) , (16)
i~B: ~
M(Tj) = max{ M(-t, ) + M(c~j)), (17)
i~Bj "
U(?,) = m a x ( U ( 7 , ) + U ( Z j ) ). (18)
i~B/
Hence, the lower, modal, and upper values can be
calculated separately via a longest-path algorithm.
Moreover, with the modal values of the activity
durations as arc lengths, the modal values of the
event times provide a framework for tight plan-
ping. It is worth noting that 'dependence' between
fuzzy numbers is ignored in fuzzy logic.
5. Numerical e x a m p l e
Let us now consider the example of project
NABLA. The network is shown in Figure 1, and the
estimates of the activity durations, as well as the
expectations and the variances, in Table 1. First,
180 F.A. Lootsma / Stochastic andfuzzy PERT

Table 1 extended version with the formulas (11)-(15) of

The three estimates (optimistic, most likely, and pessimistic), Clark (1961). Finally, Table 2 exhibits the ap-
the expectation Exp, and the variance Var of the activity
durations in project NABLA;Exp = ~(b + 5m), and Var = (Exp
proximate expectations and variances
- a)(Exp- m)
Es(tj ) and Vs(_tj),
Activity a rn b Exp Var
1-2 1 3 9 4 3
which are obtained by simulation (10000 realiza-
1-3 3 4 10 5 2 tions of the project, by sampling from the gamma
2-3 1 2 8 3 2 distributions of the activity durations). These
2-4 3 9 27 12 27 quantities are helpful yardsticks to decide how
3-4 2 8 20 10 16 well Ec(_tj) and Vc(tj) approximate the expecta-
1-7 22 30 54 34 48
3-7 18 24 42 27 27
tion and the variance of the earliest event times.
4-7 8 14 26 16 16 Let us now turn to the fuzzy version of PERT.
1-5 2 6 18 8 12 Table 3 shows the lower, modal, and upper values
5-7 16 22 40 25 27 of the fuzzy earliest event times of project NABLA.
1-6 11 14 20 15 4 Because a c o m p a r i s o n with the results i n T a b l e 2
6-7 15 19 25 20 5
c a n n o t readily be made, we have also recorded the
5-8 16 20 32 22 12
6-8 12 14 26 16 8 1% u n c e r t a i n t y ranges of the earliest event times
3-9 22 25 31 26 4 (expectation _+2 - s t a n d a r d deviation) o b t a i n e d via
4-9 14 16 22 17 3 the simple PERT version a n d via simulation.
7-10 9 13 25 15 12 F u z z y PERT a n d the original, simple version of
8-10 12 15 33 18 18
PERT e n a b l e us to consider critical paths from the
9-10 8 12 36 16 32
initial to the t e r m i n a l node. I n the fuzzy version,
with the modal values of the activity d u r a t i o n s as
arc lengths, the p a t h (1, 6, 7, 10) appears to be
we summarize the results of stochastic PERT. T a b l e
the u n i q u e critical path. I n the original, simple
2 displays the quantities
version, with the expected activity d u r a t i o n as arc
Ev(t_j ) and Vp(_tj), length, there are two critical paths, (1, 6, 7, 10}
a n d (1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10}.
calculated according to the simple version origi- F o r a m o r e elaborate example, a project called
n a l l y proposed b y the PERT team. T a b l e 2 also DELTA with a n e t w o r k of 27 n o d e s a n d 44 arcs,
shows the a p p r o x i m a t i o n s the reader is referred to a n earlier p a p e r of the
a u t h o r (1966). The expectation a n d the variance of
Ec(_tj) and Vc(_tj)
the m i n i m u m project d u r a t i o n were according to
of E(tj) and V(ts) respectively, calculated via the the simple version of PERT 156.0 a n d 53, accord-

Table 2
Approximations to the expectation and the variance of the earliest event times in project NABLA
Milestone Expectation Variance
Original Extended Simulation Original Extended Simulation
PERT by Clark's 10000 PERT by Clark's 10000
(1958) formulas runs (1958) formulas runs
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 4.0 4.0 4.1 3 3 3
3 7.0 7.4 7.4 5 4 4
4 17.0 19.5 19.4 21 16 20
5 8.0 8.0 7.9 12 12 12
6 15.0 15.0 15.0 4 4 3
7 35.0 40.9 41.5 9 13 26
8 31.0 32.9 32.7 24 12 16
9 34.0 37.1 37.2 24 13 18
10 50.0 58.5 59.1 42 19 34
 F.A. Lootsma / Stochastic and fuzzy PERT 181

Table 3
Lower, modal and upper values of the fuzzy earliest event times in project NABLA.For a comparative analysis we also show the 1%
uncertainty ranges (expectation + 2. standard deviation) produced by stochastic PERT
Milestone Fuzzy PERT Original PERT Simulation
Crit. Lower Modal Upper Crit. Exp - 2 o Exp Exp + 2 o Exp - 2 o Exp Exp + 2 o
path value value value paths
l * 0 0 0 */* * 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1 3 9 * * 0.5 4.0 7.5 0.6 4.1 7.6
3 3 5 17 * * 2.5 7.0 11.5 3.4 7.4 11.4
4 5 13 37 * * 7.8 17.0 26.2 10.5 19.4 28.3
5 2 6 18 1.1 8.0 14.9 1.0 7.9 14.8
6 * 11 14 20 * 11.0 15.0 19.0 11.5 15.0 18.5
7 * 26 33 63 * 29.0 35.0 41,0 31.3 41.5 51.7
8 23 28 50 21.2 31.0 40.8 24.7 32.7 40.7
9 25 30 59 * * 24.2 34.0 43,8 28.7 37.2 45.7
10 * 35 46 95 */ * * 37.0 50.0 63.0 47.4 59.1 70.8

ing to the extended version 161.5 and 51, via
simulation 161.5 and 66, whereas the fuzzy version
yields the lower, m o d a l and upper values 114, 140,
and 240 respectively.
W h e n the modal values of the earliest event
times are taken as a framework for planning,
fuzzy PERT gives a shorter project duration and a
larger range of uncertainty than the original, sim-
ple version of PERT where the plan is based on the
expected activity durations. The shorter project
duration is easy to explain. In fuzzy PERT, we take
the most-likely estimates of the activity duration
to draw up a plan; in simple PERT, the plan is
based on the expected activity durations, which
always exceed the most-likely estimates when we
use a g a m m a distribution, and practically always
(if b - m > m - a ) for a beta distribution. Inci-
dentally, it remains obscure w h y this extra time
should be given into the bargain, as all stochastic
PERT versions do, the simple version as well as the
extended versions or simulation! W h y should the
project leader be so generous to the subcontrac-
tors? Possibly because others m a d e h i m aware of
the law of large n u m b e r s in probability theory,
without telling him that the law is invalid for
unique or practically unique projects!
Extended versions and simulation have never
been used for network planning, at least to our
knowledge. This m a y be due to the c o m p u t a t i o n a l
b u r d e n (both Clark's formulas and simulation are
expensive for large networks), but we suspect that
the requirement of tight planning is the d o m i n a n t
factor ruling out these versions. Otherwise, they
would have been e m p l o y e d for small and medium-
size networks.
6. Conclusions
In the never-ending debate between ' p r o b -
abilists' and 'fuzzicists' about the representation
of uncertainty, F r e n c h (1984, 1986, 1987) is cer-
tainly one of the most critical commentators. Basi-
cally, he holds the viewpoint that the modelling of
uncertainty in a normative analysis is best accom-
plished by the use of subjective probabilities. To
avoid any misunderstanding, he clearly states that
he is concerned with h o w people ought to organize
their j u d g e m e n t s (normative analysis), not how
they actually do (descriptive analysis). This leads
us straightaway to the heart of the matter, because
the conflict between normative and descriptive
modelling clearly emerges in PERT.
H u m a n j u d g e m e n t plays a d o m i n a n t role in
PERT at two different points: (a) in the estimation
of an activity duration, and (b) in the requirement
that the resulting plan must be tight. Let us con-
sider b o t h situations in m o r e details.
(a) Estimation of an activity duration. As we
have seen in Section 3, subcontrators m a y employ
slightly varying definitions of the concept of ' c o m -
pletion' of their activities. This is what they actu-
ally do. T h e question of whether they ought to use
one single, proper definition is irrelevant. T h e y
have the freedom, or they take the freedom, to
complete their activities to a certain extent only,
182 F..A. Lootsma / Stochastic and fuzzy PERT
whereafter they signalize that succeeding activities
may start. They finally complete their own activi-
ties in parallel, without jeopardizing the 'comple-
tion' of the project. A similar phenomenon may be
observed at the last milestone, the delivery of the
project. Those who ever attended the opening of a
new building will understand this. They must have
noticed the loose ends behind the curtains or
under the carpet. Otherwise, they should go and
visit the same building on the day after the open-
ing ceremony. Work is then still in progress, de-
spite the 'official' delivery, and the observer may
wonder why the ceremony took place at all. The
vagueness of the definition of 'completion' is one
of the reasons why we reject probabilistic PERT
models.
(b) The requirement of tight planning. In Sec-
tion 2, we argued that the project leader and the
subcontractors need a tight plan for action, al-
though they ought to (!?) accept a non-tight plan
on the basis of a probabilistic model. This leads to
the peculiar phenomenon that the simple version
of P~RT, with crude approximations to the mo-
ments of the earliest event times, is acceptable for
planning whereas extended versions with improved
approximations are not. This is the second argu-
ment against stochastic PERT.
In fact, we are confronted with two types of
uncertainty, which are due to randomness and to
vagueness respectively. Probability theory is con-
ceptually based on experiments which are fre-
quently repeated, under identical circumstances,
and without mutual dependence. Thus, we throw a
die and we 'ask' it to show one of its faces, or we
draw a ball from an urn, and we 'ask' it to show
its colour. The experiment may be simple or com-
plicated, the result may be due to a small or a
large number of interactions, but as soon as the
experiment terminates, the outcome is clear: the
die shows one of the faces 1, 2 . . . . . 6, the ball
shows the colour red or white. So far, we have
seen randomness only. Vagueness enters into the
experiment when the outcome cannot properly be
observed. This happens, for instance, when we use
a die with coloured faces in the evening twilight. It
also happens when we ask a human expert to
estimate the duration of an activity. Even his
answer, the outcome of the experiment, will leave
us in doubt about the state of completion which
he has in mind. If two human referees make
identical (different) statements, their opinions may
be different (identical), and it is hardly possible to
decide which is which.
Vagueness is not properly modelled by prob-
ability theory. In many respects, the fuzzy PERT
model is therefore closer to reality and more
workable than a stochastic model, notwithstand-
ing the weak foundations of fuzzy-set theory. The
algebraic operations on fuzzy numbers as pro-
posed by Dubois and Prade (1978a), for instance,
rely on the notorious minimum and maximum
operators for the intersection and the union of
fuzzy sets. These operators are not the only ones
to define intersection and union respectively, but
the resulting algebraic operations are simple and
transparant. The most confusing deficiency of the
operations is that dependence is ignored. Ex-
tended, stochastic PERT models do take into
account the dependence due to the underlying
network. In fuzzy models, however, this is left out
of consideration.
In summary, we reject stochastic models in
PERT planning when the activity durations are
estimated by human experts. We hesitate to be-
lieve, however, that the fuzzy arithmetic, in its
present form, should be sufficiently well estab-
lished to model the vagueness of human judge-
ment.
Acknowledgement
It is a pleasure to acknowledge my students L.
van Bedaf, J. van Dorp, and D. den Hertog for
their excellent support and their critical com-
ments.
References
Burt, J.M., and Garman, M.B. (1971), "Conditional Monte
Carlo, a simulation technique for stochastic network analy-
sis", Management Science 18, 207-217.
Chanas, S., and Kamburowski, J. (1981), "The use of fuzzy
variables in PERT", Fuzzy Sets and Systems 5, 11-19.
Clark, C.E. (1961), "The greatest of a finite set of random
variables", Operations Research 9, 145-162.
Cleef, H.J., and Gaul, W. (1982), "Project scheduling via
stochastic programming", Mathematische Operations-
forschung und Statistik, Series Optimization 13, 449-469.
Dubois, D., and Prade, H. (1978a), "Operations on fuzzy
numbers", International Journal for Systems Sciences 9,
613-626.
 F.A. Lootsma / Stochastic and fuzzy PERT
Dubois, D., and Prade, H. (1978b), "Algorithmes de plus
courts chemins pour traiter des donnres floues", R A I R O /
Recherche Op&ationelle 2, 213-227.
Eiselt, H.A., and Frajer, H. von (1977), Operations Research
Handbook, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Elmaghraby, S.E. (1967), "On the expected duration of PERT
type networks", Management Science 5, 299-306.
Elmaghraby, S.E. (1977), Activity Networks, Wiley, New York.
Eppen, G.D., Gould, F.J., and Schmidt, C.P. (1987), Introduc-
toO, Management Science, Prentice-Hail, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.
French, S. (1984), "Fuzzy decision analysis, some criticisms",
in: H.J. Zimmermann, L.A. Zadeh and B.R. Gaines (eds.),
Fuzz)' Sets and Decision Analysis, North-Holland, Amster-
dam.
French, S. (1986), Decision Theory, an Introduction. to the
Mathematics of Rationality, Ellis Horwood, Chichester.
French, S. (1987), "Fuzzy sets: The unanswered questions",
Research report 112/SF/2, Department of Mathematics,
University of Manchester.
Fulkerson, D.R. (1962), "Expected critical path length in PERT
type networks", Operations Research 10, 808-817.
Gaul, W. (1981), "Bounds for the expected duration of a
stochastic project planning model", Journal of Information
and Optimization Sciences 2, 45-63.
Hartley, H.O., and Wortham, A.W. (1966), "A statistical the-
ory for PERT critical path analysis", Management Science
12, 469-481.
Hillier, F.S., and Liebermann, G. (1974), Operations Research,
Holden-Day, San Francisco, CA.
Kleindorfer, G.B. (1971), "Bounding distributions for a sto-
chastic, acyclic network", Operations Research 19, 1586-
1601.
Klein Haneveld, W.K. (1986), "Robustness against depen-
dence in PERT: An application of duality and distributions
with known marginals", Mathematical Programming Study
27, 153-182.
Laarhoven, P. van, and Pedrycz, W. (1983), "A fuzzy extension
of Saaty's priority theory", Fuzzy Sets and Systems 11,
229-241.
183
Lootsma, F.A. (1966), "Network planning with stochastic ac-
tivity durations, an evaluation of PERT", Statistica Neer-
landica 20, 43-69.
Lootsma, F.A. (1969), "A gamma distribution as a model of an
activity duration", in: M~thodes d Chemin Critique, Actes
du Congrbs International, Vienne 1967, Dunod, Paris,
219-225.
Lootsma, F.A. (1987), "Modrlisation du jugement humain
dans l'analyse multicrit+re au moyen de comparaisons par
paires", RAIRO/Recherche Op&ationelle 21,241-257.
Malcolm, D.G., Roseboom, J.H., Clark, C.E., and Fazar, W.
(1959), "Application of a technique for research and devel-
opment program evaluation", Operations Research 7, 646-
669.
MacGrimmon, K.R., and Ryavec, C.A. (1964), "An analytical
study of the PERT assumptions", Operations Research 12,
16-37.
Martin, J.J. (1965), "Distribution of the time through a directed,
acyclic network", Operations Research 13, 46-66.
Moder, J.D., and Phillips, C.R. (1970), Project Management
with CPM and PI~RT, Van Nostrand-Reinhold, New York.
Meilijson, I., and N~tdas, A. (1979), "Convex majorization with
an application to the length of critical paths", Journal of
Applied Probability 16, 671-677.
N~das, A. (1979), "Probabilistic PERT", IBM Journal of Re-
search and Development 23, 239-258.
PERT Summary Report (1958), Bureau of Ordnance, Depart-
ment of the Navy, Washington, DC.
Ravindran, A., Phillips, D.T., and Solberg, J.J. (1987), Oper-
ations Research, Principles and Practice, Wiley, New York.
RobiUard, P., and Traham, M. (1977), "'The completion time
of PERT networks", Operations Research 25, 15-29.
Shogan, A.W. (1977), "Bounding distributions for a stochastic
PERT network", Networks 7, 359-381.
Smith, D.K. (1982), Network Optimization Practice, Ellis
Horwood, Chichester.
Wagner, H.M. (1975), Principles of Operations Research, Pren-
tice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Zadeh, L.A. (1965), "Fuzzy sets", Information and Control 8,
338-353.