57R-

09

E
INTEGRATEDCOSTANDSCHEDULE
PL
RISKANAL YSI
SUSI
NGRISK
DRIVERSANDMONTECARLO
M

SIMULATIONOFACPM
SA

MODEL
 AACE International Recommended Practice No. 57R-09

INTEGRATED COST AND SCHEDULE RISK ANALYSIS USING

E
RISK DRIVERS AND MONTE CARLO SIMULATION OF A CPM
MODEL PL TCM Framework: 7.6 – Risk Management

Rev. July 9, 2019

Note: As AACE International Recommended Practices evolve over time, please refer to web.aacei.org for the latest
revisions.
M
Any terms found in AACE Recommended Practice 10S-90, Cost Engineering Terminology, supersede terms defined in
other AACE work products, including but not limited to, other recommended practices, the Total Cost Management
Framework, and Skills & Knowledge of Cost Engineering.
SA

Contributors:
Disclaimer: The content provided by the contributors to this recommended practice is their own and does not necessarily
reflect that of their employers, unless otherwise stated.

July 9, 2019 Revision:

Dr. David T. Hulett, FAACE (Primary Contributor) John K. Hollmann, PE CCP CEP DRMP FAACE Hon. Life
Waylon T. Whitehead (Primary Contributor) Donny Lai
James E. Arrow, DRMP John R. Schuyler, PE CCP DRMP
William A. Banks, Jr. Edward J. Thomas
David C. Brady, P.Eng. DRMP Warner W. Uhl
Larry R. Dysert, CCP CEP DRMP FAACE Hon. Life

June 18, 2011 Revision:

Dr. David T. Hulett (Primary Contributor) John K. Hollmann, PE CCE CEP
Christopher P. Caddell, PE CCE Donald F. McDonald, Jr. PE CCE PSP
Tommy Clarke Oscar A. Mignone
Dr. Ovidiu Cretu, PE Stephen P. Warhoe, PE CCE CFCC
Kevin M. Curran Robert F. Wells, CEP
Michael W. Curran Dr. Trefor P. Williams
Patrick B. Egger Ronald M. Winter, PSP
Ricardo Garcia da Roza David C. Wolfson
John M. Hale Rashad Z. Zein, PSP
Dennis R. Hanks, PE CCE

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.

This document is copyrighted by AACE International and may not be reproduced without permission. Organizations may obtain permission
to reproduce a limited number of copies by entering into a license agreement. For information please contact editor@aacei.org
AACE® International Recommended Practice No. 57R-09
INTEGRATED COST AND SCHEDULE RISK ANALYSIS
USING RISK DRIVERS AND MONTE CARLO
SIMULATION OF A CPM MODEL
TCM Framework: 7.6 – Risk Management

July 9, 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................2
Scope .........................................................................................................................................................................2
Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................................2
Background ................................................................................................................................................................2
Recommended Practice .................................................................................................................................................3
Preconditions for a Schedule Risk Analysis ................................................................................................................3
A CPM Schedule that Complies with Industry Practices ........................................................................................3

E
Risk Data Collected to Improve Data Quality ........................................................................................................4
Properties of Risk Drivers ..........................................................................................................................................5
Risk Drivers and Discrete Risks ..............................................................................................................................5
PL
Effect of Duration Uncertainty with 100% Likelihood ...........................................................................................6
Effect of a Risk Driver with Less Than 100% Likelihood .........................................................................................7
Assigning Risk Drivers to Multiple Activities ..........................................................................................................8
Risk Drivers Inherently Model How Activity Durations Become Correlated .........................................................9
M
Assigning Risks in Parallel or in Series .................................................................................................................11
Case Study - Model of Offshore Gas Production Platform Project ..........................................................................12
Modeling Uncertainty ..........................................................................................................................................13
SA

Modeling Systemic Risks as Risk Drivers ..............................................................................................................14

Schedule Risk Results Using Risk Drivers in a Monte Carlo Simulation ...............................................................15
Prioritizing Risk Drivers for Management Action ................................................................................................16
Risk Treatment Using Prioritized Risks ....................................................................................................................17
Integrating Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis ........................................................................................................18
Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................22
Contributors.................................................................................................................................................................24

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
57R-09: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis Using Risk Drivers and Monte Carlo Simulation of 2 of 25
a CPM Model

July 9, 2019

INTRODUCTION

Scope

This recommended practice (RP) defines and explains the integration of cost and schedule risk analysis using a Monte
Carlo simulation of a critical path method (CPM) resource-loaded schedule. It explains in some detail the use of risk
drivers [1] to represent the identified risks to a project’s cost and schedule in an integrated approach. There are
generally three overall purposes of such an exercise:
• To estimate the probability of finishing on or before the schedule date and on or under the cost estimate.
• To determine the amount of cost and schedule contingency needed to provide a chosen degree of confidence
of hitting both targets.
• To identify the risks that cause any estimated overrun.

Using root-cause risks to generate the simulation results permits the prioritization of identified and quantified risks
by their impact on the schedule. This focus on risks facilitates identification of effective risk treatment options and

E
estimates of the post-treatment results.

Purpose
PL
This document is not intended to be a standard. This document is intended to provide a guideline for integrated
project cost and schedule risk analysis using risk drivers in the context of conducting a Monte Carlo simulation-based
schedule risk analysis of a CPM project schedule that most practitioners would consider to be good practice. This RP
illustrates some of the most important features of risk drivers and compares the method to other risk analysis
methods also described in AACE International recommended practices. Alternative methods to evaluate contingency
M
include those relying on parametric estimation such as those described in Recommended Practice 42R-08 [2]. The
reader is also encouraged to read recommended practices 44R-08, Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination
Using Expected Value [3] and 64R-11, CPM Schedule Risk Modeling and Analysis: Special Considerations [4].
SA

Background

In integrated cost and schedule risk analysis, the platform for the analysis is usually a summary analysis schedule
reflecting the project plan at a summary level of detail. The integration of cost and schedule is made possible because
the total cost, expressed without contingency, is loaded onto the activities as time dependent (labor and rented
equipment) and time independent (material and equipment to be installed) resources.

The risk driver method of representing the identified risks (project specific or systemic risks) characterizes those risks
by:
• Their probability of occurring with some tangible impact.
• A probability distribution of impact factors, to be applied to activities’ scheduled duration and cost variance
during a Monte Carlo simulation, representing each risk’s impact on activity durations if it occurs.
• The activities that the risk affects if it occurs.

Risks are represented by their probability of occurring, and their impact on activity duration and cost (burn rate for
labor, total cost for materials). The difference between risk drivers and discrete risks is in the use of multiplicative
factors to represent the impact of a risk on the duration of the affected activities.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
57R-09: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis Using Risk Drivers and Monte Carlo Simulation of 3 of 25
a CPM Model

July 9, 2019

The method is consistent with Recommended Practice 40R-08, Contingency Estimating – General Principles, [5] that
specifies several first principles including: “starts with identifying risk drivers” and “links risk drivers to the activities
they affect.”

The risk driver described in this RP identifies risks’ importance to the cost and schedule objectives. The effect of
uncertainty (i.e. background noise reflecting inherent variability, estimating error and estimating bias if present) is
included to derive the total impact to the cost and schedule from these two sources.

An approach to examine the impact of risk upon a project schedule is the expected value method as described in
Recommended Practice 44R-08 [3] and 65R-11 for integrated cost-schedule risk analysis [7]. This method is based
on estimates of the probability of the risks occurring and of the overall impact (in days or months) on the final finish
date if the risk occurs. The expected value method often does not use the project schedule as a platform, which is a
drawback since the calculation of the risks’ influence on the final completion date is very difficult, particularly with
risks affecting parallel paths in the schedule. In contrast, Monte Carlo simulation uses the logic-driven CPM schedule
as its platform.

E
Risk drivers can be applied to all activities in the schedule that they influence. As a consequence, some risks will be
assigned to multiple activities and some activities will be influenced by multiple risks. This method models the holistic
effect of risks as they cause durations of all activities they affect to expand and contract. Costs also increase or
PL
decrease because duration variation during simulation indirectly affects labor-type resource costs. Importantly,
during simulation the critical path may vary as some risks occur and others do not. The risk driver method uses
simulation to estimate the project schedule and cost using risk data to calculate the finish date according to dynamic
CPM principles.

The risk driver approach incorporates the interactions and interdependencies of the project plan. The analyst does
M
not have to resolve questions about whether the risk occurs on a risk-critical path or to estimate the impact of risks
occurring frequently, or infrequently, since the Monte Carlo simulation accounts for all these considerations.
Additionally, the analyst does not have to estimate and impose correlations between activity durations since the risk
driver method generates these during simulation, as shown below. If the risks are truly root causes of variations
SA

rather than just symptoms of a more basic cause, those drivers are likely to be independent of each other and not
to be correlated. Finally, using the root cause risks as drivers of the simulation facilitates risk prioritization for timely
and effective risk treatment decisions by management.

The target audience for this recommended practice includes risk practitioners and project managers who need to
become aware of contemporary methods of using root cause risks, represented by risk drivers, to perform integrated
cost and schedule risk analysis. Others involved in making decisions about risk treatment actions should also be
aware of the benefits of using risk drivers.

RECOMMENDED PRACTICE

Preconditions for a Schedule Risk Analysis

A CPM Schedule that Complies with Industry Practices

Quantitative risk analysis that is based on Monte Carlo simulation of a CPM schedule has advantages and poses some
challenges. The schedule should be reviewed against easily-obtained scheduling practices such as that written by
the US Government Accountability Office.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
57R-09: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis Using Risk Drivers and Monte Carlo Simulation of 4 of 25
a CPM Model

July 9, 2019

Project schedules are dynamic models of the project plan, since any risk event that affects any activity’s duration
may cause a delay in the finish date.1 Schedule uncertainty, represented by inherent variability, estimating error or
estimating bias, can be built upon by adding risk drivers on top of the uncertainty to illustrate the build up from the
deterministic schedule to a fully risk loaded schedule. Working with the project schedule allows detailed modeling
about each identified risk and assigning its impact to specific activities or to general categories of activities. The
impact may affect durations and/or costs. The simulation software working with the CPM schedule computes the
detailed implications for the finish date and cost of uncertainty and many risks potentially occurring simultaneously.

Frequently, the schedule available for analysis is a detailed contractor’s schedule. That schedule may have many
more activities than are needed to model the strategic effect of risk on the project’s finish date. This schedule also
may be incomplete or omit scope outside of the contractor that is needed for the project to be finished and total
cost to be considered. Often, schedules submitted for analysis are not compliant with project scheduling industry
practices (such as avoiding dangling activities, using constraints and lags, exhibiting realistic total float and having
continuous and believable critical paths). In such cases, analysis cannot proceed until these deficiencies have been
rectified. To perform schedule simulation for quantitative risk analysis, dynamic models, where the milestone dates
and total cost are determined by activity durations and schedule relationship logic, are required.

E
A new summary analysis schedule can be developed and validated by plenary stakeholders to ensure all project
scope is identified. The summary analysis schedule needs to be inclusive of all work since the analyst cannot tell in
PL
advance of the analysis which paths will turn out to be critical when risks are considered. The main paths in the
summary schedule need to reflect the more detailed plan with realistic float values.2 That schedule needs to include
sufficient detail to represent the many interdependencies that occur in complex projects.

The analysis is carried out against the summary schedule. Note that time is needed to gather all the data, carry out
the analysis, prepare reports and the like. In that period, there may have been progress or changes, which needs to
M
be assessed and the analysis may need to be revised or revalidated with this latest data.

Risk Data Collected to Improve Data Quality

SA

Collecting good-quality data about project risks is crucial to the success of the risk analysis. Typically risk workshops,
confidential risk interviews, or a combination of the two methods are used.

• Risk workshops gather knowledgeable people into a room to identify and quantify the risks’ probability and
impact on activities’ costs and durations. Under the leadership of a skilled facilitator the discussion may lead to
a consensus on a set of risks with usable data that benefits from the synergy of those in the room. Often,
however, people find that sharing honestly and openly in a workshop setting is difficult, particularly if there are
risks that cannot be discussed because they are unpopular, may conflict with management statements or
customer requirements, imply the project is in default of the contract terms, or for other reasons. These risks
are sometimes called “unknown knowns” since they are known but cannot be mentioned, as referred to in the
article “There are Known Knowns.” [6] Within organizations with a relatively low level of risk management
maturity, [7] discussing these risks in risk workshops may be difficult for some who fear reprisal from
management. Other issues that negatively affect workshop efficiency include: groupthink (suppressing dissent),
the “Moses factor” (i.e. an influential person such as the project manager who overwhelms others), and cultural
conformity (i.e. decisions that match the organization’s norms). [8]

1 In this RP the risk drivers will be described as potentially delaying the finish date or increasing cost. Of course, risks can be opportunities that
may conceptually shorten activity durations resulting in an earlier finish date. In general, many risks described by those on the project are either
all or mostly threats, so for ease of explanation most of the discussion is written as if risks are threats to project completion targets.
2
Float values may not replicate those in the detailed schedule if that schedule is not compliant with industry practices.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.