Stock market special report by epic research 4th august 2014
IntegratedCostSchedu..
-
Upload
samuel90 -
Category
Economy & Finance
-
view
580 -
download
0
Transcript of IntegratedCostSchedu..
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 1
Integrated Cost / Schedule Risk Analysis using Risk Drivers
David T. Hulett, Ph.D.Hulett & Associates, LLC
(310) 476-7699
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 2
Agenda
• Integrating project schedule risk results into the analysis of project cost risk
• Schedule risk analysis using risk factors• How cost risk is affected by schedule risk
– Labor and management hours– Escalation
• Risk factors in cost risk analysis• Decomposing the results
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 3
Cost and Schedule Risk Integration
“Burn Rate” Time Independent Costs
Variable Costs
Project Schedule Risk
Cost Risk
Risk
Time
Project Cost Risk
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 4
Using the
Risk Driver Method for the
Schedule Risk Analysis
See: “Using the Risk Register in Schedule Risk Analysis with Monte Carlo Simulation” by David Hulett & Waylon Whitehead, presented at the
2nd Annual Oil & Gas Project Risk Management Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 29th & 30th October, 2007
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 5
Risk Drivers Assigned to Simple Refinery Development Project
Construction of a new, large refinery: 67-month scheduleHammocks are included for the integration to cost risk
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 6
Schedule Risk Results
18/Apr/14 04/Nov/14 23/May/15
Distribution (start of interval)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Hits
0% 19/Nov/13
5% 12/Mar/14
10% 01/May/14
15% 27/May/14
20% 16/Jun/14
25% 03/Jul/14
30% 21/Jul/14
35% 06/Aug/14
40% 21/Aug/14
45% 04/Sep/14
50% 19/Sep/14
55% 03/Oct/14
60% 17/Oct/14
65% 05/Nov/14
70% 19/Nov/14
75% 04/Dec/14
80% 22/Dec/14
85% 08/Jan/15
90% 30/Jan/15
95% 11/Mar/15
100% 21/Aug/15
Cum
ula
tive F
requency
New RefineryEntire Plan : Finish Date
Schedule Date 3JAN14 = 2% likely
80th percentile = 22DEC14 about 11.5 months delay
P10 => P90 is 9 months
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 7
Contribution To the Time Contingency
Contribution to the Total Time Contingency
Risk Taken Out (100% mitigated)
80th PercentileMitigation Saved
Days % of Contingency
All Risks In 22-Dec-14
LLE Suppliers Busy 14-Oct-14 69 20%
Financing Difficult 21-Jul-14 85 24%
Construction Supervision 17-Jun-14 34 10%
Suppliers Busy 31-Mar-14 78 22%
Construction Logistics 26-Feb-14 33 9%
Vendor Reps for Commissioning 5-Feb-14 21 6%
Design Productivity 3-Jan-14 33 9%
Total Time Contingency 353 100%
The order is most efficient, but progression of days and percentages is not smooth because of the structure of the schedule
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 8
Some Problems with the Traditional 3-point Estimate for Activity Durations
• Can tell which activities are crucial, but not directly which risks are driving
• Makes poor use of the Risk Register that is usually available
• Cannot decompose the overall schedule risk into its components by risk driver. Ability to assign the risk to its specific risk drivers helps:– Management understand the rationale for the time
contingency reserve– Target risk mitigation
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 9
The Risk Driver MethodStart with the Risk Register Risks
• Use the Risk Register already compiled– Risk Register identifies high-priority risks with their
probability and impact– Quantitative Risk Analysis usually follows Risk
Identification and Qualitative Risk Analysis
• Assign risks to schedule activities– A risk can be assigned to several activities– An activity can have several risks assigned
• Compute Monte Carlo simulation results• Estimate sensitivity and net effect of key risks
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 10
Risk Drivers Mechanics
• The risk driver is assigned a 3-point “factor” reflects the uncertainty in the duration of activities it is assigned to– E.g., new technology risk may mean that design
activities’ durations are optimistically the base, most likely +10% and pessimistic + 30% of the base estimate. The factor is 100%, 110% and 30%
• Risk Driver is assigned a probability of occurring• These data come from interviews and
workshops with knowledgeable people
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 11
Simple Example of Risk Register Risks
• Collect probability and impact data on risks• Load the risks• Assign risks to schedule activities
Use the Risk Factors module available for Pertmaster v. 8.0
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 12
Risk Factor Applied to a 100 day Task (1)
90 95 100 105 110 115
Distribution (start of interval)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Hits
0% 90
5% 94
10% 95
15% 96
20% 97
25% 98
30% 99
35% 99
40% 100
45% 101
50% 101
55% 102
60% 103
65% 104
70% 104
75% 105
80% 106
85% 108
90% 109
95% 111
100% 115
Cum
ula
tive F
requency
0010 - Construction : Duration
Here the Ranges are based on deviations + and – from the Plan. Probability is 100%
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 13
Risk Factor Applied to a 100-day Task (2)
100 110 120 130
Distribution (start of interval)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Hits
0% 100
5% 104
10% 105
15% 107
20% 108
25% 109
30% 109
35% 110
40% 111
45% 112
50% 113
55% 114
60% 115
65% 116
70% 117
75% 118
80% 119
85% 121
90% 122
95% 125
100% 130
Cum
ula
tive F
requency
0040 - Technology Design : Duration
Here the Plan is the Optimistic Value. Probability is 100%
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 14
Assigning a Probability Less than 100%
• The essence of “risk” is the uncertainty – Uncertainty of its occurrence, specified by a
probability– Uncertainty of its impact, specified by a range of
durations
• If the risk may or may not occur, we specify the probability that it will occur– The risk “occurs” and affects the activities it is
assigned to on X% of the iterations, chosen at random
– On (1 – X)% of the iterations, the plan value is used
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 15
Assigning a Probability less than 100%
100 110 120 130
Distribution (start of interval)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Hits
0% 100
5% 100
10% 100
15% 100
20% 100
25% 100
30% 100
35% 100
40% 100
45% 105
50% 107
55% 109
60% 110
65% 111
70% 113
75% 114
80% 116
85% 118
90% 120
95% 123
100% 130
Cum
ulat
ive
Freq
uenc
y
0040 - Technology Design : Duration
95 100 105 110 115
Distribution (start of interval)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Hits
0% 91
5% 97
10% 99
15% 100
20% 100
25% 100
30% 100
35% 100
40% 100
45% 100
50% 100
55% 100
60% 100
65% 100
70% 100
75% 100
80% 100
85% 101
90% 103
95% 107
100% 115
Cum
ulat
ive
Freq
uenc
y
0010 - Construction : Duration
Spike contains 70% of the probability
Spike contains 40% of the probability
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 16
Assigning More than One Risk to an Activity
• If more than one risk is acting on an activity, the resulting ranges are the multiplication of the percentages– Risk 1 has 90%, 100% and 115%– Risk 2 has 100%, 110% and 130%
• The risk factors are selected at random for each risk driver
• Risk factors assigned are multiplied together• The resulting factor is multiplied by the activity
duration for that iteration
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 17
Two Risks affect One Activity using Factors
100 110 120 130 140
Distribution (start of interval)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Hits
0% 93
5% 102
10% 104
15% 106
20% 108
25% 109
30% 110
35% 111
40% 113
45% 114
50% 115
55% 116
60% 117
65% 118
70% 119
75% 121
80% 123
85% 124
90% 127
95% 130
100% 144
Cum
ula
tive F
requency
0040 - Technology Design : Duration
Range from 90 to 150 days, Peak about 113 days
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 18
Two Risks with Less than 100% Probability Affecting one Activity
100 110 120 130 140
Distribution (start of interval)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
Hits
0% 91
5% 97
10% 99
15% 100
20% 100
25% 100
30% 100
35% 100
40% 100
45% 101
50% 102
55% 104
60% 106
65% 108
70% 110
75% 111
80% 113
85% 116
90% 119
95% 123
100% 144
Cum
ula
tive F
requency
0040 - Technology Design : Duration
The spike at 100 days represents (1) the likelihood that neither risk occurs and (2) the chance that 100 days is picked when one or both occur
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 19
Schedule Risk Drivers
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 20
Which Risks are Most Important
• Traditional schedule risk analysis calculates the sensitivity of the schedule risk to the activities that are risky. This is not satisfactory to some:– This approach emphasizes the effect of the risks, not
the risks themselves– There is another step from “risky activity” or “risky
path” to “Which risk should we mitigate?”
• The Risk Driver approach emphasizes the risks and is specific about which risks to mitigate
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 21
Risks Drive the Contingency
• Use the Risk Drivers to “explain” the 11 ½ month contingency to the 80th percentile
• Make the link between risks and effects explicit and direct
• The project manager needs to determine how cost-effective the mitigation can be
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 22
Which Risk is Most Important?Use the Risk Driver Tornado
1 - LLE suppliers may be busy
5 - Financing may be difficult
2 - Construction supervision may be scarce
6 - Vendor reps may be scarce for commissioning
3 - Suppliers may be busy
7 - Design productivity may differ from our expectations
4 - Construction logistics may be different from plan
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
Correlation
Driving Schedule Risk Factors
2 risks may be candidates for mitigation top priority
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 23
Contribution To the Time Contingency (repeat)
Contribution to the Total Time Contingency
Risk Taken Out (100% mitigated)
80th PercentileMitigation Saved
Days % of Contingency
All Risks In 22-Dec-14
LLE Suppliers Busy 14-Oct-14 69 20%
Financing Difficult 21-Jul-14 85 24%
Construction Supervision 17-Jun-14 34 10%
Suppliers Busy 31-Mar-14 78 22%
Construction Logistics 26-Feb-14 33 9%
Vendor Reps for Commissioning 5-Feb-14 21 6%
Design Productivity 3-Jan-14 33 9%
Total Time Contingency 353 100%
The order is most efficient, but progression of days and percentages is not smooth because of the structure of the schedule
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 24
Take the Risks Out One at a Time
22/
Dec
/14
14/
Oct
/14
21/
Jul/1
4
17/
Jun/
14
31/
Mar
/14
26/
Feb
/14
05/
Feb
/14
03/
Jan/
14
22/Nov/13 02/Mar/14 10/Jun/14 18/Sep/14 27/Dec/14 06/Apr/15 15/Jul/15
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Cum
ulat
ive
Pro
babi
lity
Distribution Analyzer Report
No Design Productivity Risk - Finish Date
No Vendor Rep Risk - Finish Date
No Construction Logistics Risk - Finish Date
No Supplier Busy Risk - Finish Date
No Construction Supervision Risk - Finish Date
No Financing Risk - Finish Date
No LLE Supplier Risk - Finish Date
All Risks In - Finish Date
Represents perfect
mitigation – an unrealistic goal
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 25
Integrating the
Schedule Risks into the
Cost Estimate Risk Analysis
and
Using the
Risk Driver Method for the
Cost Risk Analysis
Recognition is due to the work of Waylon Whitehead on applying the Risk Driver Method to cost risk analysis
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 26
Refinery Construction Project Baseline Estimate
($ millions)
Cost CategoryLabor Equipment Total
Direct Field Costs
Long Lead Equipment (LLE) 15 330 345
Equipment 30 1,200 1,230
Materials 288 1,935 2,223
Total Direct Field Costs 333 3,465 3,798
Indirect Field Costs
Supervision 360 0 360
Time-Related Overhead 315 0 315
Total Indirect Field Costs 675 0 675
Total Direct & Indirect Costs 1,008 3,465 4,473
Construction Management 630 630
Material Related 180 540 720
Home Office Engineering Staff 540 540
Overhead & Fees 560
Total Contractor Related 2,358 4,005 6,923
Owner-Related
Project Management Team 450 0 450
Materials 0 400 400
Total Owner-Related 450 400 850
TOTAL BASE ESTIMATE 7,773
Escalation 1,067
TOTAL BASE ESTIMATE incl. Escalation
8,840
Baseline Estimate $7,773 million plus escalation
Usually the contractor will add a contingency
We will strip that out and re-estimate it using Risk Drivers
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 27
Summary Cost Risk Results with Integrated Schedule Risk
No Risk Cost and Schedule Risk
($ millions) 80th Percentile Difference
Base Estimate 7,773 7,773 - 0 -
Contingency* 1,010 2,086 1,076
Total including Contingency 8,783 9,859 1,076
Escalation 1,067 1,532 465
Total including Contingency and Escalation
9,850 11,363 1,513
*Assuming the estimators put a 13% contingency on their estimate
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 28
Identifying the High-Priority Risks to Cost
Risk DriversEstimate Incl. Contingency
Effect of Eliminating Risk on the Contingency
All Risks In 9,859 Contribution
Risks Taken Out: $ %
1. Contracting Strategy 9,450 409 20%
2. Design Changes 9,072 378 18%
3. Direct / Indirect Labor Delays 8,838 234 11%
4. Availability of Key Staff JV / PMT 8,659 179 9%
5. Equipment Cost 8,502 157 8%
6. Integration Management 8,357 145 7%
7. Labor Rate 8,232 125 6%
8. Construction Labor Productivity 8,133 99 5%
9. Bulks Cost 8,041 92 4%
10. Construction Management Delays 7,981 60 3%
Others 7,773 208 10%
Total Contingency 2,086 2,086 100%
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 29
Base Including Contingency
Base without contingency; $7,773, Contingency adds $2,086 or 27%
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 30
Escalation
Base Escalation is $1,067. Escalating the contingency and risking the centroids add $465 million or 44%
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 31
Total Risked Including Contingency and Escalation
Assuming the estimators had put a 13% contingency on the original base estimate for a $9,850 all-in value, our estimate
adds $1,513 or 15%
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 32
Cost Risk Analysis using Risk Drivers and Schedule Risk Information
• Use the Risk Drivers in the Cost Risk Analysis• Use the results from the schedule risk analysis
– To drive time-dependent costs• Compute the monthly “burn rate”• Multiply the burn rate by the number of months
from the schedule risk Use the results from the – To drive escalation
• Costs are escalated to the centroid of their spending activity
• Schedule risk drives those centroids
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 33
Risk Drivers in the Cost Risk Analysis
• Three-point impact is measured in percentage terms (“factors,” e.g., 90%, 100%,115%)– For each iteration the factor is selected at random
from the 3-point estimate– The factor will multiply the baseline cost of the line-
items to which it is assigned for that iteration – If two or more factors are assigned, they are all
multiplied by the cost. If no factor occurs in an iteration, its value is 1.0 and has no effect on the duration
• Parallel to the Risk Driver approach in schedule
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 34
Example of Risk Drivers for the Cost Risk Analysis
Risk Driver ProbabilityFactor Range
OPTD MOST PESS
Shareholder Alignment & Performance
70% 0.90 1.00 1.30
Competition for Long Lead Equipment 60% 0.90 1.10 1.30
Availability of Quality Key Staff - JV & PMT
90% 0.95 1.10 1.20
Contracting Strategy 80% 0.95 1.05 1.20
Quality of ITB Packages 25% 0.90 1.00 1.20
Design Change 60% 0.95 1.05 1.20
Equipment Cost 85% 0.93 1.04 1.20
Construction Labor Productivity 100% 0.90 1.00 1.30
Labor Rate 100% 0.90 1.03 1.20
Site Soil Conditions 70% 1.00 1.20 1.50
Bulk Material Cost 85% 0.95 1.00 1.15
Integration Management 90% 0.95 1.05 1.20
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 35
Risk Drivers are Assigned to the Activities they Affect
• Risk Drivers are factors that multiply the cost estimate for a line item– For time-related costs like labor, they affect the burn
rate– For time-unrelated costs like equipment, they affect
the estimate directly
• Risk Drivers have a probability of occurring– If they occur, their value is taken at random from their
distribution (triangular is assumed here)– If they do not occur on some iteration, their value is
1.0 and they do not affect the result
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 36
Integrate Schedule Risk into the Cost Risk Analysis: Calculate Burn Rates
Schedule Span for Time-Related Costs
Baseline ($ millions)
Start End MonthsBase Cost Estimate
Burn Rate / Month
Direct and Indirect Field Costs 28-Jun-10 19-Jul-13 36.7 1,008 27.4
Construction Management 15-Nov-10 19-Jul-13 32.1 630 19.6
Material Related 28-Jun-10 19-Jul-13 36.7 180 4.9
EPC Home Office Detailed Engineering
8-Feb-10 28-Oct-11 20.6 540 26.2
Project Management Team 8-Feb-10 3-Jan-14 46.8 450 9.6
Burn rates for time-related costs are calculated by dividing the labor estimate by the months in the Baseline Schedule for the appropriate schedule concept (span). Average burn rate does not account for ramp-up and ramp-down or mobilization and de-mobilization.
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 37
For Time-Related Costs, Schedule Risk Results are Substituted for the Baseline
Schedule Span
Baseline From the Schedule Risk Results
MonthsAverage Months
Fitted Distribution
Direct and Indirect Field Costs 36.7 42.4 Logistic
Construction Management 32.1 34.0 Maximum Extreme
Material Related 36.7 42.4 Logistic
Home Office Detailed Engineer. 20.6 21.2 Maximum Extreme
Project Management Team 46.8 53.1 Weibull
Distributions are fitted from the schedule risk simulation results (3,000 iterations) using Crystal Ball Fit. We use the best fitting distribution.
Distributions are correlated (corr. coeff. = .9) in the cost risk analysis because it would be unrealistic that one span would be long and another short in the same iteration
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 38
Weibull fits PMT Span
Use Crystal Ball to fit the 3,000 iteration results for the span required
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 39
Logistic fits Direct & Indirect Field Span
Logistic has best score on two of the three criteria. With a spike (from risk factor’s probability) the fit is not great.
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 40
Calculating Escalation With Schedule Risk
• Escalation is calculated:– From 2 June 2008– To the centroid of the activity being escalated
• Schedule risk extends the centroid if the phase:– Starts later because of risk in the predecessors– Lasts longer because of risk affecting that phase’s
activities
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 41
Schedule Risk makes Centroid Later and Increases Time for Escalation
Predecessor Successor
Centroid
Predecessor Successor
Centroid
No Schedule
Risk
With Schedule
Risk
Date
2JUN08
<= Escalation Period =>
<= Escalation Period =>
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 42
Escalation is applied to Categories
Escalation Calculation Categories
Simulated Months to Centroid
Estimate Escalation Cost CategoryBase:
No RiskAvg. from
Schedule Risk
540 Detailed Engineering Months 30.6 33.1
330 Long Lead Equipment Months 17.5 19.6
1,200 Equipment Other Months 36.4 38.6
1,935 Bulks Months 36.4 38.6
1,638 Construction Months 45.6 52.0
450 Owners PMT Months 43.8 48.8
400 Owners Other Months 48.4 55.1
560 Overhead & Fees Months 43.8 52.4
720 Material Related Months 48.4 55.1
7,773 TOTAL BASE ESTIMATE
Schedule risk adds
some months to
each centroid
Estimate that is escalated is
from the simulation: Hence we
escalate the contingency
like any other cost
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 43
Durations Used for the Months to the Centroid are Correlated in the Cost Risk Analysis
• In simulation, the schedule risks are entered as – Fitted distribution from the schedule risk analysis– In months from 2 June 2008 to the Centroid
• Since spans all come from the same schedule, they will be all long or short together in any iteration. They are correlated (.9) in the cost risk simulation
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 44
Escalation Rates
• Escalation rates used are:– 2008: 4.5%– 2009: 4.0%– 2010: 3.5%– 2011: 3.5%– 2012: 3.0% and for later years
• We have put a .9, 1.0, 1.1 risk factor on these to represent uncertainty– These factors are correlated .9
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 45
Summary Cost Risk Results with Integrated Schedule Risk (repeat)
No Risk Cost and Schedule Risk
($ millions) 80th Percentile Difference
Base Estimate 7,773 7,773
Contingency* 1,010 2,086 1,076
Total including Contingency 8,783 9,859 1,076
Escalation 1,067 1,532 465
Total including Contingency and Escalation
9,850 11,363 1,513
*Assuming the estimators put a 13% contingency on their estimate
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 46
Effect of Including Schedule Risk Results
• Schedule risk analysis results enter:– As they affect the total labor and other time-related
costs identified– As they affect the centroids of the various categories
of costs escalated
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 47
Effect of Including Schedule Risk
No Risk Cost Risk @ 80th Percentile
($ millions)Including Schedule
Risk
No Schedule Risk
Effect of Schedule Risk on Cost Risk
Base Estimate 7,773 7,773 7,773 - 0 -
Contingency 1,010 2,086 1,660 426
Total incl. Contingency 8,783 9,859 9,433 426
Escalation 1,067 1,531 1,307 224
Total incl. Contingency and Escalation
9,850 11,363 10,727 636
Note: Assuming the estimators put a 13% contingency on their estimate
Even with no schedule risk the Contingency is $1,660 million vs. an assumed $1,010 million if the estimators included 13%. With schedule risk the contingency is $2,086 million.
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 48
Effect of Risk Drivers
Sensitivity helps
decide what to mitigate
first
Correlation confuses
the selection of the highest priority Risk
Driver
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 49
Identifying the High-Priority Risks to Cost (repeat)
Risk DriversEstimate Incl. Contingency
Effect of Eliminating Risk on the Contingency
All Risks In 9,859 Contribution
Risks Taken Out: $ %
1. Contracting Strategy 9,450 409 20%
2. Design Changes 9,072 378 18%
3. Direct / Indirect Labor Delays 8,838 234 11%
4. Availability of Key Staff JV / PMT 8,659 179 9%
5. Equipment Cost 8,502 157 8%
6. Integration Management 8,357 145 7%
7. Labor Rate 8,232 125 6%
8. Construction Labor Productivity 8,133 99 5%
9. Bulks Cost 8,041 92 4%
10. Construction Management Delays 7,981 60 3%
Others 7,773 208 10%
Total Contingency 2,086 2,086 100%
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 50
Summary: Introduce Risk Driver Method and Integration of Schedule Risk into Cost Risk
• The Risk Driver Method – Focus on the Risks themselves, not the activities or cost line-items that are impacted by the risks– Derive the standard results: probability of success
and contingency reserve needed for any degree of safety
– Create a prioritized lists of risks to explain to management how the contingency occurred and for focusing risk responses on the risks themselves
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 51
Summary (2)
• Integration of schedule risk into the cost risk – Elongations of the duration of work for the time-
dependent resources (labor, supervision) can increase the cost estimate. In our example the contingency was increased by $426 million or 26%.
– Delay in the schedule can increase the expected impact of escalation. In our example the escalation increased by $224 million or 15%. We are escalating the contingency just like any other project cost element
© 2007 Hulett & Associates, LLC 52
Integrated Cost / Schedule Risk Analysis using Risk Drivers
David T. Hulett, Ph.D.Hulett & Associates, LLC
(310) 476-7699