MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386860201 · doi:10.1177/00375497231196889

Trade-off between time and cost in project planning: a simulation-based optimization approach

2023· article· en· W4386860201 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSIMULATION · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScheduleBottleneckProject managementDuration (music)Project planningComputer scienceScope (computer science)Operations researchRisk analysis (engineering)Systems engineeringEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mine development or construction projects should be carefully scheduled to meet the project objectives in terms of duration, budget, and scope since they include many highly time- and cost-sensitive activities. The inherent complexity in mining operations, coupled with material, equipment, and resource availabilities, commodity price cyclicality, and market trend uncertainties, can lead to a high risk to the project, resulting in schedule and cost overruns. Therefore, these projects must be planned and controlled efficiently to ensure that the required capital investment does not exceed the project budget and the project deadline is met. This paper proposes a simulation-based model to optimize the trade-off between time and cost of project planning problems under uncertainty. In doing so, equally probable realizations are generated considering different project duration crashing scenarios to quantify the impact of uncertainty on the total project cost and project completion time, and risks are assessed. A numerical example is provided to show the performance of the proposed approach through an underground mine development project. Statistical analysis of the results obtained from the developed simulation model identifies the risk of project completion time, the criticality of activities, and bottleneck activities of the project. In addition, the time–cost trade-off is achieved under the project deadline and budget constraints by implementing 20,736 different crashing scenarios. Finally, the results obtained from the developed formulation are compared with those obtained from the linear programming solution. The proposed approach has a strong potential to add value to project management of mining projects.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it