Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
10. When I look at the distribution I'm reminded of a PERT analysis.
Sun May 27, 2012, 02:58 PM
May 2012

It's a Project Management technique for estimating the most likely schedule for a project or task.

Regardless of the technique you use, the tendency in project estimation is to provide one number for each estimate. In other words, if you have 100 activities on your schedule, each activity would have one estimate associated with it. This is generally viewed as the “most likely” estimate.In many cases you can be more accurate by applying a simple PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique) model. PERT is an estimating technique that uses a weighted average of three numbers (see below) to come up with a final estimate.
  • The most pessimistic (P) case when everything goes wrong
  • The most optimistic (O) case where everything goes right
  • The most likely (M) case given normal problems and opportunities
The resulting PERT estimate is calculated as (O + 4M + P)/6. This is called a “weighted average” since the most likely estimate is weighted four times as much as the other two values. You’ll notice that the final PERT estimate is moved slightly toward either the optimistic or pessimistic value - depending on which one is furthest from the most likely.

There are a lot of political, financial, logistical or technical assumptions that could sway an outcome in either direction. If I was an expert on what they are I'd be in the business.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

How many data points between 2003-2012 did you use? kristopher May 2012 #1
Annual points from 1980 to 2010, so 30 points in all (edited) GliderGuider May 2012 #2
There are literally hundreds of "authoritative estimates" out there GG. kristopher May 2012 #3
"Outlier"? Not hardly. GliderGuider May 2012 #4
You're right. kristopher May 2012 #6
When I look at the distribution I'm reminded of a PERT analysis. GliderGuider May 2012 #10
I'd like to respond more fully a bit later today hopefully, but in the meantime kristopher May 2012 #12
How is IRENA not the same kind of industry group XemaSab May 2012 #5
Decry? kristopher May 2012 #7
Beautifully argued but you have left some things out intaglio May 2012 #8
Did you really think I was trying to justify the building of nukes??? GliderGuider May 2012 #9
At first, yes, I did think you were being supportive intaglio May 2012 #11
One thing I'd like to see is the big 3 'C's: Concrete, Clinker, and Coke. joshcryer May 2012 #13
Thanks. That's a very useful memory graphic! GliderGuider May 2012 #14
I'm trying to find a breakdown for "industry," but generally it's "those three." joshcryer May 2012 #15
EPA kristopher May 2012 #16
US only doesn't tell you the full picture. joshcryer May 2012 #17
The report that is part of has 60 pages of references. kristopher May 2012 #18
Found the kind of breakdown I want, page 85: joshcryer May 2012 #19
"Industrial" is one sector of power kristopher May 2012 #20
I looked at the EPA table, it's good, but because it's US-only... joshcryer May 2012 #21
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»CO2 Emissions from Electr...»Reply #10