IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eph/journl/v7y2012i4n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Project risk simulation methods – a comparative analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Constanța-Nicoleta BODEA

    (Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest)

  • Augustin PURNUȘ

    (Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest)

Abstract

Effective risk management provides a solid basis for decisionmaking in projects, bringing important benefits. While the financial and economical crisis is present at the global level and the competition in the market is more and more aggressive, the interest in project risk management increases. The paper presents a comparative analysis of the effectiveness of two quantitative risk analysis methods, Monte Carlo simulation and the Three Scenario approach. Two experiments are designed based on real projects, in order to compare the effectiveness of these methods. The conclusions of the comparative analysis are that Three Scenario approach, even if is not as accurate as Monte Carlo, assures the results stability, if the same shape of the probability distribution curve is considered. The Three Scenario approach is easy to be applied in practice and requires a shorter computation time than Monte Carlo.

Suggested Citation

  • Constanța-Nicoleta BODEA & Augustin PURNUȘ, 2012. "Project risk simulation methods – a comparative analysis," Management & Marketing, Economic Publishing House, vol. 7(4), Winter.
  • Handle: RePEc:eph:journl:v:7:y:2012:i:4:n:2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.managementmarketing.ro/pdf/articole/284.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Constanta-Nicoleta Bodea & Radu Ioan Mogos & Maria-Iuliana Dascalu & Augustin Purnus, 2015. "Simulation-Based E-Learning Framework for Entrepreneurship Education and Training," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 17(38), pages 1-10, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eph:journl:v:7:y:2012:i:4:n:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Simona Vasilache). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.