Second Moment Method

The hardware and bandwidth for this mirror is donated by dogado GmbH, the Webhosting and Full Service-Cloud Provider. Check out our Wordpress Tutorial.
If you wish to report a bug, or if you are interested in having us mirror your free-software or open-source project, please feel free to contact us at mirror[@]dogado.de.

The Second Moment Method (SMM) is a fast, analytical alternative to Monte Carlo simulation for estimating project cost or schedule uncertainty. Rather than running thousands of iterations, SMM propagates uncertainty through a project mathematically using only the mean and variance of each task, the “first two moments” of the probability distribution.

When to Use SMM

SMM is best suited for early-stage estimates when:

Speed matters and simulation run-time is a concern
You have credible mean and variance estimates for each task
Tasks are approximately independent or have well-characterized correlations
You need a quick sensitivity check before committing to a full Monte Carlo run

Method Overview

For a project with n tasks, SMM computes:

Total mean: Sum of individual task means: \(E[X] = \sum_{i=1}^{n} E[X_i]\)
Total variance: Sum of variances plus twice the sum of all pairwise covariances: \[Var(X) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} Var(X_i) + 2 \sum_{i<j} Cov(X_i, X_j)\]
Covariance: Derived from the correlation matrix: \(Cov(X_i, X_j) = \rho_{ij} \cdot \sigma_i \cdot \sigma_j\)

Example

library(PRA)

We analyze a 3-task project with task durations in weeks. Each task has a known mean and variance, and correlations between tasks are provided.

task_means <- c(10, 15, 20) # Expected duration for each task (weeks)
task_vars <- c(4, 9, 16) # Variance of each task duration
cor_mat <- matrix(c(
  1.0, 0.5, 0.3,
  0.5, 1.0, 0.4,
  0.3, 0.4, 1.0
), nrow = 3, byrow = TRUE)

result <- smm(task_means, task_vars, cor_mat)
cat("Total Mean Duration:    ", round(result$total_mean, 2), "weeks\n")

Total Mean Duration: 45 weeks

cat("Total Variance:         ", round(result$total_var, 2), "\n")

Total Variance: 49.4

cat("Total Std Deviation:    ", round(result$total_std, 2), "weeks\n")

Total Std Deviation: 7.03 weeks

Implied Distribution and Confidence Interval

SMM assumes the total project duration is approximately normally distributed. This allows us to construct a confidence interval directly from the mean and standard deviation.

A 95% confidence interval for total project duration is approximately:

\[ \bar{X} \pm 1.96 \cdot \sigma \]

total_mean <- result$total_mean
total_sd <- result$total_std
ci_lower <- total_mean - 1.96 * total_sd
ci_upper <- total_mean + 1.96 * total_sd
cat("95% CI: [", round(ci_lower, 1), ",", round(ci_upper, 1), "] weeks\n")

95% CI: [ 31.2 , 58.8 ] weeks

The plot below shows the implied normal distribution of total project duration:

x_range <- seq(total_mean - 4 * total_sd, total_mean + 4 * total_sd, length.out = 300)
y_range <- dnorm(x_range, mean = total_mean, sd = total_sd)

plot(x_range, y_range,
  type = "l", lwd = 2, col = "steelblue",
  main = "SMM - Implied Project Duration Distribution",
  xlab = "Total Duration (weeks)", ylab = "Density"
)

# Shade 95% CI region
x_ci <- x_range[x_range >= ci_lower & x_range <= ci_upper]
y_ci <- dnorm(x_ci, mean = total_mean, sd = total_sd)
polygon(c(ci_lower, x_ci, ci_upper), c(0, y_ci, 0),
  col = "lightblue", border = NA
)

abline(v = total_mean, col = "black", lty = 2, lwd = 1.5)
legend("topright",
  legend = c("Normal density", "95% CI", "Mean"),
  col = c("steelblue", "lightblue", "black"),
  lty = c(1, NA, 2), lwd = c(2, NA, 1.5),
  pch = c(NA, 15, NA), pt.cex = 1.5,
  bty = "n"
)

Comparison with Monte Carlo Simulation

Running Monte Carlo simulation with the same task distributions (and no correlation, for a clean comparison) validates the SMM mean. The two methods should yield very similar total means; differences in variance arise because SMM and MCS handle correlated sampling differently.

# Represent each task as a normal distribution for MCS comparison (independent case)
task_dists_for_mcs <- list(
  list(type = "normal", mean = task_means[1], sd = sqrt(task_vars[1])),
  list(type = "normal", mean = task_means[2], sd = sqrt(task_vars[2])),
  list(type = "normal", mean = task_means[3], sd = sqrt(task_vars[3]))
)

# Run MCS without correlation (identity = fully independent)
mcs_result <- mcs(10000, task_dists_for_mcs)

# SMM variance without correlation = sum of individual variances
smm_var_nocor <- sum(task_vars)

comparison <- data.frame(
  Method          = c("SMM (independent)", "Monte Carlo (10,000 runs)"),
  Total_Mean      = round(c(result$total_mean, mcs_result$total_mean), 2),
  Total_Variance  = round(c(smm_var_nocor, mcs_result$total_variance), 2),
  Total_StdDev    = round(c(sqrt(smm_var_nocor), mcs_result$total_sd), 2)
)
knitr::kable(comparison, caption = "SMM vs. Monte Carlo Comparison (independent tasks)")

SMM vs. Monte Carlo Comparison (independent tasks)
Method	Total_Mean	Total_Variance	Total_StdDev
SMM (independent)	45.00	29.00	5.39
Monte Carlo (10,000 runs)	45.01	29.83	5.46

The two methods agree closely on the mean and variance. SMM is faster but assumes normality; Monte Carlo is more flexible and can use any distribution type. When tasks are correlated, SMM adds covariance terms analytically while MCS uses a correlation-based sampling scheme.

Benefits and Limitations

	SMM	Monte Carlo
Speed	Instant (analytical)	Slow (thousands of iterations)
Inputs needed	Mean + variance per task	Full distribution per task
Distribution assumption	Normal (by Central Limit Theorem)	Any distribution
Correlation handling	Explicit covariance formula	Cholesky decomposition
Skewness / tails	Ignored	Captured accurately
Best for	Early estimates, quick checks	Detailed risk analysis, non-normal tasks

These binaries (installable software) and packages are in development.
They may not be fully stable and should be used with caution. We make no claims about them.
Health stats visible at Monitor.