You are presented with multiple paper abstracts, alongside the associated literature review and chapter titles. Given the provided information, you are going to do a literature review. Please generate a coherent literature review that synthesizes the content, draws connections between different works, highlights major findings, and identifies any gaps in the existing research.

Literature Review Title: An Overview of Recent Research Results and Future Research Avenues Using Simulation Studies in Project Management 
Chapter Title:  Study 3: Project Control. 
1. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB001):  Project scheduling, risk analysis and project tracking are key parameters to a project's success or failure. Research on the relative sensitivity of project activities during the project scheduling phase as well as research on project performance measurement during project progress have been published throughout the academic literature and the popular press. Obviously, the interest in activity sensitivity information and project performance measurement from both the academics and the practitioners lies in the need to focus a project manager's attention on those activities that influence the performance of the project. When management has knowledge about the current project performance and has a certain feeling of the relative sensitivity of the various project activities on the project objective, a better management focus and a more accurate response during project tracking should positively contribute to the overall performance of the project. In this article, two alternative project tracking methods to detect project problems are presented and their efficiency on the quality of corrective actions to bring the project back on track is measured and evaluated. More precisely, a bottom-up and a top-down project tracking approach within a corrective action framework is applied on a large and diverse set of fictitious projects that are subject to Monte-Carlo simulations to simulate fictitious project progress under uncertainty. The top-down tracking approach relies on state-of-the-art earned value management performance metrics, while the bottom-up tracking mechanism makes use of the well-known schedule risk analysis method. A computational experiment shows that a top-down project tracking approach is highly efficient for project networks with a serial activity structure while a bottom-up approach performs better in a parallel structured project network. Moreover, it will also be shown that dynamic thresholds to trigger corrective actions, which gradually increase or decrease the project manager's attention along the project progress, outperform the static thresholds for both tracking approaches. 
2. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB002):  The topic of this paper is dynamic project scheduling to illustrate that project scheduling is a dynamic process that involves a continuous stream of changes and is a never ending process to support decisions that need to be made along the life of the project. The focus of this paper lies on three crucial dimensions of dynamic scheduling which can be briefly outlined along the following lines: (i) Baseline scheduling to construct a timetable that provides a start and end date for each project activity, taking activity relations, resource constraints and other project characteristics into account, and aiming to reach a certain scheduling objective, (ii) risk analysis to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of your project schedule in order to obtain information about the schedule sensitivity and the possible changes that undoubtedly occur during project progress and (iii) project control to measure the (time and cost) performance of a project during its progress and use the information obtained during the scheduling and risk analysis steps to monitor and update the project and to take corrective actions in case of problems. The focus of the current paper is on the importance and crucial role of the baseline scheduling component for the two other components, and the integration of the schedule risk and project control component in order to support a better corrective action decision making when the project is in trouble. 
3. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB003):  Abstract Recently, the prediction of project duration has been investigated in earned value management (EVM) using three earned value methods, planed value (PVM), earned duration (EDM) and earned schedule (ESM). The investigation has shown that ESM method outperforms on average the other two methods and fails in case of wrong warning coming from non-critical activities which suffer from delays and/or ahead of schedule. The objective of this paper is twofold: first, we study the impact of the activities' sensitivity information on the forecasting accuracy of the ESM method. Second, we test the claim that in normal conditions the project performance indicator provided by ESM at higher work breakdown structure is reliable. More precisely, activity based sensitivity measures are used as weighing parameters of the activities to improve the schedule performance of a project by removing or decreasing the negative effect of wrong warning of the non-critical activities. The computational results of a simulation study on a big benchmark projects reveal that the sensitivity information are capable of improving the forecasting accuracy of the ESM method.

Literature Review:
The relevance of the two previous simulation studies lies in the ability of the two methods (SRA in Section 3.2 and EVM/ES in Section 3.3) to monitor and control projects and to generate warning signals for actions when the project runs out of control. In the third simulation study, the two previously mentioned methods are integrated into a dynamic project control system. The simulation is set up to test two alternative project control methods by using two types of dynamic information during project progress to improve corrective action decisions. Information on the sensitivity of individual project activities obtained through schedule risk analysis (SRA) as well as dynamic performance information obtained through earned value/schedule management (EVM/ES) will be dynamically used to steer the corrective action decision making process. The simulation study has been originally published by Vanhoucke BIB002 and further discussed in Vanhoucke  BIB003 BIB001 . Recently, a new study on integrating SRA with EVM/ES has been published by Elshaer BIB004 . The two alternative project control methods are considered from two extreme WBS level starting points. Although they represent a rather black-and-white view on project control, they can be considered as fundamentally different control approaches, both of which can be easily implemented is a less extreme way or can even be combined or mixed during project progress. Figure 2 graphically displays the two extreme control methods along the WBS level which are known as the top-down project control approach and a bottom-up project control approach. Details are given along the following lines. Bottom-Up Project Control. The sensitivity metrics used in the study discussed in Section 3.2 are crucial to the project manager since they provide information about the sensitivity of activity duration variation and the expected impact on the project duration. This information is crucial to steer a project manager's attention towards a subset of the project activities that have a highly expected effect on the overall project performance. These highly sensitive activities are subject to intensive control, while others require less or no attention during project execution. Since the activity information at the lowest level of the WBS is used to control the project and to take actions that should bring projects in danger back on track, this approach is called bottom bottom-up project control. Top-Down Project Control. Project control using EVM/ES systems discussed in Section 3.3 offers the project manager a tool to calculate a quick and easy sanity check on the highest levels of the WBS, the project level. They provide early warning signals to detect problems and/or opportunities in an easy and efficient way that define the need to eventually drill down into lower WBS levels. In conjunction with the project schedule, it allows taking corrective actions on those activities that are in trouble (especially those tasks which lie on the critical path). The scope of the study and the used measurement points and resulting output metrics can be summarised as follows. (i) Scope of the study is the comparison between topdown project control approach using EVM/ES and bottom-up project control approach using SRA. (ii) Measurement points include the number of control points as a proxy for the control effort and the result of corrective actions taken by the project manager as a proxy for the quality of the actions. (iii) Output metrics are the efficiency of both project control approaches defined as a comparison between the effort of controlling the project in progress and the results of the actions, as explained along the following lines. Unique to this simulation study is the presence of corrective actions to bring projects in danger back on track. These simulated actions must be taken from the moment performance thresholds are exceeded. The specific threshold depends on the used control approach. For the bottomup control approach, only highly sensitive activities are controlled, and hence, action thresholds are set on the values for the sensitivity metrics. As an example, from the moment the SSI is bigger than 70%, the activity is said to be highly sensitive, and it is expected that delays on this activity might have a significant impact on the total project duration. Therefore, it is better to carefully control this activity when it is in progress. Activities with a low SSI value, on the contrary, are considered to be safe and need no intensive control during progress (=lower effort). The top-down project control approach is done using schedule performance information at regular points in time, given by the SPI and SPI( ). From the moment these values drop below a certain predefined threshold, say for example, 70%, it is an indication that some of the underlying activities at the lowest WBS level might be in danger. Therefore, the project manager has to drill down (=increasing effort), trying to detect the problem and find out whether corrective actions are necessary to improve the current low performance. Figure 3 displays a graphical representation of the simulation approach of the project control study. The dynamic simulation starts at the project start (time = 0) and gradually increases at each review period until the project is finished. At each control point , the necessary information is calculated or simulated, and once thresholds are exceeded, triggers for searching project problems and actions on the activity level might be performed. The two alternative control methods show one important difference. In the top-down approach displayed at the left of the picture, all EVM performance metrics are calculated at each time period, and only when thresholds are exceeded, a drill down requires further attention in search for potential problems that might require action. In a bottom-up approach, displayed at the right of the picture, a subset of activities in progress, determined by the thresholds, is subject to control and might require actions in case of problems. Consequently, the selection of the set of activities that require intensive control in search of potential problems and the corresponding actions to bring problems back on track are different for the two control methods, as follows. (i) Top-down. At every time period, all EVM performance metrics are calculated, and when thresholds are exceeded, all activities in progress will be scanned in search for potential problems (and corresponding actions). Consequently, the search for project problems is triggered by thresholds on periodic EVM metrics and, once exceeded, is done on all activities in progress. (ii) Bottom-up. At every time period, all SRA sensitivity metrics are simulated, and all activities in progress are scanned for their values. Only a subset of these activities, those that exceed the thresholds, will be further analysed in search for problems (and corresponding actions). Consequently, the search for project problems is triggered by thresholds on activity sensitivity metrics and is performed only on a subset of those activities in progress with a value exceeding the threshold value. Figure 4 shows an illustrative graph of this control efficiency for both control approaches. The -axis displays the closeness of each project to a complete serial or parallel network, as measured by the SP indicator discussed in Section 3.1. The -axis measures the control efficiency as follows. (i) The effort is measured by the number of control points in the simulation study. This number is equal to the number of times the action thresholds are exceeded. Indeed, from the moment a threshold is exceeded, the project manager must spend time to find out whether there is a problem during progress. Hence, the amount of control points is used as a proxy for the effort of control and depends on the value of the action thresholds. Obviously, the lower the effort, the higher the control efficiency, and hence the effort is set in the denominator of the control efficiency output metric. In Figure 3 , the effort is measured by the number of activities that require intense control at each review period . For both approaches, this is equal to the number of time the "threshold exceed" block gives a "yes" answer. (ii) Return. When corrective actions are taken, their impact should bring projects in danger back on track and should therefore contribute to the overall success of the project. Therefore, the return of actions is measured as the difference between the project delay without actions and the project duration with actions. Obviously, the return of the actions can be considered as a proxy for the quality of the actions and should be set in the numerator of the project control efficiency output metric. The graph clearly demonstrates that a top-down projectbased control approach using the EVM/ES systems provides highly accurate results when the project network contains more serial activities. The bottom-up control approach using sensitivity information of activities obtained through a standard schedule risk analysis is particularly useful when projects contain a lot of parallel activities. This bottom-up approach requires subjective estimates of probability distributions to define the activity risk profiles, but it simplifies the control effort by focusing on those activities with a highly expected effect on the overall project objective.