Criticism of CPM for Project Planning Analysis

Abstract

Published criticism in recent years concerning the inadequacy of Critical Path Method (CPM) as a project planning tool is identified and grouped under six major headings with reference to the publications in which the criticism were contained. These are answered from the writer's field experience and from experiences published by other authors. The object of the analysis is to see whether or not CPM as a project planning tool can meet the required functions of planning in construction, including consideration of legal and contractual framework and the complex and interdisciplinary nature of the project environment. The analysis reveals that, despite numerous criticism, project and construction planning should be done using CPM scheduling. Main factors affecting successful planning are realistic estimation of the productivity of crews in the context of expected job‐management efficiency conditions, and inclusion of sufficient time buffers between dissimilar trades. CPM is found to be equally useful as a planning tool for linear or repetitive projects. The limitations of this technique are identified in terms of the defined planning functions in the engineering phase of capital projects. A broad model for management of the engineering phase in revenue‐generating projects is suggested.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 90 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.