Jaafari, A (1984) Criticism of CPM for project planning analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 110(2), pp. 222-233. ISSN 0733-9364
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.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | project planning, repetitive project, estimation, critical path method, scheduling, capital project, revenue, time buffer, efficiency, construction planning, publication, productivity |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, economic analysis, operations research, control systems, strategic project management, performance management, construction planning, production management, management, research dissemination and communication |
| Topics: | Project Management, Cost Management, Site Management, Business Strategy, Information Management, Quality Management, Time Control |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here