Simplified program evaluation and review technique (PERT)

Cottrell, W D (1999) Simplified program evaluation and review technique (PERT). Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 125(1), pp. 16-22. ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

A simplified version of the program evaluation and review technique (PERT) for project planning is developed and tested. The simplification is to reduce the number of estimates required for activity durations from three, as in conventional PERT, to two. This is accomplished by applying the normal distribution, rather than the beta, to an activity duration. The two required duration estimates are the "most likely" and the "pessimistic". These modifications reduce the level of effort needed to apply PERT. Simplified PERT durations are subject to errors of greater than 10% when the skewness of the actual distribution is greater than 0.28 or less than -0.48. In analyzing 12 project networks, though, the simplified PERT produced values similar to those of conventional PERT for activity and project durations and variances and project duration probabilities. Hence, when activity duration distributions are not highly skewed, results similar to those of conventional PERT can be obtained using the simpler technique. Two suggestions for future research are to survey practitioners on the usefulness of the simplified PERT and to find a fixed, skewed distribution that can approximate activity durations having long tails.

Item Type: Article
Index terms: programme evaluation and review technique, estimate, project planning, duration, survey, simplification, variance, project network, practitioner
Subjects: financial and cost management, operations research, project controls, management, practitioner, control systems, project planning, measurement and scaling, data collection methods
Topics: Cost Management, Project Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Time Control, Roles and Professions
Descriptive scope: 4 PCEA

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