Application of CPM and PERT On Construction of Rail Tracks
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55524/Keywords:
Critical Path Method, Construction of Rail Track, Operation Research, Project Planning, Project Evaluation and Review TechniqueAbstract
As a foundation for project planning, execution, and supervision, management may use the Project Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) and the Critical Route Method (CPM) to discover the longest time
consuming, or consuming, path across a network of tasks or activities. The solutions assist managers in maximizing the shortest time period feasible in order to save project costs and time in half. The use of project planning on the construction of railway lines is shown in this study article, which uses two project management methodologies. To demonstrate the logical sequence of actions to be undertaken in this research paper in order to fulfill this article's purpose, I used the Project Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) and the Critical Path Method (CPM). The benefits of utilizing CPM scheduling to build railway tracks are discussed in this work. According to the results, the construction may be completed in 852 days rather than the 900 days initially projected, saving roughly 6%. This will show up the network diagram together with beginning and completion timings with the list of activities related with the target in an effective method so as to accomplish the building on or before a defined time limit with required quality standard.
Downloads
References
A. Alsouhibani, H. B. Vaegter, and M. H. Bement, “Systemic exercise-induced hypoalgesia following isometric exercise reduces conditioned pain modulation,” Pain Med. (United States), 2019, doi: 10.1093/pm/pny057.
C. Orumie Ukamaka, “Implementation of Project Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) and Critical
Path Method (CPM): A Comparative Study,” Int. J. Ind. Oper. Res., 2020, doi: 10.35840/2633-8947/6504. [3] M. Kunz, S. F. Bunk, A. J. Karmann, K. J. Bär, and S. Lautenbacher, “Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) effects captured in facial expressions,” J. Pain Res., 2021, doi: 10.2147/JPR.S300313.
J. G. Putra and J. Sekarsari, “ANALISIS PENJADWALAN PROYEK GEDUNG BERTINGKAT DENGAN METODE PERT DAN M-PERT MENGGUNAKAN SIMULASI MONTE CARLO,” JMTS J. Mitra Tek. Sipil, 2020, doi: 10.24912/jmts.v3i3.8395.
A. L. Ljungblad, “Pedagogical Relational Teachership (PeRT)–a multi-relational perspective,” Int. J. Incl. Educ., 2021, doi: 10.1080/13603116.2019.1581280.
B. Kwok et al., “Pulmonary Embolism Response Team activation during the COVID-19 pandemic in a New York City Academic Hospital: a retrospective cohort analysis,” J. Thromb. Thrombolysis, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11239- 020-02264-8.
R. F. Aziz, “RPERT: Repetitive-projects evaluation and review technique,” Alexandria Eng. J., 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2013.08.003.
F. Habibi, O. Taghipour Birgani, H. Koppelaar, and S. Radenović, “Using fuzzy logic to improve the project time and cost estimation based on Project Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT),” J. Proj. Manag., 2018, doi: 10.5267/j.jpm.2018.4.002.
W. Agyei, “And CPM Techniques With Linear Programming : Case Study,” Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res., 2015.
A. GÖKSU and S. Ćatović, “Implementation Of Critical Path Method And Project Evaluation And Review Technique,” 2012.
M. Engwall, “PERT, Polaris, and the realities of project execution,” Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus., 2012, doi: 10.1108/17538371211268898.
S. Phillips, “Project management duration/resource tradeoff analysis: An application of the cut search approach,” J. Oper. Res. Soc., 1996, doi: 10.1057/jors.1996.81.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
How to Cite
