Show simple item record

contributor authorRené A. Yamín
contributor authorDavid J. Harmelink
date accessioned2017-05-08T20:33:30Z
date available2017-05-08T20:33:30Z
date copyrightOctober 2001
date issued2001
identifier other%28asce%290733-9364%282001%29127%3A5%28374%29.pdf
identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/19510
description abstractDue to an increasingly competitive environment, construction companies are becoming more sophisticated, narrowing their focus, and becoming specialists in certain types of construction. This specialization requires more focused scheduling tools that prove to be better for certain type of projects. The critical path method (CPM) is the most utilized scheduling tool in the construction industry. However, for certain types of projects, CPM's usefulness decreases, because it becomes complex and difficult to use and understand. Alternative scheduling tools designed to be used with specific types of projects can prove to be more practical than CPM solutions. This paper provides a comparison of the CPM and a specialized tool, the linear scheduling model, by identifying critical attributes needed by any scheduling tool both at the higher management level and at the project level. Two project examples are scheduled with each method, and differences are discussed. Conclusions support that specialization of scheduling tools could be beneficial for the project manager and the project.
publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
titleComparison of Linear Scheduling Model (LSM) and Critical Path Method (CPM)
typeJournal Paper
journal volume127
journal issue5
journal titleJournal of Construction Engineering and Management
identifier doi10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:5(374)
treeJournal of Construction Engineering and Management:;2001:;Volume ( 127 ):;issue: 005
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record