Criticism of CPM for Project Planning Analysis

TLDR

Criticism of CPM has been grouped into six major headings, highlighting its limitations for engineering‑phase planning in capital projects. The study aims to determine whether CPM can satisfy construction planning requirements, including legal, contractual, and interdisciplinary considerations. The authors propose a broad model for managing the engineering phase of revenue‑generating projects. The analysis concludes that CPM remains a suitable planning tool for construction, provided realistic crew productivity estimates and adequate time buffers are incorporated, and it is equally effective for linear or repetitive projects.

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.