CPM AND PERT 6
Projectmanagement is oftenachallenging undertaking that comes along with complexresponsibilities. Providentially, there are many tools that areavailable to help accomplish the work and carry out managementresponsibility. Some tasks need computers with sustaining software,while others can be carried out manually. According to Fan (2016), aproject manager should select a project management tool thatperfectly suits the selected methodology. Undeniably, no single toolcan solve all project management requirements. Thispaperwill focus on the comparison and contrast between CMP and PERT, whichare some of the tools used in program management projects.
Compareand Contrast as projectschedulingtechniques
CPMcame into operation in the mid-1950s’sit is a logarithm technique used for planning, coordinating,scheduling, and controlling activities or rather components of theproject. Inthis case, it can be assumed that thetime frame of the project is fixed (Fan, 2016). The tool isusedin calculating the first and latest possible start period that eachactivity will take (Fan, 2016).
Conversely,PERT uses time as a factor that represents a planned resource, whichisappliedin the management process together with some specifications. In thismethodology, firstly, the project is subdivided into differentactivities or events, after which suitable sequence is establishedhence, a network iscreated(Dave, Hämäläinen, Kemmer, Koskela, & Koskenvesa, 2015). Consequently, the time needed forevery activity is calculated and eventually the critical path isdetermined.
Both are efficient in forecasting paraphernalia and have thecapability of predicting future essentials of a project. They bothallow managers to explore and analyze all possibilities, ambiguities,pitfalls as well as uncertainties. The tools are used to determineand prevent surprises and reduce wastage (Dave et al., 2015). Project managers expansively examine various factors that influence aproject and the success accomplishment in advance and eventually theyplot the result neatly in the form of a diagram.
Comingto differences of these techniques, PERT is always developed or setaccordingtoevents whereas CPM isalignedtowards events. In most cases,PERT is adomesticform of technique, on the contrary, CPM uses probabilistic approach.Besides, PERT has three times estimation which includes optimistictime, most probable time, and pessimistic time, whereas CPM has onlya single estimate (Dave, et al., 2015). Additionally, PERT only dealswith unpredictable events,whreasCPM deals with a reasonabletime estimate.
Itemcost: This item would include low cost, or rather the wholesalecost of about, $.45 since item cost is considered to be constant withno or fewerdiscounts.
Carryingcost: The item will consist of low storage cost and moderate loss dueto its fragile nature.
Orderingcost: It will have a lowercost because when purchased with other bigger orders there will below transportation cost because they are light weight.
Stockout the cost:Will bevery low,it is easily available since there areno backordersas well as the presenceof little loss of goodwill.
ItemCost: The cost will be medium, wherebywholesale cost will be about $4 to $10
CarryingCost: It ranges from Vulnerable to pilferage. There will be the hugecost of obsolescence as a result of trends.
OrderingCost:Theitem has a medium cost since orders aremadein small quantities due to frequent changes in taste and fashion ofproduct. Hence, it calls for more frequent orders.
StockoutCost:there is the fairlikelihood of backordering.Incase, stockout is more frequent , consumers will decide to shift andoperate with other suppliers.
ItemCost: The cost is modest.
CarryingCost: Since the good is perishable, the commodity’s shelf spaceneeds increased costs.
OrderingCost:Thecost of the item is higher.More regular orders trim down the need for costly icedshelf space and cut losses as a result of the nature of the drugs areperishable.
StockoutCost: The presence Backorders improbable leads to losses ofrevenues, inany case of repeatedincidents, the customerwill choose a newsupplier.
Dave,B., Hämäläinen, J. P., Kemmer, S., Koskela, L., & Koskenvesa,A. (2015). Suggestions to Improve Lean Construction Planning.Cambridge Press.
Fan,Z. (2016). A Study on Computerized Simulation of difference betweenCPM and CCPM. Routledge: London.