PERT Vs. CPM: A cross review analysis

Article

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

PERT Vs. CPM: A cross review analysis

Dr. Arati Shah

DIP: 18.02.005/20210601

DOI: 10.25215/2455/060105

Received: January 10, 2021; Revision Received: February 11, 2021; Accepted: March 21, 2021

Abstract

Program evaluation and review technique (PERT) the program evaluation and review technique is a statistical tool used in project management, which was designed to analyze and represent the tasks involved in completing a given project. Cost per mille (CPM) Cost per mille, also called cost per thousand, is a commonly used measurement in advertising. It is the cost an advertiser pays for one thousand views or impressions of an advertisement. This review paper has analysis of PERT and CPM advanced stages.

Keywords

The authors profoundly appreciate all the people who have successfully contributed to ensuring this paper in place. Their contributions are acknowledged however their names cannot be mentioned.

The author declared no conflict of interest.

This is an Open Access Research distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any Medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Responding Author Information

Dr. Arati Shah @ mailto:dilip.arati@yahoo.com

PERT Vs. CPM: A cross review analysis

Total Download: 9 | Total View: 533

PlumX Matrix

Plum Analytics uses research metrics to help answer the questions and tell the stories about research. Research metrics that immediately measure awareness and interest give us new ways to uncover and tell the stories of research.

Dimensions Matrix

Dimensions is a next-generation linked research information system that makes it easier to find and access the most relevant information, analyze the academic and broader outcomes of research, and gather insights to inform future strategy. (digital science)

Article Overview

ISSN 2348-5396

ISSN 2349-3429

DIP: 18.02.005/20210601

DOI: 10.25215/2455/060105

Published in

Volume 06, Issue 1, January – March, 2021

9Downloads
0Citations
533Views
0Likes

Navigations
References

Project Management Institute (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (5th ed.). Project Management Institute. ISBN 978-1-935589-67-9.
Klastorin, Ted (2003). Project Management: Tools and Trade-offs (3rd ed.). Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-41384-4.
Harold Kerzner (2003). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling (8th ed.). Wiley. ISBN 0-471-22577-0.
Milosevic, Dragan Z. (2003). Project Management ToolBox: Tools and Techniques for the Practicing Project Manager. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-20822-8.
Miller, Robert W. (1963). Schedule, Cost, and Profit Control with PERT – A Comprehensive Guide for Program Management. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 9780070419940.
Sapolsky, Harvey M. (1971). The Polaris System Development: Bureaucratic and Programmatic Success in Government. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674682254.
Feiier, Alfred M.. 1972. “Project Risk Management.” inThe Pnicticul AppHcuiion of Project Planning by Network Techniques. Mats Ogander (ed.), Haisted [*ress. New York, pp. 439-461.
King, W.R., Wiltevrongel. D,M., and Hezel, K.D., 1967, “On the Analysis of Subjective Time Estimates in Critical Path VAAnnm^,” Management Science Vol. 14, No. I, pp. 79-84.
Klingel, A.R., Jr., 1966, “Bias in PERT Project Completion Time Calculations for a Real Network,” Management Science Vol. 13, No. 4, December, pp. BI94-B201.