Content deleted Content added
Lindsay658 (talk | contribs) |
m Remove template per TFD outcome |
||
| (48 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
There are two kinds of PERT diagrams. One is the sort shown in the article, which has nodes denoting stages of the project and arrows denoting tasks. The other sort, which I did at college, has nodes denoting tasks and arrows denoting the dependencies between them. The nodes tend to be shown as boxes with task information in them - there are various formats, one of which is like this▼
{{WikiProject Systems|importance=mid |field=Systems engineering }}
{{WikiProject Technology}}
}}
== Two of a kind ==
▲There are two kinds of PERT diagrams.
{| border="1"
Line 22 ⟶ 28:
(I'm not sure if the "early finish" and "late start" boxes were this or the other way round.)
-- [[User:Smjg|Smjg]] 16:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[PDG] My long standing question is WHY are the early start and early finish dates invariably shown ABOVE the late start and late finish dates, when in fact, this makes no sense mathematically as we are supposed to DEDUCT the early dates FROM the late dates, resulting in the Total Float (or Total Slack) Thus what is shown here is logically exactly opposite and thus counterintuitive to what should be.
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta
[[User:Dr PDG|Dr PDG]] ([[User talk:Dr PDG|talk]]) 08:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
== Lead time ==
Line 41 ⟶ 53:
Although I may have my wires crossed, I have always thought that "lead time" was the amount of time that had to "lead" or come before the event (and that this was why it was used in the planning and setting up events and processes so that they would finish by a particular date, such as the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games); rather than it being the amount of time beyond this moment that we could expect a finished product to turn up. Can anyone clarify this for me? [[User:Lindsay658|Lindsay658]] 04:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:Dbsheajr. I hope that what I have added assists. Please feel free to alter it in any way that better suits what you are adding to the remainder. Best to you [[User:Lindsay658|Lindsay658]] 05:08, 25 July 2006
== Copyright issue ==
The figure seems to be a color-ized version of diagram shown at NetMBA, but with the NetMBA logo removed.
http://www.netmba.com/operations/project/pert/ <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Joelwest|Joelwest]] ([[User talk:Joelwest|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Joelwest|contribs]]) 03:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Except that they're completely different? What am I missing? [[User:Kuru|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#cd853f;">Kuru</span>]] [[User talk:Kuru|<sup style="color:#f5deb3;">''talk''</sup>]] 03:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
== PERT and its Origin - Mary Poppendieck's take on the matter at a Google Tech Talk in '08 ==
Have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypEMdjslEOI and have Mary Poppendieck, at a Google Tech Talk, amongst other things tell you about the origins of PERT (starting at 25:14) as a smoke screen for congress to keep funding the cold war weapons program (it is easier to fund a control strategy than people doing something). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/93.132.94.115|93.132.94.115]] ([[User talk:93.132.94.115|talk]]) 17:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Uncertainty in project scheduling ==
What does this phrase mean "include safety in the baseline schedule"? Are we talking about padding estimates? Please define "safety" in reference to a schedule.
What is a "a very large make-span"? Is that a typo for "time-span"? Is make-span a term of art in PERT lingo?
These two terms are unfamiliar to me, and I've worked with PERT charts and project management. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.19.105.40|24.19.105.40]] ([[User talk:24.19.105.40|talk]]) 16:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Agreed; I studied PERT/CPM during my industrial engineering degree program, but am unfamiliar with those terms. Probably typos but it is so muddled, I'm unsure how to correct.--[[User:FeralOink|FeralOink]] ([[User talk:FeralOink|talk]]) 06:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
== Who invented PERT ==
A citation is needed on the inventors, I found this citation, but I have no access to the article to confirm
PERT as an Analytical Aid for Program Planning—Its Payoff and Problems J. W. Pocock
Booz Allen Applied Research, Inc., Chicago, Illinois [[User:Wakelamp|Wakelamp]] ([[User talk:Wakelamp|talk]]) 06:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
: John H. Roseboom asserts that he was a member of the original PERT team in his letter to the editor of OPERATIONS RESEARCH (Vol. 9, No. 6, November-December 1961, pp. 909-910). This would seem to be supported by the original paper on the development of PERT authored by D. G. Malcolm, J. H. Roseboom, and C. E. Clark of Booz, Allen and Hamilton; and W. Fazar of the Special Projects Office, U.S. Navy (OPERATIONS RESEARCH Vol. 7, No. 5, September-October 1959, pp. 646-669). But since I can find no secondary source for this, it is probably not appropriate for the article. [[Special:Contributions/69.1.23.134|69.1.23.134]] ([[User talk:69.1.23.134|talk]]) 17:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
::I found a secondary source, a 1989 retrospective on the development of PERT:
::<blockquote>Charles E. Clark was the principal author of PERT... The early key documents are: PERT Summary Report Phase 1, Bureau of Naval Weapons, Department of the Navy, Washington, July 1958; PERT Summary Report Phase 2, Bureau of Naval Weapons, Department of the Navy, Washington, September 1958. Fazar (op. cit. 1962) reports that he gave the technique its name, and that formal work on it began February 6, 1958. Within a week Clark presented the outlines of the method.</blockquote>
::see https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/epdf/10.1287/opre.10.3.405 and also https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/origins-cpm-personal-history-3762 --[[User:FeralOink|FeralOink]] ([[User talk:FeralOink|talk]]) 22:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
== Is Program Evaluation and Review Technique a proper name? ==
I think "program evaluation and review technique" is a common name not a proper name and therefore should not be capitalized. I know it is accepted practice in the industry to capitalize terms especially when they are normally identified by acronym but in Wikipedia capitalization is used only for proper names. [[User:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#005000;">lozzo</span>]] 15:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
:It is clear from the "historical" piece I have just added that "Program Evaluation and Review Technique " is a '''tool''', and therefore, a noun, rather than "an approach", and therefore a verb. And, moreover, it is not a "common name"; it is a very specific "proper noun". Therefore it should remain capitalized. The point being, I suppose, no matter how many people habitually call [[American bison|Bison bison]] "buffalo", the animals continue to remain bison.[[User:Lindsay658|Lindsay658]] ([[User talk:Lindsay658|talk]]) 23:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
::PERT is a technique, method or approach. A PERT chart is a tool. Whether we use the name bison or buffalo we do not capitalize it. None of this is convincing me that ''program evaluation and review technique'' is a proper name. [[User:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#005000;">lozzo</span>]] 02:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
::Also, Program Evaluation and Review Technique is capitalized in a reference to it in [http://www.google.com/patents?id=krNpAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false U.S. patent no.3124885].[[User:Lindsay658|Lindsay658]] ([[User talk:Lindsay658|talk]]) 23:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Wikipedia capitalization is governed by its own rules: summed up as "[[WP:MOSCAPS|avoid unnecessary capitalization]]". Usage in patents or in the industry does not change this. [[User:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#005000;">lozzo</span>]] 02:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I started a discussion of the general topic of naming ideas in engineering at the [[WP:VPP#When are names for technical methods and systems proper names and when are they not?|Village pump]]. [[User:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#005000;">lozzo</span>]] 16:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
PERT (like CPM) is most definitely a proper noun. The article name should not ne redirected to the full 4 (5) words.--[[User:FeralOink|FeralOink]] ([[User talk:FeralOink|talk]]) 06:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
== Removing bad characters from the block quote ==
Why is the user Herr Beethoven reverting edits that remove spaces from the block quote? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/192.91.172.36|192.91.172.36]] ([[User talk:192.91.172.36|talk]]) 00:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Very strange. Browsing through the history shows that this happens fairly frequently. A user cleans up the broken words in the block and another user reverts the edit. What is the underlying rationale? [[Special:Contributions/192.91.172.36|192.91.172.36]] ([[User talk:192.91.172.36|talk]]) 00:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
==File:Pert example gantt chart.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion==
<!--TSTAMP:{{{4}}}-->
{|
|-
| [[File:Image-x-generic.svg|100px]]
| <!--IMAGES-->
An image used in this article, [[:File:Pert example gantt chart.gif|File:Pert example gantt chart.gif]], has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: ''Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011''
<!--/IMAGES-->
;What should I do?
''Don't panic''; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review [[WP:CSD|deletion guidelines]] before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is [[WP:NFCC|non-free]] then you may need to provide a [[WP:FUR|fair use rationale]]
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try [[WP:DRV|Deletion Review]]
''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --[[User:CommonsNotificationBot|CommonsNotificationBot]] ([[User talk:CommonsNotificationBot|talk]]) 11:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
|}
==Harold Kerzner chapter on PERT==
Embarassing typo in the 10th edition, p. 502: "Since there exists only one path through the network that is the longest, the other paths must be either equal in length to or shorter than that path." <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/129.199.97.130|129.199.97.130]] ([[User talk:129.199.97.130|talk]]) 08:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Implementation Error==
The last diagram in the Implementation system fails, as it does not list the slack/float times to the left and right of the task names as is common practice in the project management community. Without this information, it is difficult to determine the critical path. With this information, the critical path(s) (yes, there can be more than one) are those blocks (activities) where the slack/float time is zero. [[Special:Contributions/75.70.164.249|75.70.164.249]] ([[User talk:75.70.164.249|talk]]) 06:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
| |||