Talk:Program evaluation and review technique: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:50, 19 March 2015

Latest revision as of 22:48, 13 July 2025

(11 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=

{{WikiProject Systems|class=C |importance=mid |field=Systems engineering }}

{{WikiProject Technology}}

}}

Line 60 ⟶ 61:

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|<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Segoe print"; color = ":#cd853f;">Kuru</fontspan>]] [[User talk:Kuru|<font colorsup style= "color:#f5deb3;">^''talk''</font>]] 03:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

== PERT and its Origin - Mary Poppendieck's take on the matter at a Google Tech Talk in '08 ==

Line 72 ⟶ 73:

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 citiation is needed on the inventors, I found this citation, but I have no access to the article to confirm

== Who invented PertPERT ==

A citiationcitation 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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|Joja]]</font><fontspan colorstyle="color:#005000;">[[User talk:Jojalozzo|lozzo]]</fontspan>]] 15:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

:It is clear from the "historical" piece I have just added that "Program Evaluation and Review Technique
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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|Joja]]</font><fontspan colorstyle="color:#005000;">[[User talk:Jojalozzo|lozzo]]</fontspan>]] 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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|Joja]]</font><fontspan colorstyle="color:#005000;">[[User talk:Jojalozzo|lozzo]]</fontspan>]] 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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|Joja]]</font><fontspan colorstyle="color:#005000;">[[User talk:Jojalozzo|lozzo]]</fontspan>]] 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 ==

Line 112 ⟶ 120:

==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">—&nbsp;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)