Project Management Institute

Choosing your networking technique

selecting computer programs, someone competent in programming must be involved; however, he would be involved for the purpose of technical evaluation only. The key person in the selection process should be the manager responsible for the project. The programs will be a tool for his management of the project. He must determine the extent to which other project people become involved in the selection. A technical team may be selected to narrow the field of choices, but the ultimate, in-depth evaluation of the final alternatives must involve the project manager extensively if he is to benefit from the system. To repeat an earlier statement: Managers who are not willing to invest some of their time in learning how the system works are not likely to make good use of the system, and they may, in fact, make worse decisions with it than without it.



There are three networking techniques commonly used as project management aids in planning and scheduling. These are CPM, PERT and PDM. While there are a virtually limitless array of bells, whistles, embellishments, gimmicks, devices and “brochure claims” associated with proprietary or modified techniques and programs, each can be placed in one of these three categories. When this is done, it becomes starkly evident, in most cases, that all the proprietarieness was added to get around, disguise or overcome a shortcoming or disadvantage indigenous to the basic technique.

Project managers are often deluged by self appointed experts touting their particular system or, more frequently, the one they’ve used and with which they feel comfortable. To the best of my knowledge there has not appeared an even modestly comprehensive tabulation or comparison of technique features, most program features resulting from being based on that technique and of the influence the project characteristics or demands can have on technique (and thus program) suitability. The attached tabulation attempts to do this for the three basic techniques and is believed to be self explanatory. Hopefully it is prepared in a form that will enable the project manager to separate chaff from wheat, decide what’s best for his current project and all this without getting tangled up in algorithms, core requirements, computerese expressions for features or results he needs, and schedulers or salesmen oratory.

One question that frequently is asked relates to the differences between PERT and CPM. The usual answer is that there were some early differences but that these have pretty much disappeared. I disagree strongly with this statement. There are some basic differences which, while they can be overcome or blurred in manual use of the technique, strongly influence the computer programs and techniques based on each technique. A perusal of the tabulation of Features of Networking Methods will reveal some major differences. I personally believe the differences result from one fundamental difference of the environments in which they were developed. CPM was developed to enable directing and scheduling the efforts of a cohesive group with a relatively common goal, not too disperse geographically, with good clean lines of communication and a relatively uniform consistent (corporate or at least project) set of procedures and methods. PERT was developed to enable the monitoring and displaying to all concerned the effects of efforts of autonomous groups with multiple (sometimes conflicting) goals converging only in general at the higher(est) levels, quite disperse geographically, with very structured (torturous) and extended lines of communication and with a very wide diversity of procedures and methods (sometimes conflicting for any one group) which had to be satisfied. These differences remain embedded in the philosophy, terminology, techniques, computer programs, applications and literature of the two techniques though time, cross-pollination and practice has blurred many of the early sharp distinctions.

This material has been reproduced with the permission of the copyright owner. Unauthorized reproduction of this material is strictly prohibited. For permission to reproduce this material, please contact PMI.



Related Content

  • PMI Pulse of the Profession 2020

    Pulse of the Profession 2020

    Are you future ready? Our Pulse of the Profession® research shows that organizations that prioritize maturing their delivery capabilities enjoy more successful outcomes.

  • New Data Reinforces Role of Project Leadership in Future of Work

    New Data Reinforces Role of Project Leadership in Future of Work

  • PM Network

    Enhanced Existence member content locked

    Augmented reality (AR) is getting increasingly real. Thanks to the ubiquity of social media and smartphones, more consumers have access to AR than ever before—though they may not realize it. At the…

  • PM Network

    Diversity Decode member content locked

    By Parsi, Novid Big tech is getting innovative to solve its lingering diversity problem. From implementing artificial intelligence (AI) hiring tools aimed at eliminating unconscious biases to hosting hackathons…

  • PM Network

    Waste Not, Want Not member content locked

    By Parsi, Novid If the high cost of private healthcare in the United States wasn’t bad enough, much of that expense is avoidable. According to a 2019 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, about…


Publishing or acceptance of an advertisement is neither a guarantee nor endorsement of the advertiser's product or service. View advertising policy.