##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

  •   Thalisson de Brito Dinelli

  •   Marcelo Albuquerque de Oliveira

  •   Raimundo Kennedy Vieira

  •   Erika Souza de Melo

Abstract

A project is a unique event that has an established deadline and with a purpose to meet a specific need of the team interested in the project. The objective of this work was to identify which method would be the most adequate for the reality of the studied environment and to show the benefits and losses in the adoption of each one of these methods. To achieve this objective, an analysis of 25 projects was carried out between the years of July 2019 and June 2019 to obtain a sufficient database and with these data to carry out a comparative study between three different methods of estimating deadlines in relation to what was actually practiced. The projects were divided into six main stages, the opening of the project, approval of the purchase order, delivery, confirmation of the start of operations, capitalization of assets and closing of the project. The first stage of data collection was to capture the number of days required to complete each stage in each of the 25 projects analyzed and thereby calculate minimum, maximum and average points of execution. With the data obtained from these projects, a simulation was made for the case of using the adapted media, Pert and Pert methodology. The studied environment has as a singularity the occurrence of multiple simultaneous projects and taking place in different stages. After comparative analyzes, it was Pert for presenting a greater balance between the metrics "projects within the deadline" and "variation of project X actual," however, the study also showed a lot of instability in the processes studied, so future studies to understand the discrepancy for the amount of days needed to perform a similar activity on different projects.

Keywords: Average time, PERT, Project management, Project schedule

References

PMI. Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide – Sixth Edition - 2017).

Lynch, J. (2015). Standish Group 2015 Chaos Report. Available at https://www.infoq.com/articles/standish-chaos-2015.

Rowe, S. (2020). Project management for small projects. Berrett-Koehler Publisher, inc. Oakland.

Carvalho, A. B., Abreu, I. M. C., Pedrozo, I. F. (2013) Fluxograma como ferramenta de aperfeiçoamento e de controle em instituições públicas. Revista de Administração da UFSM, v. 6, n. 2, p. 373-394.

Amaral, M. (2005). Technology innovation and project management: building bridges across triple helix way. In: International Triple Helix Conference, 5, 2005, Turin. Anais... Turin: Triple Helix, 2005. p. 1-13.

Cynthia O. U. (2020) Implementation of Project Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) and Critical Path Method (CPM): A Comparative Study. Int J Ind Operations Res 3:004.

Luiz, E. L. A. (2011). Otimização da relação tempocusto na construção civil: um estudo de caso. Ribeirão Preto: USP.

Danielson, C. & Khan, H. (2015). Risk Analysis of project time and cost through Monte Carlo Method, Tese de doutorado, Stockholm, Sweden.

Andrade, E. L. (2004). Introdução à Pesquisa Operacional - Métodos e Modelos para Análise de Decisões. LTC.

Heusner, M. M. (2020). Gerenciamento do cronograma em obras de infraestrutura: Um estudo de caso, Ijuí.

Miguel, A. (2010). Gestão de Projectos de Software (4ª ed.). Lisboa, Portugal: FCA – Editora de Informática.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

How to Cite
Dinelli, T. de B., Oliveira, M. A. de, Vieira, R. K., & Melo, E. S. de. (2021). Comparative Study of Methodologies for Schedule Management in an Environment of Multiple Simultaneous Projects. European Journal of Business and Management Research, 6(3), 146-150. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejbmr.2021.6.3.886