IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/igg/jitpm0/v7y2016i3p74-87.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Buffer Sizing Methods to Compare Critical Chain Project Management with Critical Path

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammed Shurrab

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan)

  • Ghaleb Abbasi

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan)

Abstract

Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) provided a tangible progress to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. The critical chain project management (CCPM) differs from the traditional Critical Path Method (CPM) which includes never changing resource dependencies. CCPM improves the project plan by aggregating uncertainty into buffers at the end of activity paths. In this research, one hundred twenty random projects were generated and analyzed using Microsoft Project software according to the traditional CPM and the CCPM once using the sum of squares (SSQ) method and another using the cut & past (C&PM) method. CCPM-SSQ method revealed an average savings of 13% and 43% in duration and cost, with a standard deviation of 21 and 11 for duration and cost respectively. While the CCPM-C&PM method revealed an average overestimation of about 2% in duration and 43% savings in cost, with a standard deviation of 25 and 11 for duration and cost respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammed Shurrab & Ghaleb Abbasi, 2016. "Buffer Sizing Methods to Compare Critical Chain Project Management with Critical Path," International Journal of Information Technology Project Management (IJITPM), IGI Global, vol. 7(3), pages 74-87, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:igg:jitpm0:v:7:y:2016:i:3:p:74-87
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://services.igi-global.com/resolvedoi/resolve.aspx?doi=10.4018/IJITPM.2016070105
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:igg:jitpm0:v:7:y:2016:i:3:p:74-87. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journal Editor (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.igi-global.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.