Skip to main content

Bar chart vs CPM/PERT as planning tool

Short answer

Bar (Gantt) chart, supported by CPM for large projects. It is easy to prepare and understand by site engineers, foremen and clients, progress can be marked directly, it links to resource and material schedules, and it is cheap to create. Standard building durations make PERT’s probabilistic estimates unnecessary.

Among CPM, PERT and bar chart, which planning tool do you prefer for building construction? Explain why (why do you prefer the bar chart as a planning tool?).

Preferred tool for building construction: the bar (Gantt) chart, supported by CPM for complex or large projects.

Comparison

PointBar chartCPMPERT
BasisActivities against time scaleNetwork, deterministic timesNetwork, probabilistic times
EaseVery easy to prepare and readModerateComplex
Dependency shownWeakClearClear
Critical path / floatNot shown directlyShownShown
Best forSimple, repetitive jobsConstruction with known timesR&D, uncertain tasks
UpdatingEasyNeeds recalculationNeeds recalculation

Why the bar chart for buildings

  1. Building works use well-known activities and standard durations, so PERT's three-time estimates are unnecessary.
  2. Site engineers, foremen and the client understand it readily, so it works as a communication tool at the site.
  3. Progress can be marked directly (planned vs actual) with little effort.
  4. It can be linked to resource and material schedules, and cash flow.
  5. It is cheap and quick to prepare without software.
  6. Its limitation (no dependency shown) can be removed by linked bar charts or by a CPM network behind it for large buildings.

For a small or medium building a bar chart is enough; for a high-rise or a large complex a CPM network with a bar chart output is best.

✓ Answer checked by Claude Opus 5.5 (high effort)

Related questions

All Construction Management chapter 2 questions →