If CPM is so bad, why have we been using it so long?

Lauri Koskela, Greg Howell, Ergo Pikas, Bhargav Dave

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Why has the Critical Path Method (CPM) been used so widely for so long given its inability to produce predictable outcomes? For shedding light on this paradox, the formative period of the CPM is analysed from two main angles. First, how was the CPM embedded into the construction management practice? Second, what was the methodological underpinning of the development of the CPM? These questions are researched through a literature review. In terms of embeddedness into practice, it turns out that the CPM morphed from being a way of production control, into a method for contract control. In consequence, the promotion of the CPM by owners has been crucial for pushing this method to be the mainstream approach to scheduling and production control. Regarding methodological underpinning, it turns out that the CPM was developed as a way of optimization, as part of the quantitative methods movement. This movement was largely based on the axiomatic approach to research. In good alignment with that approach, there was no attempt to empirically test quantitative models and their outcomes. In this context, the unrealistic assumptions and conceptualizations in CPM did not surface in forty years. These results are argued to be helpful in critical discussions on the role and merits of CPM and on the methodologies to be used in construction management research.

LanguageEnglish
Title of host publication22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction
Subtitle of host publicationUnderstanding and Improving Project Based Production, IGLC 2014
PublisherThe International Group for Lean Construction
Pages27-37
Number of pages11
Publication statusPublished - 2014
Externally publishedYes
Event22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction: Understanding and Improving Project Based Production - Oslo, Norway
Duration: 25 Jun 201427 Jun 2014
Conference number: 22

Conference

Conference22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction
Abbreviated titleIGLC 2014
CountryNorway
CityOslo
Period25/06/1427/06/14

Fingerprint

Production control
Scheduling

Cite this

Koskela, L., Howell, G., Pikas, E., & Dave, B. (2014). If CPM is so bad, why have we been using it so long? In 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction: Understanding and Improving Project Based Production, IGLC 2014 (pp. 27-37). The International Group for Lean Construction.
Koskela, Lauri ; Howell, Greg ; Pikas, Ergo ; Dave, Bhargav. / If CPM is so bad, why have we been using it so long?. 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction: Understanding and Improving Project Based Production, IGLC 2014. The International Group for Lean Construction, 2014. pp. 27-37
@inproceedings{f502c7b92d0b448bbe56a62611c49726,
title = "If CPM is so bad, why have we been using it so long?",
abstract = "Why has the Critical Path Method (CPM) been used so widely for so long given its inability to produce predictable outcomes? For shedding light on this paradox, the formative period of the CPM is analysed from two main angles. First, how was the CPM embedded into the construction management practice? Second, what was the methodological underpinning of the development of the CPM? These questions are researched through a literature review. In terms of embeddedness into practice, it turns out that the CPM morphed from being a way of production control, into a method for contract control. In consequence, the promotion of the CPM by owners has been crucial for pushing this method to be the mainstream approach to scheduling and production control. Regarding methodological underpinning, it turns out that the CPM was developed as a way of optimization, as part of the quantitative methods movement. This movement was largely based on the axiomatic approach to research. In good alignment with that approach, there was no attempt to empirically test quantitative models and their outcomes. In this context, the unrealistic assumptions and conceptualizations in CPM did not surface in forty years. These results are argued to be helpful in critical discussions on the role and merits of CPM and on the methodologies to be used in construction management research.",
keywords = "Construction management, Control, CPM, Critical path method, Production planning",
author = "Lauri Koskela and Greg Howell and Ergo Pikas and Bhargav Dave",
year = "2014",
language = "English",
pages = "27--37",
booktitle = "22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction",
publisher = "The International Group for Lean Construction",

}

Koskela, L, Howell, G, Pikas, E & Dave, B 2014, If CPM is so bad, why have we been using it so long? in 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction: Understanding and Improving Project Based Production, IGLC 2014. The International Group for Lean Construction, pp. 27-37, 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Oslo, Norway, 25/06/14.

If CPM is so bad, why have we been using it so long? / Koskela, Lauri; Howell, Greg; Pikas, Ergo; Dave, Bhargav.

22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction: Understanding and Improving Project Based Production, IGLC 2014. The International Group for Lean Construction, 2014. p. 27-37.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

TY - GEN

T1 - If CPM is so bad, why have we been using it so long?

AU - Koskela, Lauri

AU - Howell, Greg

AU - Pikas, Ergo

AU - Dave, Bhargav

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Why has the Critical Path Method (CPM) been used so widely for so long given its inability to produce predictable outcomes? For shedding light on this paradox, the formative period of the CPM is analysed from two main angles. First, how was the CPM embedded into the construction management practice? Second, what was the methodological underpinning of the development of the CPM? These questions are researched through a literature review. In terms of embeddedness into practice, it turns out that the CPM morphed from being a way of production control, into a method for contract control. In consequence, the promotion of the CPM by owners has been crucial for pushing this method to be the mainstream approach to scheduling and production control. Regarding methodological underpinning, it turns out that the CPM was developed as a way of optimization, as part of the quantitative methods movement. This movement was largely based on the axiomatic approach to research. In good alignment with that approach, there was no attempt to empirically test quantitative models and their outcomes. In this context, the unrealistic assumptions and conceptualizations in CPM did not surface in forty years. These results are argued to be helpful in critical discussions on the role and merits of CPM and on the methodologies to be used in construction management research.

AB - Why has the Critical Path Method (CPM) been used so widely for so long given its inability to produce predictable outcomes? For shedding light on this paradox, the formative period of the CPM is analysed from two main angles. First, how was the CPM embedded into the construction management practice? Second, what was the methodological underpinning of the development of the CPM? These questions are researched through a literature review. In terms of embeddedness into practice, it turns out that the CPM morphed from being a way of production control, into a method for contract control. In consequence, the promotion of the CPM by owners has been crucial for pushing this method to be the mainstream approach to scheduling and production control. Regarding methodological underpinning, it turns out that the CPM was developed as a way of optimization, as part of the quantitative methods movement. This movement was largely based on the axiomatic approach to research. In good alignment with that approach, there was no attempt to empirically test quantitative models and their outcomes. In this context, the unrealistic assumptions and conceptualizations in CPM did not surface in forty years. These results are argued to be helpful in critical discussions on the role and merits of CPM and on the methodologies to be used in construction management research.

KW - Construction management

KW - Control

KW - CPM

KW - Critical path method

KW - Production planning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84923382156&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://iglc.net/Papers/Conference/24

M3 - Conference contribution

SP - 27

EP - 37

BT - 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction

PB - The International Group for Lean Construction

ER -

Koskela L, Howell G, Pikas E, Dave B. If CPM is so bad, why have we been using it so long? In 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction: Understanding and Improving Project Based Production, IGLC 2014. The International Group for Lean Construction. 2014. p. 27-37