Project management: In general practice, is PERT preferred over CPM for project evaluation when activity times are uncertain (e.g., R&D, new product development)?

Introduction / Context:
PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique) and CPM (Critical Path Method) are network-based planning tools. Their suitability depends on the nature of activity durations.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Pertinent context: uncertain activity times (e.g., R&D).
• PERT uses three-time estimates; CPM commonly assumes deterministic times.
• Goal is project evaluation in the presence of uncertainty.

Concept / Approach:
PERT models uncertainty via optimistic, most likely, and pessimistic times to compute expected durations and variance. This supports probabilistic completion analysis. CPM, while powerful for cost–time trade-offs with known times, is less suited for high uncertainty without modification.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Standard PM references recommend PERT for research or novel endeavours with variability in task times.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“No” would ignore PERT’s core strength: handling uncertain durations for evaluation.

Common Pitfalls:
Using single-point estimates in highly uncertain environments; neglecting variance aggregation along the critical path.

Final Answer:

Yes