Project scheduling tools: Do PERT and Gantt charts exist specifically to track the timing of engineering change orders (ECOs), or are they general-purpose schedule/coordination tools that can include ECOs among many other activities?

Introduction / Context:
Pert (Program/Project Evaluation and Review Technique) and Gantt charts are foundational project management visuals used to plan, sequence, and track tasks across product development. The statement claims they are used specifically to track engineering change orders (ECOs). This item probes whether learners can distinguish general scheduling/coordination tools from a single governance artifact like an ECO.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Projects include many workstreams: design, analysis, prototyping, testing, sourcing, compliance, and release.
• ECOs are formal records controlling configuration changes after baseline or during controlled development.
• PERT highlights task dependencies and critical path; Gantt visualizes tasks versus time.

Concept / Approach:
PERT and Gantt are general frameworks. They can and often do include ECO-related tasks (prepare change, conduct CCB review, implement, verify), but they are not specifically or exclusively for ECO tracking. ECO control typically lives in PLM/EDM systems with dedicated workflows, approvals, and traceability, which may feed summary status into the schedule. Thus, the claim of specificity is inaccurate.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Review any comprehensive project schedule: ECOs are present alongside many unrelated tasks (tooling kick-off, DVP&R tests, supplier PPAP, certification audits). The charts serve the entire program, not only change control.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Statements tying correctness to aerospace, PLM usage, or board cadence confuse governance context with the inherent purpose of the charts.

Common Pitfalls:
Conflating configuration management artifacts with project management tools; assuming one artifact (ECO) defines the schedule's purpose.

Final Answer:
Incorrect