## 5 Conclusions  
The CTCR methodology for the monitoring and control of complex construction projects integrates four fundamental components for weighting the activities that make up the timeline of a project. These are the cost of the activities, durations of the activities, critical path activities, and activities with higher risk of overdue periods and/or cost overrun. CTCR is based on standards and recommendations by established institutions with considerable experience in project management at an international level, such as the USA's Project Management Institute with its EVM methodology, the International Project Management Association, and International Standard ISO 21500:2012. Incorporating the cost, time, criticality, and risk variables means that the CTCR methodology makes estimations of physical progress and predictions of period to completion of the project that are more precise than other traditional methodologies. The results obtained illustrate this. CTCR also incorporates an adaptation of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) decision model that makes it possible to give weightings to each component--cost, time, criticality, and risks--in the project, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Level Difference**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CTCR**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**EVM**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Mean Difference** & \(p\)**-Value** & **Mean Difference** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline Completion-6 month & \(-\)0.3310 & 0.000 & \(-\)0.9212 & 0.000 \\ Completion-5 month & \(-\)0.1363 & 0.001 & \(-\)0.3891 & 0.000 \\ Completion-4 month & \(-\)0.0424 & 0.986 & \(-\)0.0000 & 1.000 \\ Completion-3 month & \(-\)0.0256 & 1.000 & 0.3961 & 0.000 \\ Completion-2 month & \(-\)0.0075 & 1.000 & 0.5578 & 0.000 \\ Completion-1 month & \(-\)0.0051 & 1.000 & 0.1988 & 0.000 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Results of the Games–Howell \(p\)-value test for equal means when applying the CTCR and EVM methodologies to Sopladora. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Level Difference**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CTCR**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**EVM**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Mean Difference** & \(p\)**-Value** & **Mean Difference** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline Completion-6 month & \(-\)0.3262 & 0.000 & \(-\)10.810 & 0.000 \\ Completion-5 month & \(-\)0.0985 & 0.488 & \(-\)0.4753 & 0.000 \\ Completion-4 month & \(-\)0.0799 & 0.844 & \(-\)0.1201 & 0.170 \\ Completion-3 month & \(-\)0.0790 & 0.874 & \(-\)0.1192 & 0.216 \\ Completion-2 month & \(-\)0.0758 & 0.919 & \(-\)0.0991 & 0.590 \\ Completion-1 month & \(-\)0.0394 & 1.000 & \(-\)0.0658 & 0.980 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Results of the Games–Howell \(p\)-value test for equal means when applying the CTCR and EVM methodologies to Santiago. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Hydroelectric Project**} & **Estimated Duration** & **Effective Prediction** & **Effective Prediction** \\  & **(Months)** & **CTCR (Months Prior** \\  & **to Completion)** & **EVM (Months Prior** \\ \hline [PERSON] & 75 & 6 & 5 \\ [PERSON] & 27 & 4 & 2 \\ [PERSON] & 47 & 4 & 1 \\ [PERSON] & 68 & 5 & 4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Effective prediction of the duration to completion of the project applying the CTCR and EVM methods. making it possible to achieve more effective indicators of physical-financial progress and make less subjective forecasts. Applying the CTCR methodology to four case studies in the hydropower sector has made it possible to demonstrate probabilistically and statistically that satisfactory results can be achieved, both in estimating physical-financial progress and in predicting cost and duration at completion of the projects with reasonable ranges for making decisions when faced with potential deviations, and even improving on the performance of other methodologies used extensively at the international level such as EVM.