Talk:Program evaluation and review technique

message: There are two kinds of PERT diagrams. One is the sort shown in the article, which has nodes denoting stages of the project and arrows denoting tasks.  The other sort, which I did at college, has nodes denoting tasks and arrows denoting the dependencies between them.  The nodes tend to be shown as boxes with task information in them - there are various formats, one of which is like this
14          	3           	17
Do something	Do something	Do something
19          	5           	22
where the boxes are
early start     	duration        	early finish
Task description	Task description	Task description
late start      	slack           	late finish
(I'm not sure if the "early finish" and "late start" boxes were this or the other way round.)
-- Smjg 16:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two of a kind 

message: The figure seems to be a color-ized version of diagram shown at NetMBA, but with the NetMBA logo removed.
http://www.netmba.com/operations/project/pert/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelwest (talk • contribs) 03:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that they're completely different?  What am I missing? Kuru talk 03:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright issue 

message: Have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypEMdjslEOI and have Mary Poppendieck, at a Google Tech Talk, amongst other things tell you about the origins of PERT (starting at 25:14) as a smoke screen for congress to keep funding the cold war weapons program (it is easier to fund a control strategy than people doing something).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.132.94.115 (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PERT and its Origin - Mary Poppendieck's take on the matter at a Google Tech Talk in '08 

message: What does this phrase mean "include safety in the baseline schedule"?  Are we talking about padding estimates?  Please define "safety" in reference to a schedule.
What is a "a very large make-span"?  Is that a typo for "time-span"?  Is make-span a term of art in PERT lingo?
These two terms are unfamiliar to me, and I've worked with PERT charts and project management.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.105.40 (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; I studied PERT/CPM during my industrial engineering degree program, but am unfamiliar with those terms. Probably typos but it is so muddled, I'm unsure how to correct.--FeralOink (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncertainty in project scheduling 

message: I think "program evaluation and review technique" is a common name not a proper name and therefore should not be capitalized. I know it is accepted practice in the industry to capitalize terms especially when they are normally identified by acronym but in Wikipedia capitalization is used only for proper names. Jojalozzo 15:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clear from the "historical" piece I have just added that "Program Evaluation and Review Technique " is a tool, and therefore, a noun, rather than "an approach", and therefore a verb. And, moreover, it is not a "common name"; it is a very specific "proper noun". Therefore it should remain capitalized. The point being, I suppose, no matter how many people habitually call Bison bison "buffalo", the animals continue to remain bison.Lindsay658 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: PERT is a technique, method or approach. A PERT chart is a tool. Whether we use the name bison or buffalo we do not capitalize it. None of this is convincing me that program evaluation and review technique is a proper name. Jojalozzo 02:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Also, Program Evaluation and Review Technique is capitalized in a reference to it in U.S. patent no.3124885.Lindsay658 (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia capitalization is governed by its own rules: summed up as "avoid unnecessary capitalization". Usage in patents or in the industry does not change this. Jojalozzo 02:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Program Evaluation and Review Technique a proper name? 

message: Why is the user Herr Beethoven reverting edits that remove spaces from the block quote?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.172.36 (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing bad characters from the block quote 

message: An image used in this article, File:Pert example gantt chart.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Pert example gantt chart.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Embarassing typo in the 10th edition, p. 502: "Since there exists only one path through the network that is the longest, the other paths must be either equal in length to or shorter than that path."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.199.97.130 (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Harold Kerzner chapter on PERT

message: The last diagram in the Implementation system fails, as it does not list the slack/float times to the left and right of the task names as is common practice in the project management community.  Without this information, it is difficult to determine the critical path.  With this information, the critical path(s) (yes, there can be more than one) are those blocks (activities) where the slack/float time is zero. 75.70.164.249 (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Implementation Error