Sign-up today to join over 4 million learners already on ALISON:

ALISON: Diploma in Project Management

Comments about Project management toolset - Project management tools revision

The comment must be about:
- Module: Project management toolset
- Topic: Project management tools revision

Latest Comments

  • Masila Cornellius Kenya Am really grateful for Alison courses. they have really quenched my academic thirsty and here i am, am nothing else but success in what i wish to attain in project management. thank you.
    2014-10-20 07:10:39

  • Owan Manyo Ayuk Walters Cameroon OK. Nice
    2014-10-16 16:10:37

  • Sunday Sayepe Nigeria This is really interesting. I now understand why, despite being the older, most Project Managers prefer to use GANTT chart over PERT. It creates a straight forward pattern that can be easily followed.
    2014-10-15 11:10:22

  • Owan Manyo Ayuk Walters Cameroon This is a good check up. The exercise have test my mastery of the course so far. This is virtually a good footing.
    2014-10-12 20:10:05

  • George Ugim Nigeria what must first be put in place when constructing a GHANTT chart?
    2014-10-08 21:10:53

  • Connie Mwema Botswana Can technology also be considered while estimating activity time?
    2014-09-23 11:09:45

    • REAGAN IKIE Zaire yes of course
      2014-10-02 11:10:38
    • Ko Ko Oo Singapore Need the experiences also.
      2014-09-29 09:09:12
  • ANNETTE ROBINSON United States of America Would you revise the Project with the same tool that was initially chosen?
    2014-09-08 22:09:43

  • Francis Kakwetin Lesingo Kenya Critical path method ; Does the sequences of systematic in such a way that one does not jump one activity before doing the first in series ?
    2014-08-08 16:08:55

    • Kenneth M Akahoho Ghana yes because some activity has to be done before other start
      2014-10-22 00:10:27
    • Zulfikar Bhanji Kenya Yes and even if it did there the realistic time frame which you could re-arrange depending on the time frame
      2014-09-02 14:09:28
    • Yai Deng Yai South Sudan Yes.
      2014-08-24 14:08:01
  • Je Rouse United Kingdom I think that I prefer the GANNT method as this fits the types of projects that I am involved with
    2014-08-07 15:08:46

    • REAGAN IKIE Zaire i have the same point of view with you because hability to have knowledge of critical way
      2014-10-02 11:10:34
    • George Fragos Greece I think so..
      2014-08-30 15:08:05
    • Yai Deng Yai South Sudan Both are necessary for project success.
      2014-08-24 14:08:50
    • neil mafi Zimbabwe but be careful of missing the interlinking dependency of events and earning an average result
      2014-08-08 10:08:16
  • Samuel Kofi Odoi Ghana In this context it is correct? A GANTT chart displays tasks along a horizontal time scale. GANTT charts should show the best possible way to complete the task in the shortest time. Activities can be done in parallel or sequentially, and the GANTT chart shows this clearly. PERT diagrams or critical path networks, on the other hand, use a graphical form to show relationships between activities and time frame On a PERT diagram network Grid lines show the interdependence of events and the critical path is used to show the sequence of events that have the sum of the longest duration. To allow for uncertainty when organizations are estimating activity times, three estimates are provided, the pessimisti. time, the most probable time and the optimistic time.
    2014-07-26 06:07:03

    • Kenneth M Akahoho Ghana yes that is correct
      2014-10-22 00:10:19
    • Zulfikar Bhanji Kenya I tend to agree though I would look at the historical date with what has happened in the past at similar projects just as a view on time frame
      2014-09-02 14:09:02
    • Yai Deng Yai South Sudan Yes that is very true.
      2014-08-24 14:08:12
    • neil mafi Zimbabwe in essence the GANTT chart is the foundation to planning and projection and in this case the PERT
      2014-08-08 10:08:32
  • Janvier Nyandamu Rwanda o
    2014-07-22 18:07:04

  • Vikram Vasant Rotkar United Kingdom What is risk appetite?
    2014-07-21 15:07:47

    • Zulfikar Bhanji Kenya This could be put in two ways risk can pay of in big ways like in a war or it could go wrong in a situation like freeing of hostages both have windows of opening and closing
      2014-09-02 14:09:25
    • Yai Deng Yai South Sudan This the burning desire for risk.
      2014-08-24 14:08:00
  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia Management Both during and after World War II the United States operated the largest and most advanced logistic system in the world. Its wartime operations stressed speed, volume, and risk-taking more than efficiency and economy. The postwar years, with accelerated technological change, skyrocketing costs, and diminished public interest in defense, brought a revulsion against military prodigality, manifested by calls for reduced defense budgets and a growing demand for more efficient management of the military establishment. This demand culminated in a thorough overhaul of the whole system in the 1960s. One result was the reorganization of logistic activities in the three military services, generally along functional lines, with large logistic commands operating under functional staff supervision. In each service, however, each major weapon system was centrally managed by a separate project officer, and central inventory control was maintained for large commodity groups. In 1961 a new defense supply agency was established to manage on a wholesale basis the procurement, storage, and distribution of common military supplies and the administration of certain common services. The most far-reaching managerial reforms of the period were instituted by the U.S. defense secretary, Robert S. McNamara (1961–68), in the resource allocation process. A unified defense planning–programming–budgeting system provided for five-year projections of force, manpower, and dollar requirements for all defense activities, classified into eight or nine major programs (such as strategic forces) that cut across the lines of traditional service responsibilities. The system was introduced in other federal departments after 1965, and elements of it were adopted by the British and other governments. In 1966 a program was inaugurated to integrate management accounting at the operating level with the programming–budgeting system. At the end of the 1960s a new administration restored some of the initiative in the planning–budgeting–programming cycle to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military services. The reforms of the 1960s exploited the whole range of current managerial methodology. The basic techniques, such as systems and operations analysis, all stressed precise, scientific, usually quantitative formulations of problems and mathematical approaches to rational decision making. Systems analysis, the technique associated with defense planning and programming, was a method of economic and mathematical analysis useful in dealing with complex problems of choice under conditions of uncertainty. The technological foundation of this improved logistic management was the high-speed electronic computer, which was being used chiefly in inventory control; in automated operations at depots, bases, and stations; in transmitting and processing supply data; in personnel administration; and in command-and-control networks.
    2014-07-17 20:07:15

    • Yai Deng Yai South Sudan Correct.
      2014-08-24 14:08:45
  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia Management Both during and after World War II the United States operated the largest and most advanced logistic system in the world. Its wartime operations stressed speed, volume, and risk-taking more than efficiency and economy. The postwar years, with accelerated technological change, skyrocketing costs, and diminished public interest in defense, brought a revulsion against military prodigality, manifested by calls for reduced defense budgets and a growing demand for more efficient management of the military establishment. This demand culminated in a thorough overhaul of the whole system in the 1960s. One result was the reorganization of logistic activities in the three military services, generally along functional lines, with large logistic commands operating under functional staff supervision. In each service, however, each major weapon system was centrally managed by a separate project officer, and central inventory control was maintained for large commodity groups. In 1961 a new defense supply agency was established to manage on a wholesale basis the procurement, storage, and distribution of common military supplies and the administration of certain common services. The most far-reaching managerial reforms of the period were instituted by the U.S. defense secretary, Robert S. McNamara (1961–68), in the resource allocation process. A unified defense planning–programming–budgeting system provided for five-year projections of force, manpower, and dollar requirements for all defense activities, classified into eight or nine major programs (such as strategic forces) that cut across the lines of traditional service responsibilities. The system was introduced in other federal departments after 1965, and elements of it were adopted by the British and other governments. In 1966 a program was inaugurated to integrate management accounting at the operating level with the programming–budgeting system. At the end of the 1960s a new administration restored some of the initiative in the planning–budgeting–programming cycle to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military services. The reforms of the 1960s exploited the whole range of current managerial methodology. The basic techniques, such as systems and operations analysis, all stressed precise, scientific, usually quantitative formulations of problems and mathematical approaches to rational decision making. Systems analysis, the technique associated with defense planning and programming, was a method of economic and mathematical analysis useful in dealing with complex problems of choice under conditions of uncertainty. The technological foundation of this improved logistic management was the high-speed electronic computer, which was being used chiefly in inventory control; in automated operations at depots, bases, and stations; in transmitting and processing supply data; in personnel administration; and in command-and-control networks.
    2014-07-17 20:07:04

    • Zulfikar Bhanji Kenya Yes but it also depends on the availability of tools and intelligence reports which must be taken in account
      2014-09-02 14:09:37
    • Yai Deng Yai South Sudan I agree.
      2014-08-24 14:08:02
  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia Management Both during and after World War II the United States operated the largest and most advanced logistic system in the world. Its wartime operations stressed speed, volume, and risk-taking more than efficiency and economy. The postwar years, with accelerated technological change, skyrocketing costs, and diminished public interest in defense, brought a revulsion against military prodigality, manifested by calls for reduced defense budgets and a growing demand for more efficient management of the military establishment. This demand culminated in a thorough overhaul of the whole system in the 1960s. One result was the reorganization of logistic activities in the three military services, generally along functional lines, with large logistic commands operating under functional staff supervision. In each service, however, each major weapon system was centrally managed by a separate project officer, and central inventory control was maintained for large commodity groups. In 1961 a new defense supply agency was established to manage on a wholesale basis the procurement, storage, and distribution of common military supplies and the administration of certain common services. The most far-reaching managerial reforms of the period were instituted by the U.S. defense secretary, Robert S. McNamara (1961–68), in the resource allocation process. A unified defense planning–programming–budgeting system provided for five-year projections of force, manpower, and dollar requirements for all defense activities, classified into eight or nine major programs (such as strategic forces) that cut across the lines of traditional service responsibilities. The system was introduced in other federal departments after 1965, and elements of it were adopted by the British and other governments. In 1966 a program was inaugurated to integrate management accounting at the operating level with the programming–budgeting system. At the end of the 1960s a new administration restored some of the initiative in the planning–budgeting–programming cycle to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military services. The reforms of the 1960s exploited the whole range of current managerial methodology. The basic techniques, such as systems and operations analysis, all stressed precise, scientific, usually quantitative formulations of problems and mathematical approaches to rational decision making. Systems analysis, the technique associated with defense planning and programming, was a method of economic and mathematical analysis useful in dealing with complex problems of choice under conditions of uncertainty. The technological foundation of this improved logistic management was the high-speed electronic computer, which was being used chiefly in inventory control; in automated operations at depots, bases, and stations; in transmitting and processing supply data; in personnel administration; and in command-and-control networks.
    2014-07-17 20:07:49

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia Management Both during and after World War II the United States operated the largest and most advanced logistic system in the world. Its wartime operations stressed speed, volume, and risk-taking more than efficiency and economy. The postwar years, with accelerated technological change, skyrocketing costs, and diminished public interest in defense, brought a revulsion against military prodigality, manifested by calls for reduced defense budgets and a growing demand for more efficient management of the military establishment. This demand culminated in a thorough overhaul of the whole system in the 1960s. One result was the reorganization of logistic activities in the three military services, generally along functional lines, with large logistic commands operating under functional staff supervision. In each service, however, each major weapon system was centrally managed by a separate project officer, and central inventory control was maintained for large commodity groups. In 1961 a new defense supply agency was established to manage on a wholesale basis the procurement, storage, and distribution of common military supplies and the administration of certain common services. The most far-reaching managerial reforms of the period were instituted by the U.S. defense secretary, Robert S. McNamara (1961–68), in the resource allocation process. A unified defense planning–programming–budgeting system provided for five-year projections of force, manpower, and dollar requirements for all defense activities, classified into eight or nine major programs (such as strategic forces) that cut across the lines of traditional service responsibilities. The system was introduced in other federal departments after 1965, and elements of it were adopted by the British and other governments. In 1966 a program was inaugurated to integrate management accounting at the operating level with the programming–budgeting system. At the end of the 1960s a new administration restored some of the initiative in the planning–budgeting–programming cycle to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military services. The reforms of the 1960s exploited the whole range of current managerial methodology. The basic techniques, such as systems and operations analysis, all stressed precise, scientific, usually quantitative formulations of problems and mathematical approaches to rational decision making. Systems analysis, the technique associated with defense planning and programming, was a method of economic and mathematical analysis useful in dealing with complex problems of choice under conditions of uncertainty. The technological foundation of this improved logistic management was the high-speed electronic computer, which was being used chiefly in inventory control; in automated operations at depots, bases, and stations; in transmitting and processing supply data; in personnel administration; and in command-and-control networks.
    2014-07-17 20:07:31

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia Management Both during and after World War II the United States operated the largest and most advanced logistic system in the world. Its wartime operations stressed speed, volume, and risk-taking more than efficiency and economy. The postwar years, with accelerated technological change, skyrocketing costs, and diminished public interest in defense, brought a revulsion against military prodigality, manifested by calls for reduced defense budgets and a growing demand for more efficient management of the military establishment. This demand culminated in a thorough overhaul of the whole system in the 1960s. One result was the reorganization of logistic activities in the three military services, generally along functional lines, with large logistic commands operating under functional staff supervision. In each service, however, each major weapon system was centrally managed by a separate project officer, and central inventory control was maintained for large commodity groups. In 1961 a new defense supply agency was established to manage on a wholesale basis the procurement, storage, and distribution of common military supplies and the administration of certain common services. The most far-reaching managerial reforms of the period were instituted by the U.S. defense secretary, Robert S. McNamara (1961–68), in the resource allocation process. A unified defense planning–programming–budgeting system provided for five-year projections of force, manpower, and dollar requirements for all defense activities, classified into eight or nine major programs (such as strategic forces) that cut across the lines of traditional service responsibilities. The system was introduced in other federal departments after 1965, and elements of it were adopted by the British and other governments. In 1966 a program was inaugurated to integrate management accounting at the operating level with the programming–budgeting system. At the end of the 1960s a new administration restored some of the initiative in the planning–budgeting–programming cycle to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military services. The reforms of the 1960s exploited the whole range of current managerial methodology. The basic techniques, such as systems and operations analysis, all stressed precise, scientific, usually quantitative formulations of problems and mathematical approaches to rational decision making. Systems analysis, the technique associated with defense planning and programming, was a method of economic and mathematical analysis useful in dealing with complex problems of choice under conditions of uncertainty. The technological foundation of this improved logistic management was the high-speed electronic computer, which was being used chiefly in inventory control; in automated operations at depots, bases, and stations; in transmitting and processing supply data; in personnel administration; and in command-and-control networks.
    2014-07-17 20:07:15

  • Alexander Njoku Nigeria A project management tools criterials should be adopted and a GANTT chart need to be review again.....?
    2014-07-17 16:07:31

    • Zulfikar Bhanji Kenya Depending on location and situation on the ground this example would be in place like disaster zones or countries with political uncertainty
      2014-09-02 14:09:33
    • Yai Deng Yai South Sudan I don't think so.
      2014-08-24 14:08:46
  • Olanrewaju Akinseye Nigeria Need to go over it again...
    2014-07-03 08:07:30

  • William Tulak United States of America GANTT charts should show the best possible way to complete the task in?
    2014-06-27 00:06:01

Loading Menu