Talk:Critical path method

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Outdated by 25 years!

The arrow diagram shown in this article reflects a methodology (Arrow Diagramming Method) that has not been popular for more than 25 years! This is the kind of outdated, obsolete and useless informations that infects the Scheudling Practice. This page needs to be completely rewritten. As soon as I have time, I will put something up, for review and consideration.ICSGlobal (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Someone Else's Comment

131.110.83.17 16:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)The statement critical path has no float is not correct. Critical path is defined as "the longest path through the network with the least amount of float. The critical path can contain float. But, it contains the least amount of float.

[edit] I disagree

A better definition of critical path is: the longest path of interdependent activities in a schedule network, whereby if any activity on the critical path is delayed by a certain duration, the project completion will be delayed by the same duration.

The critical path will be the path with the least amount of float, but many experts believe the critical path of a schedule should have no float. While it is possible for a critical path to have float, such float is most likely the result of a project completion constraint (i.e., a "Must Finish" constraint) in the scheduling software, which will give a project that is ahead of schedule postitive float and a project that is behind schedule negative float. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pkurtross (talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Kantian Origins?

I am in no way a management expert, but If I'm not mistaken, the whole notion of "critical path" originated as a concept in philosophy, in Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. If that's the case -- and if this isn't a matter of the same term being reinvented for use in an entirely different sense -- it really ought to be mentioned here. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)