Comparative Analysis of CPM and PERT Methods for Scheduling the Repair Process of KMP. Kormomolin
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
In the maritime industry, scheduling ship repair projects is an important aspect that determines operational efficiency and navigational safety. An appropriate scheduling method can help optimize project duration and manage uncertainties that may arise during project implementation. Two commonly used methods are the Critical Path Method (CPM) and the Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT), which apply deterministic and probabilistic approaches, respectively. This study was conducted on the repair project of KMP. Kormomolin, which had an initial planned duration of 52 days and involved 58 technical activities. The CPM method was used to identify the critical path based on fixed activity durations obtained from the repair list, while the PERT method was applied to estimate project duration using three-time estimates: optimistic, most likely, and pessimistic. The analysis was carried out using Microsoft Project and manual calculations to determine Early Finish (EF), Late Finish (LF), Total Float, and the probability of project completion. The CPM analysis showed that the project could be completed within 48 days, with a critical path consisting of activities with no slack. Meanwhile, the PERT method produced an estimated project duration of 50 days, with a completion probability of 95.82%. The CPM method provides stricter time control, whereas PERT offers greater flexibility in dealing with uncertainty. CPM is more suitable for projects with a stable work structure and clear activity sequences, while PERT is more appropriate for projects involving many variables and risks. The integration of both methods is recommended to produce more adaptive and comprehensive project planning in the ship repair industry.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Allow anyone to modify, improve, and make derivative works, even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit to you for the original work.
Accepted 2026-07-04
Published 2026-07-21
References
[1] R. W. Griffin, Management, 13th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2021.
[2] N. Azizah, “Penjadwalan ulang proyek pembangunan gedung kantor 2 lantai menggunakan metode CPM dan PERT di PT. Sumber Usaha Sukses,” Undergraduate Thesis, Department of Industrial Engineering, Universitas Mercu Buana, Jakarta, 2017.
[3] P. Luhur, et al., Analisis Efisiensi Reparasi Kapal di Galangan Nasional. Surabaya: ITS Press, 2020.
[4] M. Nudin, et al., Perencanaan Material dalam Reparasi Kapal. Makassar: Universitas Hasanuddin, 2023.
[5] T. Mulyono, Teknik Penjadwalan Proyek dengan CPM dan PERT. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu, 2017.
[6] G. Wirawan, “Penerapan metode CCPM dan CPM pada penjadwalan proyek perbaikan kapal BC30002,” Undergraduate Thesis, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya, 2017.
[7] I. Soeharto, Manajemen Proyek: Dari Konseptual sampai Operasional. Jakarta: Erlangga, 1999.
[8] Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge: PMBOK Guide, 7th ed. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute, 2021.
[9] H. Kerzner, Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling, 12th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2017.
[10] J. R. Meredith, S. J. Mantel, and S. M. Shafer, Project Management: A Managerial Approach, 10th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2018.
[11] R. K. Wysocki, Effective Project Management: Traditional, Agile, Extreme, 8th ed. Indianapolis: John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
[12] J. M. Nicholas and H. Steyn, Project Management for Engineering, Business and Technology, 6th ed. New York: Routledge, 2020.
[13] L. S. Srinath, PERT and CPM: Principles and Applications, 3rd ed. New Delhi: Affiliated East-West Press, 2001.
[14] S. S. Mubarak, Construction Project Scheduling and Control, 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
[15] M. Stopford, Maritime Economics, 4th ed. London: Routledge, 2020.