International Journal of Project Management Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.

51-58, 1998
Pergamon ,~ 1997 Elsevier ScienceLtd and IPMA All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
0263-7863/98 $19.00 + 0.00

PII: S0263-7863(97)00012-4

Timing of control activities in

project planning

Massimo de Falco and Roberto Macchiaroli*

Dipartimento di Progettazione e Gestione Industriale, Sezione Impianti Industriali, Universita(c ) di Napoli
Federico H, Piaz=ale Tecchio 80, 80125 Napoli, Italy

This paper deals with the timing of monitoring and control in project planning. The need for
monitoring and control actions arise because projects are dynamic in nature and because of
changing environments. The monitoring of the project deviations from the planned schedule due
to environmental changes allows the generation of proper feedback to enable corrective actions.
After having reviewed the main reasons that suggest the opportunity to use structured
approaches to project control, we make a proposal for the quantitative determination of the time
instants when the monitoring and control actions should take place in order to effectively man-
age the projects. The proposal is based on the definition of an Effort Function. The quantitative
analysis of its concentration allows the allocation of the monitoring and control activities. ~
1997 Elsevier Science Ltd and I P M A
Keywords: Monitoring, control, project management

A recent investigation upon project failures confirms
that Organization & Management plays a major role
as the main cause of failures, representing 32.7% and
36.7% of the total reasons in, respectively, the periods
1986-1992 and 1986-1994. 7 Another big role is played
by Planning & Monitoring with its 15%. This illus-
trates that, despite the continuous evolution in the pro-
ject management field, the traditional approaches still
show a lack of appropriate methodologies for the pro-
ject control.
While academic studies have concentrated their
efforts on mathematical approaches, like risk analysis
or stochastic analysis, companies have mainly focused
their attention on empirical procedures like cost bud-
geting and resource allocation. The matching point
between the theoretical and practical approaches is still
far away, but, from our point of view, the academic
researches can work as a lighthouse to indicate poten-
tial areas of improvement and lead the managers
towards new techniques and tools.
Even in a raw analysis, it is possible to realize that
much more emphasis has been devoted to project de-
sign and planning than to project control.
Nevertheless, very frequently the plans are disregarded
also for the reasons reported above. The need for
Monitoring & Control actions arises because projects
are dynamic in nature and they are often carried out
in changing environments. The main factors affecting
existing plans are: revision of the activities duration
*Author for correspondence.
estimates, technical specifications changes, delivery fail-
ures, e t c . . . In this context, the monitoring of the pro-
ject deviations from the planned schedule due to
environmental changes allows the generation of proper
feedback to enable corrective actions. ~'2
Typically, the control activities are carried out at the
project milestones, where it is possible to clearly ident-
ify the output of the phase and to compare it with the
desired output. This type of control cannot be missed
and constitutes the basic approach in the Monitoring
& Control activity. However, the control of the output
at the end of the phase is risky and ineffective since
one can experience late recognition of problems.
Thus, intermediate points of control become necess-
ary to provide an effective on-process update of the
main project parameters, such as cost, resource, time,
work completion, etc. The introduction of an increase
in the number of Monitoring & Control activities
along the project time span requires the solution of
two additional decision-making problems, the fre-
quency and timing of control. A high frequency of
control, besides the associated direct cost, is time con-
suming and diverts resources from the main activities.
On the other hand, a low frequency does not allow an
early warning necessary to appropriately intervene.
Generally, the main factors affecting frequency de-
cisions are cost of monitoring, urgency of the project,
exposure to delays, average time span of the tasks
involved. 3
Concerning the timing of Monitoring & Control
actions, variable review periods provide several
alternatives: less intensive monitoring at the early

51
Timing of control activities in project planning." M de Falco and R Macchiaroli

PI P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P 9 P 9 P 10 P 11 P 12 P 13 P 14 P 15 P 16 P 17

I | I !
i I
I I
| I
I I
I i
I i I l
I |
I I i i
i i
i I
I |
!
a a
I I
I I
I

I |
| |
I
I |
II I
l i

.omo n /

oo o
<*.:* ~ ~ .~'~ ..'~i!~!~

Figure 1 Evolution of the cumulative effort function

stages and more reviews at the end, 5 more frequent each time frame (Figure 1 shows a possible project
monitoring at the beginning and less afterwards, 4 plan and the corresponding cumulative effort func-
review after completion of key activities. An exper- tion). The quantitative analysis of the effort and cumu-
imental investigation into the performance of the lative effort functions allows the computation of the
different alternatives is reported in Partovi and corresponding concentration. We consider that all
Burton. 6 Additionally, the Monitoring & Control func- cases can be reduced to four main typologies, where
tions do not necessarily need to be performed concur- the effort is more concentrated at the beginning, at the
rently: it is possible, for example, to hold weekly end or at a certain point of the project length, or is
meetings to monitor progress, but to perform correc- not concentrated at all (Figure 2 shows the evolution
tive actions monthly. of the cumulative effort function in the four cases).
From the discussion made so far, it appears evident The next step consists in the allocation of the
that, besides the basic planning activities normally Monitoring & Control activities according to the inten-
needed in project planning, it is of paramount import- sity and distribution of the effort. The control density
ance to design an accurate control plan, which defines function, whose shape is assumed to follow a normal
the type and the distribution of surveys. curve, is computed according to the effort concen-
tration. The definition of a framework with the
In this paper we propose a framework to make de-
description of the monitoring and control activities
cisions concerning the timing and frequency of
provides project managers with an effective estimation
Monitoring & Control actions. The basic principle
of both the control resources needed and their allo-
underlying our approach is that projects can follow cation. This way they have the possibility to intervene
different patterns with different behaviours. This with timely correction actions when the actual situ-
makes clear the need of different allocations of control ation differs from the desirable one and to react effec-
points. The project critical moments, in terms of tively, since the deviations increase with the distance
resource needs, complexity of work and constraints, between two check points and with the effort required.
are typically distributed not uniformly (even if the uni-
form distribution is sometimes a good approximation).
Our proposal is to consider this distribution in plan-
ning the control, concentrating the check points when Definition of the project characteristics
the work contents are critical and relieving them when The typical description of the project evolution, given
the work appears smooth. in terms of the cumulative cost, is represented as a
Accordingly with this, it is preferable to concentrate logistic curve with its 'S' shape, which shows the differ-
the Monitoring & Control actions in those critical ent acceleration of the three phases: at the beginning
periods. Thus, the problem is shifted on the definition the inertial friction keeps down the expenses, in the
of a function which expresses the effort required in middle a strong increase shows up with the execution

52
 Timing of control activities in project planning: M de Falco and R Macchiarofi
Effort A Effort B
~ T T brae~ h m e
Eftort C Effort D p|
hme
Figure 2 The four typical evolution of the cumulative effort
function
of most activities and at the end the work slows down
again. However, this schematization in some cases can
be misleading. In fact, it is not unusual to find projects
where most of the activities are concentrated at the
end or at the beginning of the cycle. The first situation
is typical in the eastern world, where one waits till the
last minutes to perform the tasks, an example of the
second is the software development process where
most of the critical work is in the initial design phase.
The difference we tried to emphasize with these two
examples appears even more evident if an "effort' dis-
tribution is considered rather than the typical cost dis-
tribution.
Generalizing this type of description, it is possible to
identify four basic patterns to which the projects can
be reduced. In Figure 2 their differences are immedi-
ately recognized. The first three patterns have already
been discussed, while the last one, the homogeneous,
describes the situation where (i) it is hard to identify
any particular distri~bution of the effort or (ii) the evol-
ution is highly irregular so that the best fit curve
remains the constant distribution.
The consistency and reliability of the classification
made so far, however, requires a number of assump-
tions to be made for the project characteristics. The
following hypothesis are by no means limitative and
normally apply to a broad range of projects:
Modularity: the project in its life cycle should
not be decomposable in autonomous modules. If
such modularity exists, however, one can still apply
our approach to the individual modules separately.
Approximation: to classify projects according to
the scheme in Figure 2, local irregular behaviours
should be smoothed, given their limited influence
over the whole project pattern.
Measurability: the classification is submitted to
the definition of an 'effort function', which should
evaluate how the resources--not only physical, but
also intangible--are taken up.
Timing of monitoring and control
The aim of this work is to determine the control distri-
bution in the project design phase. The determination
of the control plan allows the detection of possible de-
viations from the original plan. Thus the proposed
approach consists of the following steps (Figure 3
reports the logic framework of our proposal):
Definition Computation of Determination
of Effort Intensity of of Control
Function Effort Deviation Distribution
Classification
of Project
Characteristic
Parameters
Figure 3 The logic framework of the proposal
Computation of Effort D&tribution: all calculation
are based on the definition of an effort function. In
this paper a relationship with the number of activi-
ties and the total slack in each period is proposed.
Classification of Project: once the effort distri-
bution in a specific project has been determined, it
is possible to identify the category it belongs to, by
comparing the cumulative distribution with the
homogeneous cumulative distribution. This step
defines the algorithm to use in the following phases.
Computation of Intensity of Effort Deviation: the
area included between the calculated effort distri-
bution and the homogeneous effort distribution is
the measure of the deviation intensity. This area is
attained differently in the different project cat-
egories.
Characteristic Parameters of the Control Density
Function: assuming the control density function is
normally distributed, the next step consists in deter-
mining its characteristic parameters # and a. These
parameters are related to the intensity of deviation.
Determination of Control Actions: timing of con-
trol activities is determined according to the control
density function.
In the following subsections all steps of the pro-
posed approach are descibed in detail.
Computation of the effort function
Once a detailed project plan has been developed (using
standard techniques like the critical path method), an
exact activities schedule is determined. Accordingly,
for each activity j, starting and ending dates are
known. For each activity, the slack time Sj is com-
puted as the difference between the latest permitted
completion time and the actual planned completion
time. Note that this definition is different from the one
of the slack variable used in CPM for the critical path
identification. In that case, in fact, it is defined as the
difference between the latest and earliest completion
times.
The first step consists in dividing the planned project
length T into n time intervals. A time interval
iE(1. . . . . n) is defined as an interval during which no ac-
tivity starts or ends. Accordingly, during each time
interval &(1 . . . . . n), the number of active tasks is con-
stant. For each interval i the time horizon has been
divided into, it is necessary to compute the effort
required. The effort E, in period i is defined as a func-
tion of
• the total number of activities being carried out in
period i, denoted as NAt and;
53
Timing of control activities in project planning: M de Fah'o and R Macchlaroli
• the total a m o u n t of slack in period i, denoted as TS,
and defined as the sum of the slack times Sj of the
individual activities carried out in period i.
Let A = {a0} be the period-activity incidence
matrix, whose elements attain the value 1 if activity j is
active during period i, 0 otherwise. If N denotes the
total n u m b e r o f activities the project is c o m p o s e d of,
the total n u m b e r o f activities being carried out in
period i (NA,) and the total a m o u n t o f slack in period
i (TS,) are simply c o m p u t e d as:
N N
NA, = Z a,j and TS, = ~__,av . Ss
j=l 1=1
A suitable expression for E, is given by:
NA,
E, = k x/--~t + 1
The relation imposes that the effort is linearly
dependent u p o n the total n u m b e r o f active operations
(i.e. activities) and is inversely related to the total slack
time. The square root is introduced since the effect o f
the term TS is weaker. Figure 4 plots the function
defined in (1). N o t e that Equation (1) gives one poss-
ible way to c o m p u t e the effort E;. Obviously, one
could also have used a different relationship, provided
that E, is directly related to NA, and inversely related
to TS,. Depending u p o n specific needs and/or con-
ditions, nothing precludes the use o f different
equations.
F o r the discussion contained in the next sections, it
is convenient to normalize the effort, i.e. to consider
the cumulated effort over the considered project time
horizon. Therefore the constant value k is defined so
that the total sum of the efforts over the time horizon
T equals 100. T o this aim, it must hold that
h~__~lk T,/T-~ + 1 - 100
where n is the total n u m b e r of intervals the project
length T has been divided into. With a simple substi-
tution the effort function (1) becomes
E , = 1 0 0 { ~ ~. NAb_ ) - ' NA,
~,h__Z~lT4~-S-h + 1 4'-T--&,+ 1
.......':-..._
Effl
Total Slack Time 0 0 Number of Active Tasks
Figure 4 The effort function E
54
Computation of the effort concentration
In the following the timing o f control actions is going
to be related to the effort concentration. T o this aim it
is crucial to obtain a measure of how the effort itself is
distributed along the total project length. It is ben-
eficial for our purposes to consider the cumulative
effort function, denoted as CE. If the total project dur-
ation interval T is divided into n intervals 5,
i = (1 ..... n), CE(t,) is given by
I
CE(t,) = Z E ( t k ) (4)
k=l
Although the project time horizon has been divided
in a finite n u m b e r of time intervals, i.e. the function
CE(t,) is a discrete-time function, for the sake of
clarity in the following it will be considered as a con-
(1)
tinuous one. This can be obtained, for example, inter-
polating the values CE(t,) assuming that they are
attained in the center of the time intervals t,. If the
effort E is constant over every time interval, i.e.
E(t) = Eo, the cumulated effort curve CE(t) would be
a straight line with gradient lIT.
In the four typical pattern described in Figure 2, it
holds that:
(A) E(t) is m o r e concentrated at the beginning o f
the project, i.e. CE(t) lies always over the constant
effort curve,
(B) E(t) is m o r e concentrated at the end of the
project, i.e. CE(t) lies always below the constant
effort curve,
(C) E(t) is m o r e concentrated at some stage of the
project, i.e. CE(t) lies below the constant effort
curve, then crosses it once and finally lies above it,
(D) E(t) is constant over the project duration, i.e.
CE(t) has a linear trend.
A quantitative measure of the effort concentration
(2) (intensity) can be obtained by evaluating the deviation
between the actual CE(t) curve and the constant effort
curve. The intensity is measured as the area AT
between the two lines. Additionally, introducing a par-
ameter c related to AT, it is possible to obtain a nor-
malized evaluation. Let us consider all cases
separately.
(3) (A) The m a x i m u m intensity is obtained when all
the effort is needed in the first period. The m i n i m u m
when the actual curve C(t) and the constant effort
curve are identical. The area At, therefore, can vary
between 0 and T/2. Introducing a normalization
coefficient 2/T, so that c = 2Ar/T, it holds that c
lies between 0 and 1.
(B) The m a x i m u m intensity is obtained when all
the effort is needed in the last period. The m i n i m u m
when the actual curve C(t) and the constant effort
curve are identical. The area At, therefore, can vary
between -T/2 and 0. Introducing a normalization
coefficient 2/T, so that c = 2Ar/T, it holds that c
lies between - 1 and 0.
(C) Let us suppose that the effort is less concen-
trated in the initial part of the project, then the
function CE(t) crosses the constant effort curve at
some point to, and lies above it until the end of the
project. Considering the opposite case would lead to
no conceptual distinction. If to is the crossing point,
 Timing of control activities in project planning: M de Falco and R Macchiaroli
the m a x i m u m negative area is given by t2o/2.T, the
m a x i m u m positive area is given by ( T - 2 . t o +
t2o/T)/2. To measure the concentration, it is necess-
ary to sum the absolute values o f the two
areas. Therefore, the m a x i m u m area obtainable is
[t2o/T+ T / 2 - t o ] , so AT can vary between 0
and [tZ/T + T / 2 - t o ] . N o t e that if to = T/2, the
m a x i m u m obtainable area is AT = T/4, as expected.
Accordingly, the parameter c is c o m p u t e d as
c = AT/(t2o/T + T/2 - to).
U p to now, we have shown the four typical evol-
utions o f the cumulated effort curve and we have pre-
sented a way to c o m p u t e the parameter c, which gives
a quantitative measure o f the effort concentration.
N o t e that a very i m p o r t a n t information to store is the
occurrence o f a single crossing o f the constant effort
curve. T o this purpose it is sufficient to use a flag.
Characteristic parameters of the control distribution
To give an effective timing o f the control activities, the
next step consists in linking the effort to the control
distribution. According to this distribution, consistent
decisions will be made concerning the timing o f control
actions. Let us show h o w to c o m p u t e the control dis-
tribution. Assuming it is normally distributed, i.e. that
its shape can be described as a n o r m a l curve, it is
necessary to determine its characteristics parameter,
the m e a n / t and the standard deviation a. Their values
are based on the value o f c. N o t e that referring to a
normally distributed control density function, one is
simply m a k i n g an assumption on the shape o f the
curve. There is no reference to any related stochastic
variable.
F o r the four typical situations let us impose that:
(A) if the effort is maximally concentrated at the
beginning (i.e. if c = 1), then ~ = 0 and a = 0; if it
is minimally concentrated, i.e. it is uniformly dis-
tributed (c = 0), then the following situation D
holds;
(B) if the effort is maximally concentrated at the
end (i.e. if c = - 1), then /~ = T and s = 0; if it is
minimally concentrated, i.e. it is uniformly distribu-
ted (c = 0), then the following situation D holds;
(C) if the effort is concentrated in a certain period
to, then # = to and a = undefined (see later).
Figure 5 The project graph
(D) if the effort is constantly distributed, i.e. it
holds that c = 0, then/~ = T/2 and a = oo.
U p to now, the values attained by /t and tr corre-
spondingly to the four typical cases have been given.
N o w , it is necessary to find suitable equations which,
besides satisfying the relations given so far in the typi-
cal cases, allow a straightforward c o m p u t a t i o n o f /t
and a, starting f r o m the value o f parameter c. In cases
A, B and D, two suitable relations to express the mean
and variance dependence u p o n the value attained by
parameter c are
T
/z = ~-. (1 - c) and a = H - ( 1 - Icl) (5)
where H is a sufficiently high n u m b e r introduced to let
the curve be sufficiently flat in the considered interval
(0, T) when the cumulated effort approaches the con-
stant effort curve. In other words, in case D the effort
is constantly distributed and, accordingly, the control
density function is forced to be approximately uni-
form. But, since the control distribution is assumed to
be normal, H has to be adequately chosen to let such
distribution approximate a u n i f o r m distribution in the
considered interval (0, T). In particular, the corre-
sponding standard deviation has to be very high. To
quantify H properly, one can define the m a x i m u m
admissible deviation between a straight line and the
actual curve. Using the analytic definition o f the nor-
mal density distribution it is straightforward to verify
that, to obtain a 10% and 1% m a x i m u m deviation, it
is sufficient to let H be equal to, respectively, 1.6.T
and 5.T.
It is straightforward to verify that Equation (5)
satisfy conditions in (A), (B) and (D). One more con-
sideration concerns Equation (5). A justification for
the use o f a linear a p p r o x i m a t i o n is that this assump-
tion is by no means restrictive since the objective, i.e.
the determination o f control activities timing, for all
practical purposes, does not require extreme precision.
In case C instead, besides the necessary check on the
value attained by the flag, the mean equals to, as said
before. Concerning the standard deviation, it is poss-
ible to follow two different approaches:
(a) split the curve in two parts, consider the value
attained by c in b o t h parts and c o m p u t e two differ-
ent values for the standard deviation as
55
Timing of control activities in project planning: M de Falco and R Macchiaroli

a = H . ( 1 - Ic[ ). This clearly results in a non-sym- attained by the normal cumulative distribution.
metric distribution curve, so the analytical results Accordingly, the timing of the control instant tck
presented in the next section are more difficult to (k = 1.... m) is given as the solution of the integral
obtain; equations
(b) compute the concentration according to the
relation c = AT/(t2o/T + T / 2 - t o ) and the standard (x -//)2
deviation as a = H . ( 1 - Icl). This clearly results Q(tck) - Q(tck - 1) = Q* • 1 / ''~
~ e v/~" a 2 dx
into a normal distribution with given standard devi- J
ation, so the following results are easily applied.
1
As an example, considering case A, the control den- = -- (8)
D1
sity function is given by
where // and a are computed according to the results
( t - T / 2 . (1 - c)) 2 shown in the previous section.
fc(t) -- 1 • e - 2. H 2. (1 - Icl) 2 (6)
x / ~ . H(1 - leD
Example

In this section we give an example of the application

Determ&ation of the control distribution
Suppose one has decided that a total o f m control ac-
tivities should take place within the project duration T.
The timing o f these 177 control activities is determined
so that the cumulative control effort Q(t) between two
consecutive control actions is constant. The cumulative
control effort Q(t) is determined from Equation (6) by
integration.
It is well known that the normal distribution has an
unbounded definition d o m a i n ] - ~ , + cx~[and that the
corresponding undefinite integral is 1. So, to normalize
the area Q(t) between 0 and T, it is necessary to com-
pute the quantity
(X -- ll)2
1 jT
Q * - ~ 0e 2 . a 2 dx
As known, the integration cannot be done analyti-
cally, but one can use numerical integration or resort
to the special statistical tables, reporting the values
of the proposed methodology. The project under study
is purposely extremely simple.
Consider the graph reported in Figure 5, which cor-
responds to the simple project mentioned before. In
the graph the activities names, durations, and their
precedence relations are shown. Additionally, earliest
and latest starting times are reported and the slack
times are computed.
Suppose now that, besides carrying out the basic cal-
culations and identifying the critical path, the project
manager (or whoever) has also determined when non-
critical activities should be carried out--according, for
example, to desired cost or resources profiles--i.e, has
determined their actual starting and ending dates. This
decision corresponds to the determination of the actual
slack times Sj as defined in this paper. The actual
planned activities profile can be depicted with the
(7) G A N N T chart reported in Figure 6.
To start the application of the proposed method, the
first step consists in the identification of time periods
- - recall that a time period is defined as an interval
during which no activity starts or ends. Accordingly,

Period 7 9 10 11
Activity
A
\ \ \
8
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
L
M
N

Time Units o lo 30 90 13o_\ 181\ 192 \ 247

131 162 203

Non-critical activities I Critical activities

Figure 6 The GANNT chart of the considered project

56
 Timing o f control activities in project planning: M de Falco and R Macchiaroli

Table 1 Acitivifies, actual slack times, effort and cumulative effort for each period
Period Activities NA TS E CE
1 a,b 2 60 2 2
2 b,c 2 60 2 4
3 c,d,e 3 21 8,31 12,31
4 d,e,f 3 21 8,31 20,62
5 e,f 2 1 60,94 81,56
6 f,g,h 3 31 5,71 87,28
7 g,h,i 3 31 5,71 92,99
8 h,i,l 3 85 2,13 95,11
9 l,m 2 55 2,18 97,29
10 m,n 2 44 2,71 100

100 - -,- - -,- - -,- - -,- - -,- - -,- - -,- - ; . . . .

90
80
70
Cmnulative Effort
50
Profile

[] ConstructEffort Curve

4i 0 I i i~ ~ . _i - _ ~1. ~ i 2 0 i 3i i i0 i i i1i l 0i i

0 10 30 90 110 130 131 161 162 192203

Figure 7 The cumulative Effort Profile of the considered project

as shown in Figure 6, the complete planning horizon
can be divided in 10 time periods plus the last time
period when only the last critical activity is active.
Table 1 reports, for each time period, its duration,
the on-going activities, the effort and the cumulative
effort, computed according to relations (3) and (4).
Figure 7 shows a graphical representation of the
cumulative effort profile, compared to the constant
effort curve. Note that in the last period, not reported,
only the last critical activity is active. Since we assume
that no significant control activity can be performed
during this last period, we simply omit it. Accordingly,
the time span reported in Figure 7 is 203.
The figure clearly shows that the considered project
falls in the case C, i.e. the cumulative effort is less con-
centrated at the beginning, then it crosses the constant
effort curve at to = 120 and then it lies above it for
the remainder of the project duration. Table 2 reports
the significant quantities introduced in the paper, i.e.
the area A~r, the concentration index c, the character-
istic parameters/~ and a computed as in (5).
As described in the last sections, we are assuming
that the control distribution functions is normally
shaped and that, accordingly, it is immediately
described by means of its characteristic parameters /z
and a. Supposing that the total number of control ac-
tivities is 10, due for example to budget restrictions,
the next step consists in the determination of the con-
trol instants. The allocation of control activities is
determined according to relations (7) and (8). The cor-
responding calculations lead to the control instants al-
location reported in Figure 8. As we could obviously
expect from the effort concentration, Figure 8 shows
how the control instants are significantly concentrated
around to = 120.
Conclusions
It is widely recognized that planning and monitoring
play a major role as the cause of project failures.
Despite the continuous evolution in the project man-
agement field, it appears evident that the traditional
approaches still show a lack of appropriate method-
ologies for the project control. The proposed method-
ology to determine the timing of monitoring and
control actions in project planning is based on the deft-

Table 2 The significant quantifies related to the project

Ar T to c It
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
2962 203 120 0,56 120 43,51
Figure 8 The control instants allocation

57
Tinting o f c o n t r o l activities in p r o j e c t planning: M de Falco a n d R M a c c h i a r o l i

nition of an effort function, defined as a non linear Massimo de Falco was born in
function of the total number o f active operations and Naples, Italy In 1965. He graduated
the total slack time. The quantitative analysis of its in Aeronautic Engmeering at the
concentration allows the allocation of the monitoring Umversi O' of" Naples 'Federlco H' in
1991 He has been a nlemher of
and control activities to uniformly distribute the effort Sloan 's Operations Management
between consecutive control actions. Group tl'orknlg on Demgn-lor-
The possibility to monitor the project deviations Manu/acturmg Decision Making
from the planned schedule due to environmental protect at the Massaehusset,t
changes is the first step to generate proper feedback Institute ol Technology, In Boston.
He was AdJunct Pro/essor ~[
actions and to predispose corrective actions. Industrial Plants Management at
the University oJ Salerno. He is a
Ph.D. candidate tn hldustrtal Plants
References at Department o f hldustrtal Design
1 Meredith, J. R. and Mantel, S J , Prolect Management, 2nd and Management at the University o[" Naples He ts currently a
edn. New York: Wiley, 1989. researcher and pro[essor o] Operations Management and
2. Owens, T., Effective project m a n a g e m e n t Small Busmess Rep., Quantitative Methods for the M B A program at the Stoa(c)
Business School, bt Ercolano. Naples. He is also a partner consult-
N o v 1988, pp. 45-52.
3. Krupp, J A. Project plan charting: An effective alternative. ant hi Network Consulthlg Group, where he acts as the coordinator
Production and lnvento O' Management 25(1), 1984, 31 47. in consulting projects in the Production, Technology and Total
4. Burman, P. J., Precedence Networks ,/or Project Planning and Quahty areas. He t,s a member o[ A l P (ltahan Production
Control. Mac Graw-Hill, London U K , 1972. Association ).
5. Kalmann, R. A. and Probst, F R., Pert rewew possibdltles.
Journal oJ System Management, 1971, 39-41.
6. Partow, F. Y. and Burton, J. Timing of monitoring and control Roberto Macchlaroli was born m
of C P M networks. 1EEE Transactions on Enghleermg Bart, Italy & 1964 He graduated in
Management 40(1), 1993, 68 75. Electronic Engmeering at the
7. Selin, G. and Selin, M , Reasons for project management suc- Umversl O' o1" Naples "Federtco H' in
cess and failure m multiproject enwronment. Procee~hngs ol the 1989. He Ivorked a,s a System
12th lnternet World Congress on Protect Management, Oslo, AnaO'st #t the Management
Norway, 1994, pp. 513 519. Systems Department at the Procter
attd Gamble CornpatO' lit Ronle Jor
two )'ears, with main responstbtlities
including the maintenance, develop-
ment and optimization (~1 manage-
ment ©,stems/or manufactztrmg and
logistics. He attained his Ph.D. #l
Eh, ctronte Engineer#tg and
Computer Science in 1994 trtth the
Department o / S y s t e m s and Computer Science at the Universi O' of
Naples. with a dissertation deahng with modelling and optimization
problems lit automated production O'stems. Currently, he is with
the Department o! htdu,ttrtal Design and Management at the same
UntversiO', and he is Adjunct Profe.s,sor o f htdustrial Automation at
the Faculties oJ Engineering of the UmversiO' o[ Salerno and oJ the
Universi O' of Naples 'Federtco H' His main research interests
include optimization tools j o r industrial engnleering, discrete event
dynamic O'stems, production management and oplimt.Tatlon, plan-
ning and schednhng problenls /or automated production O'stems
He t,t a member o~ I N F O R M S attd IEEE.

58