Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Open access Jurnal

Comparative Analysis of CPM and PERT Methods for Scheduling the Repair Process of KMP. Kormomolin

Zona Laut Jurnal Inovasi Sains Dan Teknologi Kelautan · Vol. ume (2026) · pp. 190–197

DOI
10.62012/gf4h2p38
ISSN
2721-5717, 2747-2124
Published
2026-07-21
Publisher
Departemen Teknik Kelautan Universitas Hasanuddin
Language
en
License
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

Abstract

English

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.

Bahasa Indonesia

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.

Keywords

Collaboration network of the authors

21 authors · 37 co-authorship links

Hover or tap a name to highlight its co-authors. Double-click to open the author's page.

  • Affiliation unknown
  • Different organisations
  • Same organisation
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Thicker line = more joint articles · bigger circle = more articles
Show as table
Co-authorOrganisationJoint articles
Habibi PalippuiAffiliation unknown3
Fuad Mahfud AssidiqAffiliation unknown2
Muh. SyaifullahAffiliation unknown1
Paroka ParokaAffiliation unknown1
Risal RisalAffiliation unknown1
Firman HusainAffiliation unknown1
Cynthia Sampe LoloAffiliation unknown1
Daniel Mohammad RosyidAffiliation unknown1
SilvianitaAffiliation unknown1
Windi WidianingrumAffiliation unknown1
Daeng ParokaAffiliation unknown1
Makbul MubarakAffiliation unknown1
Ahmad Faiq Dhiyaulhaq KaryaAffiliation unknown1
Nurul HaslindahAffiliation unknown1
Salsa FitrahAffiliation unknown1
Andi KhairAffiliation unknown1
Andi Babul KhairAffiliation unknown1
Heriana KhairAffiliation unknown1
Egi SikalaAffiliation unknown1

Affiliations come from OpenAlex; journal OAI-PMH metadata carries none. Authors without an OpenAlex ID are matched by name, which can merge or split people.

Metadata source: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) https://journal.unhas.ac.id/index.php/zonalaut/oai, first harvested 2 Nov 2026, last seen 2 Nov 2026.
Original metadata (oai_dc)
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en">Comparative Analysis of CPM and PERT Methods for Scheduling the Repair  Process of KMP. Kormomolin</dc:title>
	<dc:title xml:lang="id">Comparative Analysis of CPM and PERT Methods for Scheduling the Repair  Process of KMP. Kormomolin</dc:title>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Jariah, Ainun</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="id">Jariah, Ainun</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="id">Sade, Juswan</dc:creator>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="id">Keywords:  CPM, Critical Path, KMP. Kormomolin, PERT, Probability, Ship repair.</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="id">Project management</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="id">manajemen proyek</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="id">Ms. Project</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="id">reparasi kapal</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="id">CPM</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="id">PERT</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="id">KMP. Kormomolin</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="id">Jalur Kritis</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">CPM</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">critical path</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">KMP. Kormomolin</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">PERT</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">probability</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">ship repair</dc:subject>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en">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.</dc:description>
	<dc:description xml:lang="id">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.</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en">Departemen Teknik Kelautan Universitas Hasanuddin</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2026-07-21</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://journal.unhas.ac.id/index.php/zonalaut/article/view/48371</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.62012/gf4h2p38</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en">Zona Laut Jurnal Inovasi Sains Dan Teknologi Kelautan; Volume 7, Issue 2, July 2026 Edition; 190-197</dc:source>
	<dc:source xml:lang="id">Zona Laut : Jurnal Inovasi Sains Dan Teknologi  Kelautan; Volume 7, Issue 2, July 2026 Edition; 190-197</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2721-5717</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2747-2124</dc:source>
	<dc:language>en</dc:language>
	<dc:language>id</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://journal.unhas.ac.id/index.php/zonalaut/article/view/48371/14757</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en">Copyright (c) 2026 Ainun Jariah, Juswan Sade</dc:rights>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>