The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Application of a Technique for Research and Development Program Evaluation
Abstract
This paper describes the development and application of a technique for measuring and controlling development progress for the Polaris Fleet Ballistic Missile program, Special Projects Office, Bureau of Ordnance, U.S. Navy. Project PERT (Program Evaluation Research Task) was set up to develop, test, and implement a methodology for providing management with integrated and quantitative evaluation of (a) progress to date and the outlook for accomplishing the objectives of the FBM program, (b) validity of established plans and schedules for accomplishing the program objectives, and (c) effects of changes proposed in established plans. In the PERT model, the R and D program is characterized as a network of interrelated events to be achieved in proper ordered sequence. Basic data for the analysis consists of elapsed time estimates for activities which connect dependent events in the network. The time estimates are obtained from responsible technical persons and are subsequently expressed in probability terms. This model is described. Test of the model on a specific component, design of a management control system properly related to existing management systems, reduction to the NORC computer, difficulties in implementation and preliminary results to date are discussed. Limitations of the model, and possible refinements and use of the computer model for testing schedules and for management experimentation in resource and performance tradeoffs are described.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Greatest of a Finite Set of Random Variables
Clark, C. E. (1961) · Operations Research · doi:10.1287/opre.9.2.145 · Cited by 708
Self-citationA Simulation-Based Process Model for Managing Complex Design Projects
Cho, S.-H., & Eppinger, S. D. (2005) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2005.850722 · Cited by 293
Razavi, H., Robbins, S., Zeuzem, S., Negro, F., Buti, M., Duberg, A.-S., Roudot-Thoraval, F., Craxi, A., Manns, M., Marinho, R. T., et al. (2017) · The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1016/s2468-1253(17)30045-6 · Cited by 267
A new approach for project control under uncertainty. Going back to the basics
Acebes, F., Pajares, J., Galán, J. M., & López-Paredes, A. (2014) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.08.003 · Cited by 165
Christakis, D. A., Van Cleve, W., & Zimmerman, F. J. (2020) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.28786 · Cited by 161
Metadata
- Authors
- Malcolm, D. G., Roseboom, J. H., Clark, C. E., & Fazar, W.
- Venue
- Operations Research
- Published
- 1959-10
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 646-669
- ISSN
- 0030-364X (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5463
- OpenAlex
- W2077913849
- Cited by
- 930
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Application of a Technique for Research and Development Program Evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/opre.7.5.646
- The paper
- Malcolm, D. G., Roseboom, J. H., Clark, C. E., & Fazar, W. (1959). Application of a Technique for Research and Development Program Evaluation. Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.7.5.646
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
