Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Despite the fact that network-based methods, such as the critical path method (CPM), have been demonstrated to be effective tools for scheduling and progress control, they are not appropriate for projects that involve repetitive activities. This is due to the fact that repetitive operations frequently generate differing production rates. Bar charts, on the other hand, are easy to create and comprehend, and they have a level of appeal that is global; yet, they are unable to display the dependencies that exist between activities. One of the most significant advantages of the LOB approach is that it offers information on output rate and duration in the form of graphics that may be easily understood. Planning and scheduling approaches that are mostly utilised in the construction and manufacturing industries, which are characterised by a high prevalence of repetitive processes, are known as linear scheduling methods. The Line-of-Balance Scheduling Technique, often known as LOBST, is a linear scheduling system that enables the balancing of activities in such a way that each activity is carried out in a continuous and efficient manner in each successive unit. In addition to this, the research focuses on the distinction between the two scheduling approaches, namely the Critical Path Method (CPM) and the Line of Balance Method (LOB). In this study, we examine a number of journals that are associated with LOB and CPM in order to gain an understanding of the methodologies. Furthermore, in this work, a VICO control software 2008 version used for to put on the technique, and a case study of a road is also implemented on it, with the goal of achieving a deeper understanding of the approach.
Kendre et al. (Thu,) studied this question.