ANALYTICAL STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF PROJECT SCHEDULING

TECHNIQUES ON RESOURCE ALLOCATION EFFICIENCY IN

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS OF ILOCOS NORTE

KAYCELINE HASEGAWA DOMINGO

ANGEL KEITH DEQUILLA LUNA
SHANIAH ROAH BAL NIÑO
SHANAIA HEART POROL VALDEZ

THESIS

Department of Civil Engineering

College of Engineering
MARIANO MARCOS STATE UNIVERSITY
City of Batac 2906 Ilocos Norte

May 2025
 APPROVAL SHEET

This thesis manuscript entitled, ANALYTICAL STUDY ON THE

IMPACT OF PROJECT SCHEDULING TECHNIQUES ON RESOURCE
ALLOCATION EFFICIENCY IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS OF ILOCOS
NORTE, prepared and submitted by KAYCELINE H. DOMINGO, ANGEL
KEITH D. LUNA, SHANIAH ROAH B. NIÑO, and SHANAIA HEART P.
VALDEZ for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, is hereby
endorsed.

ENGR. CHRISTIAN N. BAYANGOS ENGR. ZARAH IVANA G. DUBLA

Member, Advisory Committee Member, Advisory Committee

ENGR. JOHN CARLO R. TABIJE

Member, Advisory Committee

ENGR. MAR VIANDREUS I. RUIZ

Chair, Advisory Committee
______________
Date Signed

Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor

of Science in Civil Engineering.

ENGR. KENNETH L. EDRA DR. SHARONA Q. BARROGA

Department Chair Dean
______________ ______________
Date Signed Date Signed

RECORDED BY:

ENGR. ANESSA M. DELA CRUZ

ii
 Research Coordinator
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Shanaia Heart Porol Valdez is a dedicated student of Mariano Marcos State

University, pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering major in

Construction Engineering and Management. She is one of the authors of the

undergraduate thesis titled "Analytical Study on the Impact of Project Scheduling

Techniques on Resource Allocation Efficiency in Construction Projects of Ilocos

Norte,” which reflects her commitment to addressing real-world challenges in the

construction industry through research and innovation.

Valdez’s educational background laid a strong foundation for her academic

and professional pursuits. She graduated Salutatorian from Bugnay Elementary

School (2008–2015), With High Honors at Bingao National High School (2015–

2019), and With Honors at General Artemio Ricarte Senior High School (2019–

2021). Continuing her journey at Mariano Marcos State University since 2021, she

has consistently demonstrated excellence and perseverance, being a proud recipient of

several prestigious recognitions, including the Leadership Award (2015 & 2018), the

Provincial Government of Ilocos Norte Scholarship (2019–2021), and the DOST-SEI

Undergraduate Scholarship (2021–present).

Her research interests focus on enhancing project management practices in

construction, particularly in optimizing resource allocation through efficient

iii
scheduling techniques. Motivated by a passion for systematic problem-solving and

inspired by the urgent need for more sustainable and effective construction practices

in her home province, Valdez chose to investigate how methods such as PERT-CPM

and Gantt Charts influence project outcomes. This focus was nurtured through her

academic training and exposure to the challenges faced by local construction projects

in Ilocos Norte.

Professionally, Valdez expanded her practical knowledge during her

internship at Althea Construction, gained valuable practical experience through a

combination of fieldwork and office assignments. In the field, she performed tasks

related to project supervision, monitoring, and evaluation; inspected project sites to

ensure progress and compliance with safety and design standards; participated in

various construction stages; attended on-site lectures and demonstrations; conducted

materials testing for quality control; and prepared progress assessments. In the office,

she contributed by preparing construction plans and drawings, designing structures in

accordance with national and international standards using design software, preparing

cost estimates, bills of materials, and programs of work, attending lectures on

construction safety and technical documentation, and preparing narrative reports.

These experiences enhanced her technical skills and deepened her understanding of

the complexities of managing construction projects efficiently.

Throughout her academic career, Valdez consistently pursued excellence not

only in coursework but also through practical application of her knowledge. Although

iv
her undergraduate years were focused on study and fieldwork, her work in the thesis

manuscript itself stands as a scholarly contribution, intended to serve construction

managers, policymakers, and future researchers interested in improving resource

efficiency within the construction sector of Ilocos Norte and beyond.

Looking ahead, Shanaia Heart Valdez aspires to become a licensed civil

engineer and a project manager specializing in construction management. She aims to

further her expertise by pursuing advanced studies and professional certifications,

with the goal of leading innovative projects that prioritize resource efficiency,

sustainability, and operational excellence. Her undergraduate thesis is a meaningful

stepping stone towards her vision of contributing to the advancement of the

Philippine construction industry.

SHANAIA HEART P. VALDEZ

v
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Kayceline Hasegawa Domingo has always been fascinated by how structures

shape the way people live and connect. This early interest in the built environment,

along with a growing passion for community development, led her to pursue a

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering at Mariano Marcos State University – Batac

Campus. Through the program, she has gained a strong foundation in areas like

structural design, materials testing, and project planning. One of the highlights of her

academic journey has been her group’s undergraduate thesis, “Analytical Study on

the Impact of Project Scheduling Techniques on Resource Allocation Efficiency in

Construction Projects of Ilocos Norte,” which allowed her to explore how effective

planning influences project outcomes.

Kayceline’s dedication to learning started early. She graduated as the Class

Salutatorian of Maananteng Elementary School in 2015 and went on to complete

Junior and Senior High School at Solsona National High School, both with honors.

Now in her fourth year of college, she continues to build her skills through a mix of

coursework, lab activities, and fieldwork, all of which prepare her for the challenges

of real-world engineering. More than just pursuing a degree, she’s driven by a desire

to help shape stronger, more connected communities through smart and sustainable

infrastructure
vi
 Her research interests include project scheduling, resource optimization, and

overall efficiency in construction project delivery. The frequent occurrence of delays

and mismanagement in actual construction settings motivated her to explore how

proper scheduling methods could improve workflow and productivity—particularly in

the context of local projects in Ilocos Norte.

Beyond the classroom, she gained practical exposure through site visits and

seminars that provided insights into how real-world construction projects are

organized and managed. These experiences gave context to their research and helped

solidify her interest in the strategic aspects of engineering projects. While this thesis

marks her first formal contribution to academic research, it has significantly deepened

her understanding of civil engineering applications—especially in construction

planning and project evaluation. It also strengthened her skills in technical writing,

analytical thinking, and collaborative problem-solving in a research environment.

Looking ahead, Kayceline hopes to become a licensed Civil Engineer, with a

focus on construction project management. She’s passionate about helping build

projects that are not just efficient and well-organized, but also sustainable and truly

responsive to the needs of the people who will use them. She sees the experience she

gained from their thesis as a valuable starting point—something that taught her how

thoughtful planning can make a real difference. For her, engineering is more than just

numbers and deadlines; it’s about creating spaces that serve, support, and strengthen

communities.

vii
 Kayceline H. Domingo

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Angel Keith Dequilla Luna is a committed student of Mariano Marcos State

University, pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering major in

Construction Engineering and Management. She is one of the authors of the

undergraduate thesis titled "Analytical Study on the Impact of Project Scheduling

Techniques on Resource Allocation Efficiency in Construction Projects of Ilocos

Norte," a work that showcases her dedication to addressing practical issues in

construction through research and innovation.

Luna’s educational journey reflects a consistent record of academic excellence

and perseverance. She completed her elementary education at Dariwdiw Elementary

School (2008–2015), graduating With Distinction. She continued her secondary

education at Batac Junior College (2015–2019), where she graduated With Honors,

viii
and maintained her exemplary performance at General Artemio Ricarte Senior High

School (2019–2021), graduating With Honors.

At Mariano Marcos State University, Luna honed her skills in project

management and construction engineering, with a particular interest in improving

scheduling techniques to optimize resource use. Her thesis focuses on evaluating the

effectiveness of project management tools such as PERT-CPM and Gantt Charts in

construction projects within Ilocos Norte. Through this research, Luna and her co-

authors aim to provide valuable insights that can benefit construction managers,

engineers, and policymakers in achieving more efficient and timely project execution.

Motivated by a desire to contribute meaningfully to the field of construction and

inspired by the challenges faced by local infrastructure projects, Luna continues to

explore solutions that combine technical knowledge with practical impact. Her

undergraduate thesis marks an important step in her academic and professional

development, and she envisions a future where she plays a key role in driving

innovation and sustainability in the construction industry.

Looking ahead, Angel Keith Luna aspires to become a licensed civil engineer

and a project manager specializing in construction management. She is determined to

pursue further studies and professional certifications to deepen her expertise and lead

projects that promote efficiency, sustainability, and excellence in the built

environment.

ix
 Angel Keith D. Luna

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Shaniah Roah B. Niño is a student of Mariano Marcos State University,

currently pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering major in Construction

Engineering and Management. She is one of the authors of the undergraduate thesis

titled “Analytical Study on the Impact of Project Scheduling Techniques on Resource

Allocation Efficiency in Construction Projects of Ilocos Norte,” a research endeavour

that demonstrate her commitment to contributing solutions to real-world issues in the

construction industry through analytical insight and innovation.

Niño's foundational education was marked by academic excellence and

commitment to learning. She graduated as Fifth Honors from Paoay Central

Elementary School (2008–2015). She continued her secondary education at Paoay

National High School, where she was a student under the Special Science Curriculum

and later as a Senior High School STEM student, graduating With Honors in both
x
phases (2015–2019 and 2019–2021). By her strong academic background she

continues to show determination and desire for learning to her present studies in civil

engineering.

Her research interests focus on better construction project management,

specifically in improving the efficiency of resource allocation through the application

of modern scheduling techniques. Motivated by a desire to find solutions to the urgent

issues in construction practices within her province and beyond. Niño and her group

mates explored how techniques like PERT-CPM and Gantt Charts can significantly

influence labour, material, and equipment resource efficiency in construction projects

through their thesis.

Beyond academics, Niño has developed an interest in integrating technical

knowledge with practical application. The undergraduate research work reflects her

analytical mind set and her goal of contributing to more efficient, sustainable, and

well-managed construction projects in Ilocos Norte. She aims for their work to serve

as a reference for industry professionals, local policymakers, and fellow researchers

striving for improvement in project management and resource use.

Shaniah Roah B. Niño

xi
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This undergraduate thesis, "Analytical Study on the Impact of Project

Scheduling Techniques on Resource Allocation Efficiency in Construction Projects of

Ilocos Norte," marks the culmination of our academic journey—one made possible

through the unwavering support, guidance, and encouragement of many individuals

and institutions.

First and foremost, we express our deepest gratitude to our thesis adviser,

Engr. Mar Viandreus I. Ruiz, for his invaluable guidance, constructive feedback, and

patient mentorship throughout every phase of this research. His insights and

dedication greatly shaped the direction and quality of our study.

We are also profoundly thankful to the esteemed members of our Advisory

Committee: Engr. Christian N. Bayangos and Engr. Zarah Ivana G. Dubla, as well as

our committee chair, Engr. John Carlo R. Tabije, for their expertise, insightful

xii
comments, and encouragement that helped refine our work and elevate it to its fullest

potential.

To our Department Chair, Engr. Kenneth L. Edra, and our respected College

Dean, Dr. Sharona Q. Barroga, we are grateful for the academic support and the

opportunity to carry out this research under the College of Engineering.

We would also like to sincerely thank the Department of Public Works and

Highways (DPWH) – Ilocos Norte 1st District Engineering Office for allowing us

access to essential data and documents. Special appreciation is extended to District

Engineer James P. Ferrer, Assistant District Engineer Alwin A. Pido, and Engr. Efren

S. Marquez, Chief of the Construction Section. We also extend our thanks to Engr.

Jess Anthony A. Aguigam, Engr. Alexander P. Diego Jr., Engr. Arnulfo A. Ranjo,

and Engr. Richard M. Academia, whose cooperation and assistance were instrumental

in the successful completion of our data gathering efforts.

We are likewise indebted to the contractors of the various construction

projects involved in this study: Megapolitan Builders & Construction Supply, BJMJB

Construction & Supply, Martin Development Corporation, TMT Construction,

Accelerated Metal Technology & Construction, Inc., AJ Taylan Construction

Corporation, Way Maker General Contractor OPC, and Badoc Builders & Supply,

Inc. Their willingness to provide access and information significantly contributed to

the integrity of our findings.

xiii
 Our heartfelt thanks also go to Ms. Jovel B. Belong, Engr. Jess Anthony A.

Aguigam, and Engr. Michael Stephen Mercado, for their generous assistance during

our data collection process.

Special thanks are due to our statistician, Engr. Jonas Paul de la Cruz, for his

expertise and guidance in the statistical analysis of our research data. His

contributions ensured the accuracy and reliability of our study’s quantitative

assessments.

To our families, thank you for your unconditional love, patience, and

understanding. Your moral and emotional support sustained us through the most

challenging moments of this journey.

To our friends and classmates, thank you for the encouragement, laughter, and

camaraderie that kept us motivated and grounded.

Finally, we give all glory and praise to Almighty God for granting us the

wisdom, strength, and perseverance to complete this research.

This thesis is not just the fruit of our labor but also the product of a

community that believed in us. To each one who has helped us in even the smallest of

ways—thank you.

xiv
 CONTENTS

PAGE

TITLE PAGE i

APPROVAL SHEET ii

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT xii

LIST OF TABLES xvii

LIST OF FIGURES xviii

LIST OF APPENDICES xix

INTRODUCTION 1

Background of the Study 1

Objectives 4
Significance of the Study 5
Scope and Delimitations of the Study 6

REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8
xv
 Related Literature 9
Related Studies 21
Conceptual Framework 30

METHODOLOGY 31

Locale of the Study 31

Research Design 32
Variables of the Study 33
Sampling Procedure 33
Data Gathering Procedure 35
Data Analysis 36

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 40

Summary of Resource Efficiency Metrics 40

Statistical Analysis 41
Identified Resource Inefficiencies 46
Policy Misalignment and Root Cause Analysis 47
Framework for Resource Allocation Optimization 49

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 53

Summary 53
Conclusions 55
Recommendations 57

LITERATURE CITED 61

APPENDICES 64

xvi
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1 Efficiency Metrics for the Ten Construction Projects 41

2 Findings Across the Two Scheduling Techniques Labor
Utilization Rate Metric 43
3 Findings Across the Two Scheduling Techniques Material Usage
Efficiency Metric 44
4 Findings Across the Two Scheduling Techniques Under
Equipment Deployment Efficiency (EDE) Metric 46

xvii
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1 Conceptual framework showing the phased process of the study 30

2 Geographic map showing the location of Ilocos Norte 31
3 Proposed hybrid scheduling framework for optimizing resource
allocation efficiency in construction projects 52

xviii
 LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX PAGE

A Letters 64
B Raw Data 66
C Calculations 76
D Documentations 111

xix
 Definition of Terms

To ensure clarity and consistency, the following terms are defined as they are

used throughout the study:

Construction Project – A coordinated set of activities with specific

objectives, aimed at building, renovating, or maintaining infrastructure such as

buildings, roads, and other facilities.

PERT-CPM (Program Evaluation and Review Technique – Critical Path

Method) – A combined project scheduling technique that integrates the probabilistic

time estimation feature of PERT with the deterministic task sequencing and critical

path analysis of CPM. It is used to identify critical activities and analyze project

timelines with consideration for task duration variability.

Gantt Chart – A visual project management tool that uses horizontal bars to

represent the timing and duration of individual tasks, allowing for the tracking of

progress and identification of task overlaps and dependencies.

Project Scheduling Techniques – Systematic methods, such as PERT-CPM

and Gantt Charts, used to plan, coordinate, and control the sequence and timing of

construction activities for effective project delivery.

Resource Allocation – The strategic assignment and distribution of available

resources (labor, materials, and equipment) to various construction activities to

maximize productivity and minimize waste.

xx
 Resource Allocation Efficiency – The effective use of resources in a

construction project to achieve objectives with minimal wastage, delays, or

underutilization.

Labor Utilization Rate (LUR) – A metric used to evaluate how efficiently

labor is used in a project, calculated as the ratio of productive labor hours to the total

available labor hours.

Material Usage Efficiency – The ratio between the amount of material

effectively used in construction and the total amount procured, indicating the level of

material waste control.

Equipment Deployment Efficiency (EDE) – A measure of how effectively

construction equipment is utilized, calculated by comparing actual usage time to the

total time the equipment is available.

Vertical Projects – Construction projects involving vertical structures such as

buildings and towers, as opposed to horizontal works like roads and bridges.

Scheduling Framework – A structured model or guideline developed to

support the efficient application of project scheduling techniques like PERT-CPM

and Gantt Charts in resource management.

Downtime – Periods during which labor or equipment is not in productive use

due to delays, poor coordination, or lack of task readiness.

xxi
 Optimization – The process of improving efficiency by adjusting methods or

systems—in this study, it refers to the enhancement of scheduling strategies to

achieve better resource allocation outcomes.

xxii
 General Notations and Abbreviations

Table 1. Abbreviations used in the study

Abbreviation Definition

PERT Program Evaluation and Review Technique

CPM Critical Path Method
PERT-CPM Program Evaluation and Review Technique - Critical Path
Method
LUR Labor Utilization Rate
MWR Material Wastage Rate
MUE Material Usage Efficiency
EDE Equipment Deployment Efficiency

ABSTRACT
xxiii
 DOMINGO, KAYCELINE H., LUNA, ANGEL KEITH D., NIÑO,
SHANIAH ROAH B., and VALDEZ, SHANAIA HEART P. 2025. Analytical
Study on the Impact of Project Scheduling Techniques on Resource Allocation
Efficiency in Construction Projects of Ilocos Norte. Undergraduate Thesis. College
of Engineering, Mariano Marcos State University. City of Batac 2906 Ilocos Norte.

Adviser: Engr. Mar Viandreus I. Ruiz

This study evaluated the impact of two project scheduling techniques—

Program Evaluation and Review Technique–Critical Path Method (PERT-CPM) and
Gantt Chart—on resource allocation efficiency in vertical construction projects in
Ilocos Norte. Inefficiencies in labor, materials, and equipment continue to hinder
project outcomes, prompting an assessment of how these techniques influence
efficiency metrics and contribute to improved resource management.
A quantitative, descriptive-comparative approach was used to analyze ten
completed projects, categorized by scheduling method. Resource efficiency was
measured using Labor Utilization Rate (LUR), Material Usage Efficiency (MUE),
and Equipment Deployment Efficiency (EDE). Independent-samples t-tests assessed
statistical differences, and root cause analysis was conducted to identify policy
misalignments and operational issues.
Findings showed that PERT-CPM projects achieved more consistent labor and
material efficiency, while Gantt Chart projects had greater variability, particularly in
equipment use. Although results were not statistically significant, observable trends
favored PERT-CPM for tighter control. Inefficiencies were linked to poor
sequencing, planning inaccuracies, and lack of policy integration.
A hybrid framework was proposed to combine the strengths of both methods,
supporting structured yet adaptable scheduling aligned with institutional guidelines.
The study recommends integrating scheduling strategies to enhance construction
resource efficiency.

Keywords: Project Scheduling Techniques, Resource Allocation Efficiency,

Construction Projects, Resource Efficiency Metrics, Resource Allocation Efficiency
Optimization

xxiv
 1

ANALYTICAL STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF PROJECT SCHEDULING

TECHNIQUES ON RESOURCE ALLOCATION EFFICIENCY IN
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS OF ILOCOS NORTE

Undergraduate thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from the Mariano Marcos
State University, City of Batac, Ilocos Norte. Prepared under the guidance of
Engineer Mar Viandreus I. Ruiz.

KAYCELINE HASEGAWA DOMINGO

ANGEL KEITH DEQUILLA LUNA
SHANIAH ROAH BAL NIÑO
SHANAIA HEART POROL VALDEZ

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

The construction industry stands as a fundamental pillar of economic growth

in the Philippines, playing a crucial role in the development of infrastructure, the

creation of jobs, and the advancement of regions across the country. This industry

directly impacts various sectors of the economy by facilitating connectivity,

promoting trade, and enabling better access to essential services such as education,

healthcare, and transportation. However, despite its significant contributions, the

 2

industry continues to face challenges that hinder its full potential. One of the most

pressing issues is inefficiencies in resource allocation—particularly in labor,

materials, and equipment—which leads to common problems such as project delays,

cost overruns, and a general decline in overall productivity. These inefficiencies not

only delay the completion of vital infrastructure projects but also strain the resources

available for future developments. The identification and improvement of project

management practices, especially those focused on optimizing the allocation of

resources, are essential to overcoming these challenges and ensuring that construction

projects meet their goals in an effective and sustainable manner.

In the province of Ilocos Norte, a region experiencing an expanding

construction sector, these inefficiencies are especially evident. As the demand for

construction projects rises, issues such as underutilization of labor due to inefficient

task sequencing, material wastage resulting from inaccurate forecasting, and

equipment downtime caused by poorly coordinated scheduling continue to plague

local projects. These operational inefficiencies underscore the need for a more

detailed evaluation of project management strategies, particularly scheduling

techniques that can help streamline resource allocation processes. Effective

scheduling plays a key role in ensuring that resources are used efficiently, minimizing

delays and reducing costs, all of which contribute to the successful completion of

projects within the set time frame and budget.

Scheduling techniques, such as the Program Evaluation and Review

Technique - Critical Path Method (PERT-CPM), and Gantt chart, have been widely
 3

adopted in the construction industry both globally and locally to improve the

efficiency of project management. PERT-CPM, a combined approach, focuses on

identifying and prioritizing critical tasks that directly impact the project’s completion

timeline, while also accounting for uncertainties in task durations through

probabilistic estimates. This dual capability ensures that delays in critical activities

are minimized while managing the potential risks associated with task variability.

Gantt chart, on the other hand, offer a visual representation of the project’s timeline,

providing an easily understandable overview of progress and helping project

managers monitor tasks in real time. While these scheduling techniques have been

successfully implemented in numerous construction projects, both in the Philippines

and internationally, their effectiveness in addressing specific issues related to

resource allocation inefficiencies in Ilocos Norte remains relatively underexplored.

Furthermore, the degree to which these methods align with local policies, guidelines,

and standards is an area that warrants further investigation.

This study aimed to fill this gap by evaluating how these widely used

scheduling techniques—PERT-CPM and Gantt chart —are applied to mitigate

resource allocation inefficiencies in the construction projects of Ilocos Norte.

Through the analysis of project documentation and the identification of the root

causes of inefficiencies based on existing policies and agency guidelines, this

research provided a comprehensive understanding of how these techniques can be

utilized more effectively. In addition, the study proposed a framework designed to

enhance resource allocation efficiency, taking into account the specific challenges
 4

faced in local construction projects. By bridging the gap between theoretical

scheduling methods and their practical application in the field, the study aimed to

offer actionable recommendations that can contribute to the improvement of

construction project outcomes in Ilocos Norte. This, in turn, would help drive the

sustainable development of the local construction sector, ensuring that it can meet the

growing demand for infrastructure while maximizing the use of available resources.

Objectives of the Study

The main objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of two project

scheduling techniques, namely Program Evaluation and Review Technique - Critical

Path Method (PERT-CPM), and Gantt chart, on resource allocation efficiency in

construction projects of Ilocos Norte.

Specifically, the study addressed the following:

1. Collect project documents, including pre-project plans and post-project

completion reports, from completed construction projects that utilized PERT-

CPM and Gantt Chart through document analysis and systematic compilation

of official records and reports from contractors and government agencies.

2. Compare the collected project data and identify resource allocation

inefficiencies between the two scheduling techniques by performing a

quantitative analysis of labor utilization, material wastage, and equipment

 5

downtime using defined resource efficiency metrics and statistical comparison

through independent-sample t-tests.

3. Determine the causes of resource allocation inefficiencies in the sampled

projects by evaluating the degree of alignment between project execution

practices and existing institutional policies, guidelines, or agency standards

such as those from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)

and Republic Act No. 9184.

4. Develop a framework for optimizing resource allocation efficiency in

construction projects through the integration of synthesized findings from

statistical results, literature-based best practices, and identified field-level

inefficiencies, resulting in a proposed hybrid scheduling model tailored to

local construction conditions.

Significance of the Study

This study held significance for both academic and practical applications. For

construction managers and engineers, the findings provided actionable insights into

the effectiveness of Program Evaluation and Review Technique - Critical Path

Method (PERT-CPM) and Gantt chart in addressing resource allocation

inefficiencies. By understanding the applicability of these techniques, construction

professionals could make informed decisions to enhance labor utilization, reduce

material wastage, and minimize equipment downtime.

 6

For construction firms, the tailored recommendations derived from this study

helped optimize resource allocation, leading to cost reduction, timely project

completion, and improved overall efficiency. Policymakers and agencies benefitted

from the study by gaining insights into how current scheduling practices align with or

deviate from existing policies and guidelines, potentially informing policy

enhancements or training programs to improve project management practices.

Academically, the study contributed to the body of knowledge by offering a

localized analysis of project scheduling techniques in Ilocos Norte. The findings

provide a foundation for future research in resource allocation and construction

project management, particularly in regions with similar development contexts.

Ultimately, the study indirectly benefitted the community by ensuring that

infrastructure projects are completed efficiently and sustainably, thereby improving

access to reliable and timely construction outputs.

Scope and Delimitations of the Study

This study focused on evaluating the impact of project scheduling techniques

— Program Evaluation and Review Technique - Critical Path Method (PERT-CPM)

and Gantt chart—on resource allocation efficiency in construction projects of Ilocos

Norte. The scope of the study included analyzing completed construction projects in

the province to ensure the availability of comprehensive data. The evaluation was

centered on resource allocation inefficiencies, specifically in labor utilization,

 7

material wastage, and equipment downtime, as these are common challenges faced by

construction projects in the region. The study employed a quantitative research

approach, using project documentation to assess the effectiveness of scheduling

techniques and developing a framework to optimize resource allocation efficiency.

However, the study was limited to completed vertical projects and does not

include ongoing ones, which could provide additional insights into real-time

scheduling practices. Additionally, the research focused solely on the two specified

scheduling techniques—PERT-CPM and Gantt chart—excluding other emerging

techniques. External factors such as economic fluctuations, weather conditions, or

political influences, which may indirectly impact resource allocation, were beyond

the scope of this study. Despite these limitations, the research provided a localized

and detailed evaluation of resource allocation practices and offered practical

recommendations for improving efficiency in construction projects of Ilocos Norte.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
 8

Introduction

Effective scheduling is a vital part of successful construction management—it

helps ensure that resources are used wisely and projects run efficiently. This chapter

takes a closer look at the theories and real-world practices behind commonly used

scheduling techniques, like the Program Evaluation and Review Technique–Critical

Path Method (PERT-CPM) and Gantt Charts. These tools play a key role in

addressing challenges related to labor, materials, and equipment use. The study is

grounded in established national guidelines, including the National Building Code of

the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 1096), which highlights the importance of

safety, efficiency, and sustainability in construction. It also aligns with Republic Act

No. 9184, or the Government Procurement Reform Act, which emphasizes

responsible use of public resources and encourages cost-efficient, transparent project

management.

This research is also in line with two important Sustainable Development

Goals (SDGs). The first is SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, which

promotes resilient and sustainable infrastructure development. The second is SDG 11:

Sustainable Cities and Communities, which focuses on making communities

inclusive, safe, and resilient. By exploring how scheduling techniques can improve

resource use, this study aims to support more sustainable construction practices. It

highlights the importance of reducing waste, staying on schedule, and making the

most of available resources—all of which contribute to better infrastructure and

stronger communities.
 9

Through a review of relevant literature and past research, this chapter also

examines how scheduling techniques are being used in practice, particularly in the

context of Ilocos Norte. The goal is to understand how these methods can help solve

local construction challenges and contribute to long-term, sustainable development.

Related Literature

This section offers a closer look at two of the most widely used scheduling

techniques in construction project management—PERT-CPM and Gantt charts. These

methods are more than just planning tools; they help project managers organize tasks,

manage timelines, and make the most of limited resources. In places like Ilocos

Norte, where efficient use of labor, materials, and equipment is essential, having a

solid scheduling method can make a big difference in keeping projects on track and

within budget.

Project Scheduling Techniques

This section offers a closer look at two of the most widely used scheduling

techniques in construction project management—PERT-CPM and Gantt charts. These

methods are more than just planning tools; they help project managers organize tasks,

manage timelines, and make the most of limited resources. In places like Ilocos

Norte, where efficient use of labor, materials, and equipment is essential, having a

solid scheduling method can make a big difference in keeping projects on track and

within budget.
 10

PERT-CPM (Program Evaluation and Review Technique – Critical Path

Method). PERT was first introduced by the U.S. Navy in the 1950s for managing

complex projects, like the Polaris missile program (Malcolm et al., 1959). It brought

in the idea of using time estimates that account for uncertainty in task durations.

Around the same time, CPM was developed to identify which tasks are critical to

finishing a project on time. Today, these two methods are often combined as PERT-

CPM—a hybrid approach that balances flexibility and control by using both

probabilistic and fixed scheduling elements.

This combined method allows project managers to map out timelines, set

earliest and latest start or finish dates, and identify which activities can be delayed

without affecting the whole project. It also highlights which tasks are critical and

need to be prioritized to avoid delays. As Kerzner (2017) points out, this kind of

scheduling helps teams plan smarter and stay on schedule.

Advantages: PERT-CPM offers clear insights into task dependencies and

timelines, which helps with accurate planning and control (Moder et al., 1983). It’s

particularly useful in projects where conditions are unpredictable, thanks to its ability

to factor in uncertain task durations. By pinpointing critical tasks, it helps managers

focus on what truly matters to prevent delays.

Limitations: However, PERT-CPM is only as good as the data it’s based on. If

time or resource estimates are inaccurate, the analysis can be misleading (Hall, 2019).

Additionally, it can become overly complex, especially in large projects, unless

 11

supported by specialized software. This complexity can be a barrier for smaller

companies or those with limited technical resources (Kerzner, 2017).

Gantt Chart. Gantt chart is recognized as one of the most basic tools used by

a project manager; it provides a clear and concise visual schedule of any project. This

format of a bar chart really represents the start and finish dates of tasks, resources,

planning milestones, and dependencies within a project. The chart shows the project

timeline, like task slack time or overtime to complete a task that shouldn't cause delay

in the project, noncritical activities which may be delayed, and critical activities that

must be done within the scheduled time. Gantt chart can be very useful in the

management of any project of any size and type.

Advantages: The visual clarity that a Gantt chart provides helps simplify a

complex set of tasks. It shows clearly and simply for the people who must do the

work. Such transparency enables the team members to stay focused and avoid being

overwhelmed by a large number of tasks (Ramos, 2021).

Limitations: Gantt chart is used mainly for showing the tasks that compose a

project, how to sequence them, and about how long they might take. However,

priorities concerning the tasks are not usually shown, which sometimes misleads team

members in execution. The task bars indicate the time needed for their completion but

not the workload. Creating a Gantt chart for complex projects might take a lot of

time, especially if the developer works without software support. Gantt chart

therefore become complicated and confusing when applied to growingly complicated

 12

projects with many tasks and changes, thus constant updating that may be difficult

without computer software.

Resource Allocation Efficiency

This section explores its definition, importance, and challenges. Effective

resource allocation involves strategically managing available resources (labor,

materials, equipment) to ensure that each task is completed efficiently and on time.

Definition and Importance. Resource allocation efficiency refers to the

effective utilization of available resources—labor, materials, and equipment—within

a project to achieve objectives while minimizing waste. Hillier and Lieberman (2010)

define resource allocation as a strategic process critical for cost control, timely

completion, and productivity optimization and that it involves using resources in the

most productive way, ensuring that every resource spent contributes to the

organization’s strategic goals while minimizing costs and avoiding unnecessary

consumption of resources" . According to Waldron (2024), resource allocation

strategy supports communication with all stakeholders. It helps team members

understand their tasks and the resources they need to accomplish their goals. This also

allows companies to focus their efforts on tasks that are most aligned with the

project’s goals, contributing to positive project progress.

Resource allocation involves distributing and managing the materials, labor,

and equipment needed to complete a construction project. It plays a critical role in

controlling costs, managing time effectively, and making sure that the right resources

are available when they’re needed most (Pinto, 2019). When done correctly, resource
 13

allocation helps ensure timely project completion, minimizes waste, and promotes the

efficient use of both manpower and materials. As Gupta (2024) points out, a

structured resource allocation process helps organizations avoid shortages and delays,

allowing projects to move forward smoothly and successfully. Rather than simply

assigning the first available resource, efficient allocation focuses on matching the

best-fit resources to each task. This approach not only enhances productivity but also

supports collaboration and keeps stakeholders engaged and satisfied.

In today’s increasingly complex and competitive construction industry,

understanding how to allocate resources effectively is more important than ever. It

enables project teams to identify potential issues early, manage resource limitations

proactively, and maintain flexibility as project needs change. By applying proven

strategies, construction professionals are better equipped to navigate demanding

environments, reduce risks, and improve outcomes across the board. In fact, the

ability to allocate resources wisely has become a defining skill in successful project

management.

Key Benefits. Effective resource allocation brings several important advantages that

directly contribute to the success of construction projects. One of the most immediate

benefits is cost control. When resources are properly planned and distributed,

unnecessary expenses are reduced (Pinto, 2019). It also helps keep projects on

schedule by making sure essential labor, materials, and equipment are available when

they’re needed most (White & Hartsfield, 2021). This minimizes downtime and

allows teams to maintain productivity.

 14

Better use of resources also improves team performance. Assigning the right

people and equipment to the right tasks at the right time streamlines operations and

keeps everyone aligned. Data-driven allocation provides project managers with

valuable insights, helping them make smarter decisions and plan more effectively

(Kerzner, 2017). Furthermore, flexible resource strategies allow companies to scale

and adapt to changing project demands without causing delays or disruptions

(Bagshaw, 2021).

Ultimately, these benefits lead to greater client satisfaction. Projects that are

completed within scope, budget, and timeline expectations tend to foster long-term

relationships, repeat business, and a stronger reputation for the contractor (Bagshaw,

2021).

Challenges in Resource Allocation. While resource allocation is essential to

successful project delivery, it often comes with its own set of challenges. One of the
most common issues is the limited availability of skilled labor, materials, or
equipment, which can create bottlenecks that delay progress and increase costs
(Baccarini, 2020). In addition, unclear or changing project scopes can complicate
planning and lead to misalignment in how resources are used.

Supply chain disruptions—such as late material deliveries or transport issues—can

also stall momentum (Pinto, 2019). Using outdated tools or systems only adds to the
problem, especially when newer technologies are introduced mid-project and cause
planning conflicts (Rastogi, 2022).

Other challenges include regulatory and environmental constraints, which can delay
resource deployment or raise costs, especially in areas with strict building regulations
(Turner, 2018). Market instability—like rising labor rates or volatile material prices—
adds another layer of complexity. Lastly, miscommunication between departments,
especially between planning and execution teams, often results in mismatched
expectations and poor coordination, which reduces the efficiency of resource use
(Rastogi, 2022).
 15

Construction Projects. The construction industry is inherently complex and

resource-demanding, which makes effective project management especially

important. Turner (2018) notes that proper scheduling and resource management are

directly tied to whether a project finishes on time, stays within budget, and meets

client expectations. Efficient resource use helps ensure that the project remains

aligned with its original scope, which is crucial for avoiding costly overruns and

keeping stakeholders satisfied.

In recent years, there has been growing attention on sustainable

development, and this has influenced the way resources are handled in construction.

There’s now a stronger focus on reducing material waste, maximizing labor

productivity, and using equipment more efficiently—all of which support

environmentally responsible and cost-effective practices (Waldron, 2024).

Construction projects can generally be divided into two

categories: vertical and horizontal. Vertical projects include structures like buildings,

towers, schools, hospitals, and commercial complexes. These projects usually require

detailed planning related to load-bearing systems, structural integrity, and space

optimization. On the other hand, horizontal projects—like roads, bridges, highways,

and railways—are spread out over large areas. They focus more on site logistics, land

use coordination, and environmental impact management.

In developing areas, local challenges often call for tailored resource

management strategies. Limited access to modern tools, inconsistent funding, and

 16

fluctuating resource availability all impact project delivery. Baccarini (2020)

emphasizes the need to customize project approaches to fit these regional constraints.

In places like Ilocos Norte, combining traditional construction methods with modern

planning tools has proven effective. According to De Guzman and Tan (2020), these

hybrid approaches have led to better project performance, even in resource-limited

settings. They offer practical solutions that can serve as models for other regions

facing similar conditions.

Resource Efficiency Metrics

Efficient resource utilization is a cornerstone of successful construction

project management. To ensure optimal performance, it is essential to measure how

effectively resources—labor, materials, and equipment—are utilized. This study

employs three key metrics to evaluate resource allocation efficiency: Labor

Utilization Efficiency, Material Usage Efficiency, and Equipment Deployment

Efficiency.

Labor, Material and Equipment Utilization. Utilization refers to the

percentage of time a specific resource is actively engaged in productive activities.

According to Bourdon et al. (1980), it is the responsibility of a project manager to

ensure that these (Labor, Material, Equipment) resources are effectively coordinated

to facilitate an efficient construction process. This coordination requires both strategic

planning and tactical management on-site. Throughout the construction process,

foremen and site managers make decisions about the timing of specific tasks based on

the availability of essential resources, such as labor, materials, and equipment.

 17

Without proper coordination among these critical inputs, construction operations may

become inefficient or come to a complete halt.

Labor Utilization. Labor utilization measures how effective a workforce’s

time is utilized on productive tasks. This enables employers to analyze employee

work patterns and assess whether the company has an adequate workforce to support

its operations. By understanding labor utilization and the corresponding utilization

rate, managers can make informed decisions about hiring additional workers,

reallocating employees to other tasks, or reducing staff as needed. The labor

utilization rate directly reflects the efficiency of the workforce. A higher rate

indicates that a larger portion of time is spent on productive tasks, while a lower rate

highlights inefficiencies or excessive idle time.

Labor Utilization Efficiency Formula. Labor utilization measures how

effective a workforce’s time is utilized on productive tasks.

Direct Labor Hours

Labor Utilization Efficiency (%) = ×100. Wherein direct labor
Total Available Hours

hours takes into account the total hours workers dedicate to productive tasks and total

available hours is the sum of hours workers could potentially commit to productive

tasks.

By using a labor utilization calculator, managers can quickly input these

values to get a clear picture of their utilization ratio. This formula provides a valuable

snapshot of workforce efficiency, allowing for comparisons across different projects

or teams (Barrel, 2025).

 18

Material Utilization. Material utilization plays a crucial role across various

industries, including manufacturing and construction. It involves gaining a thorough

understanding of how materials are consumed during production and identifying

patterns that may reveal potential waste or resource inefficiencies. Effective material

utilization equips businesses to navigate the challenges of modern markets while

maximizing the use of available resources. A higher utilization rate means reduced

waste during production, leading to cost savings for manufacturers and promoting

environmental sustainability.

Material Usage Efficiency Formula. According to definition of material

efficiency – ratio of output to input – first equation can be concluded. However,

figures regarding material input are not always clear in industries, which lead to the

second equation. Material efficiency = Product output / Material input and Material

efficiency = Product output / (Generated waste + Produced product). These criteria is

to be considered per produced unit, per production or per tonnes of products

(Kurdve, 2014).

Equipment Deployment. Construction equipment plays a crucial role in

determining a construction company’s productivity and, ultimately, its overall

success. Equipment deployment is the act of strategically allocating, locating, and

using machinery, tools, or assets to execute certain tasks or operations efficiently. In

sectors such as construction, manufacturing, or logistics, it entails planning where and

how equipment will be utilized to maximize productivity, minimize downtime, and

optimize resource utilization. Effective equipment deployment guarantees that the

 19

correct tools are in place at the correct time and location for optimal operational

efficiency.

Equipment Deployment Efficiency. Equipment Deployment Efficiency is a

metric that evaluates how effectively equipment or machinery is being utilized during

operations. It compares the actual time the equipment is in use (productive time) to

the total time it was available for use (total available time). This efficiency ratio helps

businesses optimize the use of their equipment, reduce idle time, and minimize

downtime.

Actual Equipment Usage Time

Equipment Deployment Efficiency= ×100
Total Available Equipment Time

The Actual Equipment Usage Time refers to the actual time the equipment

or machinery is used for its intended productive tasks and Total Available

Equipment Time refers to the total time that the equipment was available for use,

which includes both productive and non-productive time.

Resource Allocation Efficiency Optimization

Optimizing resource allocation efficiency involves leveraging advanced tools

and methodologies to minimize waste and maximize productivity. Pinto (2019)

emphasizes the use of predictive analytics, simulation models, and scheduling

techniques to identify and address inefficiencies. Hybrid approaches that combine

PERT, CPM, and Gantt chart have demonstrated superior results in complex projects

by providing flexibility and adaptability (McManus, 2020). These optimization

 20

strategies are particularly important in resource-constrained regions, where effective

management is critical for project success (Kerzner, 2017).

Continuous improvement is a key aspect of optimization processes. Feedback

loops and iterative planning enable project managers to refine resource allocation

strategies based on real-time performance data (Bagshaw, 2021). Additionally,

studies suggest that integrating environmental and social considerations into

optimization frameworks can enhance the sustainability and resilience of construction

projects, aligning them with broader development objectives (Gupta, 2024).

Related Studies

This section reviews empirical research that evaluates how different

scheduling techniques could be used to improve the efficiency of research allocation.

Within the province of Ilocos Norte, these studies mainly examine the context of

construction projects in developing regions, with a particular focus on Ilocos Norte..

Project Scheduling Techniques

PERT-CPM Integration. The combination of Project Evaluation and Review

Technique (PERT) and Critical Path Method (CPM), also known as PERT – CPM has

become a fundamental method for construction scheduling. Project managers may

better manage uncertainty and task independency with the help of integrated

technique that offers both deterministic and probabilistic assessments of project

 21

schedules. PERT – CPM supports precise project durations and also identifies

important tasks that must not be delayed in order to prevent project overruns.

Smith and Johnson’s (2020) study on infrastructure project showed how using

PERT –CPM increased scheduling accuracy and optimized resource utilization,

especially for equipment and skilled labor. The approach helped reduce scheduling

scheduling problems and rework by mapping the project’s critical path and expected

task durations.

Gantt Chart. The most widely used tools in project scheduling is Gantt chart

because of its simplicity and visual clarity. Unlike the other network based tools like

PERT - CPM, Gantt chart provides a time-based horizontal bar layout that graphically

presents task durations, start and end dates and progress.

According to Cheng (2021), combining a Gantt chart with PERT-CPM

improves stakeholder engagement, encourages real-time updates, and strengthens task

monitoring dialogue. The study specifically noted that in small to medium-sized

construction Gantt charts enabled site managers to visually arrange resources and

activities for projects deployment, decreasing downtime, and enhancing team

coordination.

Comparative Analysis of Gantt Chart, and PERT-CPM in Construction.

Comparative studies analyse how well different scheduling strategies work. Cheng

(2018) discovered that PERT produced better results for resource allocation than

simple Gantt charts. Additionally, a case study in a commercial building project

 22

shown that combining Gantt charts and CPM resulted in a 25% decrease in resource

usage and enhanced adherence to the timeline (Seymour & Williams, 2020).

It also draws attention to their varying advantages and disadvantages when

working on building projects. Bagshaw (2021) asserts that CPM works best in

projects with deterministic time because it accurately allocates resources and

identifies the critical path. According to Nakhon and Koompai (2012), PERT works

well for high-uncertainty projects where variable conditions are planned for using

probabilistic time estimates. Henry Gantt created the Gantt chart, which is praised for

its ease of use and clarity of visualisation but falls short in handling intricate task

dependencies (Ramesh Kannan, 2023). According to Sweis et al. (2014), Gantt charts

provide a clear visual depiction of task timelines, which enhances communication

among project stakeholders. But even with their simplicity, Gantt charts are

ineffective at handling resource allocation issues or task dependencies especially in

big and complicated projects. When managing scarce resources across multiple tasks,

this constraint may result in inefficiencies (Pinto & Slevin, 2018). Gantt charts

perform better when combined with other resource management strategies like PERT

or CPM, particularly for larger projects with lots of interdependencies.

In complex projects, combining these approaches is becoming more advised.

For example, employing PERT for flexible timelines, Gantt charts for general

visualisation, and CPM for critical task management, establishing a thorough resource

management strategy scheduling and management (McManus, 2020). But there isn't

much research contrasting these methods at various project sizes.

 23

Resource Allocation Efficiency

A key component of project management is the efficient use of resources.

Specifically, scheduling instruments like Gantt charts and the integrated Program

Evaluation for complex projects, the Review Technique – Critical Path Method

(PERT-CPM) is essential for maximising the distribution of time, labour, and

materials. Project managers can use these tools to monitor progress using structured

methodologies, effectively allocating resources and controlling dependencies.

Abdul-Rahman et al. (2011) looked into the connection between construction

project performance and the effectiveness of resource allocation. According to the

study, projects that used methodical resource allocation procedures produced better

results in terms of quality, timely completion, and cost control. In a similar vein, De

Guzman and Tan (2020) looked at medium-sized building projects in Ilocos Norte

and found that ineffective scheduling techniques were a major cause of inefficiencies.

The study suggested using cutting-edge instruments like PERT and CPM to solve

problems with resource allocation.

Nakhon and Koompai (2012) assessed resource allocation tactics in major

infrastructure projects in another study. The study showed that hybrid strategies that

combined conventional and contemporary methods increased labour utilisation rates

and decreased equipment downtime. This emphasises how crucial it is to use adaptive
 24

and flexible tactics in order to maximise the effectiveness of resource allocation in

complicated projects.

Impact of Scheduling Techniques on Resource Allocation Efficiency.

Gantt charts and the integrated Program Evaluation are two examples of project

scheduling tools and the Critical Path Method Review Technique (PERT-CPM) are

essential in arranging work and making the best use of resources, labour, and time.

Gantt charts make it easier to track deadlines, task relationships, and

workload allocation by graphically outlining project tasks along a timeline. Chen

(2023) emphasises that by identifying task overlaps and facilitating improved

workload management over time, these tools help project managers allocate resources

efficiently. This reduces idle time and excessive workload, which boosts productivity

and efficiency. Analytical tools for planning and overseeing project tasks include

PERT and CPM. Williams (2022) asserts that PERT uses probabilistic time estimates

to address uncertainties, whereas CPM places more emphasis on identifying the

critical path—tasks that directly impact the project timeline. When combined, these

methods produce a hybrid strategy that helps project managers prioritise resource

allocation, anticipate delays, and create backup plans.

Analytical tools for planning and overseeing project tasks include

PERT and CPM. Williams (2022) asserts that PERT uses probabilistic time estimates

to address uncertainties, whereas CPM places more emphasis on identifying the

critical path—tasks that directly impact the project timeline. When combined, these
 25

methods produce a hybrid strategy that helps project managers prioritise resource

allocation, anticipate delays, and create backup plans.

PERT-CPM and Gantt charts both work well alone, but when

combined, they increase productivity. While PERT-CPM adds depth by examining

task dependencies and potential scheduling risks, the Gantt chart excels at providing

clear visual tracking (Williams, 2022). Together, these tools make it easier to make

strategic and tactical resource management decisions.

Construction Projects. Waldron (2024) underlined the necessity of regional

solutions in creating regions, pointing out that customised scheduling strategies that

address particular economic and Project success rates could be significantly increased

by operational constraints. In addition, Baccarini (2020) investigated the difficulties

in allocating resources in the building industry and found that incorporating

advanced technologies, such as Building Information Modeling (BIM), significantly

enhanced project outcomes by improving accuracy in resource planning.

A case study by Pinto and Slevin (2018) demonstrated the importance of

aligning resource allocation strategies with project objectives. The research

highlighted that projects with well-defined resource management plans experienced

fewer delays and achieved higher stakeholder satisfaction, underscoring the critical

role of effective resource allocation in construction success.

Resource Efficiency Metrics

Efficient resource allocation is increasingly recognized as a determining factor

for project success, especially in the construction industry where delays and cost
 26

overruns are frequently linked to poor management of labor, materials, and

equipment. Several empirical studies have examined the use of quantifiable metrics to

measure resource allocation efficiency and its impact on project performance.

Labor Utilization Rate (LUR). Labor utilization is one of the most closely

monitored indicators of project efficiency. Abdul-Rahman et al. (2011) conducted a

study in Malaysia showing that construction projects with high labor utilization rates

experienced better adherence to timelines and budgets. Their findings highlighted the

importance of real-time labor monitoring and the implementation of standardized

labor planning practices. Similarly, Leu and Yang (1999) demonstrated that

integrating resource allocation models into project schedules significantly improved

labor productivity in repetitive construction projects. Their work stressed the value of

combining planning with workforce analysis to reduce idle time and overstaffing.

Material Usage Efficiency (MUE). Material wastage is a critical factor

affecting both cost and environmental sustainability. In a study by Kurdve et al.

(2014), material usage efficiency was evaluated in industrial and construction

environments using input-output analysis. The study proposed a practical formula for

calculating material efficiency, which was later adopted in lean construction

assessments. Additionally, De Guzman and Tan (2020) found that poor material

forecasting and inventory control in Ilocos Norte’s medium-scale projects led to

significant inefficiencies. Their study advocated for tighter controls and digital

tracking of materials to minimize waste and enhance procurement accuracy.

 27

Equipment Deployment Efficiency (EDE). The deployment of equipment,

particularly heavy machinery, is often associated with significant overhead costs.

Crawford and Cope (2020) explored the effect of real-time monitoring on equipment

usage and found that projects using GPS and cloud-based platforms to track

equipment time achieved higher Equipment Deployment Efficiency (EDE) rates. This

resulted in a reduction in idle time and better alignment with work sequences. Their

research emphasized that equipment productivity is as much about proper sequencing

as it is about availability. In a similar vein, Mohammadjafari et al. (2024) introduced

a multi-objective optimization model to evaluate trade-offs between time, cost, and

resource use. Their research showed that advanced scheduling and predictive models

reduced equipment underutilization in infrastructure projects by as much as 30%.

Integrated Resource Efficiency Studies. Several studies have investigated

resource metrics in combination, using them to evaluate overall project health.

Seymour and Williams (2020) conducted a comparative study where the integration

of CPM and Gantt chart scheduling led to a 25% reduction in resource wastage and

improved adherence to timelines. The study concluded that using multiple scheduling

and monitoring tools in tandem supports better resource alignment.

Furthermore, Garcés et al. (2025) conducted a systematic review of lean

construction techniques, finding that structured use of labor, material, and equipment

efficiency metrics contributed to higher sustainability ratings in large-scale

infrastructure projects. Their research underscored the role of standardized efficiency

measurements in driving project success and stakeholder satisfaction.

 28

Resource Allocation Efficiency Optimization

Seymour and Williams (2020) evaluated the impact of integrating CPM and

Gantt Charts on resource allocation efficiency. The study showed a 25% reduction in

resource waste and a marked improvement in timeline adherence. Additionally,

Bagshaw (2021) explored the use of predictive analytics in resource optimization and

found that data-driven approaches enabled project managers to anticipate resource

needs accurately, reducing waste and improving overall efficiency.

Nakhon and Koompai (2012) examined the benefits of hybrid scheduling

techniques in projects with fluctuating resource demands. Their study demonstrated

that integrating CPM and PERT improved adaptability to changing conditions and

minimized idle time for labor and equipment. Moreover, Gupta (2024) highlighted

the importance of incorporating sustainability considerations into optimization

frameworks, noting that such practices enhance the long-term viability and resilience

of construction projects.

Emerging Optimization Approaches. More recent studies have focused on

the application of technology in optimizing resource allocation. Can Jiang et al.

(2023) introduced a deep reinforcement learning framework to adaptively manage

labor and material flows on-site, with positive outcomes on project cost control.

Soleymani et al. (2022) expanded this work by proposing an Internet-of-Things (IoT)-

enabled system for autonomous resource tracking, resulting in improved decision-

making on equipment deployment and scheduling updates.

 29

Conceptual Framework
 30

Figure 1. Conceptual framework showing the phased process of the study

 31

METHODOLOGY

This chapter explains in detail the procedures in conducting the research. It

includes detailed discussions of the research design, explanation of variables,

description of experimental materials, sampling procedures, description of research

instrument used, steps in collecting data and the methods of analyzing the data

(Agustin, et al., 2001). This section includes the locale of the study, the research

design, the variables of the study, a broad outline of the experimental procedure, data

gathering procedures, and how the data were analyzed (Agustin and Ocampo, 2002).

Locale of the Study

Figure 2. Geographic map showing the location of Ilocos Norte

 32

The study was conducted in Ilocos Norte, a province in the Philippines with a

growing construction sector. The chosen locale provided a suitable environment for

examining resource allocation practices due to its active infrastructure projects,

ranging from government-initiated to private sector developments. Data were

collected from completed construction projects within this region, ensuring a diverse

representation of project types and scheduling techniques employed.

Research Design

This study employed a quantitative research design to evaluate the impact of

project scheduling techniques—Program Evaluation and Review Technique - Critical

Path Method (PERT-CPM) and Gantt chart—on resource allocation efficiency in

construction projects. Quantitative methods were employed to measure and compare

resource allocation outcomes across different projects.

The research was descriptive-comparative in nature, as it aimed to:

1. Describe the current state of resource allocation efficiency in

construction projects.

2. Compare the effectiveness of different scheduling techniques in

addressing resource inefficiencies.

3. Identify causes of inefficiencies through alignment with existing

policies and standards.

 33

Variables of the Study

The study focused on two primary variables:

 Independent Variable: Project scheduling techniques (PERT-CPM and

Gantt Chart).

 Dependent Variable: Resource allocation efficiency, measured through labor

utilization rates, material wastage percentages, and equipment downtime rates.

Sampling Procedure

1. Population: The target population of this study consisted of vertical

construction projects completed within the last five years in Ilocos Norte that

employed project scheduling techniques—specifically, PERT-CPM and Gantt

chart.

2. Sampling Method: Given the relatively small size of the population, a

stratified random sampling approach was initially considered to ensure

representation across various project types (residential, commercial, and

infrastructure). To determine the appropriate sample size, Cochran’s formula

was used, a standard method for calculating sample sizes for proportions when

aiming for a desired level of precision and confidence:

2
Z × p × ( 1− p )
n 0= (1)
e2
 34

Where:

𝑛 = Required sample size

𝑍 = Z-score (1.96 for a 95% confidence level)

𝑝 = Estimated proportion of the population with the desired

characteristic (0.5 is used if unknown)

𝑒 = Margin of error (0.05 for 5%)

( 1.96 )2 × 0.5× ( 1−0.5 )

n 0= 2
( 0.05 )

n 0=384.16

Since the total population is small (N = 10), the sample size was adjusted

using the finite population correction formula:

n0 (2)
n adjusted =
n −1
1+ 0
N

384.16
n adjusted =
384.16−1
1+
10

n adjusted =9.77

Thus, the adjusted sample size rounds up to 10, indicating that all

available projects should be included in the study. This effectively results in a

 35

census sampling of the entire accessible population, ensuring complete data

representation and statistical reliability.

Project Selection Criteria:

The following criteria were used in selecting the construction projects:

 Availability of comprehensive project documentation (e.g., pre-project

plans, schedules, post-project reports)

 Use of the specified project scheduling techniques (PERT-CPM and Gantt

chart)

 Representation of a diverse range of vertical project types to support

generalizability

3. Justification: The application of Cochran’s formula, followed by finite

population correction, ensured that the sample size maintained statistical

validity. Given the small population size and the calculated sample

requirement, the inclusion of all 10 projects not only satisfied the margin of

error criteria but also enhanced the credibility and comprehensiveness of the

research findings.

Data Gathering Procedure

The data collection process involved four key methods:

 36

1. Coordination with Stakeholders: Permission and collaboration were obtained

from project managers, construction firms, and agencies involved in the

selected projects.

2. Document Collection: Pre-project plans, resource allocation records,

schedules, and post-project reports were gathered. The data included metrics

related to labor, materials, and equipment utilization.

3. Data Organization: The gathered data were compiled into a structured

database for analysis. Projects were categorized by the scheduling technique

used (PERT-CPM and Gantt chart). Data on labor, materials, and equipment

usage were extracted. Metrics related to labor utilization, material wastage,

and equipment downtime were recorded.

4. Ethical Considerations: Confidentiality of project and company data was

ensured. The data were used solely for research purposes, with no disclosure

of sensitive information.

Data Analysis

The data analysis involved the following components:

1. Descriptive Statistics: The mean, standard deviation, and percentage values

were computed for key resource allocation metrics, including labor utilization,

material wastage, and equipment downtime.

 37

2. Inferential Statistics: The study used Independent Samples t-Tests to

determine whether the mean efficiency scores differed significantly between

projects scheduled with PERT-CPM and those scheduled using Gantt Charts.

 This statistical test is appropriate because it compares the means of

two independent groups (PERT-CPM vs Gantt Chart) on continuous

variables (efficiency metrics).

 A significance level (α) of 0.05 was used to determine statistical

significance.

Detailed Analysis of Resource Metrics

Labor Utilization Rate (LUR). Labor utilization rate measures how

effectively the labor force was used by comparing the actual labor hours worked

against the planned labor hours. This metric reflects the degree to which labor

deployment adhered to the project’s manpower plan. This analysis considers only

direct labor involved in physical construction activities. Indirect or supervisory roles

such as project engineers, site engineers, safety officers, materials inspectors, and

administrative staff were excluded for clarity and relevance to productivity

assessment. (3)
Actual Labor Hours Worked
LUR ( % ) = × 100
Planned Labor Hours

LUR reflects how effectively the planned labor hours are being used.
 38

 A value close to 100% indicates strong alignment between planning and

execution.

 Below 100% may suggest underutilization, delays, or idle labor.

 Above 100% may indicate overtime, increased effort, or planning

inaccuracies, and should be evaluated for efficiency vs. overexertion.

Material Usage Efficiency (MUE). Material usage efficiency assesses how

well materials were utilized on-site by evaluating the proportion of materials wasted

during construction.

First, the Material Wastage Rate (MWR) is calculated as:

Wasted Material Quantity

MWR ( % )= ×100 (4)
Total Material Quantity Used

Then, Material Usage Efficiency (MUE) is determined by:

MUE ( % )=100−MWR (5)

MUE measures how well materials are used with minimal waste.

 A value of 100% indicates no recorded material wastage — optimal

efficiency.

 Lower values reflect material losses, potential mishandling, or

overestimation.

 Values above 100% are not valid and often indicate data entry or

calculation errors in waste tracking.

Equipment Deployment Efficiency (EDE). Equipment deployment

efficiency measures how effectively equipment resources were utilized by comparing

(6)
 39

actual equipment usage with the planned equipment working schedule. This accounts

for downtime due to weather disruptions, sequencing gaps, or idle periods.

Actual Equipment Usage Days

EDE ( % )= ×100
Planned Equipment Usage Days

EDE indicates how closely actual equipment usage matches the planned

schedule.

 A value near 100% suggests optimal equipment scheduling with minimal

idle time.

 Below 100% may point to poor planning, equipment downtime, or unused

rentals.

 Above 100% can imply extended usage due to schedule delays or scope

changes and may require cost-benefit analysis.

3. Root Cause Analysis: Identified inefficiencies were cross-referenced with

official planning documents, government policies (e.g., RA 9184), and

institutional guidelines to identify gaps or misalignments in practice.

4. Synthesis and Framework Development: Key findings were synthesized to

propose a hybrid scheduling framework that integrates the strengths of both

PERT-CPM and Gantt Chart, addressing inefficiencies identified in the data.

 40

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents a detailed comparative analysis of resource allocation

efficiency between construction projects that utilized PERT-CPM and those that

employed Gantt Charts. The three core metrics analyzed were Labor Utilization Rate

(LUR), Material Usage Efficiency (MUE), and Equipment Deployment Efficiency

(EDE). Interpretations are grounded on statistical outputs and contextualized to

inform practical insights.

Summary of Resource Efficiency Metrics

The table below presents the detailed efficiency metrics recorded for each of

the ten construction projects evaluated in this study. These include values for Labor

Utilization Efficiency (LUR), Material Usage Efficiency (MUE), and Equipment

Deployment Efficiency (EDE), along with their corresponding scheduling technique.

This raw dataset serves as the basis for all statistical analysis and comparative

interpretations in the succeeding sections.

The table reveals notable project-level differences in resource efficiency, even

within the same scheduling technique. Among Gantt chart projects, Project 5 stands
 41

out with a significantly low labor utilization rate (89.18%) but a high equipment

deployment efficiency (123.67%), suggesting potential labor underuse concurrent

with extended equipment operation—possibly due to delays or rescheduling issues. In

contrast, PERT-CPM projects consistently show high labor utilization rates, with

Project 6 reaching 134.03%, indicating potential overexertion or underestimated

workloads. Material usage efficiency in PERT-CPM projects remains uniformly at or

near 100%, suggesting tighter control over material consumption. However,

equipment deployment efficiency in these projects varies more widely, as seen in

Project 10’s exceptionally high value (127.10%). These individual variations

reinforce the need for a nuanced, project-by-project evaluation and validate the use of

statistical tests to uncover overarching trends.

Table 1. Efficiency Metrics for the Ten Construction Projects

Project Scheduling Labor Utilization Material Usage Equipment Deployment
Technique Efficiency (%) Efficiency (%) Efficiency (%)
1 Gantt chart 119.63 100.00 96.53
2 Gantt chart 113.55 77.11 92.59
3 Gantt chart 109.57 94.49 97.72
4 Gantt chart 115.55 100.00 95.86
5 Gantt chart 89.18 100.00 123.67
6 PERT-CPM 134.03 100.00 90.27
7 PERT-CPM 123.94 100.00 86.70
8 PERT-CPM 114.68 96.27 97.02
9 PERT-CPM 108.56 96.20 96.59
10 PERT-CPM 121.94 100 127.20

Statistical Analysis

Labor Utilization Rate (LUR). Labor Utilization Rate (LUR) reflects how

well a project adhered to its manpower plan, comparing the actual labor hours worked
 42

against what was originally planned. This metric is crucial in gauging productivity,

detecting overexertion, and uncovering inefficiencies in schedule planning. The table

below summarizes the findings across the two scheduling techniques.

The mean Labor Utilization Rate (LUR) for projects that used Program

Evaluation and Review Technique – Critical Path Method (PERT-CPM) is 120.63%,

while those that used the Gantt Chart technique have a mean LUR of 109.50%. This

indicates that PERT-CPM projects utilized their labor resources more intensively

compared to Gantt Chart projects. A LUR above 100% generally suggests that actual

labor input exceeded the planned hours, which could be interpreted either as a sign of

diligent work and timely completions or, conversely, as a result of underestimated

task durations or scheduling inaccuracies that required overtime work.

When considering the standard deviation, PERT-CPM projects show a value

of 9.66%, which is lower than the 11.92% observed in Gantt Chart projects. This

smaller spread suggests that labor efficiency under PERT-CPM is more consistent

and predictable, whereas the wider variation in Gantt projects points to more irregular

performance—potentially due to inconsistent labor planning or variable site

conditions.

However, from a statistical standpoint, the t-statistic of -1.622 and the p-value

of 0.145 indicate that the observed difference in mean LUR between the two

scheduling methods is not statistically significant at the 0.05 level. This means that
 43

while there is a visible difference in performance, it is not strong enough to rule out

the possibility that the observed gap occurred by chance, given the sample size.

Even though the statistical evidence is inconclusive, the higher average and

more consistent labor utilization under PERT-CPM suggest that this method may

offer better control and predictability in workforce deployment. Project managers

prioritizing consistent labor efficiency may find PERT-CPM more suitable, especially

in projects with strict manpower budgets and timelines.

Table 2. Findings across the two scheduling techniques under Labor Utilization Rate
(LUR) metric.
Scheduling Mean LUR Standard t-Statistic p-Value Significance
Technique Deviation
Gantt Chart 109.50 11.92 1.781 0.149 Not Significant
PERT-CPM 120.63 9.66 4.775 0.009 Significant
Difference -11.13 6.86 -1.622 0.145 Not Significant
(Gantt and
PERT-CPM

Material Usage Efficiency (MUE). Material Usage Efficiency (MUE)

measures the proportion of construction materials effectively used versus wasted.

Optimizing MUE is fundamental in cost control and environmental sustainability.

The table below presents the comparative results for the two scheduling techniques.

Projects scheduled with PERT-CPM yielded a higher mean Material Usage

Efficiency (MUE) of 98.49%, compared to 94.32% for those that used the Gantt

Chart method. This suggests that PERT-CPM projects generally managed materials

more efficiently, minimizing waste and ensuring that the procured quantities closely

matched what was needed on-site.

 44

The standard deviation for PERT-CPM is 2.06%, which is significantly

smaller than the 9.91% standard deviation recorded for Gantt Chart projects. This

means that PERT-CPM not only led to better material efficiency on average but also

did so more consistently across different projects. The large variability in Gantt Chart

projects may be due to less precise forecasting, frequent changes in construction

sequences, or poor material handling protocols.

Despite these trends, the t-statistic of -0.922 and the p-value of 0.405 indicate

that the difference in MUE between the two techniques is not statistically significant.

This statistical outcome suggests that although PERT-CPM projects appear to

outperform Gantt-based ones in material efficiency, the observed difference could be

attributed to random variability within the sample.

PERT-CPM’s lower variability makes it a more dependable option for

material control, especially in large-scale or remote projects where reordering or

stockpiling materials can incur substantial costs. Even without statistical significance,

its consistent performance provides managers with greater confidence in procurement

planning and waste minimization.

Table 3. Findings across the two scheduling techniques under Material Usage
Efficiency (MUE) metric.
Scheduling Mean LUR Standard t-Statistic p-Value Significance
Technique Deviation
Gantt Chart 94.32 9.91 -1.281 0.269 Not Significant
PERT-CPM 98.49 2.06 -1.633 0.178 Not Significant
Difference -4.17 4.53 -0.922 0.405 Not Significant
(Gantt and
PERT-CPM
 45

Equipment Deployment Efficiency (EDE). EDE compares actual equipment

usage with the planned schedule, indicating how effectively equipment resources are

utilized throughout the project. This metric is essential for optimizing equipment

costs and minimizing idle time. The table below summarizes the comparative

performance of the two scheduling techniques.

The mean Equipment Deployment Efficiency (EDE) for projects scheduled

using the Gantt Chart method is 101.27%, slightly higher than the 99.54% recorded

for PERT-CPM projects. This suggests that Gantt Chart projects, on average, utilized

their equipment resources more effectively. The marginal advantage may be

attributed to the visual and sequential nature of Gantt scheduling, which enables site

managers to make timely adjustments to equipment allocation, reducing downtime

and enhancing deployment precision.

The standard deviation for Gantt Chart projects is 12.66%, while PERT-CPM

projects have a higher variation of 16.01%. This indicates that equipment deployment

in Gantt Chart projects was somewhat more consistent, although both methods

experienced considerable variation. The high standard deviations in both methods

suggest that external project conditions, such as weather, subcontractor delays, or

logistical issues, may significantly impact equipment use regardless of the scheduling

technique.

The statistical analysis yields a t-statistic of 0.225 and a p-value of 0.826,

confirming that the difference is not statistically significant. Therefore, from a

 46

statistical perspective, both scheduling techniques perform similarly in terms of

equipment utilization.

In practice, the minor advantage shown by Gantt Charts in EDE may appeal to

project managers who value flexibility and real-time adjustability in equipment

mobilization. However, since both methods demonstrate similar average performance

and high variability, success in equipment utilization may depend more on execution

discipline and coordination than on the choice of scheduling method alone.

Table 4. Findings across the two scheduling techniques under Equipment

Deployment Efficiency (EDE) metric.
Scheduling Mean LUR Standard t-Statistic p-Value Significance
Technique Deviation
Gantt Chart 101.27 12.66 0.225 0.269 Not Significant
PERT-CPM 99.54 16.01 -0.065 0.178 Not Significant
Difference 1.74 9.13 -10.76 <0.001 Significant
(Gantt and
PERT-CPM

Identified Resource Inefficiencies

Through the evaluation of LUR, MUE, and EDE, several recurring

inefficiencies were identified across the ten case studies. First and most prominently,

labor overutilization was a notable issue in the majority of PERT-CPM projects. LUR

values above 120% suggest that either the duration of tasks was underestimated

during the planning phase or that delays during execution forced teams to work

overtime to catch up. This strain on labor resources can lead to fatigue, decreased

productivity, and increased labor costs, affecting project timelines and quality.
 47

Second, material usage inefficiency, although less common, was identified in

one Gantt chart-managed project where MUE dropped to 77.11%. This inefficiency

might have been caused by inaccurate quantity takeoffs, poor inventory control, or

on-site handling issues. Material wastage not only increases costs but also raises

sustainability concerns, especially in public infrastructure projects where resource

efficiency is closely monitored.

Third, equipment deployment inefficiencies were observed in both scheduling

approaches. Projects with EDE values below 90% experienced periods of equipment

downtime or underutilization, possibly due to poorly sequenced activities, late

mobilization, or a lack of synchronization between site operations and schedule

updates. These inefficiencies highlight the need for real-time coordination and

flexible scheduling practices that respond dynamically to progress on the ground.

These findings demonstrate that inefficiencies are not simply the result of

technical shortcomings, but also stem from inadequate planning, lack of schedule

updates, and insufficient responsiveness to site conditions. Addressing these

inefficiencies requires both improved scheduling tools and enhanced project

management practices.

Policy Misalignment and Root Cause Analysis

To better understand the implications of the identified inefficiencies, this

study evaluated the extent to which the observed project practices aligned with

national standards and regulatory frameworks. These include the Department of

 48

Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Standard Specifications, the National Building

Code of the Philippines (NBCP), and Republic Act 9184 (RA 9184), which governs

government procurement and project implementation.

The analysis revealed that many inefficiencies could be linked to planning

oversights and deviations from these standards. A significant issue was the failure to

incorporate adequate float time, risk buffers, or allowances for uncontrollable factors

such as weather conditions or supplier delays. This omission resulted in rigid

schedules that became difficult to follow once real-world challenges emerged. RA

9184 explicitly requires that project planning account for risks and include

contingencies, which were found lacking in several cases.

Another common issue was poor task sequencing and lack of coordination,

which led to inefficient equipment deployment and workforce idling. These

shortcomings often stemmed from insufficient schedule review and limited on-site

decision-making authority. According to DPWH guidelines, project schedules should

be regularly reviewed and updated based on actual progress—a practice found

inconsistently applied across the projects reviewed.

A recurring observation, particularly in PERT-CPM implementations, was the

failure to maintain updated schedules. Given the technique’s reliance on accurate task

durations and critical path monitoring, outdated schedules quickly lose their relevance

and can lead to poor decisions in resource deployment. This is consistent with

findings from literature and professional practice, which stress that the power of
 49

PERT-CPM lies in its continuous update cycle and responsiveness to on-the-ground

changes.

These findings imply a need for stronger enforcement of planning and

monitoring protocols, as well as investments in capacity building for project

management teams to ensure they possess the skills and tools necessary to manage

schedules effectively.

Framework for Resource Allocation Optimization

The framework developed in response to Objective 4 presents a systematic

and integrative solution to improving resource allocation efficiency in construction

projects. Rather than treating scheduling tools as standalone instruments, the

framework merges them with real-time performance monitoring to create a cohesive

and adaptive project management system. By uniting the detailed, logic-based

structure of PERT-CPM with the accessible visual representation of Gantt charts, it

enhances the accuracy of planning, forecasting, coordination, and tracking throughout

the entire project lifecycle.

The process begins with the Planning Phase, which sets the foundation for the

project. At this stage, realistic timelines are developed using PERT-CPM, considering

task sequences and dependencies to create an optimized schedule. Simultaneously,

baseline estimates for resources—labor, equipment, and materials—are established,

serving as critical reference points for later performance evaluations.

 50

To ensure coordination and coherence between planning and execution, the

framework incorporates a Dual-Tool Scheduling Approach. Here, PERT-CPM is used

for logical task sequencing and identifying the critical path, ensuring all necessary

activities are mapped out with calculated precision. This is complemented by the

Gantt Chart, which serves as a practical tool for visualizing task progress and

milestones. This dual-tool integration allows project teams to coordinate their plans

more effectively and monitor daily performance against the master schedule.

With the schedule in place, the project moves into the Execution Phase, where

coordinated action is crucial. During this phase, the Gantt Chart becomes central for

guiding task coordination on a day-to-day basis. Real-time dashboards and

monitoring tools are employed to track actual performance across labor, equipment,

and material usage. This enables immediate visibility into whether the project is

progressing as planned.

At the heart of the framework lies the Integrated Tools and Metrics Layer,

which ensures that both the scheduling tools (PERT-CPM and Gantt Chart) and

efficiency metrics (Labor Utilization Rate or LUR, Material Usage Efficiency or

MUE, and Equipment Deployment Efficiency or EDE) are working in tandem. This

integration forms the operational core of the framework, allowing seamless

interaction between planning, monitoring, and control.

To maintain performance and mitigate potential issues, the framework

includes Threshold-Based Controls. Here, benchmarks for LUR, MUE, and EDE are

set during planning and continuously monitored throughout execution. If performance

 51

indicators deviate from acceptable thresholds, the system triggers alerts, prompting

corrective action. This proactive layer of control helps prevent delays, inefficiencies,

and resource wastage.

Following project completion, a Post-Project Evaluation is conducted. Using

the same metrics monitored during execution, this evaluation analyzes project

performance and identifies both successful strategies and areas for improvement. It

ensures that insights gained from the current project are captured systematically.

These insights feed directly into the Continuous Improvement Engine, which

enhances ongoing processes. This component allows teams to refine scheduling

approaches, improve resource forecasting, and strengthen control mechanisms based

on historical data and lessons learned. Over time, this supports smarter decision-

making, better risk management, and increased overall efficiency in future projects.

By linking each component with clear data flows and feedback loops, the

framework fosters a responsive, policy-aligned, and learning-oriented environment. It

is particularly well-suited for managing public infrastructure projects in complex and

evolving contexts like Ilocos Norte. Ultimately, the framework emphasizes

continuous improvement, data-driven control, and strategic foresight—making it an

effective tool for optimizing resource allocation in construction project management.

 52

Figure 3. Proposed hybrid scheduling framework for optimizing resource allocation

efficiency in construction projects.
 53

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

Summary

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of two project

scheduling techniques—Gantt chart and Program Evaluation and Review Technique-

Critical Path Method (PERT-CPM)—on the efficiency of resource allocation in

construction projects within Ilocos Norte. This objective was addressed by analyzing

three core metrics: labor utilization rate (LUR), material usage efficiency (MUE), and

equipment deployment efficiency (EDE).

Relevant project documentation was successfully gathered from ten completed

construction projects—five using Gantt charts and five utilizing PERT-CPM. These

included pre-construction plans, manpower schedules, post-completion reports, and

other essential records, allowing for accurate extraction of labor hours, material data,

and equipment logs.

Statistical analysis showed that:

 Labor Utilization Rate (LUR) was significantly higher in PERT-CPM projects

(120.63%) compared to Gantt-based projects (109.50%), with PERT-CPM

results significantly exceeding the 100% baseline.

 Material Usage Efficiency (MUE) was consistently high across both

techniques. Although PERT-CPM averaged slightly higher at 98.49%, the

difference from Gantt (94.32%) was not statistically significant.

 54

 Equipment Deployment Efficiency (EDE) was similar in both approaches,

averaging 101.27% for Gantt and 99.54% for PERT-CPM. Variability in EDE

across individual projects was more pronounced in the Gantt group.

Project-level data highlighted inefficiencies such as excessive labor hours,

equipment overuse, and occasional material waste. These inefficiencies were linked

to several causes:

 Environmental conditions, such as weather-induced delays.

 Inaccuracies in resource forecasting and manpower planning.

 Lack of alignment with standard procedures, particularly in procurement and

activity sequencing.

Based on findings, the study proposed a hybrid resource allocation framework.

This combines PERT-CPM’s predictive capabilities with Gantt’s adaptability, and

integrates real-time monitoring and threshold-based performance alerts to minimize

inefficiencies.

These findings were further illustrated with tables and a heatmap that

provided a visual breakdown of resource performance by project, validating the

variability and trends revealed in statistical summaries.

 55

Conclusions

This study looked into how two widely used project scheduling techniques—

Program Evaluation and Review Technique–Critical Path Method (PERT-CPM) and

Gantt Charts—affect the efficient use of resources in construction projects across

Ilocos Norte. The research was driven by the increasing need to improve labor

productivity, cut down on material waste, and make better use of equipment in the

region’s construction industry. It was guided by four specific objectives, each one

contributing to a clearer understanding of how scheduling tools influence project

performance.

1. The study began by collecting and reviewing essential documents from ten

completed vertical construction projects. These included work schedules,

labor records, material usage logs, and completion reports. These documents

served as the foundation for measuring and comparing how effectively each

scheduling method supported resource allocation, providing a solid base for

analysis.

2. The study used three key indicators—Labor Utilization Rate (LUR), Material

Usage Efficiency (MUE), and Equipment Deployment Efficiency (EDE)—to

evaluate how well labor, materials, and equipment were managed. While

statistical tests didn’t show significant differences at the 5% level, the

descriptive data suggested otherwise. Projects that used PERT-CPM tended to

have more consistent and efficient use of labor and materials. On the other
 56

hand, projects scheduled with Gantt Charts showed more variation,

particularly in how equipment was deployed. These results suggest that while

PERT-CPM offers more structure and control, Gantt Charts allow for more

flexibility and are easier to visualize.

3. A deeper look into the data revealed that many of the inefficiencies weren’t

caused by the scheduling methods themselves but by how they were applied.

Issues such as lack of float time, infrequent updates to the schedule, and poor

alignment with regulations like Republic Act No. 9184 and DPWH Standard

Specifications contributed to extended work hours, wasted materials, and

equipment that was either overused or left idle. These findings underline the

importance of combining scheduling tools with thoughtful planning, regular

updates, and policy compliance.

4. To address these challenges, the study proposed a hybrid scheduling

framework. This approach combines the structured task sequencing of PERT-

CPM with the visual clarity and adaptability of Gantt Charts. The model also

includes features like regular schedule updates, built-in time buffers, and

alignment with existing policies. The goal is to help project managers and

agencies make better-informed decisions, especially in projects with limited

resources or changing site conditions.

In conclusion, the study found that while both PERT-CPM and Gantt Charts have

their strengths, using either method alone doesn’t guarantee resource efficiency. What

truly matters is how well these tools are applied—how accurately they reflect real
 57

project conditions, how often they’re updated, and how closely they follow

established standards. The proposed hybrid framework offers a practical solution by

drawing on the advantages of both approaches.

More broadly, this research contributes to the growing body of knowledge in

construction project management in the Philippines. It provides localized insights that

show project success depends not just on technical tools but on their careful and

flexible use, continuous improvement, and alignment with regulations. These findings

are valuable not only for engineers and contractors, but also for policymakers,

implementing agencies, and future researchers aiming to improve the quality,

efficiency, and sustainability of infrastructure development in Ilocos Norte and

similar areas.

Recommendation

Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, the following

recommendations are proposed to address the identified inefficiencies in labor,

material, and equipment resource allocation associated with the use of project

scheduling techniques in Ilocos Norte construction projects:

1. Specific Recommendations Based on Findings

1.1 On Labor Utilization Efficiency (LUR)

 58

Project managers and contractors should adopt scheduling techniques

that allow for more accurate labor forecasting. The use of PERT-CPM is

recommended for projects requiring consistent labor deployment due to its

ability to identify critical paths and control delays. Schedules must be updated

periodically during project implementation to reflect real-time progress and

minimize overtime or underutilization.

1.2 On Material Usage Efficiency (MUE)

Construction firms must implement material tracking systems and

regularly reconcile actual material usage against plans. This will help reduce

waste and improve forecasting accuracy, especially for projects using Gantt

Charts, which showed higher variance in material efficiency.

1.3 On Equipment Deployment Efficiency (EDE)

Site engineers and equipment coordinators should align equipment

scheduling with updated work sequences. Delays or idle periods observed in

both scheduling techniques suggest a need for daily equipment use logs and

buffer allowances in the schedule to handle sequencing changes and delays.

2. General Recommendations

3.1 For Government and Private Agencies

The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and local

government units (LGUs) are encouraged to:

 Develop and enforce guidelines that mandate regular updating and review

of project schedules.
 59

 Promote the use of standardized resource efficiency metrics in contractor

evaluations and post-project assessments.

 Support training programs for local contractors and site supervisors on

scheduling practices aligned with RA 9184 and DPWH standards.

3.2 For Future Researchers and Academic Institutions

 Expand Sample Size and Scope of Future Studies: To make future

research more reliable and widely applicable, more construction projects

should be included, ideally from different companies. This study only

focused at ten completed vertical projects in Ilocos Norte. A larger and

more diverse sample would help improve the accuracy of the results,

lessen the impact of unusual data, and lead to stronger conclusions.

Additionally, future studies should look at projects that are still in

progress, not just finished ones, to better understand how schedules are

adjusted during actual construction.

 Explore and Compare a Wider Range of Scheduling Techniques: While

this study focused on PERT-CPM and Gantt Chart methods, other

scheduling models such as Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM),

Line of Balance (LOB), and Earned Value Management (EVM) offer

unique features that could affect how resources are used. Comparative

analysis among a wider range of techniques could reveal hybrid strategies

or best-fit methods depending on project type, scale, or resource

constraints. Future researchers are encouraged to evaluate these techniques

 60

not just in theory but also in real construction settings, where unexpected

changes and local practices can affect how schedules are followed.

 Include Horizontal Construction Projects in Future Studies: This study

only covered vertical projects like buildings and covered courts. To get a

fuller picture of how scheduling affects different types of construction,

future research should include horizontal projects. These types of projects

often feature different sequencing, dependencies, and resource deployment

patterns, which may respond differently to scheduling techniques.

Including them can lead to more specific and useful recommendations for

government infrastructure projects in Ilocos Norte.

 Analyze Scheduling Effectiveness Based on Project Size: To better

understand how scheduling methods perform, future studies should

examine how well different scheduling techniques work for construction

projects of various sizes—small, medium, and large. Different project

sizes often entail unique complexities, timelines, budget constraints, and

resource demands, all of which can influence how effectively a particular

scheduling method performs. By segmenting the analysis according to

project size, researchers can identify which techniques deliver the best

outcomes in terms of labor productivity, material optimization, and

equipment deployment within each project category.

LITERATURE CITED
 61

ABEYASINGHE, M. C. L., GREENWOOD, D. J., & JOHANSEN, D. E. (2001).

An efficient method for scheduling construction projects with resource
constraints. International Journal of Project Management, 19(1), 29-45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00024-7

AMADE, B., ACHAKA, C., & UBANI, E. C. (2013, January). An assessment of the
effectiveness of scheduling techniques on the success of mechanical
construction projects. ResearchGate. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235930564_AN_ASSESSMENT_O
F_THE_EFFECTIVENESS_OF_SCHEDULING_TECHNIQUES_ON_THE
_SUCCESS_OF_MECHANICAL_CONSTRUCTION_PROJECTS

ABDUL-RAHMAN, H., WANG, C., & KHOO, Y. M. (2011). Project scheduling

and resource allocation efficiency in construction. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 137(7), 511-519.

BACCARINI, D. (2020). Resource Management in Construction Projects. Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, 146(4), 1-9.

BERTELSEN, S. (2021). Gantt Chart Analysis in Resource Allocation for

Construction Projects. Construction Management and Economics, 39(5), 405-
417.

BOUSSABAINE, H., ELHAG, T., & BOYD, D. (2019). Comparative analysis of

scheduling techniques in construction. International Journal of Project
Management, 37(3), 85–97.

CLEARPOINT STRATEGY. (n.d.). 15 project management KPIs to track for

success. Retrieved from https://www.clearpointstrategy.com/blog/important-
project-management-kpis

CRAWFORD, L., & COPE, D. (2020). Optimizing Resource Allocation in

Construction Projects. Construction Innovation, 18(1), 25-35.

DE GUZMAN, A., & TAN, J. (2020). Scheduling and Resource Allocation in

Medium-Scale Construction Projects: A Case Study in Ilocos Norte. Journal
of Philippine Construction Management, 29(3), 112-120.

DUGGI, S., & SIVAKUMAR, A. (2019, October). Impact of schedule management

 62

plan on project management effectiveness. ResearchGate. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364096071_Impact_of_Schedule_M
anagement_Plan_on_Project_Management_Effectiveness

GANTTIC. (n.d.). Resource planning metrics: What are they and why are they
important? Retrieved from https://www.ganttic.com/blog/resource-planning-
metrics

GUPTA, S. (2024). Sustainable resource allocation strategies in

construction. Sustainability in Construction Management, 12(4), 45–56.

HALL, M. (2019). Project Management in Uncertainty: The Role of PERT in

Scheduling. Project Management Journal, 50(4), 85-96.

HILLIER, F. S., & LIEBERMAN, G. J. (2010). Introduction to operations

research (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

HOWES, R., & TAH, J. H. M. (2003). Strategic management applied to

international
construction. Thomas Telford Publishing

KELLEY, J. E., & WALKER, M. R. (1959). Critical-path planning and scheduling.

Proceedings of the Eastern Joint Computer Conference.

KERZNER, H. (2017). Project management: A systems approach to planning,

scheduling, and controlling (12th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

LEU, S. S., & YANG, C. H. (1999). Resource allocation scheduling for repetitive
projects. Automation in Construction, 8(5), 543-553.

MALCOLM, D. G., ROSEBOOM, J. H., CLARK, C. E., & FAZAR, W. (1959).

Application of a technique for research and development program evaluation.
Operations Research, 7(5), 646-669.

MCMANUS, J. (2020). Integrating hybrid scheduling techniques for construction

management. Journal of Project Management, 45(2), 121–134.

MODER, J. J., PHILLIPS, C. R., & DAVIS, E. W. (1983). Project management

with
CPM, PERT and precedence diagramming. Van Nostrand Reinhold.

MORRIS, P. (2020). The Evolution of Project Scheduling Techniques. International

Journal of Project Management, 38(3), 112-121.
 63

NAKHON, P., & KOOMPAI, T. (2012). Hybrid scheduling approaches for resource
optimization. Asian Journal of Construction Management, 25(4), 65–78.

PROCORE. (n.d.). Construction KPIs: Your guide to performance indicators for the
construction industry. Retrieved from
https://www.procore.com/library/construction-kpis

PINTO, J. K. (2019). Project Management: Achieving Competitive Advantage.

Pearson Education.

RASTOGI, S. (2022). Enhancing collaboration in resource allocation

processes. International Journal of Construction Technology, 41(3), 89–104.

REYES, R. (2019). The Impact of Scheduling Techniques on Resource Allocation in

Philippine Construction Projects. Philippine Journal of Engineering, 34(2),
45-58.

ROCKETLANE. (n.d.). 9 resource management KPIs you must track. Retrieved

from
https://www.rocketlane.com/blogs/resource-management-kpis

SEYMOUR, D., & WILLIAMS, T. (2020). The impact of integrated scheduling on

resource efficiency. Construction Economics and Building, 20(1), 45–58.

TURNER, R. (2018). Sustainable project management: Achieving project efficiency

and sustainability. Springer.

VANHOUCKE, M. (2012). Project control: Integrating earned value and schedule

risk
management. Management Science Journal, 58(1), 59-74.

WALDRON, D. (2024). Localized strategies for resource allocation in

construction. Journal of Sustainable Development in Construction, 22(2), 67–80.

WHITE, D., & HARTSFIELD, D. (2021). Scheduling for Efficiency in Resource

Allocation: A Construction Perspective. Journal of Construction Technology,
39(6), 203-211.
 64

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Letters
 65

Figure 4a. Receiving Letter (Page 1)

Figure 4b. Receiving Letter (Page 2)

 66

Appendix B. Raw Data

Figure 5. Gantt Chart of Construction of Multi – Purpose Building (Covered Court,

Barangay Nalasin, Paoay, Ilocos Norte
 67

Figure 6. Gantt Chart of Construction of Multi – Purpose Facility (Municipal Public

Market) Marcos, Ilocos Norte
 68

Figure 7. Gantt Chart of Construction of Multi – Purpose Building, Barangay

Balbaldez, Badoc, Ilocos Norte
 69

Figure 8. Gantt Chart of Construction of 2sty4cl, Bagbago Es, Solsona, Ilocos Norte
 70

Figure 9. Gantt Chart of Construction of Multi – Purpose Building, Acosta, Batac,

Ilocos Norte
 71

Figure 10. PERT-CPM of Construction of Solar Water System, Pinili, Ilocos Norte
 72

Figure 11. PERT-CPM of Construction of Multi – Purpose Building (Covered

Court), Barangay Sungadan, Paoay, Ilocos Norte
 73

Figure 12. PERT-CPM of Construction of Multi – Purpose Building, Barangay Suba,

Paoay, Ilocos Norte
 74

Figure 13. PERT-CPM of Construction of Multi – Purpose Building, Barangay

Saludares, Dingras, Ilocos Norte
 75

Figure 14. PERT-CPM of Construction of Multi – Purpose Building, Nagbacalan,

Paoay, Ilocos Norte
 76

Appendix C. Calculations

Detailed Analysis of Resource Allocation Metrics

Project 1 Title: Construction of Multi-Purpose Building, Barangay Nalasin, Paoay

Original Contract Duration: 150 Calendar Days
Revised Contract Duration: 188 Calendar Days
Start Date: February 14, 2024
Original Contract Expiry Date: July 12, 2024
Revised Contract Expiry Date: August 19, 2024
Scheduling Technique Used: Gantt Chart

Labor Utilization Rate

Original Contract Duration:
Planned Calendar Days: February 14 – July 12, 2024 = 150 calendar days
Planned Working days: 124 days
Revised Duration:
Actual Calendar Days: February 14 – August 19, 2024 = 188 calendar days
Actual Working days: 149 days

Labor Type Planne Planned Actual Actual Planned Actual

d Daily Working Daily Working Labor Labor
Count Days Count Days (149) Hours Hours (8
(124) (8 hrs/days +
hrs/day) overtime
occurred
(if any))
Foreman 1 124 1 149 992 1192
Carpenter 2 60 2 67 960 1072
Mason 3 80 3 87 1920 2088
Steelman 3 40 4 50 960 1600
Plumber 2 10 2 8 160 128
Electrician 2 25 2 28 400 448
Painter 2 10 2 7 160 112
Laborer 8 124 8 149 7936 9536
Roofer 4 40 4 48 1280 1536
Equipment 2 50 2 57 800 912
Operator
TOTAL 15568 18624
 77

Actual Labor Hours Worked

LUR ( % ) = × 100
Planned Labor Hours

18624
LUR ( % ) = ×100
15568

LUR ( % ) =119.63 %

Material Usage Efficiency (MUE)

From the BOM, all actual (as-built) material quantities match the planned

quantities — no recorded overuse or underuse.

Metric Value (%)

Total Materials Used 100
Wasted Materials 0

Wasted Material Quantity

MWR ( % )= ×100
Total Material Quantity Used

0
MWR ( % )= ×100
100

MWR ( % )=0

Thus,

MUE ( % )=100−MWR

MUE ( % )=100−0

MUE ( % )=100 %
 78

Equipment Deployment Efficiency

Equipment Planned Actual Usage EDE (%)
Usage Days Days
Plate Compactor 10 7 70.00
One Bagger Mixer 80 87 108.75
Concrete Vibrator 50 45 90.00
Bar Bender/Cutter 30 27 90.00
Welding Machine 20 25 125.00
Cut Off Machine 20 25 125.00
Power Spray 10 5 50.00
Backhoe with Breaker 10 7 70.00
Dump Truck 25 35 140.00

Actual Equipment Usage Days

EDR ( % )= ×100
Planned Equipment Usage Days

EDE ( % )=
∑ of all EDEs
n

868.75
EDE ( % )=
9

EDE ( % )=96.53 %

Summary of Resource Efficiency Metrics for Construction of Multi-Purpose

Building, Brgy. Nalasin, Paoay, Ilocos Norte
Resource Type Efficiency Metric Result (%)
Labor Labor Utilization Rate 119.63
(LUR)
Material Material Usage Efficiency 100%
(MUE)
Equipment Equipment Deployment 96.53
Efficiency (EDE)
 79

Project 2 Title: Construction of Multi-Purpose Facility (Municipal Public Market)

Marcos, Ilocos Norte
Original Contract Duration: 60 Calendar Days
Revised Contract Duration: 145 Calendar Days
Start Date: May 25, 2023
Original Contract Expiry Date: July 23, 2023
Revised Contract Expiry Date: September 21, 2023
Revised Contract Expiry Date: September 30, 2023
Revised Contract Expiry Date: October 16, 2023
Scheduling Technique Used: Gantt Chart

Labor Utilization Rate (LUR)

Original Contract Duration:
Planned Calendar Days: May 25 – July 23, 2023 = 60 calendar days
Planned Working days: 50 days
Revised Duration:
Actual Calendar Days: May 25– July 23, 2023 = 145 calendar days
Actual Working days: 48 days

Labor Planned Planned Actual Actual Planned Actual

Type Daily Working Daily Working Labor Labor
Count Days (50) Count Days (48) Hours (8 Hours (8
hrs/day) hrs/days +
overtime
occurred (if
any))
Heavy 2 10 2 9 160 144
Equipment
Operator
Foreman 1 50 1 48 400 384
Laborer 10 50 12 47 4000 4512
Welder 2 16 3 18 256 432
Steelman 2 21 2 20 336 320
Carpenter 4 31 5 28 992 1120
Mason 3 21 4 19 504 608
Electrician 2 15 3 12 240 288
Plumber 2 16 2 19 256 304
TOTAL 7, 144 8, 112
 80

Actual Labor Hours Worked

LUR ( % ) = × 100
Planned Labor Hours

7 , 936
LUR ( % ) = ×100
7 , 144

LUR ( % ) =113.55 %

Material Utilization Efficiency (MUE)

Planned Quantity to be Actual
Material Wasted Material
used Quantity used
Concrete
Hollow Blocks
(CHB) with 101.60 sq.m 82.66 sq.m 18.94 sq.m
reinforcing
steel)
TOTAL 101.60 sq.m 82.66 sq.m 18.94 sq.m

Wasted Material Quantity

MWR ( % )= ×100
Total Material Quantity Used

18.94
MWR ( % )= × 100
82.66

MWR ( % )=22.89

Thus,

MUE ( % )=100−MWR

MUE ( % )=100−22.89

MUE ( % )=77.11%
 81

Equipment Deployment Efficiency (EDE)

Equipment Planned Usage Actual Usage EDE (%)
(days) (days)
Plate Compactor 5 3 60
One Bagger Mixer 26 24 92.31
Concrete Vibrator 16 16 100
Bar Bender/Cutter 21 21 100
Welding Machine 16 18 112.5
Backhoe with breaker 6 5 83.33
Dump Truck 10 10 100

Actual Equipment Usage Days

EDR ( % )= ×100
Planned Equipment Usage Days

EDE ( % )=
∑ of all EDEs
n

EDE ( % )=92.59 %

Summary of Resource Efficiency Metrics for Construction of Multi-Purpose

Facility (Municipal Public Market).
Resource Type Efficiency Metric Result (%)
Labor Labor Utilization Rate 113.55%
(LUR)
Material Material Usage Efficiency 77.11%
(MUE)
Equipment Equipment Deployment 92.59%
Efficiency (EDE)
 82

Project 3 Title: Construction of Multi-Purpose Building, Barangay Balbaldez, Badoc,

Ilocos Norte
Original Contract Duration: 150 calendar days
Revised Contract Duration: 150 calendar days
Start Date: May 27, 2024
Contract Expiry Date: October 23, 2024
Scheduling Technique Used: Gantt Chart

Labor Utilization Rate (LUR)

Labor Planned Planned Actual Actual Planned Actual
Type Daily Working Daily Working Labor Labor
Count Days Count Days (121) Hours (8 Hours (8
(127) hrs/day) hrs/days +
overtime
occurred (if
any))
Foreman 1 127 1 121 1016 1016
Laborer 10 127 12 121 10160 11616
Heavy 2 16 2 16 256 256
Equipment
Operator
Steelman 3 26 3 25 624 624
Welder 2 29 2 27 464 464
Carpenter 3 57 3 56 1368 1368
Mason 2 49 2 47 784 784
Electrician 2 20 2 20 320 320
Plumber 2 14 2 14 224 224

TOTAL 15, 216 16, 672

Actual Labor Hours Worked

LUR ( % ) = × 100
Planned Labor Hours

16 , 672
LUR ( % ) = × 100
15 , 216

LUR ( % ) =109.57
 83

Material Utilization Efficiency (MUE)

Planned Quantity to be Actual
Material Wasted Material
used Quantity used
100 mm Concrete
Hollow Blocks
20 sq.m 18.66 sq.m 1.34 sq.m
(CHB) with
reinforcing steel)
Unglazed Tiles 12 sq.m 11.67 sq.m 0.33
TOTAL 32 sq.m 30.33 sq.m 1.67sq.m

Wasted Material Quantity

MWR ( % )= ×100
Total Material Quantity Used

1.67
MWR ( % )= ×100
30.33

MWR ( % )=5.51 %

Thus,

MUE ( % )=100−MWR

MUE ( % )=100−5.51

MUE ( % )=94.49 %
 84

Equipment Deployment Efficiency (EDE)

Equipment Planned Usage (days) Actual Usage EDE (%)
(days)
Plate Compactor 15 15 100
One Bagger Mixer 49 47 95.92
Concrete Vibrator 20 19 95
Bar Bender/Bender 26 26 100
Welding Machine 29 27 93.10
Backhoe 14 14 100
Dump Truck 16 16 100

Actual Equipment Usage Days

EDR ( % )= ×100
Planned Equipment Usage Days

EDE ( % )=
∑ of all EDEs
n

EDE ( % )=97.72 %

Summary of Resource Efficiency Metrics for Construction of Multi-Purpose

Building, Barangay Balbaldez, Badoc, Ilocos Norte
Resource Type Efficiency Metric Result (%)
Labor Labor Utilization Rate 109.57%
(LUR)
Material Material Usage Efficiency 94.49%
(MUE)
Equipment Equipment Deployment 97.72%
Efficiency (EDE)
 85

Project 4 Title: Construction of 2STY4CL, Bagbago Es, Solsona, Ilocos Norte

Original Contract Duration: 120 CD
Revised Contract Duration: 120 CD
Start Date: July 4, 2024
Original Contract Expiry Date: October 31, 2024
Revised Contract Expiry Date: October 31, 2024
Scheduling Technique Used: Gantt Chart

Labor Utilization Rate (LUR)

Original Contract Duration:

Planned Calendar Days: July 4– October 31, 2024 = 120 calendar days
Planned Working days: 102 days
Revised Duration:
Actual Calendar Days: July 4– October 31, 2024 = 120 calendar days
Actual Working days: 99 days

Labor Planned Planned Actual Actual Planned Actual

Type Daily Working Daily Working Labor Labor
Count Days Count Days (95) Hours Hours (8
(102) (8 hrs/days +
hrs/day) overtime
occurred
(if any))
Foreman 1 102 1 95 816 760
Laborer 11 102 14 93 8976 10416
Heavy 2 22 2 22 272 272
Equipment
Operator
Steelman 2 38 3 35 608 840
Welder 2 17 2 17 272 272
Carpenter 2 56 3 51 896 1224
Mason 2 16 2 15 256 256
Electrician 2 9 2 9 144 144
Plumber 2 10 2 9 160 144

TOTAL 12, 400 14, 328

 86

Actual Labor Hours Worked

LUR ( % ) = × 100
Planned Labor Hours

14 ,328
LUR ( % ) = ×100
12 , 400

LUR ( % ) =115.55

Material Utilization Efficiency (MUE)

Metric Value (%)

Total Materials Used 100
Wasted Materials 0

Wasted Material Quantity

MWR ( % )= ×100
Total Material Quantity Used

0
MWR ( % )= ×100
100

MWR ( % )=0

Thus,

MUE ( % )=100−MWR

MUE ( % )=100−0

MUE ( % )=100 %
 87

Equipment Deployment Efficiency (EDE)

Equipment Planned Usage Actual Usage EDE (%)
(days) (days)
Plate Compactor 5 5 100
One Bagger Mixer 30 27 90
Concrete Vibrator 27 24 88.89
Bar Bender\Cutter 38 35 92.11
Welding Machine 17 17 100
Backhoe 17 17 100
Dump Truck 8 8 100

Actual Equipment Usage Days

EDR ( % )= ×100
Planned Equipment Usage Days

EDE ( % )=
∑ of all EDEs
n

EDE ( % )=95.86 %

Summary of Resource Efficiency Metrics For Construction of 2sty4cl, Bagbago

Es, Solsona, Ilocos Norte
Resource Type Efficiency Metric Result (%)
Labor Labor Utilization Rate 115.55%
(LUR)
Material Material Usage Efficiency 100%
(MUE)
Equipment Equipment Deployment 95.86
Efficiency (EDE)
 88

Project 5 Title: Construction of Multi-Purpose Building, Acosta, Batac City, Ilocos

Norte
Original Contract Duration: 85 CALENDAR DAYS
Start Date: June 14, 2024
Original Contract Expiry Date:September 6, 2024
Scheduling Technique Used: Gantt Chart

Labor Utilization Rate

Original Contract Duration:
Planned Calendar Days: June 14, 2024 - September 6, 2024
Planned Working days: 67 days
Actual Working days: 66 days

Actual
Labor
Planned
Planned Planned Actual Actual Hours (8
Labor Labor
Daily Working Daily Working hrs/days +
Type Hours(8
Count Days(67) Count Days (66) overtime
hrs/day)
occurred
(if any))
Foreman 1 67 1 66 536 528
Carpenter 3 55 3 55 1320 1320
Mason 3 30 2 32 720 512
Steelman 2 46 2 46 736 736
Plumber 1 10 1 12 80 96
Electrician 1 10 1 10 80 80
Welder 1 36 1 36 288 288
Painter 1 29 1 25 232 125
Laborer 3 67 2 66 1608 1056
Equipment
1 15 1 16 120 128
Operator
Total 5640 4869
 89

Actual Labor Hours Worked

LUR ( % ) = × 100
Planned Labor Hours

4869
LUR ( % ) = ×100
5640

LUR ( % ) =89.18 %

Material Utilization Efficiency (MUE).

Metric Value (%)

Total Materials Used 100
Wasted Materials 0

Wasted Material Quantity

MWR ( % )= ×100
Total Material Quantity Used
0
MWR ( % )= ×100
100
MWR ( % )=0

Thus,
MUE ( % )=100−MWR

MUE ( % )=100−0

MUE ( % )=100 %
 90

Equipment Deployment Efficiency

Planned Usage Actual Usage

Equipment EDE (%)
Days Days
Concrete Mixer 35 35 100.0
Concrete Vibrator 35 35 100.0
Bar Cutter/Bender 40 42 105
Welding Machine 36 36 100.0
Backhoe with Breaker 15 16 106.67
Dump Truck 15 16 106.67

Actual Equipment Usage Days

EDR ( % )= ×100
Planned Equipment Usage Days

EDE ( % )=
∑ of all EDEs
n

EDE ( % )=123.67

Summary of Resource Efficiency Metrics for Construction of Multi-Purpose

Facility Multi-Purpose Building, Acosta, Batac City, Ilocos Norte.

Resource Type Efficiency Metric Result (%)

Labor Labor Utilization Rate 89.18%
(LUR)
Material Material Usage Efficiency 100%
(MUE)
Equipment Equipment Deployment 123.67%
Efficiency (EDE)
 91

Project 6 Title: Construction of Solar Water System, Pinili, Ilocos Norte

Original Contract Duration: 120 Calendar Days
Revised Contract Duration: 180 Calendar Days
Start Date: June 26, 2023
Original Contract Expiry Date: October 23, 2023
Revised Contract Expiry Date: December 22, 2023
Scheduling Technique Used: PERT-CPM

Labor Utilization Rate

Original Contract Duration:
Planned Calendar Days: June 26 – October 23, 2023 = 120 calendar days
Planned Working days: 101 days
Revised Duration:
Actual Calendar Days: June 26 – December 22, 2023 = 180 calendar days
Actual Working days: 122 days

Labor Planned Planned Actual Actual Planned Actual

Type Daily Working Daily Working Labor Labor
Count Days Count Days (122) Hours Hours (8
(101) (8 hrs/days +
hrs/day) overtime
occurred
(if any))
Foreman 1 101 1 122 808 976
Laborer 8 101 10 122 6464 9760
Carpenter 3 25 4 19 600 608
Mason 2 50 3 43 800 1032
Steelman 3 20 4 15 480 480
Plumber 2 30 2 34 480 544
Electrician 3 40 3 49 960 1176
Technician 2 40 2 49 640 784
Mechanic 1 15 1 18 120 144
Welder 1 35 1 35 280 280
Fabricator 2 15 2 18 240 288
Installer 2 10 2 10 160 160
Painter 2 20 3 14 320 336
Equipment 2 20 2 26 320 416
Operator
TOTAL 12672 16984
 92

Actual Labor Hours Worked

LUR ( % ) = × 100
Planned Labor Hours

16984
LUR ( % ) = ×100
12672

LUR ( % ) =134.03 %

Material Usage Efficiency (MUE)

Metric Value (%)

Total Materials Used 100
Wasted Materials 0

Wasted Material Quantity

MWR ( % )= ×100
Total Material Quantity Used

0
MWR ( % )= ×100
100

MWR ( % )=0

Thus,

MUE ( % )=100−MWR

MUE ( % )=100−0

MUE ( % )=100 %
 93

Equipment Deployment Efficiency

Equipment Planned Usage Actual Usage EDE (%)
Days Days
Plate Compactor 15 14 93.33
One Bagger Mixer 50 43 86.00
Concrete Vibrator 15 17 113.33
Bar Bender/Cutter 20 20 100.00
Welding Machine 30 35 116.67
Cut Off Machine 10 8 80.00
Power Spray 5 3 60.00
Backhoe with Breaker 10 8 80.00
Dump Truck 30 26 86.67
Water Truck 30 26 86.67

Actual Equipment Usage Days

EDR ( % )= ×100
Planned Equipment Usage Days

EDE ( % )=
∑ of all EDEs
n

902.67
EDE ( % )=
10

EDE ( % )=90.27 %

Summary of Resource Efficiency Metrics for Construction of Solar Water

System, Pinili, Ilocos Norte
Resource Type Efficiency Metric Result (%)
Labor Labor Utilization Rate 134.03
(LUR)
Material Material Usage Efficiency 100%
(MUE)
Equipment Equipment Deployment 90.27
Efficiency (EDE)
 94

Project 7 Title: Construction of Multi-Purpose Building (Covered Court), Brgy.

Sungadan, Paoay, Ilocos Norte
Original Contract Duration: 150 Calendar Days
Revised Contract Duration: 238 Calendar Days
Start Date: February 14, 2024
Original Contract Expiry Date: July 12, 2024
Revised Contract Expiry Date: October 8, 2024
Scheduling Technique Used: PERT-CPM

Labor Utilization Rate

Original Contract Duration:
Planned Calendar Days: February 14 – July 12, 2024 = 150 calendar days
Planned Working days: 124 days
Revised Duration:
Actual Calendar Days: February 14 – October 8, 2024 = 238 calendar days
Actual Working days: 163 days

Labor Planned Planned Actual Actual Planned Actual

Type Daily Working Daily Working Labor Labor
Count Days Count Days (163) Hours Hours (8
(124) (8 hrs/days +
hrs/day) overtime
occurred
(if any))
Foreman 1 124 1 163 992 1304
Carpenter 3 75 4 66 1800 2112
Mason 2 40 2 50 640 800
Steelman 2 75 2 81 1200 1296
Electrician 2 20 2 23 320 368
Plumber 2 10 2 7 160 112
Welder 2 30 2 34 480 544
Laborer 8 124 8 163 7936 10432
Roofer 3 40 3 48 960 1152
Equipment 2 30 2 27 480 432
Operator
TOTAL 14,968 18,552
 95

Actual Labor Hours Worked

LUR ( % ) = × 100
Planned Labor Hours

18,552
LUR ( % ) = ×100
14,968

LUR ( % ) =123.94 %

Material Usage Efficiency (MUE)

From the BOM, all actual (as-built) material quantities match the planned

quantities — no recorded overuse or underuse.

Metric Value (%)

Total Materials Used 100
Wasted Materials 0

Wasted Material Quantity

MWR ( % )= ×100
Total Material Quantity Used

0
MWR ( % )= ×100
100

MWR ( % )=0

Thus,

MUE ( % )=100−MWR

MUE ( % )=100−0

MUE ( % )=100 %
 96

Equipment Deployment Efficiency

Equipment Planned Usage Actual Usage EDE (%)

Days Days
Plate Compactor 10 7 70.00
One Bagger Mixer 50 50 100.00
Concrete Vibrator 30 25 83.33
Bar Bender/Cutter 25 28 112.00
Welding Machine 20 20 100.00
Cut Off Machine 20 15 75.00
Power Spray 5 3 60.00
Backhoe with Breaker 30 27 90.00
Dump Truck 30 27 90.00

Actual Equipment Usage Days

EDR ( % )= ×100
Planned Equipment Usage Days

EDE ( % )=
∑ of all EDEs
n

780.33
EDE ( % )=
9

EDE ( % )=86.70 %

Summary of Resource Efficiency Metrics for Construction of Multi-Purpose

Building (Covered Court), Brgy. Sungadan, Paoay, Ilocos Norte

Resource Type Efficiency Metric Result (%)

Labor Labor Utilization Rate 123.94
(LUR)
Material Material Usage Efficiency 100
(MUE)
Equipment Equipment Deployment 86.70
Efficiency (EDE)
 97

Project Title 8: Construction of Multi – Purpose Building, Barangay Suba, Paoay,

Ilocos Norte
Original Contract Duration: 120 Calendar Days
Revised Contract Duration: 120 Calendar Days
Start Date: February 14, 2024
Original Contract Expiry Date: JUNE 13, 2024
Revised Contract Expiry Date: JUNE 13, 2024
Scheduling Technique Used: PERT – CPM

Labor Utilization Rate (LUR)

Original Contract Duration:
Planned Calendar Days: February 14 – June 13, 2024 = 120 calendar days
Planned Working days: 99 days
Revised Duration:
Planned Calendar Days: February 14 – June 12, 2024 = 120 calendar days
Planned Working days: 99 days

Labor Planned Planned Actual Actual Planned Actual

Type Daily Working Daily Working Labor Labor
Count Days (99) Count Days (99) Hours (8 Hours (8
hrs/day) hrs/days +
overtime
occurred (if
any))
Foreman 1 99 1 99 792 792
Heavy 2 22 2 22 352 352
Equipment
Opertator
Laborer 10 99 12 99 7920 9504
Steelman 2 25 2 25 400 400
Welder 2 20 2 20 320 320
Carpenter 3 50 3 50 1200 1200
Mason 3 40 4 39 960 1248
Electrician 2 15 2 14 240 224
Plumber 2 15 2 13 240 208
TOTAL 12424 14248
 98

Actual Labor Hours Worked

LUR ( % ) = × 100
Planned Labor Hours

14248
LUR ( % ) = ×100
12424

LUR ( % ) =114.68 %

Material Utilization Efficiency (MUE)

Planned Quantity Actual

Material Wasted Material
to be used Quantity used
CHB (150) 362.45 sq. m 348.95 sq.m 13.5
Unglazed Tiles 200.9 sq.m 190.71 sq.m 10.19
Cement Plaster Finish 553.8 sq.m 537.40 sq. m 16.4
TOTAL 1117.15 sq.m 1077.06 sq.m 40.09

Wasted Material Quantity

MWR ( % )= ×10 0
Total Material Quantity Used

1117.15−1077.06
MWR ( % )= × 100
1077.06

MWR ( % )=3.72 %

Thus,

MUE ( % )=100−MWR

MUE ( % )=100−3.72%

MUE ( % )=96.27 %
 99

Equipment Deployment Efficiency (EDE)

Equipment Planned Usage Actual Usage EDE (%)
(days) (days)
Plate Compactor 20 18 90%
One Bagger Mixer 50 49 98%
Concrete Vibrator 30 29 96.67%
Backhoe 15 15 100%
Welding Machine 25 25 100%
Dump Truck 20 20 100%
Water Truck 18 17 94.44%
TOTAL 679.11%

Actual Equipment Usage Days

EDR ( % )= ×100
Planned Equipment Usage Days
90+ 98+96.67+ 100+100+100+94.44
EDE ( % )=
7

EDE ( % )=97.02 %

Suummary of Resource Efficiency Metrics in Construction of Multi – Purpose

Building, Barangay Suba, Paoay, Ilocos Norte.
Resource Type Efficiency Metric Result (%)
Labor Labor Utilization Rate 114.68%
(LUR)
Material Material Usage 96.27%
Efficiency (MUE)
Equipment Equipment Deployment 97.02%
Efficiency (EDE)
 100

Project Title 9: Construction of Multi – Purpose Building, Barangay Saludares,

Dingras, Ilocos Norte
Original Contract Duration: 120 Calendar Days
Revised Contract Duration: 120 Calendar Days
Start Date: February 14, 2024
Original Contract Expiry Date: JUNE 12, 2024
Revised Contract Expiry Date: JULY 7, 2024
Scheduling Technique Used: PERT - CPM

Labor Utilization Rate (LUR)

Original Contract Duration:
Planned Calendar Days: February 14 – June 12, 2024 = 120 calendar days
Planned Working days: 98 days
Revised Duration:
Planned Calendar Days: February 14 – July 17, 2024 = 145 calendar days
Planned Working days: 98 days

Labor Planned Planned Actual Actual Planned Actual

Type Daily Working Daily Working Labor Labor
Count Days (98) Count Days (98) Hours (8 Hours (8
hrs/day) hrs/days +
overtime
occurred (if
any))
Foreman 1 98 1 98 98 98
Laborer 10 98 10 98 7840 7840
Carpenters 3 50 3 50 1200 1200
Mason 3 40 4 39 960 936
Steelman 2 25 2 25 400 400
Welder 2 20 2 20 320 320
Electrician 2 15 2 15 240 240
Plumber 2 15 2 14 240 224
Equipment 2 22 2 22 352 352
Operator
TOTAL 12424 13488
 101

Actual Labor Hours Worked

LUR ( % ) = × 100
Planned Labor Hours

11650
LUR ( % ) = ×100
10917

LUR ( % ) =108.56 %

Material Utilization Efficiency (MUE)

Planned Quantity Actual
Material MUE (each)
to be used Quantity used
CHB (150) 301.71 sq. m 287.16 sq. m 14.55
Unglazed Tiles 190.71 sq.m 178.56 sq.m 12.15
Cement Plaster Finish 850.43 sq.m 827.98 sq. m 22.45
TOTAL 1293.7 sq. m 49.15

Wasted Material Quantity

MWR ( % )= ×100
Total Material Quantity Used

49.15
MWR ( % )= ×100
1293.7

MWR ( % )=3.79 %

Thus,

MUE ( % )=100−MWR

MUE ( % )=100−3.79 %

MUE ( % )=96.20 %
 102

Equipment Deployment Efficiency (EDE)

Equipment Planned Usage Actual Usage EDE (%)
(days) (days)
Plate Compactor 20 18 90%
One Bagger Mixer 50 48 96%
Concrete Vibrator 30 29 96.67%
Backhoe 15 15 100%
Welding Machine 25 25 100%
Dump Truck 20 20 100%
Water Truck 18 17 94.44%

Actual Equipment Usage Days

EDR ( % )= ×100
Planned Equipment Usage Days

90+ 96+96.67 +100+100+100+94.44

EDE ( % )=
7

EDE ( % )=96.59 %

Summary of Resource Efficiency Metrics for Construction of Multi – Purpose

Building, Barangay Saludares, Dingras, Ilocos Norte.
Resource Type Efficiency Metric Result (%)
Labor Labor Utilization Rate 108.56
(LUR)
Material Material Usage Efficiency 96.20%
(MUE)
Equipment Equipment Deployment 96.59%
Efficiency (EDE)
 103

Project 10 Title: Construction of Multi-Purpose Building, Paoay, Ilocos Norte

Original Contract Duration: 180 Calendar Days
Revised Contract Duration: 241 Calendar Days
Start Date: February 14, 2024
Original Contract Expiry Date: August 11, 2024
Revised Contract Expiry Date: October 11, 2024
Scheduling Technique Used: PERT-CPM

Labor Utilization Rate (LUR)

Original Contract Duration
Planned Calendar Days: February 14 – August 11, 2024 = 180 calendar days
Planned Working days: 141 days
Revised Duration:
Actual Calendar Days: February 14 – October 11, 2024 = 241 calendar days
Actual Working days: 139 days

Labor Planned Planned Actual Actual Planned Actual Labor

Type Daily Working Daily Working Labor Hours (8
Count Days Count Days Hours (8 hrs/days +
(141) (139) hrs/day) overtime
occurred (if
any))
Heavy 2 12 2 16 192 256
Equipment
Operator
Foreman 1 141 1 139 1128 1112
Laborer 12 141 1 139 13536 14456
3
Welder 2 50 3 77 800 1848
Steelman 2 50 2 77 800 1232
Carpenter 6 88 6 105 4224 5040
Mason 3 74 5 80 1776 3200
Electrician 2 18 3 25 288 600
Plumber 2 12 2 14 192 224
TOTAL 22936 27968
 104

Actual Labor Hours Worked

LUR ( % ) = × 100
Planned Labor Hours

27968
LUR ( % ) = ×100
22936

LUR ( % ) =121.94 %

Material Utilization Efficiency (MUE)

Metric Value (%)

Total Materials Used 100
Wasted Materials 0

Wasted Material Quantity

MWR ( % )= ×100
Total Material Quantity Used

0
MWR ( % )= ×100
100

MWR ( % )=0

Thus,

MUE ( % )=100−MWR

MUE ( % )=100−0

MUE ( % )=100 %

Equipment Deployment Efficiency (EDE)

 105

Equipment Planned Usage Days Actual Usage Days EDE (%)

Concrete Mixer 20 26 130.0

Concrete Vibrator 10 14 140.0

Bar Cutter/Bender 20 25 125.0

Welding Machine 25 32 128.0

Backhoe with
12 14 116.67
Breaker
Plate Compactor 8 10 125.0
Dump Truck 12 15 125.0

Actual Equipment Usage Days

EDR ( % )= ×100
Planned Equipment Usage Days

EDE ( % )=
∑ of all EDEs
n

EDE ( % )=127.1 %

Summary of Resource Efficiency Metrics for Construction of Multi-Purpose

Facility in Paoay, Ilocos Norte.
Resource Type Efficiency Metric Result (%)
Labor Labor Utilization Rate 121.94%
(LUR)
Material Material Usage Efficiency 100%
(MUE)
Equipment Equipment Deployment 127.1%
Efficiency (EDE)
 106

Analysis of Variance

Labor Utilization Rate Data Summary

Sample Standard
Variable Sample Size Mean
Deviation
LUR (Gantt-Chart) 5 109.496 11.9219

LUR (PERT-CPM) 5 120.63 9.66074

Test of Hypothesis: t-Test for LUR (Gantt-Chart)

Alternative Hypothesis Ha: Mean of 'LUR (Gantt-Chart)' is not equal to 100

2.5% lower critical value in units of data = 85.196976
2.5% upper critical value in units of data = 114.80302
Sample Mean Standard Obs t Stat DF 2.5% t-Lower 2.5% t- P-value
Error Critical Upper
Critical
109.496 5.33165 1.78106 4 -2.77645 2.77645 0.149499

Test is not significant at 5% level.

Test of Hypothesis: t-Test for LUR (PERT-CPM)

Alternative Hypothesis Ha: Mean of 'LUR (PERT-CPM)' is not equal to 100

2.5% lower critical value in units of data = 88.004607
2.5% upper critical value in units of data = 111.99539
Sample Mean Standard Obs t Stat DF 2.5% t-Lower 2.5% t- P-value
Error Critical Upper
Critical
120.63 4.32041 4.775 4 -2.77645 2.77645 0.0088077

Test is significant at 5% level.

 107

Test of Hypothesis: t-Test for LUR (Gantt-Chart) - LUR (PERT-CPM)

Alternative Hypothesis Ha: Difference of means 'LUR (Gantt-Chart) - LUR (PERT-

CPM)' is not equal to 0
2.5% lower critical value in units of data = -15.943818
2.5% upper critical value in units of data = 15.943818
Unequal population variances was assumed.

Difference of Std Error Obs t Stat DF 2.5% t-Lower 2.5% t- P-value

Means Critical Upper
Critical
-11.134 6.86239 -1.62247 7.6704 -2.32336 2.32336 0.144981
9
Test is not significant at 5% level.

Material Usage Efficiency Data Summary

Sample Standard
Variable Sample Size Mean
Deviation
MUE (Gantt-Chart) 5 94.32 9.91212

MUE (PERT-CPM) 5 98.494 2.06232

Test of Hypothesis: t-Test for MUE (Gantt-Chart)

Alternative Hypothesis Ha: Mean of 'MUE (Gantt-Chart)' is not equal to 100

2.5% lower critical value in units of data = 87.692482
2.5% upper critical value in units of data = 112.30752
Sample Mean Standard Obs t Stat DF 2.5% t-Lower 2.5% t- P-value
Error Critical Upper
Critical
94.32 4.43283 -1.28135 4 -2.77645 2.77645 0.26931

Test is not significant at 5% level.

 108

Test of Hypothesis: t-Test for MUE (PERT-CPM)

Alternative Hypothesis Ha: Mean of 'MUE (PERT-CPM)' is not equal to 100

2.5% lower critical value in units of data = 97.439287
2.5% upper critical value in units of data = 102.56071
Sample Mean Standard Obs t Stat DF 2.5% t-Lower 2.5% t- P-value
Error Critical Upper
Critical
98.494 0.922299 -1.63288 4 -2.77645 2.77645 0.177832

Test is not significant at 5% level.

t-Based Confidence Interval

95% Confidence interval
Assumed unequal population variances
Variable Midpoint Standard DF Lower Upper Margin
Error CL CL of
Error
MUE (Gantt- -4.174 4.52776 4.34567 -16.3604 8.01238 12.1864
Chart) - MUE
(PERT-CPM)

Test of Hypothesis: t-Test for MUE (Gantt-Chart) - MUE (PERT-CPM)

Alternative Hypothesis Ha: Difference of means 'MUE (Gantt-Chart) - MUE (PERT-

CPM)' is not equal to 0
2.5% lower critical value in units of data = -12.186383
2.5% upper critical value in units of data = 12.186383
Unequal population variances was assumed.
Difference of Std Error Obs t Stat DF 2.5% t-Lower 2.5% t- P-value
Means Critical Upper
Critical
-4.174 4.52776 -0.921868 4.3456 -2.69148 2.69148 0.404876
7
Test is not significant at 5% level.
109
 110

Equipment Deployment Efficiency Data Summary

Variable Sample Size Mean Sample Standard
Deviation
EDR (Gantt-Chart) 5 101.274 12.6633

EDR (PERT-CPM) 5 99.536 16.011

Test of Hypothesis: t-Test for EDR (Gantt-Chart)

Alternative Hypothesis Ha: Mean of 'EDR (Gantt-Chart)' is not equal to 100

2.5% lower critical value in units of data = 84.276389
2.5% upper critical value in units of data = 115.72361

Sample Mean Standard Obs t Stat DF 2.5% t-Lower 2.5% t- P-value

Error Critical Upper
Critical
101.274 5.66322 0.22496 4 -2.77645 2.77645 0.833035

Test is not significant at 5% level.

Test of Hypothesis: t-Test for EDR (PERT-CPM)

Alternative Hypothesis Ha: Mean of 'EDR (PERT-CPM)' is not equal to 100

2.5% lower critical value in units of data = 80.119752
2.5% upper critical value in units of data = 119.88025
Sample Mean Standard Obs t Stat DF 2.5% t-Lower 2.5% t- P-value
Error Critical Upper
Critical
99.536 7.16032 -0.0648015 4 -2.77645 2.77645 0.951441

Test is not significant at 5% level.

 111

Test of Hypothesis: t-Test for EDR (Gantt-Chart) - EDR (PERT-CPM)

Alternative Hypothesis Ha: Difference of means 'EDR (Gantt-Chart) - EDR (PERT-

CPM)' is not equal to 100
2.5% lower critical value in units of data = 78.751993
2.5% upper critical value in units of data = 121.24801
Unequal population variances was assumed.

Difference of Standard Obs t Stat DF 2.5% t-Lower 2.5% t- P-value

Means Error Critical Upper
Critical
1.738 9.1292 -10.7635 7.59689 -2.32748 2.32748 7.22562e-
06
Test is significant at 5% level.
 112

Appendix D. Documentations

February 28, 2025

March 19, 2025

 113

March 25, 2025

March 28, 2025

April 07, 2025

 114

April 14, 2025

April 18, 2025

 115

April 20, 2025

April 21, 2025

 116

April 24, 2025