CPM in Construction Management,

Eighth Edition – Ebook PDF Version

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/cpm-in-construction-management-eighth-edition-eboo
k-pdf-version/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Discovering Psychology Eighth Edition – Ebook PDF

Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/discovering-psychology-eighth-
edition-ebook-pdf-version/

The St. Martin’s Handbook Eighth Edition – Ebook PDF

Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-st-martins-handbook-eighth-
edition-ebook-pdf-version/

Estimating Construction Costs, 6th edition – Ebook PDF

Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/estimating-construction-costs-6th-
edition-ebook-pdf-version/

Introduction to Early Childhood Education Eighth

Edition – Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/introduction-to-early-childhood-
education-eighth-edition-ebook-pdf-version/
Nutrition and Diagnosis-Related Care Eighth Edition –
Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/nutrition-and-diagnosis-related-
care-eighth-edition-ebook-pdf-version/

Clinically Oriented Anatomy Eighth North American

Edition – Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/clinically-oriented-anatomy-eighth-
north-american-edition-ebook-pdf-version/

Nursing for Wellness in Older Adults Eighth, North

American Edition – Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/nursing-for-wellness-in-older-
adults-eighth-north-american-edition-ebook-pdf-version/

Introduction to 80×86 Assembly Language and Computer

Architecture – Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/introduction-to-8086-assembly-
language-and-computer-architecture-ebook-pdf-version/

Construction Planning, Equipment, and Methods – Ebook

PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/construction-planning-equipment-
and-methods-ebook-pdf-version/
Architects. He has been an adjunct professor of engineering at Drexel
University since 1979 and at Temple University since 2009; he also taught at
the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Plotnick is a past president of the
Philadelphia chapter of the Pennsylvania Society of Professional Engineers
and an active member of the state society, as well as of the American Society
of Civil Engineers, the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering
International, and the American Bar Association Forum on Construction. He
was a charter member and past vice president of the PMI College of
Scheduling. In 2010, Dr. Plotnick created—and now annually hosts—the
Construction CPM Conference.

Citation
EXPORT
James J. O'Brien, P.E., PMP, CVS; Fredric L. Plotnick, Ph.D., Esq., P.E.: CPM in
Construction Management, Eighth Edition. ABOUT THE AUTHORS, Chapter (McGraw-
Hill Professional, 2016, 2010, 2006, 1999, 1993, 1984, 1971, 1965),
AccessEngineering

© 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.

Customer Privacy Notice. Any use is subject to the Terms of Use, Privacy Notice and
copyright information.
For further information about this site, contact us.

Designed and built using Scolaris by Semantico.

This product incorporates part of the open source Protégé system. Protégé is
available at https://protege.stanford.edu//
Acknowledgments

C. Acknowledgments

The writing of this 8th edition has involved the assistance of numerous
individuals who have provided technical advice on the computer software
products discussed, feedback from the field for the case studies discussed,
editorial review to combine the writing styles of the two authors into one
more readable style, and moral support throughout the process of writing
and rewriting and editing and proofreading and publishing. Special
recognition is accorded the following individuals:

Lauren Poplawski, Pamela Pelton, and Donna Martone of McGraw-Hill

Raghavi Khullar of Cenveo Publisher Services

Rob Edwards of Deltek

Garrett Harley and Karen Pilla of Oracle Primavera

Heather Heide of Microsoft

Ron Winter, Dan Patterson, Kenji Hoshino, and Jim Zack

The many volunteers and members of AACEi and former PMICOS who have
contributed content and constructive criticism

Jim and Fred dedicate this 8th edition to the memory of:

Rita O'Brien, November 1, 2010

Citation
EXPORT
James J. O'Brien, P.E., PMP, CVS; Fredric L. Plotnick, Ph.D., Esq., P.E.: CPM in
Construction Management, Eighth Edition. Acknowledgments, Chapter (McGraw-Hill
Professional, 2016, 2010, 2006, 1999, 1993, 1984, 1971, 1965), AccessEngineering

© 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.

Customer Privacy Notice. Any use is subject to the Terms of Use, Privacy Notice and
copyright information.
For further information about this site, contact us.

Designed and built using Scolaris by Semantico.

This product incorporates part of the open source Protégé system. Protégé is
available at https://protege.stanford.edu//
Introduction to Logic Based Planning and
Scheduling

1. Introduction to Logic Based Planning and Scheduling

This introduction discusses some factors that make the case for why
planning and scheduling are best performed by the critical path method
(CPM). It covers some of the history behind the development of CPM planning
and scheduling and relays some thoughts on where the process may go in
the future. The interplay between the theory of mathematics that underlies
the methodology and the modifications needed to make the methodology
more practical is a theme that is woven throughout the text. The reader will
see that it is the scheduler who must balance these two ideals, mathematics
and engineering, to provide a useful and user-friendly tool to the users of
CPM in construction management, manufacturing, and software design, and
to other users of projects that must be finished on time and within budget.

1.1. Scheduling Is for Everyone

Scheduling is a discipline that is performed by every person, every day.

Should you first shave or brush your teeth in the morning? If you are
scheduling for one person only, the process is rather simple. You can prepare
a "to-do" list and then choose the order in which to perform the items on it.
However, the choice of what to do first is not completely random. Perhaps
there are physical restrictions, such as "shower before dressing" or "cook
breakfast before eating." Perhaps there are logistical restrictions, such as
combining one trip to buy milk, pick up the dry cleaning, and refuel your car,
rather than making three trips to accomplish these three items on your to-do
list. Perhaps the order of performance is pure personal choice, such as put
on the right shoe before the left shoe.

Even at this simple level, not all is what it seems to be. If you are in a hurry,
you might begin eating a portion of your breakfast while still cooking the
rest. If your dry cleaner is open only from 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. and if your
car is very low on gas, you may have to refuel on your way to work, pick up
your dry cleaning at lunch, and buy milk on the way home from work. If you
have a foot or leg injury, you may need to put on your left shoe first.

If you want to schedule the tasks of two or more persons or the work flow of
two or more machines (even if both are under the supervision of one person),
the process becomes much more complex.

1.2. We Teach Carpentry—Not "How to Use Your New Power

Saw"

If the process of scheduling were a simple matter, requiring merely rote

actions without the need for thought, perhaps good schedules could be
created by a software wizard. After clicking your way through a preset series
of screens, you would have your schedule. Perhaps then the request of an old
client for a device where building blueprints are fed in one end and a
schedule is printed out the other end would be feasible.

Alas, it is not so—scheduling is a complex process, and the mathematical

underpinning is at a level more complex than rocket science (which is merely
calculus). Scheduling is an application of special knowledge or judgment of
the mathematical, physical, or engineering sciences to the conception or
implementation of creative work. Scheduling, formal or informal, good or bad,
is practiced in the planning, progress, and completion of designs, analyses,
or implementation performed in connection with utilities, structures,
buildings, machines, equipment, processes, systems, works, projects, and
industrial or consumer products or equipment of a mechanical, electrical,
electronic, chemical, hydraulic, pneumatic, geotechnical, or thermal nature.
The wording of the preceding sentence is taken from the statute defining
engineering for a reason: scheduling is a branch of engineering.

Implicit in the teaching of engineering, or of the supporting fields of science

and mathematics, is the need to understand the process and not merely trust
the black box. It is important to understand the mathematical underpinning
of modern CPM software rather than to merely begin clicking away. Children
are still taught how to add and how to spell even though they have access to
calculators and computer word processing software aided by spell-check.
One reason is that even the best spell-check software can leave errors
uncaught. Another reason is to understand what the numbers on calculators
mean. Many of us may remember a freshman physics class where we were
taught that 2.5 × 3.01 is not equal to 7.525, but rather to 7.5, since the result
will never be more accurate than the least accurate input (for those who have
not taken freshman physics, 2.50 × 3.01 = 7.53 and 2.500 × 3.010 = 7.525).

Even the terminology can be misleading. CPM was once noted as a tool in the
process of planning and scheduling. First we must plan, then we can use the
computer to perform the rote calculations (that we understand and could
perform ourselves, given time) to generate the schedule, and finally we must
read the output with a knowledge of the assumptions and tolerances
involved. Today, however, we can purchase software that includes a wizard to
simplify or ignore the need for planning, perform the calculations while
allowing user overrides to generate the features and benefits or "how to use"
your new result, and provide killer report and graphics applications to
display the schedule results.

It is the purpose of this text to teach carpentry and not merely the features
and benefits of software programs or how to use your new power saw. It is
the purpose of this text to teach the process of planning and scheduling by
means of the critical path method of analysis. We can best start by reviewing
how this field of mathematics and engineering was developed.

1.3. History of Scheduling Systems

CPM was developed specifically for the planning of construction. The choice
was fortuitous, since construction accounts for more than 10 percent of the
annual gross national product. Almost every activity and person is affected to
some degree by new construction or the need for it. Most projects are
started well after the need has been established, seeming to follow the
whimsy, "If I'd wanted it tomorrow, I'd have asked for it tomorrow."

The construction industry is a heterogeneous mix of companies ranging in

size from large operations to one-person operations. No matter the size,
construction companies face similar situations and, to some degree, similar
pressures. Many factors, such as weather, unions, accidents, capital
demands, and workloads, are either beyond individual control or difficult to
control. New problems in project approvals due to increased public
awareness include pollution and ecological controls. CPM does not offer
clairvoyance, but it does assemble all the information for the project
managing team.

Initially, CPM spotlighted construction and the contractor. The owner,

architect, engineer, and public agencies involved in a project are like the
backer, producer, and director of a Broadway show. Without them, the show
cannot go on, and any lack of competence, motivation, or interest on the part
of any one of the team members can delay a project. However, the contractor
is the performer who ultimately makes or breaks the construction show.

The typical contractor is a planner who generally uses instinctive methods

rather than formal scheduling. Prior to 1957, contractors had little choice but
to operate this way because no comprehensive, disciplined procedures for
planning and scheduling construction projects existed. And prior to the mid-
1980s, contractors desiring to utilize the benefits of the newer methods had
to rely on outside consultants, who in turn had to rely on computer service
bureaus and their large mainframe computers.

One of the keys to the success of CPM is that it utilizes the planner's
knowledge, experience, and instincts in a logical way first to plan and then to
schedule. CPM can save time through better planning, and in construction,
time is money.

The Egyptians and Romans worked construction miracles in their day, and
surviving ruins attest to the brilliance of their architecture, but little is
known of their construction planning and scheduling. Other historical project
managers include Noah, Solomon, and the unknown architect who designed
the tower of Babel. Again, history records much about the construction
details but little about the methods of control.

1.4. The Ordered "To-Do" List

Many of us make lists of things to do (i.e., a to-do list). Those who are well
organized may make the list in a logical order, for example, a shopping list
based upon the layout of a store or supermarket. Perhaps a fanatic for
organization may first make a list of activities (or, from our example, items to
be purchased) and then copy it a second time to the preferred order in which
it is to be performed. The use of word processing or organizing software
adds a modern wrinkle to this age-old method of planning and scheduling.
However, there are no rules widely published to guide the development of to-
do lists.

1.5. Gantt Charts and Bar Charts

In the mid-nineteenth century, at least one writer discussed a work versus

time graphical representation very similar to today's bar charts, but it
remained for Henry L. Gantt and Frederick W. Taylor to popularize their
graphical representations of work versus time in the early 1910s. Their Gantt
charts were the basis for today's bar graphs, or bar charts. Taylor and
Gantt's work was the first scientific consideration of work scheduling.
Although their work was originally aimed at production scheduling, it was
readily accepted for planning and recording the progress of construction.
Today, the bar graph remains an excellent graphical representation of
activity because it is easy to read and understood by all levels of
management and supervision.

If the bar graph is so well suited to construction activity, why look for another
planning aid? Because the bar graph is limited in what information it can
retain. In preparing a bar chart, the scheduler is influenced almost
necessarily by the desired completion dates, often working backward from
the completion dates. The resultant mixture of planning and scheduling is
unfortunately no better than wishful thinking.

When a bar graph is carefully prepared, the scheduler goes through the
same thinking process as the CPM planner. However, the bar graph cannot
show (or record) the interrelations and interdependencies that control the
progress of the project. And at a later date, even the originator is often hard
pressed to explain the plan by using the bar graph.

Figure 1.5.1 is a simplified bar chart of the construction of a one-story office

building. Suppose, after this 10-month schedule has been prepared, the
owner asks for a 6-month schedule. By using the same time for each activity,
the bar chart can be changed as shown in Figure 1.5.2. Although the chart
looks fine, it is not based on logical planning; it is merely a juggling of the
original bar graph.

Figure 1.5.1. Bar chart for a one-story building.

Figure 1.5.2. Revised bar chart for a one-story building.

The general contractor usually prepares the overall construction plan, which
is sensible because the schedules of the other major subcontractors depend
on the general contractor's schedule. Note that in Figures 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 the
general contractor's work is broken down in some detail, with both the
mechanical and electrical work shown as continuous lines that start early
and end late. In conformance with the bar graph "schedule," the general
contractor will then often push the subcontractors to staff the project as
early as possible with as many mechanics as possible. Conversely, the
subcontractors want to come on the project as late as possible with as few
mechanics as possible. The result is that the general contractor will often
complain that the subcontractors are delaying the project through lack of
interest. At the same time, the subcontractors will often complain that the
general contractor is not turning work areas over to them, forcing them to
pull out all the stops to save the schedule.

As in most things, the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. CPM
offers the means to resolve these differences with specific information rather
than generalities. The bar chart often suffers from a morning glory complex:
it blooms early in the project but is nowhere to be found later on. We can
suppose some general reasons for this disappearing act. Prior to the
construction phase, the architect, the engineer, the owner, or all three are
trying to visualize the project schedule in order to set realistic completion
dates. Most contracts will require the submission of a schedule in bar graph
form soon after a contract is awarded. Once the project begins to take shape,
however, this early bar chart becomes as useful as last year's calendar
because it does not lend itself to planning revisions.

Although progress can be plotted directly on the schedule bar chart, the S
curve has become popular for measuring progress. The usual S curve
consists of two plots (Figure 1.5.3): the scheduled dollar expenditures versus
time and actual expenditures versus time. Similar S curves can be prepared
for labor hours, equipment and material acquisitions, concrete yardage, and
so on. Though this presentation can be interesting, it does not provide a true
indication of project completion. For instance, a low-value critical activity
could delay the project completion far out of proportion to its value.
Figure 1.5.3. Typical S curve.

Misuse of bar charts does not prove that they should be discarded. To throw
out bar charts is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

1.6. Development of the Critical Path Method of Scheduling

In 1956, the E. I. du Pont de Nemours Company set up a group at its Newark,

Delaware, facility to study the possible application of new management
techniques to the company's engineering functions. [1] The planning and
scheduling of construction projects was one of the first areas studied. Group
members had a UNIVAC I computer (the third unit built) at their disposal, and
they decided to evaluate the potential of computers in scheduling
construction work. Mathematicians worked out a general approach; they
theorized that if the computer was fed information on the sequence of work
and the length of each activity, it could generate a schedule of work. [2]

In early 1957, the UNIVAC Applications Research Center, under the direction
of Dr. John W. Mauchly, joined the effort with James E. Kelley, Jr., of Remington
Rand (UNIVAC) and Morgan Walker of DuPont in direct charge in Newark,
Delaware. The original conceptual work was revised, and the resulting
routines became the basic CPM. It is interesting that no fundamental
changes in this first work have been made. [3]

In December 1957, a test group was set up to apply the new technique (then
called the Kelley–Walker method). The test team (made up of six engineers,
two area engineers, a process engineer, and an estimator) and a normal
scheduling group were assigned to plan the construction of a $10 million
chemical plant in Louisville, Kentucky.

As a control, the new scheduling team worked independently of the normal

scheduling group. This is the only documented case of a comprehensive
comparative CPM application. The test group had not been part of the
development of the CPM method, but members were given a 40-h course on
the technique before starting the test.

The network diagram for the project was restricted to include only the
construction steps. The project was analyzed beginning with the completion
of its preliminary design. The entire project was subdivided into major areas
of scope, and each of the areas was analyzed and broken down into the
individual work activities. These activities were diagrammed into a network
of more than 800 activities, 400 of which represented construction activities
and 150 of which were design or material deliveries.

The ability of the first team was such that a larger-capacity computer
program had to be developed for support. By March 1958, the first part of
the network scheduling was complete. At that time, a change in corporate
outlook, plus certain design changes, caused a 40 percent change in the plan
of the project. Both planning groups were authorized to modify the plan and
recompute schedules. The revisions, which took place during April 1958,
required only about 10 percent of the original effort by the CPM test team,
substantially better than the normal scheduling group.

One significant factor involved the determination of critical delivery items.

The normal scheduling group arbitrarily assigned critical categories, while
the CPM group determined critical activities from its network analysis. From
the analysis, it was determined that only seven items were critical, and three
of these were not included in the normal scheduling group's list.

The initial test scheduling was considered successful in all respects. In July
1958, a second project, valued at $20 million, was selected for test
scheduling. It also was successfully scheduled. Since the first two projects
were of such duration that the complete validity of the system could not be
established, a shorter project, also at DuPont in Louisville, was selected for
scheduling.

The third project was a shutdown and overhaul operation involving neoprene,
and one of the materials in the process was self-detonating, so little or no
maintenance was possible during downtime. Although the particular
maintenance effort had been done many times, it was considered to be a
difficult test of the CPM approach.

In the first CPM plan, the average shutdown time for the turnaround was cut
from 125 to 93 hours, and in later CPM applications, it was further cut to 78
hours. The resultant time reduction of almost 40 percent far exceeded any
expectations. [4]

1.7. Development of the PERT Method of Scheduling

The development of CPM was enhanced when the U.S. Navy Polaris program
became interested in it. The Polaris program staff had developed their own
network system known as Performance Evaluation and Review Technique
(PERT ). The DuPont work is considered antecedent material for the
development of PERT.

The Polaris fleet ballistic missile (FBM) system was initiated in early 1957. To
manage the program, a Special Projects Office (SPO) was established under
the direction of then Rear Admiral (later Vice Admiral) William Raborn, Jr..
The SPO is generally credited with having developed the PERT system.

One of the key people involved in the development of PERT was Willard Fazar,
who noted that the various management tools available for managing the
Polaris program did not provide certain information essential to effective
program evaluation. In particular, they did not furnish the following:

1. Appraisal of the validity of existing plans in terms of meeting program

objectives

2. Measurement of progress achieved against program objectives

3. Measurement of potential for meeting program objectives

The search for a better management system continued throughout the fall of
1957. At that time, the Navy was cognizant of the development of CPM at
DuPont. In January 1958, the SPO initiated a special study to determine
whether computers could be used in planning and controlling the Polaris
program, and on January 27, 1958, the SPO directed a group to undertake the
task of formulating the PERT technique. [5]

The goal of the group was to determine whether improved planning and
evaluating research and development work methods could be devised to
apply to the Polaris program, which involved 250 prime contractors and more
than 9000 subcontractors.

The PERT program evolved, and it included the development of detailed

procedures and mechanics phases, which were reported in formal
documents. The PERT method, as described in the phase II report, was
designed to provide the following (in addition to the three items listed on the
previous page):
1. Increased orderliness and consistency in planning and evaluating

2. An automatic mechanism for identifying potential trouble spots

3. Operational flexibility for a program by allowing for a simulation of

schedules

4. Rapid handling and analysis of integrated data to permit expeditious

corrections

The PERT system, programmed at the Naval Ordinance Research Calculator,

was implemented in the propulsion component, which was followed by an
extension to the flight control and ballistic shell components, and finally to
the reentry body and guidance component. About a year after the start of
the PERT research, the system was operational. This was outstanding
considering the typical 36 percent time overrun for developing other
weapons systems.

Following its success in the Polaris program, PERT was incorporated

voluntarily in many aerospace proposals in 1960 and 1961. In some proposals,
PERT was added principally as window dressing to make the proposal more
attractive to the government. But thanks to its basic soundness and the
acumen of the engineering staff members involved, PERT often stayed on as
a useful planning tool even though it had entered some companies through
the back door.

1.8. Comparison of CPM and PERT

The key difference between CPM and PERT is that one identifies activities of
finite and reasonably estimated duration while the other identifies events of
zero duration separated by "some form of activity," only loosely understood to
be performed within a range of possible durations. The range of durations in
PERT varies from an optimistic estimate (or shortest time until the next event
will occur) to a most likely estimate to a pessimistic estimate. This dichotomy
was understandable since the duration of an activity, relating to a known
quantity of work, was fairly capable of estimation; the duration between
events, based upon a scope only vaguely understood, was much more a
guesstimate.

The theory behind the PERT method was based upon the interplay between
these estimates of duration and the statistical likelihood of a project
outcome, as the actual duration experienced may fluctuate among the three.
However, the early computers of the 1950s and even the 1960s did not have
the necessary speed or memory to fully utilize the theory, and the three
estimates were usually combined into one (often by separate calculation by
hand alongside the computer ) using the formula

where O = optimistic

M = most likely

P = pessimistic

The important distinction to remember, before considering the newer

offshoots of CPM, is that CPM measures the performance of defined activities
and the durations of defined activities, while PERT measures the reaching of
defined events and the passage of time between these events. Another
important difference is that CPM durations are of defined events, while PERT
durations are of undefined activity between events. These differences are
highlighted in Figure 1.8.1.

Figure 1.8.1. Comparison of ADM and PERT.

Also of note in Figure 1.8.1 is the requirement of the earliest of CPM
software programs to have a dedicated starting and completion activity, and
specified event node numbering beginning with 0001 and ending with the
highest number the system could handle, typically 9999.

1.9. Precedence Diagramming Method

Professor John W. Fondahl, of Stanford University, the early 1960 expert on

noncomputerized solutions to CPM and PERT networks, was one of the early
supporters of the precedence diagramming method (PDM). He called it the
Circle and Connecting Arrow Technique. His study for the Navy's Bureau of
Yards and Docks included descriptive material and gave the technique early
impetus, particularly to Navy projects.

An IBM brochure credited the H. B. Zachry Company of San Antonio with the
development of the precedence form of CPM. In cooperation with IBM, Zachry
developed computer programs that could handle precedence network
computations on the IBM 1130 and IBM 360. This was particularly significant
because in 1964, C. R. Phillips and J. J. Moder indicated the availability of only
1 computerized approach to precedence networks versus 60 for CPM and
PERT. Creation of an alternate format for preparing CPM networks required
new naming conventions to distinguish between the two. The form for
traditional CPM networks was originally termed the AOA or "activity on
arrow" variant of CPM. The form for new-style precedence networks was
originally termed the AON or "activity on node" variant of CPM. In the AON
variant, the activity description is shown in a box (or node) with the
sequence, or flow, shown by interconnecting lines. In most cases, arrowheads
are not used, although this leaves greater opportunity for ambiguous
network situations.

Because the terms "AOA" and "AON" are similar, and possibly because a box
only represents a node to a mathematician, AOA became known as the arrow
diagramming method (ADM), and AON became known as PDM. Often,
specifications copied from older specifications may refer to the CPM being
prepared in the AOA or AON method. A sad reflection upon the care in which
such engineering documents are written is that it is not unusual for a
specification to require the CPM to be prepared using the AOA methodology
and to run the schedule on the latest version of Primavera software (which
supports only PDM).

Many users prefer the PDM format, claiming the PDM diagram is "cleaner"
and therefore easier to follow. The simplifying factor results from the fact
that "redundant" restraints are not required in PDM (as they are in CPM) to
create unique activity numbers (i.e., when activities span between the same
two events).

PDM programs proliferated in the 1970s, and most scheduling software

products could perform CPM calculations in either ADM (activity-on-arrow) or
PDM (precedence diagramming method). Primavera's original scheduling
software, developed for use running on the MSDOS operating system, was
typical of this two-way option (i.e., ADM or PDM). However, when Primavera
software writers created a Windows version, they opted to use PDM as the
platform for the flagship program. The impact on scheduling in the
construction industry was substantial and is addressed in this book.

1.10. SPERT and GERT

CPM and PERT are based upon mathematics, and professors of mathematics
were quick to note many of the new insights opened up by this new branch
of mathematics. If an estimate of duration is merely an estimate and subject
to a level of uncertainty, then what might happen if randomly some of the
durations were raised and others lowered? If two or more paths of the logic
network were fairly close, this modification may well shift the critical path
and overall duration of the project. CPM provides a set date upon which a
project is expected to be completed. What is the probability of the project
finishing on that date, on an earlier date, or on a later date? If each of the
durations of activities (in CPM) or between events (in PERT) were randomly
chosen from the optimistic, most likely, and pessimistic durations, we would
get one value for an end date. If we repeat this process 100 or 1000 times, we
get probabilities of completion over a range of dates.

The process of repeated calculations using randomized change to data is

called a simulation, and thus from PERT was created SPERT. Unfortunately,
computers in the 1950s were not powerful enough to perform such analyses
for more than demonstration logic networks of few activities. Today, there are
software programs (and supporting hardware) that can perform 1000
iterations for logic networks of several thousand activities in nanoseconds.
Thus, not only can the scheduler determine the date on which the project can
be expected to be completed but also the probability of that expectation.

The mathematics behind neither CPM nor PERT permits boolean •OR• logic.
If an activity in logic network A is followed by two other activities B and C, it
is assumed that both can start upon the completion of A. It is also assumed
that B can start independently of C and vice versa, either starting before the
other or both starting at once. In the real world this is not always true;
sometimes you can start B or C but only one at a time (the boolean •OR•).
Sometimes you can perform B and C only if both are performed concurrently.
Sometimes the choice of which can be performed first is subject to the status
(started or completed) of a fourth activity D. And sometimes the choice of
successor is based upon a test: pass and go down one path, fail and go down
the other path. In the case of a failed test, the logic network can even loop
around to retake the test after corrective measures have been made. None of
these possibilities are supported by the mathematics of CPM or PERT.
However, many of these possibilities are supported by mathematical models
envisioned in the 1950s through today and more recently supported (at least
in part) by modern software programs generically noted as GERT programs.
As PERT was the acronym for Performance Evaluation and Review Technique,
GERT became the acronym for Generalized Evaluation and Review Technique.

1.11. Relationship Diagramming Method

As of the turn of the millennium, PDM supplanted ADM in the majority of the
scheduling world. And yet, numerous serious practitioners noted flaws in the
implementation of PDM, and many bemoaned the loss of rigor of the ADM
system. A common thread to many of these concerns was that commercial
software tended to focus upon information relating to individual activities
and groups of activities while, relatively speaking, ignoring the restraints
and relationships between activities that had been the hallmark of the
original ADM and PERT methodologies.

Key among these concerns was a lack of a specific definition of restraints

between activities other than the traditional "finish 100 percent to start next"
restraint, the description of the reason for a specific restraint between
activities and whether the restraint is mandatory or optional; the ability to
footnote the duration between activities (lag) to the same degree as that
afforded durations of activities; and the failure to calculate or provide access
to the calculation of the attributes of these relationships. Research
publications submitted to various technical venues, including the Project
Management Institute's College of Scheduling, the Association for
Advancement of Cost Engineering International, and the American Society of
Civil Engineers, all raised these issues and suggested various means to work
around the problems. Invariably, the proposed solutions suggested
something akin to the need for "dummy activities" that carry logic between
"real activities" (this being the hallmark of the original ADM system).

The issue was raised to a head in a cover story entitled "Off the Critical Path,"
published in Engineering News Record (ENR), May 28, 2003. In one of the
letters to the editor, written in the aftermath of the article, Jim Kelley (one of
the founders of CPM, as discussed in Chapter 1) wrote:

In the early days of CPM, computing capability was at a premium.

Rooting out inconsistencies in scheduling data had to be left
completely to the planner. In practice, this meant deliberately
breaking the rules of the "flexibility" features. Today, the desktop
computer I'm using to compose this letter on has far more capability
than the UNIVAC we used for our first CPM calculations. Thus,
there is no reason why the computer cannot be programmed to tell
me why my scheduling input is inconsistent and why.

The 6th edition of this text, largely as a response to this challenge, posited a
new system that addressed many of these concerns. Since the focus of the
majority of these embellishments is related to the relationships between
activities, this is called the relationship diagramming method (RDM) and
meant to be the next level of evolution of ADM to PDM and now RDM.

The fully integrated system that has been developed to support RDM is made
available for general dissemination. In an effort to avoid the balkanization of
many different implementations of PDM (resulting in the same input data
yielding differing results based upon which software is used), an evolving
standard has been established, and developers may choose to have
implementations-determined compliance via a certification mark RDCPM
(further details are available at www.RDCPM.com).

The key aspects of the RDM system are a restoration of identifying events (or
points in time) that were represented by the nodes in ADM (and were the
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Those who failed to be elected felt, of course, various degrees of
disappointment and envy. Some proposed forming a scrub team of
the left-overs. Others were afraid that this would show the “team”
that they were jealous of them; whereas, they had been putting on a
brave front by saying to their classmates that they would not have
accepted a position on the team even if they had been elected.
The entire school grounds occupied about half a city block. This
space had to be shared with the boys and girls in all the other grades.
It naturally followed that there was little space to be used by each
room.
Miss Darnell’s eighth grade ball team girls were anxious to bring
fame to themselves as champion players. Mr. Warren’s thrilling
speech still rang in their ears. His slogan, “We’ll beat ’em!” was
passed from lip to lip. As a result of this enthusiasm, this special
team wished to play ball at every intermission and before and after
school. When they played, the rest of the girls in Miss Darnell’s room
were obliged to keep off the ground allotted to that room. The girls
who rebelled against being nothing but “fans” were called “disloyal to
their own team” or “green with jealousy.” The play periods were no
longer enjoyed by all, but distinct factions arose, consisting of team
and “fans,” and as the team grew more and more determined to use
the grounds at every available minute the “fans” became less and less
enthusiastic in their support.

CONSTRUCTIVE TREATMENT

Mr. Warren did wrong to deprive any pupil of a right use of the
playground or gymnasium.
When teams are formed, limit the time they may use the field and
apparatus so as to accommodate those who are not on the teams at
some time during the day.

COMMENTS

Mr. Warren’s prime motive in asking to have ball teams elected

was to have the girls take delight in vigorous, outdoor sport. In that
respect his plan was ideal, but he failed to take into account in any
way whatsoever those children who were not on the team. Children
are quick to feel an injustice. Their usual mode of reaction is either to
resent the teacher’s action or to be jealous of the favored ones. No
plan should be advocated or even tolerated that does not give
reasonable consideration to the rights and welfare of all the pupils.

ILLUSTRATION (EIGHTH GRADE)

A new gymnasium had just been erected Sharing Dances

at Horton and the principal, Mr. Bergen,
was anxious to have all get the benefit of it. The eighth grade girls
under Miss Vance were especially pleased with this fine play room.
One of their number, Stella Day, had been taking lessons in dancing
and promised to teach her special friends the new steps. It so turned
out that Miss Vance herself was interested in these new dances and
enjoyed watching the lessons. But the majority of the girls in her
room cared nothing about dancing and indeed if they had cared the
“lessons” were not at all open to them, since only eight of the twenty-
one girls were invited to take any part in this exercise.
Mr. Bergen had carefully arranged the gymnasium program so that
each room might use it every day. The first time he watched Miss
Vance’s pupils at “gym” work he was surprised to find so few taking
the exercises and furthermore to see that the onlookers were not
even enjoying the watching of the dancers. This led him to surmise
that they did not take turns in their exercises, otherwise the dejected
look would not have been seen on the faces of the observers.
Mr. Bergen made a mental note of those who were dancing and
returned the next day to see if the same girls were occupying the
whole of the teacher’s attention. Finding that such was the case he
explained to Miss Vance that all of her pupils must be really
interested in watching or actually engaged in every game during the
exercise period. Following his advice, Miss Vance changed the
exercise to games in which all could take part, thus making a
legitimate use of the gymnasium period.
CASE 128 (HIGH SCHOOL)

Elizabeth Dyer seemed to be naturally Taking the Best

selfish. When the classes were sent to do
blackboard work she invariably chose the place where the light was
the best. When the crayons were passed she took the unused one.
One of the new erasers was always in her hand. When the class was
called she always took the recitation bench nearest the teacher, etc.,
etc.
Little Susan Dillman said to a group of girls on the way home from
school one evening,
“Girls, I’m going to tell Bess Dyer what I think of her.”
“Oh, no, you don’t dare,” said the other girls.
“You’ll see,” said Susan.
That night Susan thought out her plan. She invited three of her
closest friends to her home the next evening and disclosed her plan.
She had composed this bit of rhyme:

“Just guess if you can

What girl in our class
Appropriates always the best,
Be it crayon or book,
By hook or by crook
She’ll beat to it all of the rest.”

“Now girls, here in the library is Sam’s typewriter. Let’s each write
a part of this so we can all say we didn’t write it and lay it on
Elizabeth’s desk tomorrow.” All were agreed, so one after another
took a turn at writing. After many copies were spoiled they finally
wrote one that pleased them. Each took a turn at addressing the
envelope. When it was sealed they said, “E-ne me-ne mi-ne mo,” etc.,
to find out who was to place this on Elizabeth’s desk. The lot fell to
Lulu Miller, but she would do it only on condition that Sue go with
her and help her place it. The next morning the girls went to school
as soon as the doors were opened. They found nobody in the
assembly room, so they opened Elizabeth’s geometry text at that
day’s lesson. Each took hold of one corner of the envelope and placed
it in the book. Then they returned the book to the desk and went into
the history room where they diligently studied the maps until school
opened.
After opening exercises the four guilty girls watched from a corner
of their eyes to see Elizabeth get her missive. Susan saw her take out
the letter, open it and blush scarlet, while she wiped away tears of
vexation. Soon Elizabeth with letter in hand walked up to Mr.
Davidson’s desk and talked to him a few minutes. When she came
away again she didn’t have the letter.
The girls had not counted upon this turn of affairs.
Before school closed Mr. Davidson asked who put the note in
Elizabeth’s geometry. Nobody answered. He then questioned
everybody one at a time and each answered “No” to the question.
“Did you put it there?” Susan and Lulu tried to think they told the
truth because they neither of them did it alone.
Mr. Davidson said, “All right, we’ll stay right here till we find out
the guilty party.” Some laughed, others pouted and a few who drove
to school from the country looked worried. Mr. Davidson said,
“Somebody in this room knows who did that. I’m sorry to think
anybody is mean enough to keep all of his schoolmates in because he
will not tell the truth.”
Still nobody confessed. Mr. Davidson waited and scolded by turns
until dusk, all to no purpose. The girls’ fear of exposure, to say
nothing of confession, grew greater with every speech he made. He
finally dismissed the school, after saying that he would find the
culprit and suspend him.
Daily Mr. Davidson referred publicly to the note and made threats
as to what he would do with the guilty one. These frequent references
to the affair helped Elizabeth to remember her fault and practically
cured her of it. But the guilty ones were never found out and Mr.
Davidson had four pupils whose joy and efficiency in school work
were greatly diminished.

CONSTRUCTIVE TREATMENT

When you see that a pupil is truly selfish begin at once to treat
him. First find out, if possible, how this trait was developed and then
begin to correct the false notions. Say to the selfish one, “I want you
to study the pupils of this room this week, and tell me of all the
unselfish deeds done that you can make note of, and why you think
them unselfish.” Of course, other pupils will be given similar topics
and the reports, as well as the original requests, will be made in
public. These character studies may be connected with literature in
place of the fictitious personalities which are often studied.
When wishing to find the writer of a note go to work at it privately.
Having once made a threat do not lightly disregard it. Do not give
over to your pupils matters of discipline which you should attend to
yourself.

COMMENTS

Mr. Davidson doubtless knew that Elizabeth was selfish, but took
no measures to correct the fault. Some teachers say they are not
employed as character builders but only as instructors in secular
matters. The truth is, however, that they cannot escape instructing in
morals. Elizabeth was growing more selfish. The question as to
whether character grows during school life is settled. Pupils do
change in character. The teacher has no choice. He either confirms or
breaks up bad habits. The principle of substitution enables the selfish
pupil to grow less selfish by the study and admiration of unselfish
pupils and adults. It is in order to call forth this admiration that the
student is asked to tell why he names certain acts unselfish.
Teachers make mistakes often by publicly announcing a
misdemeanor about which there would otherwise be little known.
Cases where immediate danger does not threaten should not be
made public. Private inquiry is always much more fruitful of good
results. Public confession is especially hard. Furthermore, the
sidetracking of legitimate school interests by much discussion of
misdemeanors can be minimized by letting as few persons as
possible know about the wrong deed.
Threats that are not carried out weaken the teacher’s control.
Patient study and planning will show the teacher a way to cure
selfishness. By judicious observation a teacher can discover attitudes
taken toward a pupil by his schoolmates and these will be of great
value to him in any attempt at corrective measures.
It is doubtless true that the schoolmates often develop a wise and
effective cure for some wrong trait or attitude. In such cases they
may be permitted to carry out their program, without the connivance
of the teacher. But a close examination of the conditions is needful,
so that neglect of unformed characters may not be appropriately
charged against a teacher.

ILLUSTRATION (HIGH SCHOOL)

Earl Foley was fifteen years old when he entered high school and
came under the control of its principal, Mr. Mullendore.
Earl was large, with a round face, thick lips, a big mouth and a too
ready smile. He was very active and learned easily, but was
unmannerly and above all, selfish. He invariably selected the best for
himself, stood between others and the teacher, gave his views
unsought, and in many little ways annoyed his teachers and
companions.
Mr. Mullendore discovered that the boy Selfish Manners
simply needed teaching, so he decided that
in his private talks with Earl he would use illustrations easily
understood. He asked Earl one day what famous person he admired
above all others. Finding the man to be Lincoln, Mr. Mullendore
talked of Lincoln’s unselfishness and humility and even asked Earl
what kind of pencil he thought Lincoln would have taken if passed a
box containing one good pencil, and the others second grade, Lincoln
knowing, meanwhile, that all would be used by his classmates. Mr.
Mullendore talked of Earl’s work on the farm and asked him to recall
the practice of pigs, cattle and fowls in getting their share of food. He
asked Earl to study out the cause for the development of
unselfishness in the human race.
All this was said without a single reference to Earl’s own traits. It
seemed a part of the study of Lincoln. Earl was not slow to apply the
suggestions of the lesson, however, and before many months had
passed he was one of the most unselfish pupils in the high school.
 (2) Jealousy. Some one has truly said, “In jealousy there is more
self-love than love.” It is an attitude which develops early, however.
Even very young children will sometimes destroy an object rather
than have it fall into the hands of another. As a rule the smaller the
number of individuals in competition and the narrower the range of
their interests the more intense will be the jealousy between them.
The teacher’s problems are complicated by jealousies in two ways:
(1) by a spirit of unkindly rivalry among patrons of the school, a
feeling which is sure to be reflected in the attitudes of the pupils
toward each other, and (2) by a spirit of jealousy arising among and
limited to the pupils themselves.
The first type has been treated incidentally in other parts of
Practical School Discipline and need not be further dealt with here.
The second type, fortunately, is not a very common cause of trouble
in the well ordered school-room, but it is a fault so harmful to the
child himself and in adult life, so harmful to all who come within its
blighting influence, that it can not be too carefully watched and
checked in its early development.
During adolescence and afterwards, jealous attitudes arise mainly
out of sports and out of competition for sex recognition and
appreciation. Jealousy breeds an angry resentment toward a person
who holds or seems likely to acquire one’s property or personal
privilege. It embraces a feeling of fear and a sense of helplessness in
the face of the aggressor. It develops an enlarged appreciation of the
treasures involved and a disposition to care for them by violence, or
if defence is useless, to destroy them.
Jealousy, envy, rivalry and covetousness are only varying forms of
the same anti-social attitude of selfishness. Tact and patience on the
part of parent and teacher and the judicious application of the Five
Fundamental Principles will uproot them all in time.

CASE 129 (THIRD GRADE)

Julia Jenkins was a beautiful child with a sunny disposition and an

inclination toward sociability. Her voice was well modulated for a
child, and her manners were charming. She loved everybody. Her
dresses were fashionable, dainty and immaculate, her curls always
becomingly arranged. Altogether she was such a child as one delights
to see, one who brought a smile to the faces of almost all whom she
met, strangers as well as friends. As she entered the third grade
school-room for the first time, Miss Elliot, the teacher, exclaimed,
“What a darling!”
Among other pupils in the room was Caroline Hillis, a timid little
girl with a solemn, little old-looking face. Her language was crude,
her manner unpolished and her dresses ill-fitting, coarse and faded.
She was the eldest of four children and long before she reached the
third grade was considered by her mother too big to be kissed and
petted.
How Caroline watched Julia! at first with Jealous of
admiration only. But as the days went by Playmate
her attitude gradually changed to jealousy. Julia always knew her
lessons. Julia’s language was always correct. Julia never slammed
doors or walked noisily, and oh, most enviable privilege of all, Julia
often stood near Miss Elliot as she sat at her desk and put her arm
around the teacher’s neck. At such times Miss Elliot smiled at Julia
in an intimate way. How much Caroline would give to be able to
stand there thus and show her love for Miss Elliot in the same way
but she simply could not. Little did Miss Elliot think that Caroline
had planned to do just that very thing. As Caroline lay in bed before
she went to sleep she thought, “Now, tomorrow I’ll ask Miss Elliot
how to work a problem and I’ll stand by her and put my arm around
her neck, just as Julia does and Miss Elliot will look at me just as she
does at Julia.”
But alas! just as Caroline tremblingly approached Miss Elliot,
thinking to carry out her plan, the teacher arose to discover the
location of a mild disturbance in the back of the room and Caroline
in confusion told her errand and went back to her seat where she
shyly brushed aside a few stray tears. With heroic courage she
decided to try it again and this time she found Miss Elliot seated, but
before Caroline reached her she said hurriedly, “What is it,
Caroline?” with no smile and in such a matter-of-fact voice that
Caroline stammered her question before she really reached Miss
Elliot’s side. It was of no use. She didn’t believe Miss Elliot liked her
as well as she did Julia. Whereas Miss Elliot soliloquized, “What an
awkward, timid, unlovable child Caroline is today, she seemed afraid
of me. I know the rest of the children like me. I can’t pet her in order
to win her confidence. I’ve got to treat them all alike.” Because
Caroline regarded her teacher with such sad eyes, the idea grew in
Miss Elliot’s mind that Caroline disliked her.
In Caroline’s mind the thought persisted that Julia was favored by
everybody. She began to think of Julia’s faults. As she sought them
earnestly she found them: Julia always talked too much, she liked too
well to speak of her brother Eugene who was in college, she talked of
Miss Elliot as if she owned her.
One day a little girl spoke of her doll, another of a doll’s party and
soon Julia said, “Oh, girls, let’s all bring a doll tomorrow and have a
dolls’ party at recess! Wouldn’t that be fun?” All agreed but Caroline,
who was on the edge of the group. Her downcast face was unnoticed.
The truth is that Caroline’s only doll was badly soiled and somewhat
dismembered.
Julia easily gained the encouragement of Miss Elliot in her plan for
the next day. Some of the girls went early with their dolls. Julia’s was
a cunning little character doll. Caroline brought none. She imagined
that she could hear Miss Elliot say, “How cunning!” as she looked at
Julia’s doll, and then Julia and the teacher would exchange that
intimate smile; Caroline would be the only one who had no doll. She
never could have Miss Elliot’s approval.
While Caroline was feeling rather than thinking all this Julia said,
“Let’s lay all our dolls on Miss Elliot’s desk and then when she comes
have her guess which one belongs to which girl.”
“That will be fun,” said the others, so it was quickly done. Caroline
stood at a little distance feeling left out of the fun.
“Let’s go and meet Miss Elliot,” said Julia, “and tell her about it.
Soon all the girls but Caroline were out of the room and starting
down the street.
Caroline presently said to herself, “I’ll hide her doll and then I
guess Miss Elliot can’t brag about it.”
She cast her eyes about the room for a hiding place. There stood
the piano! Mrs. Fitzhugh had said yesterday that she kept her ring in
the piano. Hastily grabbing up Julia’s doll Caroline stood upon the
piano bench and lifting the lid of the upright piano, laid the doll
inside upon the hammers, closed the lid and jumped down to the
floor just in time to gain a place by the window before the girls and
Miss Elliot came in.
They led Miss Elliot to her desk, having already told her what they
wanted her to do. Almost immediately they noticed that Julia’s doll
was gone. Caroline, now remorseful and silent, was questioned. She
said she knew nothing about it. The girls sought everywhere for the
doll until school time, Caroline helping them look into desks and on
closet shelves.
Caroline, growing more and more remorseful as one girl after
another pitied Julia, resolved to return to the room at noon time,
when everybody was out of the room, and put the doll on Julia’s
desk.
Imagine Caroline’s dismay when the piano was found out of order
by Miss Elliot as soon as she started to play the opening song.
Miss Elliot opened the piano lid and gave a little start. There was
the lost doll! Julia rushed for it and cuddled it. Molly said aloud,
“How did it get there?” Caroline hung her head and Miss Elliot
looked very grave.
“Caroline, come here,” she said. “Why did you put Julia’s doll into
the piano?”
“I don’t know,” said Caroline, with a degree of truth.
“It is a marvel that it isn’t broken. I’ll have to whip you for that.”
Taking a strap kept for the purpose Miss Elliot explained to
Caroline that she had lied as well as concealed the doll with a
probable hope of stealing it later. She then gave the child a severe
whipping. Caroline dumbly felt that she was misjudged and yet could
not explain why, even to herself.

CONSTRUCTIVE TREATMENT

Miss Elliot should have satisfied herself fully as to the motive

underlying Caroline’s action before punishing her. Always delay a
punishment until you have found the real cause of the misdemeanor.
When a child shows a tendency to withdraw from group activities
take special pains to draw him into the play circle. Take the timid
child by the hand rather than the one who rushes to you. Say to the
child who shrinks back into her corner, “We need one more little girl
here.” Hold out your hand toward her as you speak. The gesture will
reinforce the words, and be to the child a suggestion of welcome into
the group.

COMMENTS

There is no more faulty method of discipline than that of severely

punishing a child for some outbreak against moral or school law
before a hearing has been given him; not merely giving a chance to
confess his wrong, but going to the bottom of the matter and finding,
if possible, the underlying motive or instinct which led up to the
outbreak. Skillful questioning ought to bring this out.
Very often the slow and timid child is longing for your friendship
but does not know how to show his desire. Whether or not he is
conscious of needing your aid, he, nevertheless, does need it.

ILLUSTRATION (SIXTH GRADE)

June Dacey was a frail city girl whose health was such that her
parents feared to send her to the public schools in New York. One
September morning June’s father said to her: “June, how would you
like to spend a year in the country and attend school with your
cousins?”
June thought it would be, “Just fine!” and Mr. Dacey was not long
in arranging with his brother in Massachusetts to receive June into
his home and to see her well started in the country school.
All went well until June’s cousin Carrie Dacey began to show signs
of jealousy toward June. The two girls were just of an age, but Carrie
was an unusually vigorous, strong, healthy girl with double the
amount of endurance possessed by June. As a consequence the two
girls received very different treatment by their elders and even in a
half unconscious way by the other children who were, indeed,
somewhat overawed by June’s pretty clothes and refined manners.
“O, yes! of course June can have everything and I can’t have
anything,” said Carrie one day in a fit of petulance. “She has all the
nice clothes and I have to wear this old thing. She can ride to the
picnic while I have to walk. The teacher is always doing things for her
and nobody ever does anything for me. At home it’s just the same
way, June gets all the attention.”
Miss Scott, the teacher, happened to overhear the remark,
although it was not intended for her, and was thereby made
conscious of the ill-will that was springing up between the two girls.
She had had no desire to show partiality in any way toward June but
only to protect the frail girl from too fatiguing sport. Now she said to
herself, “This won’t do! We shall have a tragedy here soon! I must
think out some plan to overcome this feeling between the two
cousins.”
It so happened that the children had for their reading lesson “The
Story of the Twins.” The story was full of activity and fun and
mischief and the children liked it. Miss Scott had promised the class
that when they could read it very well they might dramatize it some
day.
“You two girls who are just of an age must be our twins,” said Miss
Scott, “the other children may take the other parts. Mary and Jane,
come help me make this crepe paper into costumes for ‘the twins.’
They must dress just alike.”
The children caught the idea, and, just as Miss Scott intended they
should do, immediately nicknamed the two girls “The Twins.” Miss
Scott strengthened the tendency still further by saying occasionally,
in a playful way, “Will the twins pass the paint boxes for us?” “Will
the twins collect the pencils?”
Carrie was soon quite cured of her jealous complainings. Through
suggestion, the feeling of coöperation and comradeship had been
substituted for the selfish emotion of jealousy, and in thus being
linked together in school duties and sports, in a way, too, that
emphasized the relation of equality, the two children soon became
firm friends.

CASE 130 (EIGHTH GRADE)

Wendell Smith was a son of Dr. Smith, one of the most influential
men in the village. He was handsome, well-dressed, well-mannered
and very intelligent. He had delightful books, mechanical and
constructive toys, a bicycle, a watch, and now a few days after he
entered the fourth grade his father gave him a pony and carriage for
a birthday present.
Mark Hazard was in the same grade at Jealous of “Rich
school. Their teacher was Miss Hosiner. Boy”
Mark was a wide-awake boy who was often in mischief. He was
coarse in his speech and manners. He criticized adversely every one
of Wendell’s possessions and was always glad when for any reason
Wendell failed to recite well. When the boys played, Mark would say:
“Don’t ask Wendell to come, he might get his clothes dirty.” When
Wendell missed the word “giraffe” Mark whispered sibilantly, “He
can spell ‘pony’; that’s all the animal he knows.”
Miss Hosiner knew that Mark disliked Wendell and felt sure that
jealousy was at the bottom of his sneers and coarse remarks, but she
didn’t know how to bring about a change.
There was a pool of muddy water near the back door after every
rain. This was spanned by a plank over which the children walked to
the playground.
One day Mark and Wendell were both on the plank when Mark
deftly tripped Wendell, who fell splash into the muddy water. Had
Mark used common courtesy Wendell would doubtless have laughed
at his own plight, but when he looked up to see Mark’s sneer as he
said sarcastically, “Now you’re some dolled up ain’t you?” he said,
“Mark Hazard, you’ve got to smart for this.”
Miss Hosiner had seen it all from the window and understood the
situation perfectly. She went to the door and said, “Wendell, you may
go home and change your clothes; Mark, you may go in and take your
seat and you may have all of your intermissions alone for a week. As
soon as you come in the morning, and at noon, you may take your
seat at once. I will allow you a separate time for your recess from that
of pupils who know how to behave toward each other. Since you can’t
act decently toward other boys, you may play by yourself.”
As the group separated Mark shook his fist at Miss Hosiner’s
retreating back and openly made an ugly face at Wendell.
Not only during the week of his punishment but throughout the
year he showed insolence toward Miss Hosiner and distinct dislike
for Wendell.

CONSTRUCTIVE TREATMENT

Go privately to the boy of whom one or more of the pupils are

jealous and tell him how to treat the jealous ones. In the above
instance say to Wendell as soon as you first observe that Mark is
jealous of him, “I have observed that Mark is not friendly with you. I
know you would be much happier to have his friendship. He is not
sure that you want to be friends and since you have more to give him
by becoming friends than he can give you I can’t blame him much for
wanting you to make the start.
“If one man had $1,000 to put into business and another $10,000,
you couldn’t expect the man with the $1,000 to have audacity
enough to ask the $10,000 man to go into partnership with him, but
how glad he’d be if the richer man should invite him to become a
partner in his business.
“Now, that’s just the way it is with you and Mark. You’ll have to
make him see that you really want to be friends before he can believe
that it is so. I heard one of the boys say that you are going to give
them all a ride in turn in your new pony carriage. If I were you I
would ask Mark to be the first one. I’d ask him first to share all of my
good things, because he suffers most for the things that you have.
That’s what makes him feel out of sorts because he can’t have them.
“It takes more skill to be a gracious receiver than to be a gracious
giver, so don’t feel offended if Mark doesn’t know how to act at first.
Keep on trying to show him that you like him until you succeed.”

COMMENTS

The question of inequality so pitifully and constantly understood

by many sensitive children is often the cause of jealousy that grows
until it becomes a menace to peace in a school. This feeling should be
checked as soon as it appears. Punishing the one who is jealous only
makes him entertain a feeling of resentment toward both the teacher
and the one who is envied by him. The right interchange of feeling
can be secured only by assisting the more favored pupil to show
genuine friendship for the one who is jealous.

ILLUSTRATION (FOURTH GRADE)

Emeline Carlisle was a little girl who talked about the maid, the
cook and the nurse at their house, of the company they had, the
vacations they spent and the clerks in “father’s store.”
Jessie Dodge was a child of a poor but refined widow who, with
extreme difficulty, was able to provide sufficient clothing and food
for her.
Miss Dunlap, the teacher in the fourth Jealous of “Rich
grade, saw that Jessie was destined to Girl”
become jealous of Emeline. So she pointed out to Emeline from time
to time the superior gifts and traits of Jessie. She would say:
“Jessie Dodge is such a refined girl. She knows how to reply
whenever she is spoken to. I think the girls who are her special
friends are fortunate.”
She appointed these two girls to do tasks together, saying, “Jessie
and Emeline may work together on the fifth problem, Emeline writes
well and Jesse thinks well. They will make good companions for this
work.”
By such handling of the situation, Emeline and Jessie became good
friends.

CASE 131 (HIGH SCHOOL)

A western college gave a high school tournament every spring.

Surrounding high schools were invited to assemble with their
competing candidates for athletic contests in the afternoon, followed
by reading and oratorical contests that night. Prizes were given to the
winners either by the college or individuals in the college town.
This tournament was one of the big Jealousy
events of the year for the high schools. They Between Schools
trained for it from September till May. The victors were lionized in
the typically enthusiastic high school manner, while the citizens of
the towns in which the schools were located talked of the event for
weeks and knew and honored not only the schools but the
individuals who had won the prizes.
For two years Eastman pupils had won in athletics, and now (1915)
they were reputed to have an excellent reader who was going up to
the oratorical contest. The slogan in more than one school had been
“Beat Eastman.”
The meet occurred on Friday. On Thursday evening Principal
MacKenzie of Dwight said to his contestants, “I believe we’ll win
tomorrow. I believe we have the kind of muscles and brains that will
‘Beat Eastman.’”
“Hurra-a-a!” sang out the boys—all but one, John Nealy.
An inscrutable look had come into his eyes when Mr. MacKenzie
uttered the words, “Beat Eastman,” and he had been too intently
following up some idea to join in the shout.
On the way to the college town the next morning he said to his
colleagues, “Boys, I’ve thought of a way to beat Eastman.”
“How?” they said, eagerly.
“We’ll take the boys to a ‘feed’ at noon. We’ll order everything
eatable for their runner and jumper and we’ll get them so filled up
that they can’t make good.”
“But will they go with us?”
“Sure, they’ll go. Their runner, Fernald, is a good friend of mine.”
“We won’t dare overeat.”
“Can’t we just pretend we’re eating everything?”
The details were arranged.
Now, Harmon Walsh, one of the Dwight boys, had a fine, upright
character and he could not be party to this foolish scheme of John’s.
He finally decided to tell Mr. MacKenzie about it.
The latter, astonished, took the Dwight boys under his special care,
forbade their inviting anybody to lunch with them, and never left
them until they were on the athletic field.
That year Eastman came out second and Dwight third.
 When they returned to Dwight, Mr. MacKenzie called John into
his office and inquired why he had proposed his “lunch scheme” on
the way to the meet.
“I’m sick and tired of hearing Eastman’s praises,” said John. “I’d
do anything to beat them.”
Thereupon Prof. MacKenzie talked so harshly to John on the
subject of jealousy that he quit school, as he had begged to do before.
So he missed getting his high school education because his teacher
was not able to cultivate in him a spirit of competition without
jealousy and unfortunately was unable to handle properly a case of
jealousy when it appeared.

CONSTRUCTIVE TREATMENT

In dealing with inter-high school competitive programs talk much

about the good qualities of your school’s opponents. Secure personal
favorable items of interest concerning opposing debaters and ball
team members. After a game or debate, talk of the good qualities or
traits of character exhibited by the opponents. Talk on such themes
as, “I’d rather be right than be president.”

COMMENTS

The dividing line between legitimate ambition to win for one’s

school and jealousy of a winning opponent is hard to fix ofttimes.
High school students should be drilled against personal antagonism
and mean advantage by the principal, who should always laud the
clean, fair, open game.

ILLUSTRATION 1 (HIGH SCHOOL)

The big, final basket ball game between Danvers and Winfield high
schools would determine which was the best team in the state. Prof.
Beatty of Danvers wrote to Prof. Ryland of Winfield and said, among
other things:
 “Kindly write me a few words about each Appreciating
boy on your team to read to our boys. Are Opponents
they country or town boys? What is the favorite study of each? What
does each expect to do when he gets out of high school? What do you
consider the finest trait of each?
When the answer to this letter came, the Danvers boys read it
eagerly and later met the Winfield boys as friends. Not a hint of
jealousy was shown by Danvers when Winfield won.

ILLUSTRATION 2 (HIGH SCHOOL)

Occasionally, a student overworks in the effort to secure the

highest place in the teacher’s appreciation. In a certain high school
the history teacher had two boys in her class in modern history who
were rivals for first place.
One belonged to a wealthy family and had Jealous of
every help and encouragement; the other Scholarship
was away from home and working his way through school. It was the
latter boy who worried his teacher. He was up early in the morning
and late at night attending to furnaces in winter, gardening and
cleaning in the spring; and after these exertions he read carefully all
the references given, lest Charles Schofield should do better work
than he. Of course this soon told on his health, but he kept doggedly
at his heavy tasks. When he grew so listless that he had to rouse
himself with a visible effort to recite, Miss Van Leer kept him one day
after class for a talk.
“You mustn’t think of trying to keep up with Charles Schofield,”
she said firmly. “Why, he has nothing to do but eat and sleep and
take a little exercise and study.”
“I know that. But you said last term that he did the best work in
the class, and I resolved that he shouldn’t do the best this term, just
because he has a big library at home and all the time in the world.
You know I want to show you what I can do, Miss Van Leer.”
“I want you now, Ben, to show me how much common sense you
have. You are simply allowing a foolish pride to run away with your
good judgment. Promise me you’ll merely read through the text
assignment for a fortnight.”
 “And hear him rattle off reams from Adams and all the rest of
them? Not I! You would think me a piker, for all you say.”
“Will you do it for me—as a personal favor?” Miss Van Leer was
forced finally to put her wish on a personal basis. This succeeded
where all appeal to self-interest had failed.
(3) Cliques and snobbishness. One phase of this subject, that of the
ringleader, will be treated under the heading “Regulative Instincts.”
At the present time the gregarious aspect, or the tendency of young
people to join together in little bands, will be noticed chiefly. Such a
tendency is, of course, only indirectly harmful. It is both social and
anti-social—social because of the impulse toward companionship,
anti-social because of the selfishness that excludes from the social
group all except a few chosen favorites.

CASE 132 (SIXTH GRADE)

In the town of Fairfield Center, there was a little group of girls,

four in number, who considered themselves superior to the other
girls in school. Miss Baldwin was repeatedly annoyed by their
aloofness, but the other children in her room felt it most.
At recess time, when a game of “I spy” Aping the High
was suggested, this little clique would School
withdraw from the crowd and walk, instead. This habit became so
influential that many of the other girls stopped playing at recess.
Unwholesome gossip was the result. It remained for Miss Sayre, who
took charge of the room the next year, to break down the barriers.
She, too, failed, but for another reason.
Miss Sayre called these four girls to her one day after school, when
they were in a hurry to go home, and gave them some good advice.
“You girls seem to run off by yourselves and not to play with the
others. I want to know why.”
“O, we don’t like their games. They always play such silly games.
The girls in high school don’t do things like that.”
“But you aren’t high school girls—you are just little girls of the
sixth grade. Drop that nonsense. I want you to break up this cliquing
and moping around and act like girls. Now, do you understand?”
 “Yes,” in a chorus. But nothing came of it.

CONSTRUCTIVE TREATMENT

Instead of a direct attack, draw these girls into activities that

require them to act in close coöperation with other girls. Try
committee work.
“Gladys is sick with pneumonia. She can’t come to school for two
weeks yet. I want to appoint a committee of two to call on her and
take her some flowers. I’m going to appoint Eva and Annette for this
work.”
Be sure to make combinations that promise enough congeniality to
provide at least a temporary friendship. Repeat the process very
frequently, yet avoid disclosing a purpose to disrupt the friendship of
chums, for that will excite antagonism and so spoil the whole plan.
Children are very jealous of their friendship, and delicate handling
is needed in order that no real injustice may be done them. Close
friendship is usually of great value and the growth of attachments
between children of the same sex is to be fostered.
The danger is in settling into grooves of thought that cramp the
mind and improverish it for lack of wide association. It is very clear
that the more human beings a person knows, the broader will be his
personality and the richer his information. Hence, teachers are
everywhere duty bound to democratize the life of their charges.

ILLUSTRATION (FIFTH AND SIXTH GRADES)

Misses Phelps and Bender took a wise course in curing the fifth
and sixth graders under their charge, of snobbishness. They
combined forces and went into flower gardening on a small scale. A
plot of ground was procured and the children grouped by pairs
according to an inflexible rule adopted at the very start. There were
several motives behind this project, but we need consider only this
one point.
To insure a genuinely democratic spirit, Gardening in
two pairs were assigned each day for work Pairs