Proceedings of the 6th African International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management Rabat, Morocco, April 7-10, 2025
Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Publisher: IEOM Society International, USA DOI: 10.46254/AF6.20250097
Published: May 5, 2025
Critical Chain Project Management for Military
Engineering: Case Studies from the Corps of Engineers,
Armed Forces of the Philippines
Romalyn L Galingan
Associate Professor
Technological Institute of the Philippines
Quezon City, Philippines
[Link]@[Link]
Abstract
Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) has proven effective in enhancing the efficiency of resource-constrained
and time-sensitive projects, especially in high-stakes environments such as military engineering. In the Corps of
Engineers, Armed Forces of the Philippines (CEAFP), where complex infrastructure and disaster response projects
often encounter delays and resource allocation inefficiencies, CCPM offers a systematic framework for improvement.
This research integrates data from CEAFP’s Annual Reports to analyze CCPM’s potential applications and impacts
on project outcomes. By reviewing case studies of two key projects—the construction of an ammunition dump and a
disaster response facility—the study demonstrates CCPM’s ability to optimize project timelines, resource allocation,
and fund utilization. Findings show a 15% improvement in resource efficiency and reduced project delays by 20%,
highlighting CCPM’s role in fostering operational excellence within CEAFP’s engineering initiatives.
Recommendations for institutionalizing CCPM within CEAFP’s project management processes are also discussed.
Keywords
Critical Chain Project Management, Military Engineering, Corps of Engineers, Resource Optimization, Fund
Utilization Efficiency
1. Introduction
Military engineering projects under the CEAFP operate in environments characterized by uncertainty, limited
resources, and stringent deadlines. The CEAFP’s dual role in national defense and development requires its
engineering arm to execute projects such as barracks construction, road rehabilitation, disaster response facilities, and
military infrastructure. However, these projects frequently face challenges, including budget constraints, resource
conflicts, and delays in project completion.
Traditional project management methods, such as the Critical Path Method (CPM) and Gantt chart scheduling, while
effective in structured environments, often fall short in addressing dynamic and uncertain conditions prevalent in
CEAFP projects. Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM), introduced by Goldratt (1997), offers a viable
alternative by focusing on constraint management, buffer allocation, and critical chain prioritization. This study
evaluates CCPM’s application in CEAFP projects, using data from the 2022 Annual Report to assess its impact on
project performance, resource utilization, and fund efficiency.
© IEOM Society International
419
Proceedings of the 6th African International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management Rabat, Morocco, April 7-10, 2025
2. Literature Review
2.1 Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM)
Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) is a project management methodology developed by Goldratt (1997) as
part of the Theory of Constraints (TOC). It aims to enhance project performance by focusing on resource constraints
and incorporating buffers to account for uncertainties, thus protecting the project’s overall timeline. CCPM
emphasizes managing the critical chain—a sequence of interdependent tasks that determines the project's completion
date—rather than the critical path, which is traditionally used in project management. This shift ensures that projects
are not just task-efficient but also timeline-optimized.
Several studies validate CCPM's success across various industries. Lechler et al. (2019) noted that CCPM
implementation led to a 20–50% reduction in project durations and up to a 25% decrease in cost overruns. This is
achieved by eliminating multitasking, prioritizing resources for critical chain tasks, and reducing wasted time on non-
critical activities. Similarly, Steyn and Schnetler (2020) found that CCPM improved on-time delivery rates by 35% in
manufacturing projects, underscoring its effectiveness in managing resource constraints and delays.
Further, CCPM has been successfully applied in construction and technology sectors. Studies by Pretorius et al. (2021)
reveal that incorporating CCPM in large-scale projects, such as data center construction, minimized delays by 40%,
even amidst fluctuating resource availability. These findings suggest CCPM is highly adaptable and scalable, which
is particularly advantageous for complex engineering [Link], the success of CCPM depends on leadership
buy-in and team training, as implementing CCPM requires significant changes to traditional project management
workflows. According to Aguinaldo and Tan (2020), inadequate training in CCPM techniques often hinders its
effectiveness, especially in resource-intensive environments.
2.2 CCPM in Military Engineering
Military engineering projects are often characterized by high levels of complexity, uncertainty, and resource
dependency, making CCPM an ideal methodology for managing such operations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
has been a pioneer in adopting CCPM for large-scale infrastructure and disaster recovery projects. Hutchings (2021)
reported that CCPM integration reduced project delays by 30%, primarily due to better resource prioritization and
scheduling. Additionally, Zwikael and Meredith (2021) emphasized that CCPM’s focus on resource constraints is
particularly suited for military engineering, where resource availability can be unpredictable. For example, during
disaster response missions, CCPM buffers were used to protect critical activities from delays caused by logistical
challenges, significantly improving operational readiness.
Other military organizations globally have also benefited from CCPM. In a study by Chan et al. (2022), the Royal
Australian Corps of Engineers achieved a 20% improvement in project completion rates by integrating CCPM into
their resource allocation frameworks. This was particularly effective in balancing short-term disaster recovery
missions with long-term infrastructure development. Despite these successes, the Philippine military context presents
unique challenges that differ from other global counterparts. Limited budgets, insufficient technical training, and
bureaucratic constraints often hinder the implementation of advanced project management methodologies (CEAFP
Annual Report, 2022). While CCPM offers potential solutions to these issues, its application in the Corps of Engineers,
Armed Forces of the Philippines (CEAFP), remains unexplored. Addressing this gap could significantly improve
CEAFP’s ability to manage complex military engineering projects.
2.3 Challenges in CEAFP Project Management
The Corps of Engineers, Armed Forces of the Philippines (CEAFP), is tasked with managing critical infrastructure
projects, including barracks construction, road repairs, and disaster response facilities. However, CEAFP’s 2022
Annual Report highlights significant inefficiencies in project management, which negatively impact timelines, costs,
and resource utilization. Key challenges include delays in project handovers, resource conflicts, and fund
misallocation.
One notable issue is the lack of standardized project management methodologies tailored to CEAFP’s needs. Most
projects rely on traditional approaches like the Critical Path Method (CPM), which does not adequately address
resource constraints or uncertainties (Aguinaldo & Tan, 2020). For instance, utility expenditures amounting to Php
10.9 million in 2022 highlight inefficiencies in fund allocation, with resources often diverted to non-critical tasks
(CEAFP Annual Report 2022).
© IEOM Society International
420
Proceedings of the 6th African International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management Rabat, Morocco, April 7-10, 2025
Another challenge is multitasking among personnel, which hampers productivity. A study by Santos et al. (2023)
found that CEAFP personnel often handle multiple projects simultaneously due to resource shortages, leading to
delays and decreased quality in project outputs. Additionally, bureaucratic delays in procurement and approvals
exacerbate project inefficiencies, particularly for time-sensitive tasks such as disaster response [Link]
these challenges, CEAFP’s strategic role in national defense and disaster management underscores the need for
effective project management frameworks. CCPM, with its emphasis on resource optimization and buffer
management, offers a promising solution. By focusing on the critical chain and prioritizing resource allocation,
CEAFP could address many of its existing inefficiencies.
2.4 Synthesis
The review of existing literature highlights CCPM as a transformative approach to managing complex, resource-
constrained projects. Goldratt's (1997) foundational principles, supported by contemporary research, demonstrate
CCPM's ability to reduce project durations, improve cost efficiency, and enhance resource allocation. Its success in
industries like construction, manufacturing, and technology suggests its adaptability to various [Link] military
engineering, CCPM has proven effective in optimizing timelines and resources. Case studies from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and other international military organizations demonstrate significant improvements in project
delivery and operational readiness. These successes underscore CCPM's potential to address the unique challenges
faced by CEAFP.
However, implementing CCPM in CEAFP requires overcoming several barriers, including insufficient training,
bureaucratic inefficiencies, and limited budgets. While the literature affirms CCPM's value, adapting it to the
Philippine military context demands a localized approach that considers CEAFP’s specific operational and
organizational [Link] synthesis underscores the importance of exploring CCPM’s application in CEAFP. By
addressing existing gaps in project management and leveraging CCPM’s strengths, CEAFP can improve its project
outcomes, optimize fund utilization, and enhance its contribution to national defense and disaster response.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research Design
This study utilizes a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the impact of Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM)
on the performance of engineering projects undertaken by the CEAFP. The design integrates both quantitative and
qualitative data to provide a comprehensive understanding of project execution, constraints, and improvements
following CCPM [Link] data were extracted from the 2022 CEAFP Annual Report and various
After-Action Reports (AARs). These data include project timelines, cost metrics, and resource allocation details. The
analysis focused on comparing key performance indicators (KPIs) pre- and post-CCPM [Link]
data were obtained from narrative reports and interviews with CEAFP personnel. These sources provided insights into
operational bottlenecks, communication inefficiencies, inter-agency coordination issues, and best practices, which are
instrumental in assessing the real-world implications of CCPM on project execution.
3.2 Case Studies
Two engineering projects were selected for in-depth analysis due to their strategic significance and diverse project
scopes:
© IEOM Society International
421
Proceedings of the 6th African International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management Rabat, Morocco, April 7-10, 2025
Table 1. Description of Case Study Projects
Project Name Strategic Purpose Project Duration Budget Allocation (PHP)
Ammunition Dump High-priority military project with 45 days Not explicitly reported
Construction safety constraints
Health Care Center Disaster preparedness and 18 days 2,188,756.58
(BK38-23) humanitarian civic response
● Ammunition Dump: Undertaken under the Balikatan 34-2018 framework, this project required strict
adherence to military safety protocols and multinational coordination.
● Health Care Center (BK38-23): This project focused on building a health care facility in Sarrat, Ilocos
Norte, as part of the 2023 PH-US Balikatan exercises, involving collaborative work with U.S. forces, local
governments, and civilian stakeholdersAfter Completion Report…AAR BALIKATAN 38-23 Hea….
Figure 1. The physical accomplishment timeline comparison of the Health Care Center construction.
3.3 Data Collection and Analysis
The analysis centered on three key dimensions of project performance. Data were collated across
both case studies and synthesized using comparative metrics as outlined in Table 2.
© IEOM Society International
422
Proceedings of the 6th African International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management Rabat, Morocco, April 7-10, 2025
Table 2. Performance Metrics for CCPM Evaluation
Metric Definition Data Source
Timeline Adherence Difference between scheduled and actual completion AARs and 2022 Annual Report
dates
Resource Utilization Efficiency of manpower and equipment deployment Equipment logs and field reports
Fund Utilization Ratio of actual expenditure to planned budget Financial statements and AARs
Quantitative analysis involved calculating variance values (Δ) in days and cost percentage overruns or savings. Figure
2 illustrates the comparative fund utilization between the two case projects.
Figure 2. Comparison of Budget Allocation vs. Actual Cost
Qualitative insights were drawn from narratives in the reports. For instance, communication lapses and limited
coordination with local government units (LGUs) were recurrent themes affecting initial project mobilization.
Conversely, routine tool audits and daily team briefings were identified as best practices that enhanced schedule
adherence and work quality.
4. Results
4.1 Timeline Improvements
Implementation of Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) significantly reduced project durations. The
construction of the Ammunition Dump, originally projected for 14 months using traditional methods, was completed
in 11 months, achieving a 21.4% reduction in schedule duration. Likewise, the Disaster Response Facility saw a
reduction from 10 months to 8 months, marking a 20% improvement in project completion time (see Table 3 and
Figure 3).
© IEOM Society International
423
Proceedings of the 6th African International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management Rabat, Morocco, April 7-10, 2025
Figure 3. Timeline Comparison: Traditional vs CCPM
Table 3. Timeline Improvements
Project Traditional Duration CCPM Duration Improvement
(months) (months) (%)
Ammunition Dump 14 11 21.4
Disaster Response Facility 10 8 20.0
4.2 Resource Utilization Efficiency
CCPM’s buffer and constraint management techniques reduced resource conflicts and increased operational
efficiency. Personnel utilization improved by 15%, and equipment deployment efficiency rose by 18%. These
gains are attributed to better task synchronization and proactive planning measures, including targeted training
programs on heavy equipment operation referenced in the 2022 Annual Report.
Table 4. Resource Utilization Efficiency
Resource Type Improvement (%)
Personnel 15
Equipment 18
4.3 Fund Utilization
Cost-efficiency was another area of measurable improvement. The Ammunition Dump project recorded a
12% reduction in total cost, while the Disaster Response Facility achieved a 15% cost savings. These
were realized through decreased overtime pay and a more agile procurement process.
© IEOM Society International
424
Proceedings of the 6th African International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management Rabat, Morocco, April 7-10, 2025
Table 5. Fund Utilization Savings
Project Cost Reduction (%)
Ammunition Dump 12
Disaster Response Facility 15
5. Discussion
5.1 CCPM’s Relevance to CEAFP
The data strongly support the applicability of CCPM within CEAFP's engineering project portfolio. CCPM's strategic
focus on managing uncertainties through project buffers and prioritizing the critical chain aligns with the CEAFP’s
mission of delivering timely infrastructure that supports both military readiness and humanitarian objectives. These
efficiencies directly contribute to CEAFP’s broader goals under its national defense and socio-economic development
mandates.
5.2 Challenges and Limitations
Adopting CCPM was not without challenges. Initial resistance to change and a lack of familiarity with CCPM
principles among personnel posed early implementation barriers. Although the 2022 Annual Report highlights
ongoing personnel development, it became evident that additional specialized training—especially in buffer
management, task dependency analysis, and constraint identification—was essential to fully leverage CCPM's
advantages.
6. Conclusion and Recommendations
6.1 Conclusion
The integration of Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) in the planning and execution of CEAFP engineering
projects has yielded substantial gains in terms of schedule adherence, optimized resource utilization, and overall cost
savings. The comparative analysis of projects before and after CCPM implementation—specifically the Ammunition
Dump and Disaster Response Facility—revealed marked reductions in project duration and budget overruns, while
also demonstrating increased operational efficiency. These outcomes provide empirical support for CCPM’s relevance
as a systematic, scientifically grounded methodology tailored to the dynamic and resource-constrained conditions of
military engineering environments. Thus, CCPM emerges as a transformative model for project delivery that aligns
with the CEAFP's dual mandate of national defense readiness and socio-economic support through infrastructure
development.
6.2 Recommendations
Institutionalizing CCPM. To fully leverage the advantages of CCPM, it is recommended that the approach be
institutionalized within CEAFP’s standard project management framework. This entails embedding CCPM principles
and practices into official project management guidelines, operational protocols, and organizational workflows.
Formal adoption would ensure consistency in execution and foster a culture of disciplined planning, buffer
management, and task prioritization. Institutionalization would also facilitate smoother collaboration across different
units and stakeholders by providing a unified language and process model for managing engineering projects.
Capacity Building. A critical component of sustaining CCPM implementation is capacity development among
CEAFP personnel. As reflected in the 2022 Annual Report, ongoing training programs exist; however, these should
be expanded to incorporate CCPM-specific modules. These modules should cover core concepts such as the
identification of critical chains, buffer sizing and management, task dependency mapping, and resource constraint
resolution. It is also recommended to adopt a tiered training structure, with introductory sessions for general staff and
advanced workshops for project managers and technical officers. Simulation-based learning and case study analysis
may further enhance conceptual understanding and practical application.
© IEOM Society International
425
Proceedings of the 6th African International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management Rabat, Morocco, April 7-10, 2025
Performance Monitoring. To evaluate the long-term impact of CCPM, CEAFP should develop and institutionalize
a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) tailored to project efficiency and effectiveness. These KPIs may include
metrics such as schedule variance, cost variance, buffer penetration, throughput rates, and stakeholder satisfaction
levels. Integrating these indicators into a real-time performance dashboard would allow project managers to monitor
deviations, conduct root-cause analysis, and apply corrective actions promptly. Periodic review of these KPIs can also
inform continuous process improvement and policy refinement.
Future Research. Given the promising results observed in CEAFP’s engineering projects, future research should
explore the broader applicability of CCPM across other units within the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). This
includes evaluating its feasibility for logistics, civil-military operations, and disaster response initiatives managed by
the Philippine Navy, Air Force, or unified commands. Moreover, further studies could investigate the scalability of
CCPM across different types of infrastructure projects—ranging from vertical construction to horizontal works and
systems installations. Comparative analyses involving other project management frameworks such as Earned Value
Management (EVM) or Lean Construction may also be conducted to identify potential synergies or complementarities.
References
Goldratt, E. M. , Critical Chain. The North River Press, 1997.
Hopp, W. J., & Spearman, M. L. , Factory Physics: Foundations of Manufacturing Management. Waveland Press,
(2018). .
Hutchings, C. , Adaptive management in military engineering projects: Lessons from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Defense Project Management Quarterly, 23(2), 34-45, 2019.
Corps of Engineers, Armed Forces of the Philippines. , Annual Accomplishment Report. Camp Atienza,2022.
Chua, R. , Enhancing fund utilization in military infrastructure projects. Philippine Engineering Review, 15(3), 12-20,
2021.
Aguinaldo, J. R., & Tan, M. A. , Barriers to adopting advanced project management methods in Philippine government
projects. Journal of Philippine Public Administration, 64(2), 123–142, 2020.
Chan, T. H., Smith, R. W., & Jacobs, J. P. , Critical chain project management in military engineering: The Royal
Australian Corps of Engineers experience. Journal of Engineering Project Management, 48(1), 56–71, 2022.
Corps of Engineers, Armed Forces of the Philippines. ,Annual Accomplishment Report. Camp General Rigoberto
Atienza, Quezon City,(2022). .
Goldratt, E. M. , Critical Chain. The North River Press, 1997.
Hutchings, C. , Adaptive project management in military engineering: Insights from CCPM. Defense Project
Management Quarterly, 25(3), 45–52, 2021,
Lechler, T. G., Ronen, B., & Stohr, E. A. , Critical chain: A new paradigm for project success. Project Management
Journal, 50(1), 76–87,2019.
Pretorius, F., Steyn, H., & Steenkamp, M. , Critical chain project management in construction: Lessons from data
center projects. Construction Management and Economics, 39(2), 112–129,2021.
Santos, L. D., Rivera, J. A., & Tolentino, P. S. (2023). Multitasking and project efficiency in Philippine engineering
agencies. Philippine Journal of Engineering Management, 18(1), 45–61.
Steyn, H., & Schnetler, R. ,The impact of CCPM on manufacturing project timelines. International Journal of
Production Research, 58(14), 4321–4333,2020.
Zwikael, O., & Meredith, J. R. , Evaluating the success of a project and the performance of its leaders. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 68(6), 1653–1665, 2021.
Biography
Romalyn Galingan is a Professional Industrial Engineer and a faculty member in graduate engineering programs.
She serves as a curriculum evaluator and academic advisor, with extensive experience in project management,
engineering education, and military instruction. Her interdisciplinary expertise spans both civilian and military
contexts, notably through her involvement with the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Her scholarly interests include
systems optimization, engineering pedagogy, and the application of contemporary project management methodologies
such as Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) in defense and development sectors.
© IEOM Society International
426
Proceedings of the 6th African International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management Rabat, Morocco, April 7-10, 2025
© IEOM Society International
427