Comparison and Assessment of Using Primavera and Microsoft Project in Construction Projects in Erbil City

  • Khalil Ismail Wali Department of Civil Eng., college of Eng., Salahaddin University,Erbil.Kurdistan Reign, Iraq
  • Shamal Ali Othman Department of Civil Eng., college of Eng., Salahaddin University-Erbil.Kurdistan Reign, Iraq
Keywords: Primavera P6, Microsoft Project, Project Management Software Tools.


Planning and scheduling has an important role in construction projects because of the increasing complexities in the field of project management comprises, pre-construction planning in order to schedule the activities sequence, defining labor tasks, construction methods and assigning the resources and responsibilities. For planning and scheduling work a huge amount of paperwork is required, which makes the construction management task more complicated. This paper provides a comparison study to currently available project management tools and assessing Primavera and Microsoft project, to identify the most popular planning project tools. Consequently, to developed criteria to compare primavera with Microsoft project, and to investigate the current situation of using Primavera and Microsoft project in Erbil governorate. The result of the analysis the questionnaire data revealed that 78% of respondents were reluctant to use Primavera and Microsoft project in construction projects in Erbil governorate. Consequently, the most of respondents preferred to use Excel Microsoft for managing project because of its availability and easy in using, on other hand, the respondent’s knowledge regarding the most advantages program, the study revealed that 76% of the respondents they do not know which program is best one and the most of respondents suffer from lack of experience and lack of training opportunity to tackle and learning primavera and Microsoft project. Furthermore, most of the respondents preferred using the traditional process rather than software to schedule by hand instead of using Primavera and Microsoft project.


ASSAF, S. A. & AL-HEJJI, S. 2006. Causes of delay in large construction projects. International journal of project management, 24, 349-357.
CHATFIELD, C. & JOHNSON, T. 2016. Microsoft Project 2016 Step by Step.
CHATFIELD, C. & JOHNSON, T. 2017. Microsoft Project 2016 Korak po korak.
CHATFIELD, C. S. & JOHNSON, T. D. 2010. Microsoft Project 2010 step by step, Pearson Education.
CICIBAS, H., UNAL, O. & DEMIR, K. A. A Comparison of Project Management Software Tools (PMST). Software Engineering Research and Practice, 2010. 560-565.
DAMIANI, L., REVETRIA, R., SVILENOVA, I. & GIRIBONE, P. 2015. Survey and comparison of the project management softwares used by engineering, procurement and construction companies. Advances in Energy and Environmental Science and Engineering, 6.
GHARAIBEH, H. 2014. Evaluating Project Management Software Packages Using a Scoring Model—A Comparison between MS Project and Primavera. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 7, 541.
HAWKINS, C. V. 2007. Assessing CPM scheduling software for the small to mid-size construction firm, University of Maryland, College Park.
LIBERATORE, M. J., POLLACK-JOHNSON, B. & SMITH, C. A. 2001. Project management in construction: Software use and research directions. Journal of construction engineering and management, 127, 101-107.
MARMEL, E. 2011. Microsoft Project 2007 Bible, John Wiley & Sons.
ORACLE 2015. P6 user guide release 15.1.
RAGAVI, S. & UMA, R. N. 2016. Review of Project Management Softwares-MS Project and Primavera. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), 3, 4.
VEENA H C, V. K. 2016. "Schedule Control of an Apartment Building using
Primavera Techniques". International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), 5, 4.
ZONE, P. M. 2018. project management zone [Online]. Available: [Accessed].
How to Cite
Ismail Wali, K. and Ali Othman, S. (2019) “Comparison and Assessment of Using Primavera and Microsoft Project in Construction Projects in Erbil City”, Zanco Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 31(s3), pp. 285-291. doi: 10.21271/ZJPAS.31.s3.39.