The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
106
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
106-114
10.37547/tajmei/Volume07Issue08-08
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITTED
28 July 2025
ACCEPTED
07 August 2025
PUBLISHED
21 August 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue 08 2025
CITATION
Valentin George Cretu. (2025). Features Of Implementing a Work
Breakdown Structure in Multidisciplinary Projects. The American
Journal of Management and Economics Innovations, 7(8), 106
–
114.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajmei/Volume07Issue08-08
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Features Of Implementing
a Work Breakdown
Structure in
Multidisciplinary Projects
Valentin George Cretu
Project Planning Manager at Totalenergies Paris, France
Abstract:
The article examines the implementation of a
work breakdown structure in multidisciplinary projects
and its role in ensuring consistency in planning,
budgeting, and quality control. The relevance of the
study is justified by the need to coordinate diverse
engineering and scientific schools accustomed to their
work
‑
structuring templates, which, without a common
decomposition language, leads to package duplication,
hidden interfaces, and risks of resource overrun. The
objectives of the article are to analyze existing standards
and practices, identify empirical patterns in how WBS
quality influences project timeliness and budget
compliance,
and
formulate
methodological
recommendations for harmonizing codes, terminology,
and integration packages. The novelty of the research
lies in the systematic comparative analysis of NASA
guidelines and construction case studies, in the content
analysis of buffer tasks according to the schedule margin
methodology, and in the proposal of a classification of
interface tasks along three axes (technical, contractual
and organizational); the study demonstrates how to link
the WBS
‑
dictionary with digital PDM, PLM and PPM
platforms to enhance transparency and adaptability of
project structures. The main conclusions show that a
properly constructed WBS functions not only as a work
map but also as a mechanism for translation between
professional languages, ensures traceability of budget,
schedule and requirements, and that integration and
interface packages, defined as autonomous elements,
transform hidden dependencies into manageable
planning objects; the applied empirical threshold rules
(8/80, 4%, 40 hours), the RACI role model and schedule
margin buffer tasks create a dynamic yet predictable
framework
capable
of
adapting
to
evolving
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
107
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
requirements. The article will be helpful to project
managers, systems engineers, integration management
specialists, and all those involved in planning and control
of multidisciplinary projects.
Keywords:
work breakdown structure, WBS,
multidisciplinary projects, hierarchical coding, interface
management, RACI, integration packages
Introduction
The work breakdown structure, WBS, in NASA
methodology is defined as a product
‑
oriented family
tree encompassing hardware, software, services, and
other deliverables, thereby providing comprehensive
coverage of the entire project scope and forming the
basis for planning, budgeting, and quality control (NASA,
2023). Thanks to the unambiguous hierarchy of the WBS
code, it becomes the standard language for scheduling,
cost estimation, configuration management, and risk
control; without such a language, estimates are
generated in different coordinate systems, rendering a
consolidated overview unattainable.
Empirical data confirm the managerial value of this
hierarchy. A study at Lagos State University revealed a
moderate positive correlation between WBS quality and
the on-time completion of construction works, with a
correlation coefficient of 0.513 and a coefficient of
determination indicating that the WBS accounts for
26.3% of the variance in the on-schedule metric
(Rukayat et al., 2023). In other words, one in four delays
can be eliminated solely through correct decomposition,
which elevates the WBS from a mere reporting attribute
to a direct lever of project outcome. An analysis of civil
engineering projects published in Applied Sciences
complements this finding: the authors associate both
insufficient and excessive work‐package detailing with
cost overruns and schedule disruptions, and stress that
decomposition boundaries should be defined by clear
control
‑
fitness criteria rather than arbitrary technical
levels (Narváez et al., 2020).
When different engineering and scientific schools, each
accustomed to their work
‑
structuring templates,
converge in a single project, a unified WBS encounters
specific challenges. Terminological discrepancies, for
example, the term prototype, lead to package
duplication; varying levels of detail obscure critical
interfaces. To
coordinate
such
heterogeneous
environments, it is necessary to agree in advance on a
standard coding system, to establish a glossary of terms
and to allocate within the WBS separate packages for
the development and validation of interdisciplinary
interfaces, as recommended in the NASA handbook,
where interface tasks are treated as equal elements of
the hierarchy rather than appendages to primary
deliverables (NASA, 2023). Such practice renders
integration costs transparent and allows buffers for
change coordination to be incorporated into the
baseline plan.
Thus, in a multidisciplinary environment, the WBS serves
not only as a work map but also as a mechanism for
translation between professional languages, ensuring
traceability, comparability, and adaptability of the
project in the face of inevitable requirement changes. It
is this linking function that sets the tone for the
subsequent analysis of WBS development features for
complex projects, where success is measured not only
by the depth of expert knowledge but also by the ability
of different disciplines to operate as a unified system.
Materials and Methodology
The study is based on the analysis of 17 sources,
including the NASA Work Breakdown Structure
Handbook (NASA, 2023), Government Accountability
Office recommendations on project cost management
(GAO, 2020) and the international standard ISO 21511
(ISO, 2018); empirical investigations of the relationship
between WBS quality and work delivery success:
statistical analysis of projects at Lagos State University
(Rukayat et al., 2023) and the integration of work and
cost structures in civil construction (Narváez et al.,
2020); interface management case studies in
megaprojects (Interface Management, 2022) and the
application of schedule margin buffer tasks (Newbold et
al., 2010); empirical threshold rules for determining
work
‑
package size 8/80 and 40
hours (Roland Wanner,
2020; Taylor, 2015); analysis of the role of the RACI
matrix in responsibility allocation (Matthews, 2024) and
barriers to change escalation (KPMG, 2024); as well as
examples of digital integration of PDM, PLM and PPM in
collaborative CAD projects (Asuzu et al., 2024).
Methodologically, the study combines: comparative
analysis of decomposition approaches based on the
NASA handbook and construction case results, with
evaluation of detail levels and element coding;
systematic review of WBS
‑
dictionary requirements in
accordance
with
ISO
21511
and
NASA
configuration
‑
management practices; content analysis
of integration packages and buffer tasks aimed at
identifying best practices for transparent accounting of
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
108
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
time and cost risks; empirical pilot testing of
decomposition depth within a rolling
‑
wave framework
with six
‑
week detailing and measurement of labour
efforts; classification of interface tasks along technical,
contractual and organizational axes (PMI, 2024);
application of the empirical 8/80 and 4
% rules to
substantiate package
‑
detailing limits; analysis of the
effectiveness of the RACI matrix and change
‑
control
procedures; and evaluation of the impact of
digital
‑
platform integration (PDM, PLM and PPM) on
WBS traceability and consistency in a multidisciplinary
environment.
Results and Discussion
At the preparatory stage, the key task is to create a
complete picture of all disciplines that contribute to the
project outcome, as the completeness of the future
hierarchy depends on this initial inventory. NASA's WBS
guidelines emphasize that the structure should cover
both in-house work and the efforts of contractors and
partners; otherwise, the traceability of the budget,
schedule, and requirements will inevitably face gaps
(NASA, 2023). Once the list of disciplines is finalized, a
WBS architect is appointed to be the custodian of the
decomposition logic. In large-scale NASA space
programs, this role is fulfilled by the Integrated WBS
Manager, who coordinates the boundaries between
engineering, software, and operational domains and
administers changes to the element codes, ensuring a
unified reporting format for the entire team (NASA,
2023). The absence of such a coordinator leads to
disciplines fragmenting the structure according to their
own rules, and a no-
man’s land of responsibility arises at
the intersections, increasing the burden on integration.
The third task of the preparatory stage is to formulate
the objectives of the decomposition, and these
objectives must be quantitative. If the project aims to
control costs using the Earned Value methodology, the
package must contain a measurable outcome that can
be linked to actual labor costs. If rapid prototype
integration is critical, the boundaries of the package
should follow the interfaces, allowing defects to be
detected in early assemblies. Field data from
construction confirm that when work packages exceed
four percent of the total budget, the risk of losing control
increases sharply; therefore, the upper limit of detailing
should be methodically fixed rather than left to the
discretion of the executors (Narváez et al., 2020).
Decomposition principles begin with an output-oriented
approach: an element is added to the structure only
when it is expressed in a tangible product, document, or
verifiable service. This logic enables the project goal
achievement plan to be directly linked to the project's
outputs, simplifying decision-making regarding resource
allocation and prioritization. Next, a tiered rule product,
module, and discipline is applied: at the first level, the
final subsystems or functional segments are
represented; at the second level, modules ensuring
autonomous development are displayed; at the third
level, disciplinary packages that a specialist can directly
control are shown. This three-tiered scheme,
recommended by NASA and supported by the results of
construction project analysis, minimizes the number of
overlaps between teams and provides a transparent
picture of dependencies between timelines and costs
(NASA, 2023).
Finally, hierarchical numbering turns the structure into
an addressing system. In space projects, no more than
seven levels are allowed, with each new level adding at
least two digits. Contractor codes inherit upper
elements without altering the format. This approach
enables the automatic aggregation of reports from
various sources and prevents discrepancies when
merging databases (NASA, 2023). The combination of
stable coding and unified detailing rules forms the basis
for further discipline integration, eliminates work
duplication, and creates a reliable platform for cost and
schedule analysis throughout the project lifecycle.
According to Grand View Research, the global market for
project management software that facilitates WBS
construction and integrates multidisciplinary processes
was valued at USD 6.59 billion in 2022 and is projected
to reach USD 20.47 billion by 2030, with a compound
annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15.7% from 2023 to 2030,
as shown in Figure 1 (Grand View Research, 2023).
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
109
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
Fig. 1. The global project management software market size (Grand View Research, 2023)
Having completed the coding of levels and delineated
the boundaries of work packages, the team proceeds to
linguistic unification, since any ambiguity in terminology
immediately translates into planning and reporting
errors. The international standard ISO 21511 defines the
WBS dictionary as a mandatory annex, in which each
element is accompanied by an accurate description of
scope, deliverables, and constraints, thereby ensuring
that project participants interpret identical codes in the
same manner (ISO, 2018). An analogous requirement i
s
outlined in the NASA guide: the project is required to
maintain a WBS dictionary aligned with the financial
system up to and including the seventh level; otherwise,
costs cannot be accurately aggregated according to the
structure (NASA, 2023).
Practice demonstrates that the absence of a formalized
dictionary has a direct impact on project losses. A study
of the Lebanese construction sector found that design
errors account for 65% of project variations, and a
further 30% are attributed to late design changes, both
groups of causes relying on initially inaccurate or
contradictory task definitions (Azar et al., 2018).
Therefore, glossary development begins concurrently
with decomposition rather than afterwards. The
working group records each term, its working definition,
units of measurement, and reference documents,
agrees on the entry with representatives of all
disciplines,
and
secures
it
in
the
configuration
‑
management system.
The next step is to link terms to WBS elements. Each
code is assigned a unique reference to the dictionary,
which allows automated tools to insert the description
into schedules, estimates, and contracts. NASA
illustrates this in its NSM system example, where an
approved code cannot be deleted and remains a unified
key for financial and engineering data throughout its
lifecycle (NASA, 2023). In practice, such an ‘address’
transforms the dictionary into an interface between
engineering models, accounting, and Earned Value
reports,
thereby
eliminating
nomenclature
discrepancies between packages, books, and estimates.
A formal update procedure overcomes the static nature
of the dictionary. The project introduces a rule whereby
any change to a term follows the same
configuration
‑
control process as a requirements
change: the initiator submits a request, and the WBS
architect analyzes its impact on related elements (Cretu,
2025). The change is ratified at the monthly integration
meeting. The publication of a new glossary version is
accompanied by the distribution of notifications and the
automatic reconstruction of reports, with each change
recorded in the revision log. This cycle renders the
dictionary a ‘living’ document while preserving full
traceability.
Thus, terminology harmonization converts the
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
110
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
WBS from a mere set of codes into a comprehensive
knowledge environment: the glossary establishes a
unified conceptual framework, the linkage to elements
ensures the accuracy of adjacent systems, and the
managed update process maintains synchronization of
disciplines when requirements change. These measures
minimize work duplication and enable the timely
identification of potential conflicts before they evolve
into budget overruns and schedule slippages.
The optimal depth of decomposition determines
whether the team can simultaneously monitor critical
risks and avoid being overwhelmed by management
transactions. The US Government Accountability
Office’s cost
‑
estimation guide notes that increased
detailing in itself does not improve accuracy, and if a
project attempts to schedule elements too early and too
thoroughly, the quality of the estimate declines because
early
‑
stage data remain incomplete (GAO,
2020).
The boundaries of ‘too coarse’ and ‘too fine’ are typically
defined using a set of empirical rules. The 8/80 rule
recommends that work in a package requires no fewer
than eight and no more than eighty person
‑
hours,
otherwise control becomes either costly or meaningless
(Roland Wanner,
2020). The 40-hour rule maintains a
consistent range every week, while the 4% rule suggests
discontinuing further subdivision when the package
volume reaches approximately four percent of the total
budget or one week in a six-month project, thereby
providing a convenient scale for projects of varying sizes
(Taylor, 2015). Alongside, Figure 2 illustrates a
quantitative WBS
‑
construction technique applying the
100
% Rule by allocating 100 points to the total project
scope, subdividing those points into level
2 elements
based on relative effort, progressively elaborating to
level
3 and terminal elements coded with underscores
for scheduling, and recommending the use of interactive
software and collaborative team estimation.
Fig. 2. Example of a Project WBS using the 100% Method (Taylor, 2015)
The just enough method relies on these threshold values
and adds a check for controllability: a package is
considered sufficient when it can be unambiguously
estimated in terms of labor costs, assigned to a single
responsible party, and completed within one reporting
cycle. If, after applying the rules, uncertainty remains,
the manager defaults to the smallest of the intervals;
thus, the structure remains controllable, and the
accounting costs do not grow disproportionately to the
content itself (Roland Wanner, 2020).
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
111
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
Pilot decomposition serves as a practical test of these
criteria: the team selects a typical work section, breaks
it down to the end of the six-week horizon, and
measures the labor intensity of reporting. Such a pilot
easily fits into the rolling wave approach, where distant
packages are kept as aggregated planning templates. As
the deadline approaches, each template is divided into
four- to six-week work packages, maintaining a
continuous six-month layer of detailed information
(GAO, 2020). Therefore, testing on the pilot segment
confirms the applicability of the rules to the specific
team and allows timely adjustment of the depth before
the WBS is rolled out across the entire project.
Managing interdisciplinary dependencies begins with
systematically identifying interfaces, as cost and
schedule risks concentrate at the boundaries between
disciplines. NASA's WBS guidelines require that
interface-related work be assigned separate codes and
tracked to the financial level, demonstrating that
opaque junctions inevitably disrupt the scope, budget,
and schedule link (NASA, 2023). A study of capital
megaprojects found that interface management errors
can absorb up to twenty percent of the total estimate,
meaning one in five expenditures is not related to
technology but to poorly defined boundaries of
responsibility (Interface Management, 2022).
In practice, interfaces are best classified along three
axes: technical, contractual, and organizational. This
triple classification, proposed by analysts at the Project
Management Institute, facilitates the selection of
control tools: technical interfaces are best managed
with engineering reviews, contractual interfaces with
fixed acceptance points, and organizational interfaces
with communication protocols (PMI, 2024), an example
of which is shown in Figure 3. Classifying at the planning
stage reduces the share of hidden dependencies and
simplifies subsequent change coordination.
Fig. 3. Sample contract breakdown structure for an offshore project (PMI, 2024)
After the inventory of interfaces, the team forms
integration packages and enters them into the WBS
alongside product tasks. This approach converts invisible
coordination into visible cost and makes it an object of
the plan-versus-actual comparison. NASA's guide
emphasizes that without separate codes for integration,
labor costs cannot be tied to control points; therefore,
interface work must be included in the master plan and
Earned Value reports, rather than being spread thinly
across disciplines (NASA, 2023).
Even with thorough interface management, some
uncertainty remains, so the schedule is supplemented
with buffer tasks. The schedule margin methodology
recommends inserting time reserves as independent
network elements, which allows variability to be
explicitly accounted for without distorting the SPI and
CPI metrics. Practical guides for schedule protection
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
112
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
note that using such buffers increases the predictability
of completion dates without the need to redistribute
costs, as buffer tasks themselves do not carry value and
do not earn earned value (Newbold et al., 2010).
For interface and buffer packages to be effectively
managed, each element of the structure is linked to the
RACI responsibility matrix. The one package
—
one
responsible approach defines the roles of Responsible,
Accountable for final approval, Consulted for expert
support,
and
Informed
for
communication
transparency. Project management materials from
project-management.com show that a clear RACI link
prevents overlaps in authority and simplifies task status
control in complex projects (Matthews, 2024).
Linking packages to roles eliminates no-man's land
areas, but only if the escalation process operates faster
than the critical delay arises. A KPMG study on
organizational barriers notes that internal silos and
limited communication remain the leading obstacles to
integration when roles are formally defined but
unsupported by management channels. Including a
separate column in RACI for the three levels of
escalation
—
technical lead, control account manager,
project board
—
allows unresolved issues to be escalated
up the structure within one reporting cycle, thus
minimizing the impact of organizational gaps (KPMG,
2024).
Thus, following the sequence of interface identification,
integration packages, and buffers, RACI transforms
interdisciplinary dependencies from hidden risks into
manageable planning objects, reducing the likelihood of
cost
overruns
and
increasing
decision-making
transparency.
The presence of a unified tool environment stabilizes the
logical structure of the WBS, as each software solution
links previously described levels of decomposition to
specific data objects and roles. In engineering projects,
PDM and PLM are often integrated first. PDM stores the
original CAD models and versions, while PLM tracks the
entire product lifecycle, including links to requirements
and manufacturing. As a result, their integration
eliminates gaps between module and discipline even at
the detailing stage.
To prevent discrepancies between the resource plan and
the work hierarchy, PPM platforms are added to this
linkage, forming a unified portfolio of tasks, budgets,
and capacities. When work packages are handed over to
external and distributed teams, cloud repositories for
CAD and source code reduce transactional losses. In this
digital environment, three project personas emerge
—
the guide, the integrator, and the communicator; they
become the axes of the new responsibility matrix,
helping to reflect minor adjustments in WBS elements
without bureaucracy (Asuzu et al., 2024).
However, even perfect digital infrastructure does not
protect the work structure from changes. Therefore, a
two-tier classification system is introduced at the WBS
level: light change corresponds to classes II/minor,
where form, fit, and qualification are unaffected; full
change is equivalent to class I/major and requires
revisiting form, fit, and function, or product
requalification. This scheme has been widely applied in
aerospace
programs,
enabling
the
immediate
recognition of whether a reallocation of lower-level
packages is necessary or if attribute adjustments are
sufficient (Ho, 2016).
The subsequent procedure is the same for both
categories, but the depth of review differs. The standard
cycle includes registering the change proposal, an
automated approval route in PDM/PLM, updating the
dictionary of terms, and tracing to the related WBS
package code, after which a record is created in the
project's configuration database; the form and
necessary fields of this log are detailed in NASA’s
systems
engineering
manuals,
simplifying
implementation in projects across industries (NASA,
2023).
The final line of defense is reserves. For the schedule,
buffer tasks tied to integration milestones are utilized.
In NASA’s terminology, these are referred to as funded
or unfunded schedule margins, which are distributed
proportionally to risks and gradually consumed as the
project progresses (NASA, 2023).
Thus, the tool ecosystem, strict change typology, and
managed reserves transform the WBS into a dynamic yet
predictable framework: changes are recorded without
loss of traceability, and resources and timelines remain
aligned with previous levels of decomposition and the
roles matrix.
Conclusion
The materials and empirical data presented in the article
confirm
that
a
well-structured
decomposition
framework in multidisciplinary projects becomes not
just a work map, but a mechanism for translation
between professional languages. A strict code hierarchy
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
113
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
and a unified glossary of terms ensure the traceability of
the budget, schedule, and requirements by all
participants. The identification of integration and
interface packages alongside product tasks translates
hidden dependencies into manageable planning objects,
and the introduction of buffer tasks makes uncertainty
transparent while maintaining predictable deadlines
without distorting key performance indicators.
The methodological principles of decomposition focus
on tangible outcomes and include a level rule product,
module, discipline, empirical thresholds for detailing
depth, and pilot verification, ensuring a balance
between detailing and control efficiency. The clear link
between packages and roles, as defined by the RACI
model, eliminates areas of ambiguity in responsibility.
Meanwhile, the managed process of terminology
updates via configuration management ensures that the
glossary remains relevant throughout the project
lifecycle.
The integration of the WBS with digital platforms, such
as PDM, PLM, and PPM, creates a tool ecosystem where
package codes are linked to engineering models,
resources, and contracts, thereby preventing data
duplication and discrepancies. Classifying changes as
light and full, as well as managing reserves through
independent schedule margin tasks, transforms the
WBS into a dynamic yet predictable project framework
that can adapt to changing requirements and ensure
transparency
and
control
throughout
the
implementation process.
References
1.
Asuzu, C. M., Cheng, K., & Olechowski, A. (2024). The
Personas of Cloud CAD Collaboration: A Case Study
of a Team of CAD Professionals.
IEEE Transactions on
Engineering
Management
,
PP
(99),
1
–
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2024.3409178
2.
Azar, A. D., Militaru, C., & Mattar, C. P. (2018, July 1).
Construction Design-Phase Errors and Their Impacts
on Project Performance: Case Study of Lebanese
Local
Applications
3.
Cretu, V. G. (2025).
Planning Engineering - Principles
and Memories
(English). Amazon.
GAO. (2020).
Best Practices for Developing and
Managing
Program
Costs
.
GAO.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/706933.pdf
4.
Grand View Research. (2023).
Project Management
Software Market Size
. Grand View Research.
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-
analysis/project-management-software-market-
report
5.
Ho, N. (2016).
Process Change Assessment
Techniques
.
Aerospace.
https://aerospace.org/sites/default/files/maiw/TO
R-2016-02187.pdf
6.
Interface
Management.
(2022).
Interface
Management
Improves
On-Time,
On-Budget
Delivery of Megaprojects
. Interface Management.
7.
ISO.
(2018).
ISO
21511:2018
.
ISO.
https://www.iso.org/standard/69702.html
8.
KPMG. (2024).
Addressing the Strategy Execution
Gap
in
Sustainability
Reporting
.
KPMG.
https://kpmg.com/kpmg-
us/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2024/kpmg-2024-esg-
organization-survey.pdf
9.
Matthews, B. (2024, April 19).
Understanding the
responsibility assignment matrix (RACI matrix)
.
Project
Management.
management.com/understanding-responsibility-
assignment-matrix-raci-matrix/
10.
Narváez, A. C., Fernández, A. P., Mateo, M. O., &
Pérez, P. B. (2020). Integration of Cost and Work
Breakdown Structures in the Management of
Construction Projects.
Applied Sciences
,
10
(4), 1386.
mdpi.
11.
NASA. (2023).
NASA Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS) Handbook
. NASA.
content/uploads/2023/08/nasa-work-breakdown-
structure-handbook.pdf
12.
Newbold, R., Budd, C., & Budd, C. (2010).
Protecting
Earned Value Schedules with Schedule Margin
.
Prochain.
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
114
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
13.
PMI. (2024).
Managing the complexity of
engineering interfaces through ecollaboration
. PMI.
https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/managing-
complexity-engineering-interfaces-ecollaboration-
1460
14.
Roland Wanner. (2020, May).
How to Determine the
Right Work Package Size and Duration
. Roland
Wanner.
https://rolandwanner.com/determine-
the-right-work-package-size-and-duration/
15.
Rukayat, P. O., Waliu, O., & ibrahim, olateju olawale.
(2023, September 14).
Work Breakdown Structure
and
Timely
Project
Delivery
16.
Taylor, M. (2015).
How to Develop Work Breakdown
Structures
.
Project
Coach.
https://projectcoach.com.mx/wp-
content/uploads/2015/10/How-to-Develop-Work-
Breakdown-Structures.pdf
