Construction Scheduling. Schedule Performance Measurement, Part 1. (For Owners).

Are you responsible for monitoring and responding to the Contractor’s schedule performance on the project?

Do you review each schedule update and compare dates in the new update with the dates in the baseline schedule?

Do you compare the Milestone Activity dates to the baseline schedule?

There are many different methods of analyzing project schedule performance.

When we review a schedule progress update, we need to first determine if the schedule update is a valid update. By that, I mean is the logic still complete? Have there been any revisions with this update that result in the schedule not meeting the contract requirements or best practices? It doesn’t take much to render a schedule useless….

There are most likely logic revisions, changes to lag values, or possible changes to calendars or calendar assignments. There are also deletions and additions of activities and/or Activity Relationships. Then there are changes to quantities or Resources which may impact Activity Durations or Resource Calendars, depending on the schedule settings selected.

This should all be addressed in a manner that conveys the actual revisions with the reasons for the revisions as part of the schedule update narrative the Contractor submits with the schedule update. Unfortunately, this is rare. Typically, we see the “digger” report with a general comment addressing the high-level view of the update.

Not really helpful for our use.

So, we plow ahead with the intent to complete our review of the schedule update for this period.

First, we need to complete several “quality checks” of the schedule to validate it for use.

In my next post, I will walk through some of the more common items we check for.

Until then, be suspect of schedule updates without, or with vague schedule update narratives. There is much that can be changed in the program, that will not be transparent to the owner without a thorough review and analysis of the file by an experienced schedule professional.

As  Planning and Schedule Professionals, we need to provide the Project Team with the “tools” they need to manage the project. The owner needs to know what the performance of the actual work in the field is, compared to the planned performance. Unless we have a valid schedule update to measure with, and against, and understand the impact of acceptable schedule revisions, we cannot provide any accurate performance measurement.

I’m sure many of you have comments or additional insight into this subject. Please share!

I’d love to hear what you think!

Please visit https://conschmanservices.com to learn more about Construction and Schedule Management Services, LLC

Please visit my LinkedIn account to learn more about me.

Please visit my “The Blue Book” ProView.

Paul Epperson CCM, PMP, PSP, PMI-SP

Construction Scheduling. What Schedule Reports do you Need? (For Owners).

Do you receive a truckload of schedule reports each month from the contractor?

Do you actually look at or use them all?

Do you know there are many ways of looking at the schedule to be able to review progress, planned work, work that is slipping, or work that is Near Critical?

There are all kinds of reports the contractor can provide. But, it’s best if they know what you will need before they develop the Baseline Project Schedule.

When the contractor develops the schedule, they create groups of activity codes which they assign to activities to be able to filter, sort, and group activities in various ways.

They can assign phase, trade or responsibility, area, work type and many other code assignments.

The CPM schedule can be presented is a number of ways, but typically, we see an xer file, a schedule narrative, and a group of “layouts” in pdf format.

As the owner, you need to know what “layouts” to ask for!

Your specifications should at a minimum require a Critical Path layout with the Critical Path set to equal the Longest Path. I like to show the activity ID, Description, Physical and Duration Complete, Original, Remaining and AT Completion duration columns. Also, the Start, Finish, and Total Float columns. I like to group this by the project and sort on Start and then Finish Dates. This provides the “waterfall” view of the Critical Path. With the At Completion Duration column shown, I can see if there is any delay to any in-progress activities driving the Critical Path.

Your specifications should also at a minimum require a Total Float layout. I like to set this up to be grouped by the project, sorted on Total Float and then Start and then Finish. I show the same columns as I do for the Critical Path layout above. This provides a series of “waterfalls” based on Total Float values. For projects with multiple activity calendars, we cannot rely on the Total Float value to provide an accurate representation of the Near Critical Path(s) and subsequent network paths. But, it is very useful if you keep in mind what activity calendar the types of activities you are looking at typically have assigned. Knowing another network path is only a few days away from being Critical is, well, critical.

The classic layout grouped by WBS or some sort of activity coding is typical. This is the layout you get which shows the project phasing and deliverables broken down with the supporting activities. This is a necessary layout and is almost always provided by the contractor.

There are ways to format a layout to show activities taking longer than planned, not starting or finishing as planned, and planned to start or be underway in the next few weeks. These layouts are all helpful to the owner and the contractor.

Feel free to ask me about layouts I typically use. I’m happy to explain what I use and why.

As  Planning and Schedule Professionals, we need to provide the Project Team with the “tools” they need to manage the project. The owner needs to know what presentations to require. We can help them.

I’m sure many of you have comments or additional insight into this subject. Please share!

I’d love to hear what you think!

Please visit https://conschmanservices.com to learn more about Construction and Schedule Management Services, LLC

Please visit my LinkedIn account to learn more about me.

Please visit my “The Blue Book” ProView.

Paul Epperson CCM, PMP, PSP, PMI-SP

Construction Scheduling. The Reality of a Project Schedule, (For Owners).

Do contractors and project owners view the project schedule differently?

Most of the time? You bet!

The contractor develops the schedule because the contract specifications require a project schedule or because they need a plan to manage the project execution or both. Does the contractor need the same degree of detail or planning as the project owner? Probably more.

The project owner wants the project schedule as assurance from the contractor that they have a plan and can execute the project. They also need the schedule to plan their own activities for the project and plan internal activities which may be separate from the project.

Most projects now require a CPM schedule. This forces the contractor to develop more detailed logic, with specific calendars. They cannot get by with a simple bar (Gantt) chart type of a schedule which simply lists the activities in the planned sequence. The contractor must develop a complex organization of finite activities with associated logic, calendars, constraints and best practices.

The project owner benefits from this, they can have a higher level of confidence in the schedule!

Or can they?

When you plan the project by breaking down the deliverables, verifying resources availability, acknowledging internal and external constraints, and planning the basic phasing and sequencing if the work, the required project completion date is a facet of the planning, but not the driver. We simply plan how we will schedule the project.

When we sequence the deliverables and add the supporting activities, based on our planning effort, we often find we will not finish the project by the contract completion date, as required.

We then consider adding resources to shorten activity durations and/or sequencing some work to run concurrently. We do this by attacking the current Longest Path, iteratively as the Longest Path keeps shifting until we have a schedule that meets the contract completion requirements.

As the project owner, you generally do not know about this exercise. You do not realize how much schedule risk has been added to the project. For larger and more sophisticated projects or owners, the use of risk management for cost, scope, and schedule is common. But, for many medium and some larger projects, there are not resources available for risk assessment and management.

For these projects, the owner believes the contractor can execute the project as planned. Often, the contractor is anxious and understands there is the additional risk and has analyzed the risk and provided a mitigation plan. However, the risk remains.

Any impact to the project schedule Critical or Near Critical Path can derail the project. There simply isn’t schedule contingency available to absorb any impact. Many owners believe the contractor has built-in contingency, just as they believe the contractor has a cost contingency. Usually, they have a cost contingency, but often it is negligible. They bid the project to win the project and keeping the contingency slim is part of winning….

Seldom is there any real schedule contingency. Contractors must address even slight impacts to the execution or sequencing of work. Owners believe the contractor should anticipate these and absorb them. It is all contractors can do to mitigate their own impact issues, much less absorb owner impacts.

How can we, as Planning and Schedule Professionals help?

I can only speak for myself…

When providing owner’s schedule oversight and management support, I try to identify the types of items in the schedule which would prevent the project team from using the schedule to accurately forecast and manage the work. It is in the best interest of all parties if the schedule is valid for use. Often, the contractors disagree and push back, but for the benefit of the project as a whole, we have to force the use of solid, valid CPM schedules.

Unfortunately, and far too often, the contract schedule requirements do not provide the support necessary to force the quality of schedule we need…. So, we do the best we can…

I’m sure many of you have comments or additional insight into this subject. Please share!

I’d love to hear what you think!

Please visit https://conschmanservices.com to learn more about Construction and Schedule Management Services, LLC

Please visit my LinkedIn account to learn more about me.

Please visit my “The Blue Book” ProView.

Paul Epperson CCM, PMP, PSP, PMI-SP

Construction Scheduling. “All the Other Work” Progress Update Information for Owners.

As a continuation of my previous posts, I will continue to discuss some of the important progress update items we review and analyze.

I will now discuss the process of analyzing the actual performance of work NOT on the Critical and Near Critical Path(s).

When the contractor adds the actual Start and Finish Date and expected Finish Date data to the schedule update, the new scheduled completion date if most often not what any of us want. Usually, there has been slippage in work progress in an area that must be addressed.

This is most often caused by a lack of adequate progress for work on the Critical Path and/or the Near Critical Path(s).

However, we must not forget to monitor and address non-performance for work not on the Critical Path or Near Critical Path(s).

One of the reasons we work to make the schedule logic as complete and defined as possible is to allow the planned sequencing of finite work activities to drive the schedule. This provides a dynamic logic network for the planning and control of the project.

The result of all the work breakdown, resource allocation, and logic assignments produces multiple network “paths” through the schedule. The paths we’re always looking for is the Critical Path, and then the Near Critical Path(s). These are determined by the scheduling algorithm and have Total Float values based on this calculation.

But what about the “other” activities that are not Critical or Near Critical? They have higher Total Float values, so they can be done anytime as long as we don’t let them get Critical, right?

That is not a good idea. I believe it is best to complete the work, when you can; efficiently, of course. Letting the work push out because it is not “Critical” or has “Float” only sets the project up for failure.

If you’re cost or unit loading the schedule, you typically produce a Baseline Curve of some sort to plot the resource or cost spread over time. This curve is comprised of all the activities. Letting work slip pushes the curve and the required cost and resources out and this can quickly overwhelm the availability of resources to complete the work when it “stacks” up. Unfortunately, this is all too common.

Many Superintendents push their work everywhere, all the time, and for good reason. They learned early on that letting work slip will come back to haunt them.

The owner needs to monitor for work slippage. The project can easily show an on-time completion with the Critical Path looking very pretty. But, they should also be concerned with the Schedule Performance Indicator. This will show if work is pushing out because the projected curve will push out. Of course, we have to balance the work, so we maintain the curve and the Critical Path to achieve on-time completion, in the most cost-effective manner. This is another item the Owner’s scheduler should be analyzing and reporting on. We can list activities which did not start as planned, did not finish as planned or could have started but did not. We can also list activities which have started but made little or no progress. While there are going to be valid reasons for some work not starting, finishing or progressing as planned, the reasons should all be explained in the schedule update narrative provided by the contractor. They know the reasons and can best explain them. If they do not provide this information, the project team really needs to investigate and determine what is driving the slippage. It is much better to tackle this kind of problem early. It is rare that a project can recover if slippage continues very long at all.

I’m sure many of you have comments or additional insight into this subject. Please share!

I’d love to hear what you think!

Please visit https://conschmanservices.com to learn more about Construction and Schedule Management Services, LLC

Please visit my LinkedIn account to learn more about me.

Please visit my “The Blue Book” ProView.

Paul Epperson CCM, PMP, PSP, PMI-SP

Construction Scheduling. Network Logic Progress Update Information for Owners.

As a continuation of my previous posts, I will continue to discuss some of the important progress update items we review and analyze.

I will now discuss the process of verifying the network logic is complete.

When the contractor adds the actual Start and Finish Date and expected Finish Date data to the schedule update, the new scheduled completion date if most often not what any of us want. Usually, there has been slippage in work progress in an area that must be addressed.

The contractor will investigate and add resources or increase hours for that work or re-sequence the work in the most cost-effective manner possible to recover any lost time. The contractor is usually required to convey that plan to you with the schedule update narrative. However, this is seldom the complete picture…..

Quite simply, when there are logic changes made, it is easy to create missing logic such as an activity with one successor with only a Start-to-Start, SS relationship. This leaves this logic open as the finish of the activity does not drive the start or finish of any other work.

Reverse logic can also be inadvertently created. This is when an activity has only a predecessor with a Finish-to-Finish, FF relationship and a successor with an SS relationship. With this condition, any increase in duration of this activity will actually pull the successor back in time. Not realistic…

Those are a couple of the basic items we look at.

It is simple enough to “recover” time on the update by shortening a duration here or there and perhaps changing some Finish-to-Start, FS logic to Start-to-Start, SS logic. If the contractor can actually commit to the production necessary to achieve the shorter duration, great. If the work can actually be completed with the new logic, that’s good too.

The means and methods of how the contract plans to execute the project is really only of concern to us if it is blatantly clear it is not achievable. This is only my humble opinion. We won’t delve into construction contract law in my posts. I’m not qualified.

However, the schedule specifications and schedule best practices have been developed to provide a means of maintaining a valid schedule. We can argue means and methods of the execution, but the requirements for the schedule provide us with the tools to manage the schedule update process correctly and keep a valid schedule in place each period for managing the work and potential delays and changes.

That said, we run filters and programs that provide us with the list of items changed between schedules. This lets us know what changed, but not necessarily why. This is why the schedule update narrative is important. It is the contractor’s tool to convey this information to the owner.

If we find several relationship changes to activities which were on the previous period schedule update Critical Path for Near Critical Path(s), we need to know why these logic revisions where made. Was it to better sequence the work based on input from the subcontractor’s performing the work? Is it an attempt to shift the Critical Path? Is it masking a lack of performance for work on the Critical Path? Same holds true for the Near Critical Path(s).

Often times, the contractor is able to better plan the work immediately in front of them. This involves minor revisions to the logic and/or durations. Any changes to these items and other items such as calendars and resources should be included in the schedule update narrative and explained.

It’s easy to spot the poor performance trend when you have an Owner’s scheduler review each update period. This provides an early flag for the owner and the contractor, so the necessary actions can be taken to recover sooner rather than later……

I’m sure many of you have comments or additional insight into this subject. Please share!

I’d love to hear what you think!

Please visit https://conschmanservices.com to learn more about Construction and Schedule Management Services, LLC

Please visit my LinkedIn account to learn more about me.

Please visit my “The Blue Book” ProView.

Paul Epperson CCM, PMP, PSP, PMI-SP

Construction Scheduling. Contract Duration and the Finish Date.

When we develop the Baseline CPM Schedule for a construction project, we need to know the contractual dates for Beneficial Occupancy, Final Contract Completion, and any other contractually required dates for deliverables.

The calendar day difference between NTP and the Required Contract Completion Date determines the project duration in Calendar Days.

Various organizations use various names for these required dates. There is NTP for Notice to Proceed. This can be for design, construction of any segment of the project. In construction, it is usually for the start of construction, but Design-Build projects typically have NTP for Design and even interim NTP dates. The names for Contract Completion vary greatly. Beneficial Occupancy; Start Operations; Contract Completion Date; BCOM…. The list is long.

Whatever the terminology, we have to end up with a project schedule that fits into this period of performance.

We develop the schedule based on input from all stakeholders. We verify we have included the entire scope of the project. We make sure we sequence the work in a constructible manner. We use accurate durations for work activities.

Does the Project Schedule then report a finish date which meets the contractual requirement?

More often than not, it does not. Correcting this is another issue.

So, what drives the contractual finish date? Is it a business decision based on a valid business need? Is it an organizational need for a change in operations? Is a specific date to meet some public good?

Many times, the contract completion date has been established based on someone’s best guess to create the period of performance. Sometimes, the Capital Projects Team decided on the period of performance based on another similar project. Sometimes funding issues drive the period of performance.

Whatever the reason, the project must be completed within the period of performance or some type of punitive action will result. This is just one more reason to develop a robust and dynamic CPM schedule with which the Project Team can manage work proactively. The effort expended to create and manage a quality CPM schedule is easily recovered with the savings gained through improved management of work and adherence to the required finish date. Whatever it is called…..

I’m sure many of you have comments or additional insight into this subject. Please share!

I’d love to hear what you think!

Please visit https://conschmanservices.com to learn more about Construction and Schedule Management Services, LLC

Please visit my LinkedIn account to learn more about me.

Please visit my “The Blue Book” ProView.

Paul Epperson CCM, PMP, PSP, PMI-SP

Construction Scheduling. Activity Codes and Organization.

When the schedule is developed, how do we determine the Activity Coding for each activity?

What is an Activity Coding Structure?

Many PM’s don’t know or care about the Activity Coding. Unfortunately, they are missing out on the use of a great tool.

I’d like to offer several reasons for spending the time and energy to develop and use Activity Coding.

Activity Codes are developed for the schedule based on specification requirements and a Schedule Management Plan. It can be as simple as a specific assignment for phasing. More often an Activity Code Structure is developed to include specific phasing of the project, responsibility for work, areas of work, CSI assignment, weather sensitive or not, and type of work.

I like to develop the schedule Activity Code Structure prior to building the activities out. I usually do it when I set up the calendars, resources, and WBS. After all, it is based on the plan for organizing the schedule and reporting for the various stakeholders. It is also used for schedule analysis.

Once the Activity Code Structure is set up, (Along with the calendars and calendars, resources, and WBS) we can start building out the activities for the project schedule.

If you develop the string of activities for a specific trade, which is how I usually start out the development of each trades’ work, it is easy to assign the resource and activity coding as you assign the activity calendar and resource. By having already established the Activity Code Structure, there is already a ready list of choices. This prevents inadvertently assigning similar coding for the same item.

So, we develop all the activities by WBS with the appropriate activity calendar, resource and Activity Coding.

Now we can sort and group in a multitude of ways based on the Activity Coding Structure we planned and executed.

We can group by responsibility and sort by Start Date if we have already assigned the logic. Or we can sort by Activity ID if we added the activities sequentially in the order of execution. This makes it easier to manage adding the logic. We can then group by area to see how we need to coordinate the work between trades. This is very handy for establishing preferential logic.

We most often use the Activity Coding for Layouts and presentations.

Grouping the schedule by phase and then area is a popular layout.

We can also filter by responsibility which allows us to analyze the planned sequence for each trade and verify scope. If the logic is complete and there are many activities planned for the same work period, resource allocation may be an issue. This layout allows us to assign preferential logic to assign resource flow.

There are many reasons for developing a robust Activity Coding Structure. We use them often and they offer a great method of organizing the activities for analysis.

I’m sure many of you have comments or additional insight into this subject. Please share!

I’d love to hear what you think!

Please visit https://conschmanservices.com to learn more about Construction and Schedule Management Services, LLC

Please visit my LinkedIn account to learn more about me.

Please visit my “The Blue Book” ProView.

Paul Epperson CCM, PMP, PSP, PMI-SP

Construction Scheduling. Activity Durations and Unicorns.

When the schedule is developed, (after the project has been broken down and organized into the WBS and the activities have been developed to support the deliverables), how do we determine the duration for each activity?

How do we accurately determine the work period for each activity?

There are several ways this task is approached. Some are better than others….

I believe we can all agree that knowing the required work quantity and production rate per day is the best input we can have to accurately calculate the duration. How often do we actually have that much detail?

More often, the project team determines the durations based on their “feel” for how long the work will take based on similar work from the last few projects. This is not necessarily a bad thing. This is historical data and is very useful.

The problem is that we tend to be optimistic. The larger the piece of work is, the more difficult it is to accurately determine the duration, by “feel”.

Typically, the activities are all developed based on input from the project team, the constrained finish date is applied and then the schedule is “calculated”. Usually, we do not make the required finish date.

Now we start crashing the schedule to pull the finish date back.

We’ve all seen videos of buildings constructed in a week and other supernatural feats. So, it stands to reason that we can build anything within any timeframe, right? If the owner wants the project by the date in the contract, we have to crunch the schedule until it shows we can deliver on time.

As we know, a very high percentage of projects do not finish on time. This often leads to claims and poor performance reviews.

Is it possible that we set our projects up for failure at the very beginning? Do we assume we can provide a finished project within the contract duration just because the owner has specified the period of performance?

If the schedule is constructed using “most likely” durations for all activities with reasonable logic and the project is then constrained to finish on whatever date that produces, there is still a good chance the project will finish late. It could finish early, but that seldom seems to happen.

If the durations are based on pessimistic durations, the project will still tend to use the time allowed leaving little room for problems towards the end of the project.

If we place a contingency activity at the end of the project, we can work towards an early completion hoping we magically finish on or ahead of time.

Or, we can put the effort into building very detailed schedules with solid logic and durations and then execute the projects per the schedules, as well as possible.

Any way you slice it, a poor schedule does not work. An aggressive schedule is not realistic and will soon fall apart, a pessimistic schedule will also fail due to a lack of aggression to complete work.

A detailed schedule, with input from all team members, does not guarantee success, but it does provide a realistic path to get there. It is up to the project team to execute based on the plan. But they can’t do that without a solid schedule.

I’m sure many of you have comments or additional insight into this subject. Please share!

I’d love to hear what you think!

Please visit https://conschmanservices.com to learn more about Construction and Schedule Management Services, LLC

Please visit my LinkedIn account to learn more about me.

Please visit my “The Blue Book” ProView.

Paul Epperson CCM, PMP, PSP, PMI-SP

Construction Scheduling. Why Work When We Can Wait?

When the baseline schedule is developed correctly, the schedule logic is complete, activity durations and activity calendars are assigned, resources with cost may have been assigned, and activity coding is developed and assigned.

All of this creates the schedule network. This schedule network is made up of many sequences (logic paths) of activities.

Once the schedule is calculated (forward and backward pass), the schedule network will provide scheduled dates for activities not yet complete. At any given time, a small percentage of activities will have scheduled dates which show they should be starting and completing within a defined period of time, (say this week or this month…).

Some of these activities will be on the Critical Path. Some will be on the Near Critical Path(s). Some will have Total Float values which allow them to remain unstarted or incomplete for a period of time dependent on the Total Float value.

We all understand that the work on the Critical Path needs to be driven at all times. We understand that work on the Near Critical Path(s) also needs to be driven so it does not lag and shift to the Critical Path.

What about the activities with Total Float values which allow the work for these activities to lag without affecting the Project Completion Date?

Should this work be executed when it is convenient? Should this work be pushed out until it is on the Near Critical path(s)?

Part of the CPM Schedule development process was the analysis of the resources for activities to verify a specific resource did not have more activities scheduled to be underway than the resource could support. This can be done manually or using software programs that run Monte Carlo analysis for resource leveling.

That said, why would we want to allow work to slip? It is my opinion that any work which can logically be executed should be executed as long as the resources required do not exceed the planned resources for that time period. But, sometimes it is better to add resources to execute the work for a variety of reasons.

By allowing work to slip, only because there is no schedule driven reason to execute the work at that time, the work will eventually push out until the activities with a specific resource assignment are stacked resulting in an overallocation condition which forces some of this work to push out due to lack of resources. Whether the schedule is resource loaded or not, we all know that a subcontractor can only do so much with the forces they have on the project at any given time.

Allowing the work to slip also increases the risk of a late completion due to the potential of shifting of the Critical and Near Critical Path(s).

Finally, allowing work to slip has a negative impact on the schedule cost curve and distribution plan. The project may be reporting an on-time completion and the Critical Path may have an acceptable Total Float value, but if work is pushing out, the completed values will produce an unacceptable Cost Variance (CV), Cost Performance Index (CPI), Schedule Variance (SV), and Schedule Performance Index (SPI).

Projects with poor Earned Value metrics seldom recover.

I say, if the work is available to be executed, the resources are available, and executing the work will not lessen the focus on the Critical and Near Critical Path(s), it is wise to work in where you can, when you can.

I’d love to hear what you think!

Please visit https://conschmanservices.com to learn more about Construction and Schedule Management Services, LLC

Please visit my LinkedIn account to learn more about me.

Please visit my “The Blue Book” ProView.

Paul Epperson CCM, PMP, PSP, PMI-SP

Construction Scheduling. What are the Critical and Near Critical Paths? Why do we care?

When the schedule is developed, the schedule logic should be complete. All activities should have at least one predecessor and one successor, with the exception of the first and last activities for the schedule.

If this is done, the combination of activity durations, activity calendar assignments, and schedule logic create the CPM schedule network. This CPM schedule network is made up of many sequences (logic paths) of activities.

In simple terms, the longest continual path from the project start to the end of the project or the next hard constraint establishes the Critical (Longest) Path.

The Total Float values are a just the product of the forward and backward pass through the CPM schedule network. Just because the Total Float value is zero does not make the activity critical.

However, the Total Float values are important. If the Critical Path has a Total Float value of zero, then the Near Critical Path activities will most likely have a Total Float value very close to zero. I say most likely because the activity calendar assignment has an impact on the Total Float values. But often, this is a simple rule of thumb for determining the Near Critical Path. I like to keep an eye on work that is on the Critical Path first and then also pay attention to work that falls on the Near Critical Path(s) within one or two weeks of the Critical Path for large projects and a few days for small projects.

It’s not unusual for the PM and Superintendent to focus on work on the Critical Path and not pay enough attention to work on the Near Critical Path(s) and then have the Critical Path shift because a lack of progress for the Near Critical Path work took over the Critical Path.

This is just one reason complete logic, calendar definition and assignment, and limiting constraints are important when developing a baseline CPM schedule. If you scatter constraints throughout the schedule, you will not have a true Critical Path for the project. Without complete logic, you do not have the means to accurately complete the forward and backward pass that establishes the CPM schedule network scheduled dates and Total Float values. Without calendar definition and proper assignment to activities, durations will be erroneous and this will ultimately produce a false schedule network.

I know many of you can offer additional comments and recommendations. I welcome your comments and input. My goal, as always, is to help our industry and help the projects we support….

I’d love to hear what you think!

Please visit https://conschmanservices.com to learn more about Construction and Schedule Management Services, LLC

Please visit my LinkedIn account to learn more about me.

Please visit my “The Blue Book” ProView.

Paul Epperson CCM, PMP, PSP, PMI-SP