Schedule Risk Assessment Fundamentals

By /
Schedule Risk Assessment Fundamentals

Quick Summary

  • Schedule Risk Assessments (SRAs) use Monte Carlo simulations to model schedule uncertainty, providing probability-based insights into meeting project completion dates and risk drivers.
  • SRAs enhance decision-making by quantifying outcomes (e.g., likelihood of meeting objectives), supporting risk prioritization, scenario analysis, and proactive schedule management for complex projects.
  • Effectiveness depends on quality inputs: well-constructed network schedules and well-defined risks.

Why perform a schedule risk assessment (SRA)? 

SRAs are critical in understanding the likelihood of meeting baseline or forecasted completion dates as well as identifying which risks to focus on for protecting the project schedule. 

An SRA is a Monte Carlo based simulation of the schedule using the existing logic but with different duration inputs in repeated “walk-throughs” of the schedule. In each run through of the schedule a different duration may be used for every task therefore the end date is usually different. When enough simulations are performed, a picture emerges of the distribution of potential outcomes from the shortest, to the longest, and to all those in-between. 

A simple way to think of this is to imagine driving to the grocery store on the same route a thousand times. Sometimes it may be rainy or snowy or maybe even clear and dry. There may be accidents, road work, traffic lights, or other issues. Each trip can have a different duration but overall, with enough trips, we will end up with good picture of how much time we should plan for the trip. We can even have different plans for different conditions.

Of course, you do not have the luxury of performing your project a thousand times. You get one opportunity. But an SRA can help you understand what the journey through your project can look like through simulation.

Performing SRAs and managing the project based on the results can provide project managers with powerful tools to successfully meet project objectives. SRAs are a discipline that supports critical risk and schedule decision making.

Projects are often long durations of five years or more, involve one-of-a-kind systems, facilities, or integrations, and have numerous constraints ranging from security, regulatory, to environmental. In addition, these projects have oversight from organizations such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and even Congress with expectations set to meet internal milestone commitments such as critical decisions (CDs) and initial operational capabilities (IOCs). While this is a subset of the many challenges facing these projects, they all rely on project managers and the project team meeting schedule commitments.

Purposes of the SRA

The main purposes of the SRA are twofold: 1) to understand the schedule and 2) to understand the probability of achieving the end date in the schedule. 

In a recent H&A workshop a very high-level executive in one of the large government agencies said of the SRA, “I don’t do it, but I receive the “P” numbers.” What she meant was that she receives the result in terms of the probability numbers developed in the SRA. She is informed of the probability of achieving the schedule as part of the program status review.

Understanding the SRA

In simple terms, an SRA is a structured probabilistic analysis by simulation of a project’s schedule that quantifies the likelihood of meeting critical dates. Initially the SRA focuses on the baseline and the probability of achieving the baselined dates. Once progress has been added to the schedule, the emphasis shifts to the current or working schedule and away from the baseline. The SRA uses the latest available information.

Uncertainty can exist in the schedule in terms of duration uncertainty, unplanned events, merge bias, and other such factors. The SRA tries to account for duration uncertainty by using a three-point approach to the task durations. The owners of the tasks are challenged to provide best case, most likely case, and worst-case durations for use in simulating the schedule. 

The SRA uses the project’s schedule logic as well as uncertainty assigned to activities along with the project’s risk register to produce probabilistic outcomes. A probabilistic analysis is a way of understanding outcomes when the future is uncertain. Instead of assuming there is only one single outcome for the schedule, probabilistic analysis takes variation into account based on durations, risks, and other events through simulation. This simulation is then repeated hundreds, sometimes thousands of times to produce statistical analysis that defines what the range of results could be. This statistical analysis will reveal, based on inputs to the model, a distribution of possible outcomes with confidence intervals expressed like this:

  • There is a 50% chance of finishing the project by this date, or
  • There is an 80% chance of meeting this milestone.

The SRA can be used to evaluate an entire project schedule or a subset of the schedule which may be a specific milestone, deliverable, or even a single work package. The scope of the SRA depends upon what part or whole of the schedule you would like to examine based on application needs. 

For this reason, SRAs are useful for project managers, control account managers (CAMs), schedulers, risk managers, and other key stakeholders. Stakeholders can use SRAs to meet compliance requirements, run “what-if” scenarios, or provide inputs into vendor selections and vendor performance management decisions. While the SRA is an excellent management decision tool, it should not be used to provide a static critical path review. It should never be used to create a deterministic “best-case” schedule, and it should not be dependent upon a specific software tool.

One important output of the SRA is commonly called the “Tornado Chart” because of the shape of the data provided. This analysis identifies the number of times a task acts as a driver in the outcome of the schedule. If a task is often driving the outcome, it should be considered carefully. Potential other approaches should be considered or at least a detailed review of the durations of the task should be performed.

Foundations

The SRA will only be as credible as the schedule it evaluates and the integrity of the risk information that is applied. Prior to the execution of a successful SRA, the schedule integrity should meet established quality standards. 

The DCMA EVMS Compliance Metrics (DECM) specific to schedule data provides a widely accepted benchmark for evaluating integrated master schedule (IMS) health. The NDIA Integrated Program Management Division (IPMD) Planning and Scheduling Excellence Guide (PASEG) includes a section on performing schedule health assessments with a list of often used metrics. Some project teams may customize their IMS quality metrics based on their established and approved EVMS documentation. Areas typically evaluated include logic integrity, critical path integrity, schedule realism, and data quality.

Logic integrity includes the proper use of predecessors and successors with minimal usage of leads and lags and a clear path from start to finish. Critical path integrity ensures that there is an understood set of critical and near-critical paths with logical drivers of key milestones and avoidance of excessive float. Standards for schedule realism include reasonably short activity durations and a limited use of constraints. Data quality requires valid dates, calendars and status updates. All these elements are covered in the generally accepted schedule quality metrics and most SRA tools will validate the schedule as well ensure that the schedule quality is adequate to perform a successful SRA.

Equally important to the SRA is the risk information. Risks should be identified and clearly characterized; their association with the schedule should be mapped. When feasible, mitigation plans should be incorporated into the schedule along with any variations they may have. The identified risks should succinctly state the event, and the cause and effect of the risk. Each risk should be characterized by its probability of occurring and the impact to the schedule if it were to occur. This characterization should be grounded in credible assumptions, usually based on the project’s rubrics for scoring likelihood and impact.

Input of risk events into the schedule provides additional realism. In terms of the simulation there will be times when the risk event happens and times when it does not with different durations as well.

Once quality schedule and risk information is validated, these inputs are imported into the probabilistic tool used by the project team. Since probabilistic analysis is based on the Monte Carlo methodology which uses statistical math, any tool that accommodates schedule and risk inputs should be sufficient. 

Frequency of SRA Application

SRAs can be expensive when time is taken to do the best case, most likely, and worst-case duration analysis by the CAMs. The cost is a limiting factor in the use of the SRA. It is most common for SRAs to be performed:

  1. At the time of baselining to understand the baseline schedule and the probability of success.
  2. When a major change is made to the project schedule.
  3. Before a major event such as the Critical Design Review (CDR) where the nature of the effort changes from design to build and the team wants to understand the probability of success for the remaining effort.

Do not accept a contract that requires performing the SRA when requested by the customer. That is too open ended of a requirement and does not allow you to estimate the cost or control the cost. A contract should specify the number of SRAs to be included so that any additional SRAs can be treated as a compensated change.

Conclusion

When grounded in a high-quality IMS and integrated with disciplined risk management, SRAs provide stakeholders with a realistic view of schedule outcomes and the risk drivers. While often thought of as a compliance requirement, the SRA provides management decision insights and is useful in understanding, as an early warning indicator, any threats to meeting schedule objectives. When properly used, the SRA is a powerful management tool that can contribute to project success.Interested in learning more? H&A master schedulers and risk subject matter experts often assist clients with establishing their SRA process and mentoring project teams to use the SRA outputs to create more realistic schedules with a higher probability of success. Call us today to get started.

Schedule Risk Assessment Fundamentals Read Post »

What is the Difference Between Budget and Funds?

By / / , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,

Quick Summary

  • A budget is a project management metric used to plan and measure performance, while funds are real dollars recorded in the accounting system and spent to perform the work.
  • Earned Value Management distinguishes planned values (e.g., BCWS, BCWP, BAC) from actual costs and estimates (e.g., ACWP, ETC, EAC) to provide insight into project performance and funding needs.
  • Contract funding profiles influence how budgets are time-phased, and regular EAC analysis is essential to forecast total funding requirements and avoid breaching funding limits. 

While working with numerous clients over the years, H&A earned value consultants frequently observe people using the term “money.” Typically, they mean “funds” when they really mean “budget.” People often confuse the terms, even though they have been used within the project management community long before the advent of earned value management practices. 

The intention of this blog is to highlight the difference between “budget” and “funds” and promote a common understanding of the terms. Using the correct term helps to eliminate confusion and improve communication between project team members, management, and the customer. 

Examples of Budget and Funds Confusion

Here are a couple of common statements H&A earned value consultants have heard many times:

  • I am requesting management reserve (MR) to fund my overrun.
  • I underran my budget, so I am going to return funds to MR.

Why are these inaccurate statements? The people making them have confused the terms or may think that “budget” and “funds” mean the same thing. 

Explaining the Difference Between Budget and Funds

The simple definition is that “budget” is a project management metric, a planned value. It cannot be used as funds (i.e., money) to buy something tangible, such as a cup of coffee. “Funds” are real dollars. The purpose for budget is to measure project performance so that as funds are expended (the actual costs) to perform the authorized work, any difference, more or less than what was planned, can alert management.

The table below summarizes the differences between the two terms.

BudgetFunds
Cannot be spentMoney – real dollars being spent or forecasted to be spent. Funding represents the customer’s ability and commitment to pay. 
A number on a piece of paper, in a spreadsheet or database – it is a project management metricActual costs recorded in the accounting system of record used for financial reporting
Budgeted Cost for Work Scheduled (BCWS)
  • Time phased budget for required resources to accomplish tasks scheduled in the integrated master schedule (IMS)
  • Forms the performance measurement baseline(PMB)
Estimate to Complete (ETC)
  • Funding required to complete the remaining work, exclusive of prime contractor fee
  • ETC plus ACWP results in the Estimate at Completion (EAC)
Budgeted Cost for Work Performed (BCWP)
  • The budget value for completed work
Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP)
  • The costs incurred and recorded to accomplish the work performed
Budget at Completion (BAC)
  • Budget representing all authorized scope of work (SOW)
  • Cannot change without a change to the SOW with appropriate approval
Estimate at Completion (EAC)
  • Funding number representing all the money (at the cost level – does not include fee) that will be spent
  • Can change without a commensurate change in the SOW

An Overview of Budget Terms

It is often helpful to review the basis for determining and distributing a project’s total budget used for planning and measuring project performance, as illustrated in Figure 1. Note: this is a simplified discussion to highlight the budget terms and does not include nuances such as an Over Target Baseline (OTB) situation. 

Figure 1: Budget Distribution and Terms Illustrated

The budgeting process begins with the Contract Target Price (CTP). This is the total negotiated contract value. It includes the negotiated contract cost (NCC) plus the contractor’s planned (target) profit or fee. The Contract Budget Base (CBB) is the starting point for a contractor’s internal budgeting process outlined below. 

Budget ComponentDefinition
Contract Budget Base (CBB)  Represents the financial authorization of the contract and is based on the negotiated contract cost (i.e., price less fee). The CBB is always equal to the negotiated cost for definitized work and the estimated cost for all authorized unpriced work (AUW), also known as Undefinitized Contact Action (UCA). The CBB equals the sum of distributed budgets, undistributed budget, and management reserve (MR). It also equals the sum of the performance measurement baseline (PMB) and MR.
Management Reserve (MR)  Amount of contract budget set aside to handle realized risks and emerging in-scope effort. This effort is in scope to the contract, but out of the scope of distributed and undistributed budget. 
Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB) The PMB is the sum of all distributed direct and indirect budgets against which contract performance is measured. The PMB is the sum of the distributed budgets and undistributed budget. The PMB plus MR is equal to the CBB. 
Undistributed Budget (UB) Budget for authorized work scope that has not yet been identified to a specific WBS element and/or responsible organization at or below the lowest level of reporting to the customer. 
Distributed Budgets  Distributed budgets may be comprised of summary level planning package (SLPP) and control account budgets.
Summary Level Planning Package (SLPP) Budgets Budget may be set aside in SLPPs at the lowest WBS element until the future work effort can be defined in more detail. SLPPs have a high-level scope of work and are scheduled in the IMS with time-phased budgets. They are converted to one or more control accounts with subordinate work packages and planning packages as soon as possible. 
Control Account Budgets  Control accounts have a defined scope of work, scheduled start and finish dates, and time-phased budget that reflects the work decomposed to the work package or planning package level. The sum of the time-phased work package and planning package budgets equals the total control account budget. 
Work Package/Planning Package Budgets  Work packages and planning packages have a defined scope of work, scheduled start and finish date, and time-phased budget based on the parent control account. This lowest level of budget includes the element of cost detail (labor, material, subcontract, and other direct costs) and value detail (hours, units/quantities, direct costs, and indirect costs). 

Notes about Management Reserve

Remember that MR is a budget, is not a financial reserve (i.e., a source of funds). It is not time-phased and is not included in the PMB because there is no related work scope, although it is a part of the CBB. MR budget cannot be used to eliminate cost variances, cover cost overruns, or recover underruns. There is only one MR set aside for a project and the value is never negative.

MR is decreased to provide budget for realized risks or unplanned activities within the contract scope of work. It may be increased whenever the work scope is decreased along with the allocated budget (a contract modification). Customer authorized contract changes, including AUW, should be incorporated into the CBB and PMB as soon as possible; this may include MR budget set aside for added work scope. Only contract changes authorized by the customer’s designated contracting officer may change the CBB value. 

For more discussion on MR, see this blog: Management Reserve Best Practice Tips. Also see this article: The Difference Between Undistributed Budget and Management Reserve. 

Additional note. The MR budget belongs to the contractor’s program manager, not the government customer. MR is not a cost reserve (contingency) for the government customer and may neither be eliminated from contract prices by the customer during subsequent negotiations nor used to absorb the cost of contract changes. For the government customer, contingency is the cost reserve they own, typically associated with a Program Risk-Adjusted Budget (PRB). It is held outside of the project scope, schedule, and budget already provided to the contractor. Reserves held above the program permit senior government management to balance resources within portfolios and among programs. The government customer’s cost reserve could be used to modify the contract to include additional work scope (increases the contractor’s CBB) or provide the funds needed to cover a contract cost overrun. 

Budget, Estimates, and Funding Profiles

Contract funding also influences how the PMB budget is allocated and time-phased. The budget distributions are a result of the project planning process (scope of work definition, detailed schedule development, initial cost estimates), MR set aside (risk and opportunity planning), and the funding profile. This is an iterative process to develop the baseline schedule and time-phased budget plan. The budget distributed to the control accounts and any SLPPs is compared to the total PMB/UB value. As needed, adjustments to activities, sequence of work, or resource assignments are made to ensure the overall budget plan reflects the budget limit for the PMB and the contract’s funding profile. For a real-world example of this, see this blog, Understanding the ALAP Scheduling Option in Practical Terms, where a front-loaded schedule was exceeding the funding cap, and how a H&A scheduling consultant helped resolve the issue.  

Preparing an EAC every reporting cycle provides an accurate projection of cost at contract completion for internal and external management. It also represents the estimate of total funds required for the contract. The most likely EAC should be within the funding constraints for the contract. Any amounts expended in excess of the contract funding limit puts the contractor at risk. The contractor must notify the customer when their EAC analysis determines there is a potential to breach a funding constraint to address any contract funding issues as quickly as possible. 

Figure 2 illustrates a funding profile along with the range of project EACs. In this figure, the most likely EAC is within the contract funding limit.

Figure 2: Management Level EACs with Funding Profile

Reinforcing a Commitment to EVMS Excellence

A common theme of the H&A blogs and articles is helping clients to achieve and maintain a commitment to a high level of excellence in all EVMS process areas. An important part of this is continuous EVM training and project scheduling training, whether for beginners or advanced practitioners. This includes targeted training when clients identify an area where project personnel could use a refresher, more hands-on training, or mentoring. Examples include basic and advanced EVMS workshops, Completing Variance Analysis Reports, Developing an ETC and EAC, as well as short, targeted courses on topics such as Budget versus Funds. Give us a call today at (714) 685-1730 to get started.

What is the Difference Between Budget and Funds? Read Post »

Integrating Subcontractor Data into an Integrated Master Schedule

By / / , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,

Generating and maintaining a project’s Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that meets management needs as well as customer requirements is difficult under the best of circumstances. The challenge becomes even more complex when subcontractor work effort must be incorporated. Issuing a subcontract is, in effect, handing off a portion of the work scope to an outside entity that becomes responsible for performing that work and meeting all technical requirements. 

Another consideration for contractors where Earned Value Management System (EVMS) contractual requirements apply is whether the subcontractor is considered a major subcontractor because of the contract value, scope of work, or high risk factors. The EVMS requirements are flowed down to these major subcontractors; they will have the same contractual requirements and challenges as the prime contractor. Most subcontracts do not fall into this category. Many are small, short term, or firm fixed price (FFP) subcontracts. 

Regardless of the category of the subcontractor, the subcontractors and the prime contractor all need an IMS to plan and coordinate work effort as well to measure progress. Using FFP subcontracts on development projects has the potential to increase risk significantly when expectations for scheduling rigor are not clearly defined. 

A Real World Example

H&A EVM consultants supported a multi-billion dollar development project that illustrates the challenges with integrating subcontractor schedules into a prime’s IMS. The prime contractor had two major subcontractors with EVMS flow down requirements. They also had 22 FFP subcontracts without EVMS flow down requirements. 

These FFP subcontracts were also mission-critical. The prime’s first priority was to define the required schedule format and data content in the request for proposal (RFP) to the subcontractors. Standardization was essential, along with specific instructions to ensure the schedule data could easily be incorporated in the prime’s IMS. 

As the basis for a customized project specification, the team selected the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Data Item Description (DID) DI-MGMT-81650, an earlier DID that preceded the Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) and Integrated Program Management Data and Analysis Report (IPMDAR) DIDs. The requirements were simplified and trimmed to selected sections in the DID for the detailed schedules. The document was assigned a specification number within the prime’s document management system so it could be used for future procurements. 

Early Schedule Submittals: A Wake-Up Call

All the subcontractors dutifully proposed and were awarded subcontracts. The FFP subcontractors were required to submit initial schedules using the scheduling tool of their choice at the end of the first month of performance. To ensure compliance, the prime contractor tied the subcontractor’s first payment milestone to the acceptance (receipt, review, and approval) of their first schedule. 

This turned out to be one of the best decisions made during project startup. 

Those first schedules quickly revealed that many of the lower tier subcontractors had no experience developing logic-driven schedules that could comply with the reduced requirements document. They were unable to generate even the most basic project schedule. It was an eye opener to realize that while the first tier companies and most of the second tier companies did know about project scheduling, some of the second tier and all of the lower tier companies lacked that expertise.

The Solution: A Prime-Led Schedule Development Workshop

The prime’s schedule team, largely comprised of H&A schedulers, quickly initiated a week long on-site workshop open to all subcontractors who wanted help building their IMS. Every one of them signed up as they recognized acceptance of their schedule was a prerequisite for payment. 

Prime contractor personnel were assigned to each subcontractor to help them build schedules that met the requirements. Most of the subcontractors were able to produce an acceptable schedule within the first three days. The other subcontractors required the full week.

The workshop approach provided two major benefits.

  1. The subcontractors gained experience in developing a logic-driven schedule that they could maintain and status. They had a better understanding of what the prime contractor expected them to provide. 

  2. The prime’s schedule team gained a better understanding of each subcontractor’s scope of work and execution strategy. They had a better picture of the entire IMS as well as interdependencies. Without this knowledge, the next step of determining the best strategy to incorporate the subcontractor’s schedule data into the prime’s IMS would have failed. 

Strategies for Incorporating Subcontractor Data into the Prime’s IMS

The NDIA Integrated Program Management Division (IPMD) Planning and Scheduling Excellence Guide (PASEG) is a useful source of information on scheduling best practices. The section on External Schedule Integration offers basic guidance on flowing down detailed scheduling requirements to subcontractors. It also provides a short list of things to consider, such as coordinating dates and change control:

“Status dates should be consistent between the prime contractor and supplier schedules. If the subcontractor’s schedule update is to a different point in time, it could potentially affect the IMS analysis results. If it is not possible to have consistent status dates between the various schedule elements then implement a strict process, with support of all parties, to manage the impacts.

Change control procedures are established and understood. The prime contractor should clearly communicate which type of schedule changes will require pre-approval before incorporation and which type will require coordination only or documentation upon submittal. The lack of a disciplined change control process can result in disconnects between the prime contractor and subcontractor’s schedule.”

Remember the prime contractor’s IMS includes a baseline and a current schedule. The complications can be significant when all the variables are considered such as calendars, mix of schedule tools and options, scheduling techniques, resource loading, and custom fields.

That still leaves the question of how to incorporate the schedule data from an external source into the prime’s IMS. The PASEG outlines three approaches.

  1. Full integration where the entire subcontract schedule is incorporated into the prime’s IMS. 

    Pros: Provides maximum visibility into the critical and driving paths as well as forecast completion dates.

    Cons: Often not feasible with a large number of subcontractors. Mix of scheduling tools complicates the process. 

    Use Notes: This option is often reserved for major subcontractors or teaming partners. Works best when the prime and subcontractor are using a common scheduling tool or the subcontractor has direct access to the prime’s IMS scheduling tool to maintain their data. Otherwise, the prime must incorporate additional processes to import the external data into their IMS. There are other complications, as different schedule tools calculate dates differently, that will need to be handled in the integration process. 

  2. Using interface milestones. 

    Pros: Easier to implement and maintain. Yields the best results with less complex or lower risk subcontractors. 

    Cons: Provides less insight into the subcontractor’s current schedule performance. It does not easily support critical path analysis when paths run through subcontract work effort.

    Use Notes: Requires the manual update of each interface milestone to reflect the latest forecasted dates from the subcontractor’s schedule. The prime must ensure their IMS is properly coded. Contractors often use “External Inbound” and External Outbound” codes along with a subcontractor code and any other codes needed to identify who is receiving/giving to whom.

  3. Representative model. This is a middle ground approach between integrating the entire subcontractor’s schedule into the prime’s IMS and using interface milestones. Requires a summarization or representation of the subcontractor’s work to be entered into the prime’s IMS.

    Pros: Provides a summarized version of the subcontractor work effort that retains enough schedule logic for critical and driving path analysis. 

    Cons: IMS content must be carefully entered and maintained to retain the required relationships to the external schedules for accurate critical path analysis. Requires a higher level of schedule discipline and a defined process to ensure the accuracy of the data between the external schedules and the prime’s IMS. 

    Use Notes: It is often beneficial to provide the subcontractor with a copy of their schedule that includes an extra column that identifies the prime’s task ID that is the “parent” of the summarized or consolidated work. In the initial IMS submission from the subcontractor, the prime added a custom field (Prime Parent ID). That IMS file was returned to the subcontractor, and the use of the special field was agreed upon. In each subsequent submission by the subcontractor, the prime team checked for tasks with no “Prime Parent ID” and added one that would allow integration. This kept the two companies’ schedules synchronized. If changes were made by the prime team that changed the field data in the subcontractor’s IMS, the changes were coordinated. A recommended practice is to group and sort the subcontractor schedule by the prime’s IDs to ensure that it is done properly. 

What Worked for the Complex Development Project

In the situation described earlier, the schedule team determined a hybrid approach was the best solution, depending upon the subcontractor’s scope of work.

  • The full integration approach was quickly eliminated; it was impractical. There were too many schedules, and some were too complex. It would have been a logistical nightmare. 
  • Selected simple FFP subcontract work effort was incorporated using the milestone method. The schedule milestones were carefully aligned to the payment plan milestones so that one set of milestones served both purposes.
  • For the subcontracts with EVMS flow down requirements and the other subcontracts, including some FFP subcontracts, the representative model was used. The prime’s control account manager (CAM), responsible for the subcontractor’s scope of work, was required to condense the subcontract schedule into a representative model that made sense to the CAM. The most common ratio turned out to the 10:1, with 10 subcontractor tasks rolling up to 1 prime contractor IMS task, carefully maintaining the prime’s control account and work package structure. With proper coding, the subcontractor schedule could be easily reviewed and analyzed by the CAM as well as other project personnel.

Need help establishing strategies to integrate subcontractor schedule data?

Every project presents unique scheduling challenges, and the approach for integrating subcontractor data often needs to be tailored to fit the situation. H&A earned value consultants and master schedulers have seen and solved them all. With deep experience across diverse industries and project types, our experts deliver the insight and leadership needed to help contractors implement practical, results-driven solutions for integrating subcontractor data. Call us today to get started.  

Integrating Subcontractor Data into an Integrated Master Schedule Read Post »

Survey of Schedule Acceleration Techniques

By / / , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
Survey of Schedule Acceleration Techniques - An overview of schedule acceleration techniques discussed in the PASEG

The NDIA Integrated Program Management Division (IPMD) Planning and Scheduling Excellence Guide (PASEG) includes a list of the acceleration techniques that can be applied to reduce project schedule duration. That section of the guide provides the background for project team discussions on accelerating complex integrated master schedules (IMS) in government contracting environments. This blog is intended to increase awareness of the techniques in the guide and provide some additional insight into their application. It relies heavily on the guide’s content. 

An additional purpose of this blog is to promote the use of the NDIA IPMD nomenclature across the defense industry spectrum. In much the same way as the earned value management (EVM) acronyms of BCWS, BCWP, ACWP and others have become standard terminology, it would be beneficial to have a more standard way of discussing schedule acceleration techniques. As the PASEG is an industry guide developed and maintained in collaboration with U.S Government agencies, the PASEG promotes a common understanding of these techniques.

One caution. Modifications like the ones discussed here can introduce additional risk into the schedule and reduces flexibility. Be careful when modifying the schedule. A good practice is to first create a copy of the schedule and assess the effects of your changes before you adopt them. The trade-offs may or may not be acceptable depending upon the objective you want to achieve. If the schedule is the priority, there is likely to be an impact on the work scope or cost. There can also be unintended consequences when potential impacts are overlooked. 

Let’s review the techniques from the PASEG. 

  1. Crashing. 

The guide says “This technique allows for the acceleration of schedule by applying additional resources or more experienced resources to do the work in a shorter period of time. This method assumes that the task can be completed in a shorter amount of time with the increase in resources.”

We probably have all used this method when we are shopping on the internet and we are faced with the choice between receiving the item in 5 days or accelerating that to 3 days or even the next day. We are paying more to get it faster. But what is really happening behind the scenes? Do they pick your order first? Do they pack it first? Do they ship it on faster carrier? Those are the actions you would be considering on your project when you want to accelerate something by crashing the schedule.

Using outside or contract labor is a form of this where we boost our workforce for a period when we need extra effort. A form of this is offloading some work to a subcontractor.

A more detailed example comes from the factory setting where certain orders are “expedited”. What that might mean is that the normal movement process is subverted. The normal process might be as shown in Figure 1 with a queue time while your order waits for the machine. The machine will be torn down and set up for your work when it is most efficient to do so.

Process with wait time
Figure 1: Process with wait time

When you crash this process, you might simply remove the queue time so that as soon as your order arrives the machine is torn down and set up for your job to eliminate the wait time as shown in Figure 2.

Process with wait time eliminated
Figure 2: Process with wait time eliminated

However, using this approach is likely to increase cost and has the potential to introduce other risks to the project. A real-world example comes from the semiconductor industry where the factory was running both standard products and custom products. A normal custom order time of 8 weeks was cut to 2 weeks by using this approach. The cost that was charged to the customer for the rushed custom order was about 10 times the normal cost of an order to repay the factory for lost efficiency. 

  1. Fast-tracking.

The guide tells us “This technique accelerates the plan by performing work in parallel. With this method, extra attention needs to be put on resource de-confliction to ensure resources are not over allocated.”

We have all used this technique and probably had mixed outcomes. It seems simple and attractive. It embodies a “just get it done” mentality. If there are sufficient trained and capable resources then this can work. The resources can be used on both efforts at the same time. If that is not the case, then basically we would have to revert to pushing effort out of the way for another effort. This type of modification can introduce additional risk that may need to be mitigated.

  1. Streamlining.

The guide defines this technique in this way: “This technique depends on the team’s ability to find an alternate and more efficient completion methodology for the task/s. This includes reuse, innovation, and possibly eliminating non-value-added work. With this method, the program has to weigh the level of potential risk involved with these choices. Make sure that this does not drive a “run to fail” mode on the program. Ensure that tasks are meeting the full requirements and scope.”

Here we really need to be careful. In some cases, we might be working with specifications or requirements that demand a certain approach and cannot be changed or waived. Then we need to ask the question, “If there is a better way, why didn’t we assume that in the first place?”

In some cases, we might find this approach fits in with opportunity management. Maybe there is new software or a new machine available that can speed things up and still get things done correctly. We have all been in that situation; just remember the last time you went through a Windows upgrade. Did that go smoothly for you? 

In the area of software in particular, we must be aware of the entire ecosystem of tools we use and consider that any new tool applied in a hurry can result in problems. Case in point: one large contractor shifted from 2D drawings to 3D models to speed up and improve the processes, however not all the key suppliers were able to receive and use 3D models. The supply chain broke. Mom and Pop at the M&P Shop could not understand the new work orders. 

  1. Focused Work.

The guide describes focused work like this: “This technique employs the program management team to help in reducing multitasking and to remove barriers for the personnel on the program that are working critical and near critical program tasks. This method requires the program culture to adapt and “protect the critical/driving path” and to support the people that are working those efforts. This also requires the program manager to perform daily barrier resolution.”

A discussion on multi-tasking might be fun here, but we will assume for this blog that multi-tasking pulls resources away from tasks to do other selected tasks and that is not always the best approach. The big question here is what happens to the other efforts on the project when we focus on certain tasks. This technique can work well but only if we are aware of the impact to the other work and manage that work as well. Risk can be increased by adopting this approach so be alert. If we really are just removing barriers then we can benefit from this method. If we are just pushing aside other efforts to concentrate on this one, we need to know that and handle all the work properly.

  1. Calendar Adjustment.

The guide tells us, “This technique accelerates the plan by changing the amount of working hours available each day or working days available each week. This method is possible only if the resources and task location support working the increased work periods. Attention needs to be put on resource de-confliction to ensure resources are not over allocated.”

This is possibly the most attractive technique. Who has never had to resort to overtime to get something done? It is common to work extra hours, even over some weekends to get back on schedule. To a schedule practitioner, the calendar adjustment wording refers to the calendar in the scheduling tool and how it can be changed to add time in a day or convert non-working days to working days. 

This approach is not free. Overtime costs more than regular time and added shifts bring added costs. You should be aware you need to make a trade-off to determine whether the cost can be justified.

  1. Delay or Descope.

The guide advises, “If other techniques are not a viable option and the resultant schedule delay impact is unacceptable, an option exists to propose delaying or removing the selected scope.”

Notice the use of the word “propose.” Working on a contract may not afford the opportunity to eliminate work or consciously delay work. Coordination with the customer is required. Depending upon the customer’s immediate needs, they may be willing to take a more flexible approach to which work scope items can be delivered in a given time frame when they need to deploy something quickly. 

The PASEG goes on to tells us about things to promote and things to avoid. Those discussions are informative and useful. You are encouraged to obtain a copy of the PASEG and learn more on your own. More than that, you are encouraged to use this terminology and spread the use of it so that adoption spreads. 

Interested in learning more? The H&A Three Day Project Scheduling Workshop includes content on schedule acceleration techniques as well as managing schedule risk. This is a standard public workshop. Many of our clients schedule an in-house workshop that is specific to the scheduling tools they use such as Microsoft Project or Oracle Primavera P6. Call us today to get started.

Survey of Schedule Acceleration Techniques Read Post »

Understanding the As Late As Possible (ALAP) Scheduling Option in Practical Terms

By / / , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , ,
Understanding the As Late As Possible Scheduling Option in Practical Terms

Many project professionals have spent entire careers without ever using the As Late As Possible (ALAP) scheduling option, although the underlying idea feels familiar. Why? Because it’s very similar to the “just-in-time” concept widely used in manufacturing and logistics.

In materials management, just-in-time means having what you need arrive exactly when you need it, minimizing storage costs and reducing inventory. The same principle can apply to project labor, but with some important cautions.

The “Right Time” for Project Work

On development or design projects, doing work too early can be counterproductive. If designs change, early work may become obsolete, forcing costly rework. The “right time” to perform a task is often determined by schedule logic. In some cases, however, it can also be guided by the ALAP constraint.

Before we explore when ALAP makes sense, let’s quickly review the two primary constraint options in Microsoft Project (and most other scheduling tools).

ASAP – As Soon As Possible

As soon as possible:

  • Is the default setting for forward-scheduled projects (when you set a project start date).
  • Means tasks are pushed as early as possible, immediately after their predecessors finish.
  • Is ideal when you want the earliest possible completion and clear visibility into float/slack.

In an ASAP chain, every task begins at the earliest opportunity, pushing resources as far to the left as possible on the Gantt chart as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: As Soon As Possible Scheduling Option
Figure 1: As Soon As Possible Scheduling Option

ALAP – As Late As Possible

As late as possible:

  • Means tasks are scheduled as late as possible without delaying the successor or project finish date.
  • Is used in backward-scheduled projects (those planned from a fixed finish date) or when you want to defer work until the last responsible moment.
  • Microsoft Project automatically places each task at the latest feasible start date that still satisfies all constraints.

Switching a chain of tasks to 100% ALAP dramatically shifts all work to the right on the timeline as illustrated in Figure 2. The impact on management is significant: Every task now has zero total slack, which means any delay, even one day, directly delays the project finish. Multiple paths can appear “critical,” making control and reporting more complex.

Figure 2: As Late As Possible Scheduling Option
Figure 2: As Late As Possible Scheduling Option

When ALAP Makes Sense

There are legitimate reasons to use ALAP selectively. For example:

  • When a task consumes resources you don’t want engaged early (e.g., expensive equipment rental or specialized consultants).
  • For just-in-time deliveries or procurements where early completion has no benefit.
  • When modeling backward scheduling. For instance, working from a fixed delivery date toward today.
  • A mixed schedule. Mostly ASAP but with a few ALAP tasks can balance flexibility, cost control, and realism as illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3: A Schedule Using ALAP and ASAP
Figure 3: A Schedule Using ALAP and ASAP

A Real-World Example

One of H&A’s senior scheduling consultants once faced this exact dilemma while helping to prepare a multi-year, multi-billion-dollar defense proposal for a project with strict annual funding limits. 

With less than two weeks before the submission deadline, the Proposal Director was exasperated: “I keep asking the engineers what can be delayed! Why does everything have to happen up front? The front-loaded schedule is blowing our funding cap!”

A quick inspection revealed the problem: every task was set to ASAP. The entire effort was jammed toward the beginning of the timeline, creating a massive early demand for resources. After several failed attempts to persuade the engineers to move work later, the consultant proposed something unconventional: “Let’s flip the question. Instead of asking what can we delay, let’s ask what must be done now.”

The H&A scheduling consultant converted the entire schedule to ALAP, instantly shifting all work to the far right of the timeline. The resulting view inverted the problem, from overspending early to under-spending, and gave the team a new way to discuss priorities.

In meetings, engineers were asked to move tasks from ALAP to ASAP one at a time, stopping when the annual funding limit was reached. The discussion changed from “Why can’t we do this now?” to “What can we afford to do this year?”

The result wasn’t elegant, but it solved the immediate problem: the funding limits were clearly observed, the resource profile became manageable, and the trade-offs were visible to everyone.

How ALAP Affects Critical Path and Risk

Because ALAP tasks consume all available float, they appear critical even when they may not truly drive the project finish. This can obscure the actual critical path, making it difficult for project managers to distinguish between genuine schedule risks and artificial ones. In Earned Value Management (EVM) environments, this matters. Earned value metrics depend on knowing which tasks drive completion. Excessive use of ALAP can lead to misleading forecasts and distort DCMA data quality metrics such as the Total Float test and the Critical Path test. For this reason, auditors often recommend using ALAP sparingly and documenting the rationale wherever it’s applied. 

Note: in a sophisticated scheduling environment, it is possible to make a copy of the integrated master schedule (IMS) and revert to ASAP to look for critical paths in the normal sense.  

Combining ALAP with Other Constraints

In practice, project managers often use a blend of constraint types. For example, you can combine ALAP with “Must Finish On” or “Start No Earlier Than” dates to simulate external dependencies such as contract milestones, funding release dates, or material delivery windows. This hybrid approach allows the schedule to model reality while maintaining logical control. However, it’s important to track these constraints carefully. Too many “hard” constraints of any type can reduce the schedule’s dynamic nature and make automated forecasting less accurate.

Guidance from Industry and Agencies

Industry and government scheduling guides consistently advise restraint when using ALAP. The DCMA data quality tests consider the presence of ALAP tasks as a potential red flag because they can mask schedule float and obscure the true drivers of program completion. Similarly, the GAO’s Schedule Assessment Guide recommends minimizing artificial constraints and using logic-driven sequencing whenever possible. ALAP may be appropriate for modeling constrained resources or fixed delivery milestones, but it should always be justified and documented. Within DoD and NASA programs, reviewers often require clear evidence that ALAP usage is intentional, controlled, and limited to well-understood modeling cases. It should never be used as a workaround for poor sequencing.

Key Takeaways

  • ASAP emphasizes early starts, clear float visibility, and traditional forward scheduling.
  • ALAP emphasizes delayed starts, tighter resource control, and is useful in backward or funding-constrained planning.
  • Use ALAP sparingly and intentionally as it can obscure float and create multiple critical paths.
  • In creative problem-solving, toggling between ASAP and ALAP can reveal insights about timing, funding, and necessity that might otherwise remain hidden.

Final Thoughts

The ALAP constraint is a powerful but double-edged tool. It can simplify discussions about funding limits, resource phasing, and timing priorities, but it also carries risk if used indiscriminately. Like most features in commercial off the shelf (COTS) scheduling tools, its value depends on the user’s intent and discipline. The best project schedules blend logic, transparency, and flexibility. Understanding when to use ALAP (and when not to) can make the difference between a reactive plan and a truly managed one.

Interested in Learning How to Use More Advanced Scheduling Techniques?

Master schedulers skilled at asking the right questions to solve project management challenges hone their craft based on years of experience and working with other scheduling experts. There are always opportunities to learn more. H&A routinely offers basic, advanced, and tailored scheduling workshops taught by senior master schedulers with decades of experience in all types of project environments using common scheduling tools such as Microsoft Project and Oracle Primavera P6. Give us a call today to get started. 

Humphreys and Associates also offers basic and advanced EVMS training as well as tailored EVMS training that aligns with a client’s EVM System Description. 

Understanding the As Late As Possible (ALAP) Scheduling Option in Practical Terms Read Post »

Scroll to Top