IMS

Establishing Milestones in the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Appropriately

By / / , , , ,
, , , ,

The purpose of the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) is to model and communicate the plan to accomplish a project’s objectives. A key part of that model is the identification of key events that are represented as milestones. The selection of these milestones should be done with consideration for its purpose – what does the milestone represent and communicate? You should be aware of the intent of each milestone that is entered into the IMS. The IMS is a critical communication tool to ensure everyone on the project has a common understanding of the project’s work flow. Too many times I have witnessed a scheduler slam a milestone into the IMS without regard to how it impacts the schedule logic. This could be due to haste but, in my experience, it is often due to a lack of understanding of the purpose of the milestone.

Figure 1 illustrates a common diagram for a milestone. 

Gate Review Milestone. C may not proceed until the Gate Review has been completed.
Figure 1 Example of a Gate Milestone

As illustrated in Figure 1, the milestone is a gate and will hold up work in task C until the milestone is claimed as finished.

If the intent is to have the milestone act as an indicator instead of a gate, then the diagram in Figure 2 could satisfy that intent. If a successor is needed for the indicator milestone, something like the “End of Project” milestone could be added.

Indicator Milestone - C may proceed as soon as A is completed. Until the Milestone is claimed finished, it will move along with the data date leaving its baseline behind and indicating it has not been claimed.
Figure 2 Example of an Indicator Milestone

An accomplished scheduler knows the dangers of a Merge in the IMS. The Merge introduces schedule risk. Imagine the damage to the schedule risk assessment (SRA) if a Merge were entered as illustrated in Figure 3.

MERGE in the IMS - Neither C no D may proceed until the Gate Review has been completed. Does C really depend on B or does D really depend on A?
Figure 3 Example of Merge Risk in the IMS

In addition to adding risk, as the question indicates in Figure 3, the situation portrayed may not be true.

Is the purpose of a milestone clear to everyone?

What is the real purpose of the milestone? That must be defined first so the diagram can be entered properly into the schedule, and the IMS can model the correct steps for the project. Along with the definition of the purpose, the completion criteria should be defined and documented.

Unfortunately, this problem often extends to others on the project and even to those most responsible for the project – the Program/Project Managers (PMs). A case in point. Some years ago, a high-level customer PM challenged me, in my role as the contractor IMS architect, after the PM’s schedule subject matter expert (SME) expressed their concern that milestones in the IMS were being input incorrectly.

The milestone in dispute was the Preliminary Design Review (PDR). The PM and the PM’s schedule SME said the review was a gate and therefore should be modeled as illustrated in Figure 4. Note: In the real schedule, there were many more predecessors and successors to the milestone. Figure 4 simplifies the schedule content for clarity.

MERGE in the IMS - Neither C nor D may proceed until the Gate Review has been completed. Does C really depend on B or does D really depend on A?
Figure 4 Impact of a Gate Review Milestone

They both agreed that Tasks A and B were tasks to be done during the review itself and that the Milestone was to represent the satisfactory completion of the review. According to the definition of the PDR in the Integrated Master Plan (IMP) entrance/exit criteria, the review would lead to a letter of acceptance. The letter of acceptance was the definition of done in this case. When asked how long it would take from the time the review in A and B (and all predecessors) would be held until the letter was received, the answer was something in the order of weeks.

A literal reading of the IMS would go like this: “Hold the review in tasks A and B (and all predecessors) then wait for the approval letter before starting any other work.”

When asked if it was the PM’s intent for the several hundred engineers and others working on the project to put down their pencils after the review and wait for the letter while doing nothing as shown in PM’s desired version of the milestone in the IMS, the immediate reaction of the PM was shocked silence. Of course not. The project could not go on hold for even one week waiting for a letter. The teams would disband, and the workforce would be gone. Work would stop.

I then told the PM it was not the contractor’s intention to go parade rest and wait for the letter even if he had thought that was what was supposed to happen. If the review in A and B was deemed successful with some reasonable set of action items, then the teams would proceed. It might be that they would proceed on risk, but they would proceed anyway. I then showed the PM and the PM’s schedule SME how we would model the review in the IMS to show proceeding on risk. It would look like the example in Figure 5 if we implemented the milestone as an indicator milestone.

Review as Indicator Milestone - C and D may proceed when their respective predecessor is completed. The milestone is not a gate.
Figure 5 Review as an Indicator Milestone

The PM thought that could work but was concerned there was no gate review aspect to this diagram and PM control of the project would be weakened or lost. I then showed him how we could put the review into the IMS as an indicator with a delayed gate effect. In other words, work would proceed while the letter was being prepared but would stop at some point if the letter was not received. That diagram looked like the example in Figure 6. 

Review as Indicator Milestone but also a Gate - C and D may proceed on risk when their respective predecessor is completed. E and F however may not proceed until their immediate predecessor (C or D) and the Gate Milestone are finished.
Figure 6 Review as Indicator and as a Gate

The letter could be prepared while the teams worked on tasks C and D. If issues arose then the teams would be compelled to stop after tasks C and D individually. In this case an issue with task C might not hold up task D and conversely, an issue with task D might not hold up task C. This was a measure of control the PM thought would be adequate when the need for the approval letter in the milestone was also added.

Talking Through the IMS to Verify the Intent of Milestones

The point is that the IMS is a model of the project that should define exactly what is supposed to happen. What exactly is the IMS telling us to do? Is the review a gate? Is it just an indicator? What do the documents and agreements say about the milestone? This is definitely not the time to quickly slam a milestone into the schedule logic without taking the time to think about its purpose or what you want to communicate to someone else on the project.

This story also highlights the importance of ‘reading’ or ‘talking through’ the IMS. When it was explicitly stated that the project would be put on hold if the schedule depicted in Figure 4 were followed, the team quickly realized the need for a better approach, leading to the development of a more effective plan.

Interested in Learning More?

There is an art and skill that is honed over time for creating integrated master schedules that accurately reflect the work to be performed and clearly communicates that plan to everyone on the project. There is always more to learn. H&A offers basic and advanced scheduling workshops taught by senior master schedulers with decades of experiences in all types of scheduling environments that can be tailored for the scheduling tools you are using. Give us a call today to get started.

Establishing Milestones in the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Appropriately Read Post »

Including Level of Effort (LOE) in the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

By / / , , ,
, , ,

A recent H&A blog titled “Level of Effort (LOE) Best Practice Tips” discussed different approaches for handling LOE to avoid generating false variances. That discussion did not elaborate on including the LOE tasks in the integrated master schedule (IMS). This blog is a follow on to that earlier discussion with a focus on options for including LOE in the IMS along with notes on best practices, tips, and customer expectations.

In the general sense of an earned value management system (EVMS), the LOE scope of work is contained in summary level planning packages (SLPPs) or control accounts as subordinate planning packages or work packages. The budget values for those elements will most likely come from a resource loaded IMS or a resource loading mechanism aligned with the IMS. Not all organizations resource load the IMS activities but instead extract time buckets from the IMS for resource loading using other mechanisms. Resource loading the IMS activities is the recommended practice because it assures cost/schedule integration, but it can be difficult.

LOE work might not appear in the IMS since it is considered optional by some customers such as the Department of Defense (DoD). The Department of Energy (DOE) requires LOE tasks to be included so you can expect it to be in the IMS when DOE is the customer.

Before we talk about LOE in the IMS we must think about the type of work the LOE tasks represent. LOE might be a general task such as “Control Account Management” that is not directly related to other work except perhaps in the time frame in which they happen. But some LOE tasks such as support tasks are related to other discrete work. Modeling the LOE in the IMS starts by understanding what type of effort is involved and can help to determine the approach for linking activities. 

LOE Best Practice Tips Related to the IMS

The Level of Effort (LOE) Best Practice Tips blog included these points related to the IMS:

  • “When LOE activities are included in the schedule, they should not drive the date calculations of discrete activities in the integrated master schedule (IMS). They should also not appear on the critical path.”
  • “LOE must be segregated from discrete work effort. In practice, this means a work package can only be assigned a single earned value method.”
  • “Consider shorter durations for the LOE when that LOE is supporting discrete effort. Should the first occurrence of the LOE trigger a data anomaly test metric, it can be proactively handled along with any future replanning. The remaining LOE would already be in one or more separate work packages so there won’t be any criticism for changing open work packages.”

Government Agency and Industry Guidance on LOE on the IMS

Is there any guidance that can help clarify how best to handle LOE tasks in the IMS? Let’s take a look at three of the guidance documents that may be useful for your environment.

  1. The Integrated Program Management Data and Analysis Report (IPMDAR) Data Item Description (DID), DI-MGMT-81861C (August 2021). This DID is typically placed on contracts with the DoD or NASA that exceed the contract value threshold for EVM reporting or EVMS compliance. Relevant mentions of the data requirements for the IMS in the DID are as follows.

“2.4.1.1 Content. The Schedule consists of horizontally and vertically integrated discrete tasks/activities, consistent with all authorized work, and relationships necessary for successful contract completion.”

Note: This is where the option to exclude LOE from the IMS appears since this requires only discrete tasks/activities. The following sections provide additional guidance when LOE is included in the IMS.

“2.4.2.7 Level of Effort (LOE) Identification. If tasks/activities within an LOE work package are included in the Schedule, clearly identify them.”

“2.4.2.9 Earned Value Technique (EVT). Identify the EVT (e.g., apportioned effort, level of effort, milestone).”

  1. National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) Integrated Program Management Division (IPMD) Planning and Scheduling Excellence Guide (PASEG) (Version 5.0). The PASEG is a widely recognized industry guide on scheduling best practices in government contracting environments. Section 5.8, Level of Effort (LOE) provides a discussion on the topic including things to promote and things to avoid. Excerpts from the PAGEG follow.

“There are pros and cons around including or excluding LOE tasks in the IMS. Including LOE tasks in the IMS allows for a more inclusive total program look at resource distribution, which aids in the maintenance and analysis of program resource distribution. However, if modeled incorrectly, including LOE tasking in the IMS can cause inaccurate total float and critical path calculations.”

“Tasks planned as LOE in the IMS should be easily and accurately identifiable. This includes populating the appropriate Earned Value Technique field (as applicable) and possibly even identifying the task as LOE in the task description.”

“Consider adding an LOE Completion Milestone to tie all LOE tasking to the end of the program.”

“LOE tasks should not be networked so that they impact discrete tasks. Incorrect logic application on LOE can lead to invalid impacts to the program critical path.”

“Level of Effort tasks should have no discrete successors and should therefore never appear on critical/driving paths.”

  1. DOE Guide 413.3-24 Planning and Scheduling (April 2022). This document provides guidance for acceptable practices in a DOE contractual environment. The discussion on LOE can be found in Section 7 Planning and Scheduling Special Topics, 7.2 Level of Effort, and 7.3 Inclusion of Level of Effort in the Integrated Master Schedule. Excerpts and image from the Guide follow. 

“Overview: Activity-based methods either cannot, or impracticably can measure the performance of LOE WPs and activities. Include all activities, both discrete and LOE, in the IMS.”

“LOE is planned in the IMS so that it does not impact discrete work. Figure 6 shows the recommended linkages in the IMS for planning level of effort.”

Interpreting this DOE Guide diagram for the recommended modeling of LOE in the IMS, notice the inclusion of a “LOE Complete” milestone following the Critical Decision (CD) 4 milestone with no constraint. CD4 in this diagram represents the end of contract effort. The purpose of this LOE-complete milestone, with no constraint, is to provide a successor for all LOE tasks where one is needed. That will prevent generating issues where tasks have no successors.

This recommended modeling is done so that the LOE tasks are not linked to the end of the contract work and thus will not push it. The LOE tasks will also not appear on the critical path since they are not in the path that established the end date.

Also note that the LOE tasks in green are linked as successors to discrete work which is a logic linking approach intended to keep the LOE work aligned with the discrete work but off the critical path. Study the logic and you see that a movement to the right of a discrete task will drag along its related LOE task.

DOE requires the use of Primavera schedule tools so the relationships shown here can be accomplished in that tool. That may not be true of all tools. Know how your tools work before you generate any guidance.

Additional Relevant Guidance Search

H&A earned value consultants recently conducted a survey of the various government and non-government documents regarding the IMS and collected relevant guidance related to LOE among other things. The table below lists the results from a search for “LOE” wording. Note: this is a representative sample of typical government agency and industry IMS references. You should verify current references before you generate your own internal IMS guidance.

Source DocumentGuidance for Capturing all Activities, LOE in IMS
DCMA EVMS Compliance Metrics (DECM) Checks (version 6.0)
  • 06A210a: Do LOE tasks/activities have discrete successors? (0% threshold)
  • 12A101a: Are the contractor’s Level of Effort (LOE) WPs supportive in nature and/or do not produce technical content leading to an end item or product? (≤ 15% threshold)
  • 12A301a: Does the time-phasing of LOE WP budgets properly reflect when the work will be accomplished? (≤ 10% threshold)
IPMDAR DID DI-MGMT 81816CIf tasks/activities within an LOE work package are included in the Schedule, clearly identify them.
DOE Guide 413.3-24 Planning and Scheduling, Appendix A Schedule Assessment PrinciplesPrinciple 20. No LOE on critical path.
GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules (December 2015)Selected excerpts:
  • LOE activities should be clearly marked in the schedule and should never appear on a critical path.
  • LOE activities … derive their durations from other discrete work.
  • Best Practices for confirming the critical path is valid: Does not include LOE activities, summary activities, or other unusually long activities, except for future planning packages.
NDIA IPMD PASEG (version 5.0) (as noted above)
  • Tasks planned as LOE in the IMS should be easily and accurately identifiable.
  • LOE tasks should not be networked so that they impact discrete tasks.
  • Level of effort tasks should have no discrete successors and should therefore never appear on critical/driving paths.
PMI Practice Standard for Scheduling (Second Edition)Since an LOE activity is not itself a work item directly associated with accomplishing the final project product, service, or results, but rather one that supports such work, its duration is based on the duration of the discrete work activities that it is supporting.

Conclusion

Based on the various sources of guidance, it is possible to structure the IMS to include LOE in a way that provides cost/schedule integration and keeps all work correctly aligned yet does not cause issues with the critical path and the driving paths. From this guidance, it should be a straightforward effort to generate your own internal scheduling procedure defining how to handle LOE in the IMS if you choose to include it or if you are required to include it.

Need help producing a clear and concise scheduling procedure or tool specific work instructions? H&A earned value consultants and scheduling subject matter experts have worked with numerous clients to create easy to follow guides that help to ensure schedulers are following your company’s best practices using the scheduling tools of choice. Call us today at (714) 685-1730 to get started. 

Including Level of Effort (LOE) in the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Read Post »

Video Series – Common Problems Found in EVMS and Recommended Corrective Actions – 3 of 5

By / / , ,
, ,

If you have been following Humphreys & Associates YouTube channel you know we have been releasing new a video library reviewing some of our most successful blog series.

This month we released video 3 of 5  for the blog series “Common Problems Found in EVMS and Recommended Corrective Actions”.

The following links will let you skip to the specific part of the video related to the following issues.  (opens in a new tab)

0:15 – IMS Health Problems

3:30 –Data Item Noncompliance

5:17 –Planning Package Mismanagement

You can also read the whole blog post here:

https://blog.humphreys-assoc.com/common-problems-found-evms-recommended-ca-part-3/ 

Video Series – Common Problems Found in EVMS and Recommended Corrective Actions – 3 of 5 Read Post »

EVM Consulting | Corrective Action Response

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

Corrective Action Response

How do I respond to a Corrective Action Request?

In EVM Consulting, we deal with Corrective Action Requests (CARs) on a regular basis, so we have plenty of real-world experience. We created an outline of valuable information about DRs / CARs based on our collective experience. Part 1 of the guide is designed to inform you of why CARs are received and who issues them, so you can work to prevent them. Part 2 will prepare you to respond to a CAR in an effective and efficient way.

Corrective Action Response: Sources – Part 1 of 2

In Part 1 of the series we illuminated the varied sources of Corrective Action Requests:
1) Standard Surveillance Instruction (SSI)
2) Agencies that do not use the DCMA for surveillance, such as the Department of Energy.
3) Integrated Baseline Review (IBR)
4) Procedures that are compliant with the EIA-748 Guidelines
5) Contract Performance Report (CPR)
6) Integrated Project Management Report (IPMR)
7) Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)
8) Discrepancy Reports (Levels I-IV)

 

Corrective Action Response: Planning and Closure – Part 2 of 2

In part 2 of the series, we addressed responding to a Corrective Action Request (CAR):
1) Review the DRs/CARs with the customer
2) Organize for successful CAP management
3) Begin a thorough Root Cause Analysis
4) Develop and evaluate Corrective Action Plans
5) Develop verification closure steps
6) Develop a detailed Integrated Master Schedule for CAP implementation
7) Submit CAP and CAP IMS to the customer for approval prior to implementing the Corrective Actions
8) Implement Corrective Action Plans and track progress to successful completion
9) CAR closure and follow-up

EVM Consulting | Corrective Action Response Read Post »

EVM Consulting – Modeling & Simulation

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

Fighter Jet Air Plain Flying in Front of Moon

Forewarned is Forearmed

Forewarned is forearmed. John Farmer, of New Hampshire, said that in a letter in 1685. But that advice is most likely biblical and very much older. No matter the source of the thought, we should take it as divine guidance if we are project managers. Maybe we should have it cut into a stone tablet, so we can share it with our team members.

Most of our work as project managers is spent in the “controlling” phase which is made up of the three steps “measure, analyze, act.” Our EVMS and IMS exist to be able to support this management function. The measuring part is done very well in our EVMS and our IMS; we know where we are and how we got there. The analyzing is equally well handled in the IMS and EVMS. Only the management task of acting is not well supported. Generally, we lack decision making support and tools.

EVM Consulting - Measure, Analyze, Act

Deterministic Path

No matter how well constructed and how healthy our IMS is, it has a deterministic path forward. The logic links between the activities are there because we expect them to be fulfilled. Indeed, if activity “B” is a finish-to-start successor to activity “A” we fully expect that at some point activity “A” will finish and will provide its output to activity “B”. That is a single path forward and it is a deterministic path. It is also a somewhat simplistic model.

EVM Consulting - Deterministic Relationships in EVMS

Multiple Outcomes

Our management system asks us to perform root cause analysis followed by corrective action. But what if there is more than one corrective action to be taken. And worse; what if the corrective actions can have multiple outcomes with each enjoying its own probability. That means multiple choices and multiple outcomes. How would we show that in our plan? How would we analyze the multiple possible futures that such a situation presents?

Happily, there are ways to model a future without a set path. And once we have the future model, there are also ways to simulate the outcomes to give the probabilities we need to decide which actions to take. We are talking about probabilistic branching, and we are saying that we can build a probabilistic map of the future to use in making decisions; especially making decisions on corrective actions.

Take a simple example of running a test on the project. The expectation is that eventually we will pass the test. We will keep trying until we do. In the IMS deterministic model the test portion of the IMS might look like this:

EVM Consulting - Run the Test then Use the Product

Simulation

We can simulate this situation with different expected durations for the test. That is helpful information, but it does not explain or even capture what is going on in those different durations. It looks like we are just taking longer to do the testing but is that really what is happening? What is going on here? We certainly don’t show that.

In the real world, this simple model might have three potential outcomes. There might be three paths we can take to get to the point where we use the product. Each path has a time and money cost. We might run the test and find that we passed. Or we might have to stop the test for issues on the item or the test setup. We might even fail the test and must correct something about the product to improve our chances of passing a rerun. Eventually we will get to a usable product. But what do we put in our estimate and our plan? What do we tell the resources we need? What do we tell the boss? The customer?

EVM Consulting - Real World Testing

Full Future Model

We now have a much better understanding of the future and can explain the situation. We also can simulate the situation to find out the most likely time and cost outcomes, so we can explain the future without any histrionics or arm waving.
If the issue is important enough we can build out the full future model and simulate it.

EVM Consulting - Full Future Model and Simulation

No matter how far we pursue the model of the future, having a valid model and being able to stand on solid ground are very valuable to us as project managers.

This is not to say that we should model out complex situations as a routine in the IMS. That would be impossible, or at least prohibitively costly. We are saying that when situations arise, we need to be able to use the IMS to help us make decisions.

This type of probabilistic modeling of the future is particularly useful in defining major decision points in our plan. When we reach a decision point the IMS may have multiple branches as successors but that implies we take every branch and that is not valid. Modeling each branch and its probabilities is valid. In the example below, where the milestone represents a decision point, we have shown three possible paths to take. If each were modeled out into the future with time and cost data, we should have the information we need to choose the path we wish to pursue. Without processes and tools like this, we would be flying blind.

Future Blog Posts

This discussion will be continued in future blogs to develop a better foundational understanding of the process and power of probabilistic modeling in our EVMS.

EVM Consulting - Decision Point

Good information sets the stage for good decisions. The IMS and the EVMS have sufficient information to help us model the pathways ahead of our critical decisions. We just need to learn to take advantage of what we have available to us.

Find out how an experienced Humphreys & Associates EVM Consultant can help you create a full future model and simulation of your most vital EVMS Systems. Contact Humphreys & Associates at (714) 685-1730 or email us.

EVM Consulting – Modeling & Simulation Read Post »

Along the IMS Time-Now Line

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

Arrows moving to the right.Recently one of our consultants was instructing a session on the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) with a group of project personnel from one of our larger clients. The group was a mixture of beginners with no real experience in schedules and some much more experienced practitioners; some with more than 10 years of experience. The mixture made it somewhat difficult, but it also made for some interesting discussions that might have been missed in a more homogenous group. One of those things was the usefulness or importance of the “time-now” line.

When the group was asked about the importance of the time-now line and what information could be easily gained from a look at the line, there was silence. The beginners did not have a clue but also none of the experienced people had any response. What should have been a short discussion with just one “slide” as a visual, turned out to be a longer and more informative session on this topic.

The time-now line has different names in different software tools but it refers to the data date, or status date, of the schedule. That also would be the first day of the remainder of the schedule. When a scheduler sorts tasks by date, the time-now line runs down the screen and forms a highly useful visible reference.

In the small example below [see Figure 1], you can see the time-now line and visually assess the situation. Time-now is shown by a vertical line at the beginning of September, so all remaining effort has been scheduled to after that date. In other words, no work can be forecasted in the past. A walk down the line shows Task 1 has both started and completed. Task 2 started but has not completed. In fact, the remaining work in Task 2 has been pushed out by the time-now line. The start of Tasks 5 and 9 are also being pushed out by the time-now line. In most real project schedules, filters and other techniques may be needed to isolate information like this; but in our small example, we can simply “eyeball” the time-now line and see valuable information. Task 9 starts the critical path shown in red tasks.

 

The project start date was August 1. The status date is September 1. Tasks 2, 5, and 9 show gaps from the predecessor to their starts. in the case of Task 2 the cap is to the start of the remaining work. This gap is caused by the time-now being set to September 1 with all remaining work starting after that. The critical path is being pushed by time now.Figure 1

 

A slightly different setup for that same small example [see Figure 2] shows something interesting. The time-now line is still at the beginning of September. But now there is a gap between time-now and work on the critical path. This is an unusual situation and should be investigated for the root cause. It is possible this is an accurate portrayal of the situation, but regardless of the cause, it must be verified and explained.

 

Time now is still at September 1. There is a gap on the critical path at the start of Task 9 which, in this case, is caused by a Start-No-Earlier-Than constraint.Figure 2

 

In yet one more variation [see Figure 3], we see that a broken link results in Task 8 ending up on the time-now line. A task without a predecessor will be rescheduled to start at the earliest possible time (if the task is set to be “As Soon As Possible”). And the earliest possible time is the time-now line; the beginning of September. Just as broken things fall to the floor in real life, “broken things” fall to the time-now line in a schedule. Un-started work can land there. Un-finished work can land there. And un-linked work can land there.

It is further possible to see that Task 2 has had an increase in the remaining duration that has driven it onto the critical path. Task 2 at this moment is the most important task on the entire project. A slip to Task 2 will drive out the end date for the entire project. One question that needs answering is what is holding up Task 2?

If the display had been sorted by increasing total float/slack and the usual cascade by date, then the critical path would be starting at the upper left-hand corner; like the critical path in this example. The action on the project is almost always on the time-now line and the most important action, when sorted as described, will be at the upper left-hand corner.

 

Task 2 is now driving the critical path. Task 8 has fallen back to the time now line. The constraint on Task 9 has been removed.Figure 3

 

So, a walk down the time-now line can help us see the critical path action, find broken parts of the schedule, and locate unusual circumstances that need our attention. Our recommendation is to look at the time-now line any time there is data being changed in the IMS. This will help you catch issues early and keep the schedule cleaner.

Along the IMS Time-Now Line Read Post »

Scroll to Top