Schedule transparency is an important attribute of a healthy schedule and should not be neglected by schedulers. Let’s take a look at this in detail.
Schedulers should be attentive to schedule clarity as it’s a characteristic of a quality schedule. At work in the nineties, I recall crossing paths with a few unscrupulous computer science engineers who purposefully made their computer coding complex and difficult to understand. They thought this would provide them with job security, because only they would comprehend the code well enough to make program software updates.
But convoluted software coding is not good programming practice. Software engineers must ensure that their computer code is fully documented so that its logic is not hidden and is not a mystery to other team members and stakeholders.
In the same way, you want your project schedule to be apparent so that all stakeholders understand the true scheduling situation.
This article discusses three hindrances to schedule transparency and ways to make your schedule clearer, using a combined P6 Professional and Acumen Fuse demonstration.
Demonstration
In Figure 1, we have our demonstration project schedule in P6 Professional.
Figure 2 displays an Acumen Fuse schedule quality metric analysis of this schedule.
The Figure 2 screenshot of an Acumen Fuse diagnostic analysis shows the schedule quality metric group selected in the playlist, with its results displayed in the top-right ribbon analyzer. Acumen Fuse is a handy tool for confirming schedule quality or exposing areas that require improvement. The links below provide primers on Acumen Fuse and its ribbon analyzer.
The ribbon analyzer provides output on how each metric and the group perform throughout the project. Acumen Fuse and its ribbon analyzer make a complementary accompaniment to the P6 Professional scheduling program. The Figure 2 schedule quality metric group includes all the metrics that Acumen Fuse’s developers deemed most pertinent to a quality schedule.
Insufficient Detail Tasks
The Acumen Fuse insufficient detail metric highlights areas of the schedule that are unclear to stakeholders due to a lack of information. In the schedule quality metric group analysis displayed in Figure 3, we click on the red score box below the insufficient detail metric to view all tasks in our demonstration schedule that fail this metric.
So, three tasks are flagged for not providing readers with enough information to understand what is taking place in the specified efforts. These tasks all have a duration greater than ten percent of the entire project’s duration in calendar days.
In the case of the Mobilize task, its effort is further defined in P6 Professional using steps, as displayed in Figure 3.
Steps allow the scheduler to provide further details about a task without splitting it into several tasks. This keeps the Gantt chart from becoming cluttered with many short-duration tasks that are better combined into one, yet further defined using steps. So, adding steps makes the mobilize task’s details sufficient to describe this mobilization effort. Refer to the article at the following link for more on P6 steps.
The scheduler may consider providing further details for the set foundation task, as shown in Figure 5, by breaking it down to illustrate the individual efforts involved, such as setting forms, laying rebar, pouring concrete, and striking forms.
The scheduler may also want to consult with the subject matter expert to provide a more detailed description of the lay control cable line of work in Figure 6, as essential safety effort details or tasks may be missing, such as ensuring the cables are not energized.
In waterfall scheduling, it is understandable that later-month deliverables and tasks are less detailed in their description than near-month deliverables. However, as the schedule progresses, the scheduler is responsible for filling in more information for these less detailed tasks. The lack of near-period details may indicate that the scheduler is not keeping up with the project’s progress.
Relationships with Positive Lags
Lags are the waiting time between a predecessor task and a successor task. In the classic finish-to-start (FS) and five-day lag example, the labor assigned to the successor must wait for the predecessor’s completion and an additional five days. An article on the disadvantages of positive lag is below.
In Figure 7, Acumen Fuse, we click the number of lags scorebox to list the tasks flagged for this lag metric in our demonstration schedule.
In our demonstration schedule, three tasks have positive lags, as shown in Figure 7. Let us focus on the relationship connecting the set foundation task to the dig the cable trench task, as illustrated in Figure 8.
Figure 8 shows that the four-day lag between the foundation and cable trench is represented only as a line on the Gantt chart, without labeling. The Gantt chart does not indicate what is taking place here. This is problematic; we want successor tasks based on a completed, known scope of work. The lag with its unlabeled connecting line has obscured or hidden this somewhat.
The lag will likely allow the concrete time to cure before installing the cable trench. We could make the lag a curing task for the concrete. Additionally, we could and should allocate a seven-day workweek calendar, as concrete cures continuously. The calendar is not required to be twenty-four hours a day, but we must credit the curing task for a day of curing each day of the week, including nonwork weekends. For a primer on scheduling concrete cure as a lag, refer to the article below.
In our demonstration, we insert a concrete cure task with predecessor and successor FS relationships, as shown in Figure 9.
Some students have suggested a solution that does not involve inserting a lag task: insert a text attachment by selecting a task in the activity table and using View | Attachment | Text, Figure 10.
However, placing the text box label to identify the curing process on the Gantt chart may become tedious, especially for large projects. I find this solution unsatisfactory. Inserting a lag task to schedule concrete curing is the most efficient and transparent solution.
Tasks with Activity Constraints
Tasks with total float are usually advantageous to schedulers. It means the task can be delayed for an amount of days equivalent to the total float before you must postpone the project end date. But high float tasks are problematic. For a primer on high float tasks, refer to the following.
In Figure 11, the install fence task has a total float of twenty-six days.
This means the fence contractor can delay for twenty-six days and complete the fence installation on schedule. But you, as the project manager, do you want the fence contractor to delay for twenty-six days? Most students would agree that the answer is no; we do not want any procrastination.
An obvious solution is to insert an activity constraint on the fence installation to remove the extra float. In Figure 12, we insert a finish on or before (FOOB) activity constraint, dated February 28, 2029, on the install fence task, which reduces its total float to four days.
That appears to be a satisfactory solution for the project manager. But is that the best solution? Is there any negative to this approach? You, the scheduler or project manager, are happy because you reduced the total float from twenty-six days to four days.
What about the fence contractor? Are we possibly showing less schedule transparency to the fencing contractor? The fence contractor team thinks they can only delay five days, when in reality, they can delay twenty-six days if needed.
The only indication that an activity constraint has been applied to the install fence effort is the asterisk on its finish date, as shown in Figure 12. So, the install fence team is in the dark because of our arbitrary activity constraint and its limited identification. In reality, we have been less than forthright, transparent, or honest with the fencing contractor. So, in its effort to eliminate high float, the task activity constraint has muddled the clarity of our schedule.
A better approach is to take a step back and ask ourselves: What is the fence’s purpose? Is it to provide security to the job site? Well, when might we want security at the job site? Before we bring hazardous equipment on-site. Buses and jumpers can be hazardous (due to electrical shock), so we want to secure the job site before installing them.
In Figure 13, we removed the finish on or before activity constraint, which restores the install fence total float to twenty-six days and returns us to our original total float.
We then proceed and insert a simple FS relationship between install the fence and install bus and jumpers, as shown in Figure 14.
We can also retain the FS relationship between fence installation and substantial completion tasks, as shown in Figure 14. After scheduling the project, we find the install fence task has a total float of eighteen days, Figure 14.
This is still more than we would like, but it is an agreeable compromise, and our schedule transparency is much improved. The fence contractors know they can only delay the task by eighteen days because the fence must be installed before the bus and jumpers are put in place.
With the additional install fence successor relationship, we have achieved schedule transparency where all stakeholders, reading our task table and Gantt chart, understand the true scheduling situation. And that is important for ensuring team member buy-in and, therefore, schedule quality.
Summary
Veteran schedulers make schedule transparency a priority. Acumen Fuse complements P6 Professional to assist in highlighting areas of the schedule that are unclear. Tasks that are more than ten percent of the project’s duration, measured in calendar days, are flagged in Acumen Fuse because they may require additional details.
Steps are one way to provide this extra information. Modeling these details using steps has other advantages as well. Refer to the previously mentioned steps article for more.
Lags also inhibit schedule lucidity. Tasks that include lag are more esoteric. This is one reason, schedule guidelines, like the Defense Contract Management Agency’s (DCMA) 14-Point Assessment, limit positive lag inclusion to five percent of the total number of relationships in the schedule.
One popular alternative to using positive lags for the concrete curing process is to model this curing by replacing the lag with a concrete curing task assigned a seven-day workweek calendar. Refer to the article above for a demonstration. Schedulers should prioritize transparency when looking for ways to reduce float. Tasks with total float are good, but too many days of total float can indicate weak relationships. Refer to the article above to understand the issue with high float tasks.
To reduce float, the rookie scheduler may be tempted to insert an activity constraint to decrease the amount of total float; this is an efficient solution, but schedule transparency is compromised. Better to look for ways to strengthen the relationship. Take a step back and examine the purpose of the deliverable in question. Likely, a way to enhance the relationship and maintain clarity will become apparent.
Conclusion
When you have schedule transparency, such that all team members and stakeholders understand it, they have more buy-in and personal investment in the project’s performance targets. This higher-quality schedule, in terms of clarity, results in a better team spirit and productivity, leading to a higher probability of success. And that’s what you want!