This document discusses schedule analysis techniques that can help project teams understand the status and risks associated with their project schedules. It examines how schedule analysis can provide insight into when the project will finish, where risks exist in the schedule, whether there is enough schedule slack and reserve, and whether the schedule is realistic. The document also discusses how schedule analysis can help assess schedule performance, the impact of changes, and supplier performance. It provides examples of critical path analysis, total slack trends, activity duration sensitivity, and Monte Carlo simulation to determine schedule confidence levels.

1. Schedule Analysis
Techniques
Walter Majerowicz, MBA, PMP
ASRC Aerospace Corporation
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
NASA PM Challenge 2010
February 9-10, 2010
Galveston, Texas
Used with permission

2. Learning Outcomes
• This presentation will examine how schedule analysis
can help project teams understand:
–When will the project finish?
–Where is the risk in the schedule?
–Do we have enough schedule slack and margin/reserve?
–Is the schedule realistic, credible and achievable?
–How are we performing and what is slipping?
–What can past performance tell us about the future?
–How will changes impact the schedule?
–How are our contractors/suppliers performing?
–Have any of our assumptions changed?
–How can we get done sooner, recover from this delay or
workaround this problem?
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 2

3. “When Will the Project Finish?”
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 3

4. Critical Path Analysis
SCS Project Schedule – at baseline
Critical Path
at Baseline
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 4

5. Critical Path Analysis
SCS Project Schedule as of 10/31/08
Subsystem
B Delayed
Delivery
threatened
Negative
Total Slack
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 5

6. What is Our Confidence in Finishing on Time?
Monte Carlo 0 - Total Project : Finish Date
100% 30 Aug 10
95% 09 Aug 10
90% 03 Aug 10
85% 30 Jul 10
Schedule
80% 28 Jul 10
Cumulative Frequency
400 75% 27 Jul 10
70% 23 Jul 10
65% 22 Jul 10
60% 21 Jul 10
55% 20 Jul 10
Hits
50% 19 Jul 10
Risk 200
45% 16 Jul 10
40% 15 Jul 10
35% 14 Jul 10
30% 13 Jul 10
25% 12 Jul 10
20% 09 Jul 10
15% 07 Jul 10
Analysis 0
25 Jul 10
10% 06 Jul 10
5% 02 Jul 10
0% 23 Jun 10
Distribution (start of interval)
Demonstration
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 6

7. “Where is the Risk in the Schedule?”
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 7

8. Risky Business
Task 1 A
Which activity is least likely
Task 1 to start on time?:
B A ____
Task 2
B ____
C ____
Task 1
Task 2
Why?
C
Task 3
(Hint: Assume all dependencies are FS)
Task 4
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 8

9. Riskier Business
• Consider two independent activities scheduled
to finish on June 10th Probability of
• Both activities are needed to fulfill the delivery on-time finish = .90
milestone on June 10th
• The probability of Activity A finishing on time is Activity A
.90, and the probability of Activity B is .80
• What is the probability of meeting the (Finish June 10th)
completion milestone on time?
– .90
– .80 Probability of
– .72 on-time finish = .80
– .85
– Cannot determine / insufficient data Deliver
Activity B June 10th
(Finish June 10th)
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 9

10. Total Slack Trend With Thresholds
WBS 1.1.2.2 RTT B Assembly Risk Indicator
35
30 Alert
Zone 1
25
Replace
cracked
Total Slack
20 DRX-002 Test chamber
availability delay
15
Alert
10 Zone 2
Troubleshoot
5 noise anomaly
0
Alert
Zone 3
-5
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
'04 '04 '04 '04 '05 '05 '05 '05 '05 '05 '05 '05
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 10

11. Activity Duration Sensitivity
GPM Schedule PDR Model
Duration Sensitivity
000145 - Propellant Tank: GPM PDR thru Build/Test & Del... 61%
0020 - Risk 53: Design for Demise 37%
0040 - Risk SRB-2: Thermal Design Problems/Issues 27%
000064 - KaPR: PFM Fabrication and Assembly 15%
000232 - Instr I&T - DPR Instr Integ (D) 14%
000065 - KaPR: PFM Testing & Delivery to Ka/Ku DPR C... 13%
000067 - KuPR: GPM PDR thru Completion of Remaining... 13%
000249 - Obs I&T - Vibe/Acoustics Testing (P) 10%
000246 - Obs I&T - Group 2 Testing (M) 9%
000174 - Flight Gimbal Assembly & Test 9%
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 11

12. Recognizing Schedule Gaming, Abuse
and Data Manipulation Traps
– Intentionally reducing or shrinking future activity durations
– Keeping two sets of schedule “books,” such as working to “early” dates
and reporting to “late” dates?
– Inappropriately adding or removing activities
– Employing preferential sequencing
– Using too many calendars
– Manipulating project logic
– Over-reporting progress
– Over-using constraints
– Misusing lags
– Hiding slack
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 12

13. “Do We Have Enough Schedule slack and
Margin/Reserve?”
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 13

14. Free Slack, Total Slack & Reserve
Total Slack
Activity 4 can be delayed
5 days before impacting
the project delivery (ID#10)
Free Slack
Activity 5 can be delayed
35 days before impacting
the start of activity 6
Schedule Reserve
Planned as a “dummy activity”
and allocated by the project
manager to protect the schedule
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 14

15. Total Slack Summary
Alpha Project Total Slack Summary
Total Slack Summary provides a top level view of project’s slack position
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 15

16. Funded Schedule Margin/Reserve Trend
C+DH
MOD
DELIVER TO LAUNCH SITE
I&T START
LAUNCH
KDP-C
PDR
CDR
11 2 11 2 2 6
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 16

17. Risk-Based Schedule Reserve
Activity Risk Impact Probability Expected Value
Observatory Late
Mechanical 30 days x .10 = 3 days
MGSE
Integration
Observatory Component
Vibration 45 days x .20 = 9 days
damage
Test
Observatory Noise 24 days
40 days x .60 =
EMI Test anomaly
Thermal Instrument 80 days x .50 = 40 days
Vacuum failure
Test
Total Estimated Schedule Reserve 76 days
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 17

18. Using Schedule Risk Analysis to
Determine Schedule Reserve
0 - Total Project : Finish Date
100% 30 Aug 10
95% 09 Aug 10
Desired 90% 03 Aug 10
Confidence 85% 30 Jul 10
80% 28 Jul 10
Cumulative Frequency
400 Level 75% 27 Jul 10
70% 23 Jul 10
65% 22 Jul 10
60% 21 Jul 10
55% 20 Jul 10
Hits
50% 19 Jul 10
Potential 45% 16 Jul 10
200 Reserve 40% 15 Jul 10
35% 14 Jul 10
30% 13 Jul 10
25% 12 Jul 10
20% 09 Jul 10
15% 07 Jul 10
10% 06 Jul 10
5% 02 Jul 10
0 0% 23 Jun 10
25 Jul 10
Distribution (start of interval)
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 18

19. “Is the Schedule Realistic, Credible and
Achievable?”
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 19

20. SCHEDULE ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST
Yes No Criterion Description Schedule Assessment
1. ___ ___ Does the IMS reflect the total scope of work?
2. ___ ___ Is the correct WBS element identified for each task
and milestone in the IMS?
Checklist
3. ___ ___ Is the IMS used by all levels of management for
project implementation and control?
4. ___ ___ Do all tasks/milestones have interdependencies
identified to reflect a credible logical sequence?
5. ___ ___ Are task durations reasonable, measureable, and at
appropriate level of detail for effective management?
6. ___ ___ Does the IMS include all contract and/or designated
management control milestones?
Source:
7. ___ ___ Does IMS reflect accurate current status & credible
start/finish forecasts for all to-go tasks and milestones?
NASA Schedule
8. ___ ___ Has the IMS been resource loaded and are assigned Management Handbook
resources reasonable and available?
9. ___ ___ Is the critical path identifiable and determined by the
calculated IMS logic network?
10. ___ ___ Is the critical path credible?
http://evm.nasa.gov/handbooks.html
11. ___ ___ Has a Schedule Risk Assessment (SRA) been
conducted on the IMS within the last three months?
12. ___ ___ Has adequate schedule margin been included and
clearly defined within the IMS?
13. ___ ___ Has the IMS content been baselined and is it
adequately controlled?
14. ___ ___ Is there an excessive & invalid use of task constraints
and relationship leads/lags?
15. ___ ___ Are right task & resource calendars used in the IMS?
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 20

21. Activity Duration Rules-of-Thumb
• Durations should be estimated by the person responsible for the activity
(when feasible)
• Maximize the use of the Expected Value/3-Point Estimate Method to
characterize uncertainty/risk in the activity
• Compare estimated durations to actual durations from similar activities on
previous projects (when available)
• Review duration estimates with experts who have experience with similar
types of work (sanity check)
• Near-to-intermediate term durations should not exceed one month
– Status can easily be determined in one or two accounting periods
• “Long” durations render percentage complete determination little more than
guesswork
• Duration estimates should not be
– Padded by the estimator to hide reserve
– Reduced by the estimator to “take a challenge” or “buy in”
– Arbitrarily cut by management
• Always consider availability of key resources
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 21

22. Historic Schedule Analysis
• Archive “As Planned” and “As Built” schedules for future
comparison to new project schedules
• Comparisons can be made between your project
schedule and similar projects:
– At the detailed or summary activity level
– Duration of lifecycle phases
– Elapsed time between major milestones
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 22

23. Horizontal Integration Traceability Check
XYZ Total
Project Work Breakdown Structure
1.0 Project 2.0 4.0 Science 6.0 8.0 Launch 10.0 System
Mgt. System Engr. /Technology Spacecraft Vehicle/Services I&T
3.0 5.0 7.0 Mission 9.0 Ground
SM & A Payload Ops System System
2.2.2.3 Power 6.2.3 Solar Array Design 10.4.1.2. Integrate
Reqt. Definition Solar Arrays to S/C
6.2.4 Solar Array Build
6.2.5 Solar Array Test
S/A S/A
Design Build Integ. S/As
Activity 102 Activity 103 to S/C
Specify
Power Rqts. Activity 406
Activity 101 S/A
Test
Logic Network Diagram Activity 104
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 23

24. NEW Over all Rating
Project Name: Pr oject XYZ 1.4 R
Contractor: ACME Engineering
F ile Type: MS Pr oject Current
Schedule Status
Current Start (earliest activity Early Start date) 1/1/2005
Current Finish (latest activity Early Finish date) 3/16/2008
Schedule
Approximate Remaining Work Days 722
Is schedule externally linked to other schedules? N
Status Date 6/15/2005
Task & Milestone Count (excl. Summary Tasks) Count % of Total
Total Tasks & Milestones 192
Health/Integrity
Completed Tasks & Milestones 13 7%
To Go Tasks & Milestones 179 93%
Logic (excl. Summary & Started/Completed Tasks)
Tasks & Milestones Without Predecessors 75 42% R
Tasks & Milestones Without Successors 73 41% R
Check
Constraints (other than ASAP) and Deadlines 102 57% R
Summaries with Logic Ties ** 1 1% G
Tasks & Milestones Needing Updates 21 12% R
Actuals after Status Date 2 1% Y
Tasks marked as Milestones (have Duration > 0) 0 0% G
Demonstration
Additional Schedule Infor mation
Tasks with No Finish Ties 20 11%
Recurring Tasks 0 0%
Tasks & Milestones with Estimated Durations 15 8%
Schedule traceable to WBS (Y/N) Yes
Realistic Critical Path(s) (Y/N) No
Schedule Baselined (Y/N) No
Resource Loaded (Y/N) No
Tasks & Milestones with 10 days or less TF 1 1%
Tasks with Total Float > 25% of Rem Dur 148 83%
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 24

25. Vertical Integration Traceability Check
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Master
C & DH
Schedule
ACS
Power
J F MAM J J A S O N D J Vertical
Intermediate / Battery
Schedule
Summary Integration
Solar Array
Schedule
PIU
Detail Work
Schedule Package
Activities
PIU Detail Schedule
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 25

26. Project Control Milestone* Method
“S” Curve Check
70
60
50 “S” Curve = Realism
*Baseline Look for:
Early Finish  Slow start
Dates 40
 Ramp up
 Level off Baseline
30
20
10
0
Oct '05 Nov '05 Dec '05 Jan '06 Feb '06 Mar '06 Apr '06 May '06 Jun '06 Jul '06 Aug '06 Sep '06
Cum Baseline 1 2 3 6 11 22 32 45 53 59 62 65
Cum Actual
Cum Forecast
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 26

27. Resource Leveling
Initial Critical Path Method Schedule
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 27

28. Resource Leveling
Resources are Allocated or “Loaded” into Activities
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 28

29. Resource Leveling
Initial Resource Profile
Apr 16, '06 Apr 23, '06
M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W
300%
Mechanical
250% Tech II
Capacity:
200%
 1 tech
150%
 1-8-5
100%
50%
Peak Units:
Peak Units 300% 300% 200% 200% 200% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Mech Tech II Overallocated: Allocated:
The shortage or over-commitment of resources is determined by profiling the needed
resources and comparing them to their availability or capacity.
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 29

30. Resource Leveling
“Leveled” Resource Profile
Apr 16, '06 Apr 23, '06 Apr 30, '06
M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F
100%
80%
Original 11
work day
60%
plan
(before leveling) 7 additional
40% work days
are needed
20%
(after leveling)
Peak Units: 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Mech Tech II Overallocated: Allocated:
Management decides to “level” or smooth the “Mechanical Tech II”
resource allocation to fit the available capacity of one MTII.
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 30

31. Resource Leveling
Resource – Constrained Schedule
Before Leveling After Leveling
“Leveling” the resources results in a more realistic schedule, but delivery
may not happen on 4/25/06 as anticipated.
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 31

32. “How are we Performing and what is Slipping?”
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 32

33. Activity Plan vs. Actual Report
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 33

34. Current and Forecast PCM Variances
70
60
(Baseline and forecast are Early
50 Plan vs.
Forecast
Baseline
Quantity of PCMs
Variance
Finish dates)
40
Forecast
30
Plan vs.
Actual
Variance
20
Actual
10
0
Oct '05 Nov '05 Dec '05 Jan '06 Feb '06 Mar '06 Apr '06 May '06 Jun '06 Jul '06 Aug '06 Sep '06
Cum Baseline 1 2 3 6 11 22 32 45 53 59 62 65
Cum Actual 1 3 7 7 8 9 12 16
Cum Forecast 16 27 39 56 65
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 34

35. PCM Performance Ratio Analysis
SCS Project Control Milestone Performance: As of May 2006
2005 2006
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
CUM Baseline 1 2 3 6 11 22 32 45 53 59 62 65
CUM Actual 1 3 7 7 8 9 12 16
TO DATE
16 milestones ÷ 8 months = 2 per month (actual rate)
45 milestones ÷ 8 months = 5.6 per month (baseline rate)
Cumulative Efficiency to Date: 16 ÷ 45 = .36
0% 50% 100%
Less Efficient More Efficient
So far, schedule efficiency is .36 - the NBT team is accomplishing, on
average, about one third of the planned milestones.
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 35

36. What About the Schedule Performance
Index from Earned Value Management?
Schedule Performance Index
Formula: SPI = Earned Value (cum)
Planned Value (cum)
NBT example: SPI = $34M = .40
$85M
SPI = .40 PCM Performance Index = .36
For every dollar of work 36% of the planned milestones
planned, 40 cents of work is have been accomplished
being accomplished
Look for an approximate correlation between the two values and
investigate reasons for significant differences.
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 36

37. “What Can Past Performance Tell Us About the Future?”
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 37

38. Linear Projection of PCM Actual Performance
70
60
(Baseline and forecast are Early
50
Baseline
Quantity of PCMs
Finish dates)
40
Forecast
30
20
Actual
10
0
Oct '05 Nov '05 Dec '05 Jan '06 Feb '06 Mar '06 Apr '06 May '06 Jun '06 Jul '06 Aug '06 Sep '06
Cum Baseline 1 2 3 6 11 22 32 45 53 59 62 65
Cum Actual 1 3 7 7 8 9 12 16
Cum Forecast 16 27 39 56 65
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 38

39. Forecast-to-Complete Based on PCM
Performance-to-Date
SCS Project Control Milestone Performance: As of May 2006
2005 2006
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
CUM Baseline 1 2 3 6 11 22 32 45 53 59 62 65
CUM Actual 1 3 7 7 8 9 12 16
TO DATE FORECAST BASED ON PERFORMANCE
16 PCMs completed Performance to date = 2 per month
8 months planned 49 PCMs remaining to finish (65-16 = 49)
16 ÷ 8 = 2 PCMs per month 49 ÷ 2 = 24.5 months !
Based on the historic rate of performance of 2 PCMs per month,
NBT will not finish for another 24.5 months – 20.5 months later
than the baseline schedule.
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 39

40. 11/02/07
PCM Completion Index
Electronics Module Milestone Completion
1.20 Performance Index
Performance Actual M/S
=
1.10 Index Planned M/S
1.00
PI past 18 Actuals
= = 19%
.90 5 wks 97 Planned
. 80 Projection
Approx. 5 mos. Remaining to EM del. to SEIT
PCM Completion Index
.70 10/26/07 – 03/28/08
5 mos
= 26.3 mos. to EM delivery
.60 .19 Current Performance
5 mos
.50 = 12.5 mos. to EM delivery
.40 Performance
.40 5 mos
= 8.3 mos. to EM delivery
.60 Performance
.30
5 mos
= 6.25 mos. to EM delivery
.20 .80 Performance
5 mos
= 5 mos. to EM delivery
.10 1.00 Performance
.00
Mar 07 Apr 07 May 07 Jun 07 Jul 07 Aug 07 21 28 05 12 19 26 02 09 16 23 30 07 14 21 28 04 11 18 25 01 08 15
Sept 07 Oct 07 Nov 07 Dec 07 Jan 08 Feb 08
Month/Week Mar 07 Apr 07 May 07 Jun 07 Jul 07 Aug 07 21 28 05 12 19 26 02 09 16 23 30 07 14 21 28 04 11 18 25 01 08 15
Baseline Monthly/wkly
Finishes 48 58 82 54 42 Re- B/L 130 23 33 23 14 8
Actual Monthly/wkly in
44 26 28 36 14 130 3 5 5 4 1
Finishes process
% Complete 92% 45% 34% 67% 33% 100%13% 15% 22% 29% 13%
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 40

41. Delivery Date Trend vs. Need Date Trend
GRS Delivery Trend
As of: December 31, 2007
2011
Jan
Forecast I&T Need Date
Forecast Delivery Date
2010
Dec
Instrument I&T
Sequence Change
2010
Nov
Detector
Problem
2010
Oct
Subcontract
CCAS T/V Chamber
Re-Certification
2010
Sept
Facility
Move to
2010
Denver
Aug
2010
Jul
Contract J F M A M J J A S O N D
Award ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07
Month End Status Date
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 41

42. “How Will Changes Impact the Schedule?”
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 42

43. NOAA M-N’ Integration & Test Summary
Schedule As of 3/31/01
*Based on Preliminary LMMS Rev S Schedule
“What-If” the
launch was delayed
to 6/30/02?
Foot Notes:
1. A303 Removal; Installation of Mass Models*
2. A303 Re-Integration & IPF/DET* 6. A303 Installation on N’ 5/13/01
3. SEM & SBUV* Removal 7. SBUV Delivery 7/6/01
* = Not yet in LMMS Master Schedule 4. SEM & SBUV* Re-Integration 8. SARP/ADCS Delivery 4/30/02
5. SARR Delivery 6/15/01 9. SARP & ADCS Integration*
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 43

44. NOAA M-N’ Integration & Test Summary Schedule:
6/30/02 M Launch
*Based on Preliminary LMMS Rev S Schedule
Possible delays in
completing
remaining
Spacecraft +
EOC extension
Foot Notes:
1. SEM, SBUV, AVHRR & H303 Removal 6. SEM & SBUV* Re-Integration
2. SEM, SBUV, AVHRR & H303 Re-Integration 7. SARP & ADCS Software Upgrades*
3. A303 Removal; Installation of Mass Model* 8. SARP/ADCS Delivery 4/30/02
4. A303 Re-Integration & IPF/DET* 9. SARP & ADCS Integration*
5. SEM & SBUV* Removal * = Not yet in LMMS Master Schedule
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 44

45. NOAA-M Launch From VAFB, CA –
6/24/02
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 45

46. “What-If” Analysis of Schedule
Confidence Level
GPM Core LRD: Schedule Confidence Level Comparison
GPM Schedule PDR Model - Core Launch Readiness Date with Discrete Risks
GPM Schedule PDR Model - Core Launch Readiness Date+Titanium Tank & Controlled Re-entry
Variation: 33.3 days
100%
80%
26/Aug/13
24/Jul/13
Cumulative Probability
60%
40%
20%
0%
06/May/13 25/Jun/13 14/Aug/13 03/Oct/13 22/Nov/13 11/Jan/14 02/Mar/14
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 46

47. “How Are Our Contractors/Suppliers Performing?”
The schedule analysis
techniques described
today also apply to your
contractors/suppliers
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 47

48. Critical Parts Status Monitoring
OIM Instrument Critical Parts Status
As of: May 29, 2009
Part Vendor EM Proto-Flight FM-2 Spare
Backplane Emerald MFG
Phase Lock Oscillator Malvern
DROS Paratech
Harness TVC
Phaser Interspace PWA General Avionics
Power Converter GOULD
I/O Controller PWA General Avionics
Enclosure Bell Machining
Real Time Clock PWA General Avionics
ONC Filters Spellman Filter Co.
Late (Major
Late (Potential
Received On Schedule Impact to I&T
Impact to I&T)
Anticipated)
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 48

49. “Have Any Schedule Assumptions Changed?”
• Assumptions are documented
in:
– Activity constraints
– Dependencies/logic
– Activity durations
– Leads and lags
– Calendars
– Resources
Periodically re-examine your schedule
assumptions to determine if they have changed.
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 49

50. “How Can We Get Done Sooner, Recover from this
Delay or Workaround this Problem?”
Approach Description
Schedule compression technique in which resources are added (or
Crashing diverted from non-critical activities) to critical path activities in a way
that accomplishes the work faster at the least incremental cost
Schedule compression technique in which the logic of activities
Fast Tracking normally performed in sequence is modified so some or all are of
the activities are performed in parallel, saving time
Examine changes to activity relationships which offset the impact of
Alternative Project Logic delays or support an earlier project completion date
Resource vs. Free Slack Trade- Examines the effect of temporarily diverting resources from non-
Off Analysis critical path activities with free slack to critical path activities
Allocate Reserve Use schedule reserve to absorb the impact of schedule delays
Descopes Removal of scope from the project and schedule while still meeting
the project’s objectives
Replan / “Rebaseline” Establish a new plan for the remaining effort
Evaluation of descope options, alternate work flows, recovery
“What-If” Analysis approaches, workaround plans, reserve allocation, additional
resources, etc.
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 50

51. Thank you.
Walt Majerowicz, MBA, PMP
ASRC Aerospace Corporation
walt.majerowicz@nasa.gov
walt.majerowicz@gmail.com
301-286-5622
Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 51